Jesus, sex and Mary Magdalen

[Penguin]

Quote kiwimac:-

1: Jesus meets Mary in the Garden (post-resurrection) first thing he says is " Don't cling to me!" You don't say that to someone unless touch has been part of your relationship with them. Unmarried males and females did NOT touch in that culture.

I think the term "clinging" would mean clinging to somebody emotionally, the memory of them and thinking about them all the time. Jesus wanted her to forget his execution and look to the new future. Clinging in this context has nothing to do with touch I feel, it's mental clinging. As for the points 2 & 3 Kiwimac I haven't got the experience to answer them. Quahoms answers are brilliant. Many thanks.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Quote kiwimac:-



I think the term "clinging" would mean clinging to somebody emotionally, the memory of them and thinking about them all the time. Jesus wanted her to forget his execution and look to the new future. Clinging in this context has nothing to do with touch I feel, it's mental clinging. As for the points 2 & 3 Kiwimac I haven't got the experience to answer them. Quahoms answers are brilliant. Many thanks.

Not brilliant Penguin. I just recall what the bible says actually happened. kiwimac said he thought there was circumstantial evidence, and I found what I thought was hard evidence to counter the potential circumstantial.

I also know the possesive form of "husband" in Aramaic is "Her 'Gab-ra'", not "Rabboni". Her 'Gab-ra' can also mean "man" in a less possesive context. It seems to me that if Mary were indeed married to Jesus, and the relationship was as "passionate and sexually intimate" as some opine, then she would have used the intimate possesive form of the word "husband".

I liken it to this: If I thought my wife to be dead and lost, only to have her suddenly appear behind me, I wouldn't call her wife, or Ma'dam, or spouse of mine...it would be more like "BABY! YOU'RE ALIVE!!!"

Seems that if Mary and Jesus were married, and she realized He was alive and well, she'd have called Him "HER 'GAB-RA'"!!! And I doubt she would have left the scene to scamper off and tell everyone He was alive. Not at that moment, anyway...get my point?

v/r

Joshua

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I also know the possesive form of "husband" in Aramaic is "Her 'Gab-ra'", not "Rabboni". Her 'Gab-ra' can also mean "man" in a less possesive context.

Is it correct that all the gospels were orginally written in Greek and any Aramaic versions we have of anything were actually translations from the Greek which are decades more recent than the oldest Greek texts found? Which basically makes any Aramaic discussion mute as we are playing word games like the babel fish here...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Is it correct that all the gospels were orginally written in Greek and any Aramaic versions we have of anything were actually translations from the Greek which are decades more recent than the oldest Greek texts found? Which basically makes any Aramaic discussion mute as we are playing word games like the babel fish here...

I don't think so Wil. The Greek texts say the same thing "She cried out in Aramaic, 'Rabboni'". The authors of the Gospel in question, specifically identified the Aramaic word used.

v/r

Joshua

[wil]

Well that is a horse of a different color...

[Penguin]

I'm a bit confused now, it doesn't take much you know! All these different languages and meaning has confused me a bit. So are you saying gents please, putting faith/belief aside for a moment, that if you were betting men you would bet that jesus and mary were an item then? Somebody over the hundreds of years since the original texts were written could have made errors in describing things & terms in copying them. Perhaps they could have been told incorrect circumstances and placed them in the writings without knowing they would be controversial in the future. It goes back to the fantastic point Quahom made about disciples expected to leave their wives or families to follow jesus and then jesus himself having what he wanted (women etc) It just can't be correct that jesus would have no rules for himself but expect them to be enforced on his disciples. It would go against his morals and teachings. Many thanks.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Well that is a horse of a different color...

Wil, the author quoted Mary's expression, exactly as she uttered it. I think it was to give the reader pause to reflect on the astonishment she must have felt, at the moment.

