Jesus, sex and Mary Magdalen

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Now let's look at the "hypocracy" that Jesus would have displayed, had He taken a wife and had children. What did He tell his followers? "Follow me, and I will make you "fishers" of men". So they left their homes, their livelyhood, their wives, and they followed Him. What a joke, had He a wife, but they had to leave theirs...

That's a very good point for the against argument.

[Penguin]

I agree. I don't see what somebody could respond back with after Quahom's superb point on this.

[pfw]

The last point raised by 'I, Brian' is the best one so far for believing Jesus to be Celibate. Personally I don't think it matters either way and if GENUINE evidence either way were to come about I don't think it would make any difference.One person earlier posted the point that it would scupper Jesus claim to being the last decendant of David and therefore the 'Last King of the Jews'- why don't Christians read the Bible? First off that claim was NOT made by Jesus, he actually denied being a king of this world. Second, despite being totaly different the claim of him being of the line of David comes from the geniologies from 2 gospels- both put that on Joseph's side. Now, try to keep up here, if Jesus was 'born of a virgin' If Mary was a virgin and Jesus father was God and Joseph was the last decendant of David, Jesus would have NO CLAIM WHAT-SO-EVER to any title, right or claim of kingship.(i believe the actual translation for 'virgin' should actually be 'young woman', you'd have to check with a linguistics expert to find out if that phrase would also mean or imply virgin). Also, and please check you Gospels before critising this point, even if Jesus did have any claim to the title King of the Jews it would ONLY be as the first born son of Joseph and Mary- check it out, he had brothers and sisters, named in one gospel...And (as Dan Brown didn't bother to do) it's advisable to study not just the Gnostic Gospels but also the Gnostic sect- I'd suggest reading 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagels (isbn 014134689) before making any snap decicions on the reliability of them as any form of 'historical documents.

[Thomas]

Hi pfw –

"I'd suggest reading 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagels (isbn 014134689) before making any snap decicions ..."

In the interests of scholarship I would suggest reading peer reviews of 'The Gnostic Gospels' before making any decisions based on that...

Thomas

[flowperson]

Namaste Thomas and pfw.

The Gnostic Gospels by Pagels is a twenty-eight year old book and broke a lot of new ground in helping laypeople to understand what went on in the early Christian sects. Unless I'm mistaken, the translations from the original materials had only been available for a few years when she wrote the book.

Of course the majority of the peer reviews at the time of its publication would have landed on the side of conservatism since groundbreaking work of this kind is always threatening to the established order and the beliefs it has invested in. At least it would seem that way to me since much of the materials had been purposefully suppressed, destroyed, and literally buried for well over one thousand five hundred years. I doubt that if polls were taken today there would not be as great a level of disapproval as there likely was then.

Most things I've read and the people I've discussed these materials with were and are impressed by the level of scholarship involved in her work at the time, and how she logically tied her facts and conclusions together in her narrative. After all, one doesn't get to be a tenured professor at Princeton if one is a schlock researcher/writer.

flow....

[Thomas]

No one can gainsay the testimony of Pagels’s own experience; she writes with grace about her heart-breaking pain and about the consolations she finds in the texts that orthodox Christians rejected. At the same time, it’s not exactly clear how this functions as an argument. Many people, after all, have experienced consolation from reading many different texts. Presumably some further criterion of spiritual soundness rules out The Greatest Salesman in the World, while including the Gospel of Truth — but Pagels doesn’t articulate the basis on which one might make that judgment. Indeed, it would be difficult for her so to do without sounding judgmental in the same sort of way as the early bishops whom she chides. The necessity of discernment, however, lies at the heart of many spiritual traditions, and at precisely this point, Pagels leaves her readers to their own devices.

On the other hand, as much as the contemporary cultural moment favors comfort over criticism, everyone benefits when sharp minds lend themselves to the task of assessing the stakes in matters spiritual. If the dissenters in the early church were wiser than their orthodox rivals, Pagels could help readers by citing specific reasons for such a judgment and promulgating some criteria by which one might recognize sound (and mistaken) faith. Her approach to spirituality shows an admirable openness and fluidity, but it remains to be seen whether this recipe offers hungry souls a hearty, nourishing soup on which one might thrive, or simply a watery broth that slakes the thirst with neither nutrients nor flavoring.
The Disseminary Home and News

And more pointedly:
Princeton University professor Elaine Pagels is widely quoted in the media as an expert on early Christianity; she is often a sympathetic advocate in favor of bogus documents about early Christianity, whether those bogus documents be ancient (such as the so-called Judas Gospel) or modern (such as The DaVinci Code). Jesuit Paul Mankowski, in his essay "The Pagels Imposture," suggests that Pagels' reputation for expertise is undeserved. Dissecting a Pagels passage about Ireneus (an early church father who wrote an essay against heresies), Mankowski shows that "Pagels has carpentered a non-existent quotation, putatively from an ancient source, by silent suppression of relevant context, silent omission of troublesome words, and a mid-sentence shift of 34 chapters backwards through the cited text, so as deliberately to pervert the meaning of the original." If the Mankowski essay is accurate, then there does appear to be reason for readers to be cautious about presuming the accuracy of the rest of Pagels' writings.

I do not question her knowledge, nor the depth of her research, but it has become evident that, for personal reasons, she writes with a particular agenda which would seem to demand an articulation of faith as she conceives it should render 'orthodoxy' suspect if not ill-founded, in fact false.

This would be acceptable if she could argue the point cogently, which she does not do. Subsequent works only signify an increasing polarity.

Her scholastic methodology has been demonstrated to be faulty – a student would be marked down both for the misquotation and conflation of texts; and then again for drawing conclusions arrived at by 'working the text' to evidence a predetermined viewpoint.

My point is only that for the general reading public Pagels has become the de facto truth on gnostic literature, and her position is accepted without question – it has become the