It would be like me writing about my friend from Quebec surfing with me on the North Shore of Ouahu, and seeing a 50 foot breaker for the first time. He simply mumurred "Mon Dieu..."

v/r

joshua

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I'm a bit confused now, it doesn't take much you know! All these different languages and meaning has confused me a bit. So are you saying gents please, putting faith/belief aside for a moment, that if you were betting men you would bet that jesus and mary were an item then? Somebody over the hundreds of years since the original texts were written could have made errors in describing things & terms in copying them. Perhaps they could have been told incorrect circumstances and placed them in the writings without knowing they would be controversial in the future. It goes back to the fantastic point Quahom made about disciples expected to leave their wives or families to follow jesus and then jesus himself having what he wanted (women etc) It just can't be correct that jesus would have no rules for himself but expect them to be enforced on his disciples. It would go against his morals and teachings. Many thanks.

We're aruguing semantics, and nuances, Penguin. And you're correct of course, we might be getting a little too deep into the weeds.

v/r

Joshua

[wil]

I'm looking for the place where Jesus told the desciples to leave their families and wives behind...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

I'm looking for the place where Jesus told the desciples to leave their families and wives behind...

As per your request:

1. Luke 8:19-21
2. Luke 9:57-62
3. John 12:6
4. Mark 10:28
5. Mark 10:29,30
6. Mark 10:17-30
7. Matthew 13:44-46
8. Luke 14:26-33
9. Luke 12:51-53, Matt. 10:37, Luke 14:26
10. Matthew 10:38,39, Luke 14:26, John 12:25
11. Matthew 6:19-24
12. Matthew 6:25-33
13. John 13:34,35
14. Luke 6:46-49
15. John 3:36 ASV, Acts 5:32
16. 1 John 2:3,4
17. Matthew 28:18-20
18. Jude 1:3
19. Acts 2:44,45
20. Acts 4:32-35
21. Philippians 3:7-11
22. 1 Thessalonians 2:14
23. Luke 12:25,26
24. 2 Corinthians 5:14,15
25. Ephesians 4:16
26. John 12:24-26
27. 1 John 5:2,3
28. John 7:17
29. Matt. 13:44-46
30. 1 John 4:21-5:3

v/r

Joshua

[Penguin]

Just another final thing which crossed my mind. If jesus and mary were an item or whatever then surely in the early days of christianity they would have collected every single shred of material they could possibly have found that would have implied anything about jesus and mary in the slightest and destroyed it. It is bizarre in a way that something that suggests kissing etc should still survive through the mists of time. Perhaps these snippets of text survived so well (the books that were omitted from the bible) because there is simply nothing to them and people have taken them out of context and drawn their own conclusions from what little there is. I mean if something was that controversial why has it always existed and not been hidden before? My thoughts Many thanks.

[wil]

Q, I'm goin through them all...we are talking about wives and children...

I don't know which desciples it is said had a wife and kids.

but I gave up, got tired of checking them...

I was impressed with the list Q, until I started reading them....

1. Luke 8:19-21 Not
2. Luke 9:57-62 Not
3. John 12:6 Not
4. Mark 10:28 A stretch
5. Mark 10:29,30 not
6. Mark 10:17-30 not
7. Matthew 13:44-46 doesn't exist
8. Luke 14:26-33 we know this one can't be read litterally
9. Luke 12:51-53, Matt. 10:37, Luke 14:26 ditto and a repeat
10. Matthew 10:38,39, Luke 14:26, John 12:25 nots and a repeat
11. Matthew 6:19-24 not
12. Matthew 6:25-33 stretch
13. John 13:34,35 not
14. Luke 6:46-49 not
15. John 3:36 ASV, Acts 5:32
16. 1 John 2:3,4
17. Matthew 28:18-20
18. Jude 1:3
19. Acts 2:44,45
20. Acts 4:32-35
21. Philippians 3:7-11
22. 1 Thessalonians 2:14
23. Luke 12:25,26
24. 2 Corinthians 5:14,15
25. Ephesians 4:16
26. John 12:24-26
27. 1 John 5:2,3
28. John 7:17
29. Matt. 13:44-46
30. 1 John 4:21-5:3

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Q, I'm goin through them all...we are talking about wives and children...

I don't know which desciples it is said had a wife and kids.

but I gave up, got tired of checking them...

I was impressed with the list Q, until I started reading them....

Ok, you say no. And I'm not trying to impress anyone.

Let's look at the rich guy. (Nicolas I believe his name). Sell all you own, give it away. Then come follow me. And the rich man's face fell (hence the needle's eye parable).

Next there is Simon (later called Peter), who had wife, children and mother, and he left his nets and his livelyhood, and followed Jesus. James the greater and James the lessor did the same. Matthew, walked away from a lucrative job as tax collector, and walked away from his "world"

One potential asked "let me go bury my father", to which Jesus replied "let the dead bury their dead". It meant, one can't go back to the previous way of life.

Wil, are your reading too hard into what Jesus was saying? If family is holding one back from following the Lord, they must be left behind...it is pretty simple, yet so hard. Job, the entire book of Job is about this very thing we are discussing. Even Job's wife taunted him to "curse God and die".

does this make sense now?

v/r

Joshua

edit: no we are talking about giving up everything, selling all for the "pearl", for the "treasure in the field". Now look again.

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Wil, are your reading too hard into what Jesus was saying? If family is holding one back from following the Lord, they must be left behind...it is pretty simple, yet so hard. Job, the entire book of Job is about this very thing we are discussing. Even Job's wife taunted him to "curse God and die".

does this make sense now?

Quahom, I know that this derails the conversation a bit:
I understand perfectly well what you are saying here, I've heard it before, I've read about it in the lives of some missionaries, etc.
The problem is that this kind of thinking still makes me cringe, I can understand leaving your parents, but leaving wife and kids? I think that is heartless, specially if they need you. And this includes martyrs of any kind imo.

This echoes really hard of those workaholics that neglect their families for fame and riches. I could never swallow the mentality of sacrificing this life for the rewards in heaven, in my eyes it always covered some inability to embrace life for what it is.
If you were put in prison, would that really be an obstacle to follow the Lord if that's what you really want in your heart?
Job's example is different, because he didn't choose to sacrifice his family or any of his misfortunes, he simply accepted God's will.

I think sometimes we put too much emphasis on the externals, what can be seen or quantified, deeds and actions.

1 Kings 19:
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Caimanson

Quahom, I know that this derails the conversation a bit:
I understand perfectly well what you are saying here, I've heard it before, I've read about it in the lives of some missionaries, etc.
The problem is that this kind of thinking still makes me cringe, I can understand leaving your parents, but leaving wife and kids? I think that is heartless, specially if they need you. And this includes martyrs of any kind imo.

This echoes really hard of those workaholics that neglect their families for fame and riches. I could never swallow the mentality of sacrificing this life for the rewards in heaven, in my eyes it always covered some inability to embrace life for what it is.
If you were put in prison, would that really be an obstacle to follow the Lord if that's what you really want in your heart?
Job's example is different, because he didn't choose to sacrifice his family or any of his misfortunes, he simply accepted God's will.

I think sometimes we put too much emphasis on the externals, what can be seen or quantified, deeds and actions.

1 Kings 19:
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.

Hey Cia,

I'm not saying people should get up and leave their families. But what I think the bible is saying is that for some, their is no room for family and maintaining a church or doing God's work. And for others, the bible is saying that family and friends can be like a mill stone around the neck for the one trying to come to Christ. If one has to choose between Christ and family (belief and non-belief), it would be best to choose Christ and belief.

I'm sure you are aware, there are alot of psychological/spiritual undercurrents, nuances and multiple meanings in the biblical messages about forsaking all but for God. And I think it too is all a simple matter of accepting God's will, and then trusting that He will provide for what is best.

Consider Abraham and his son Issac. Abe was gonna give his son as a sacrifice to God, because he thought that is what God wanted (when in reality God was simply testing the trust Abraham had in Him).

In otherwords, not everything is always as it seems, but the bottom line with God regardless of the outward appearances is, trust.

v/r

Joshua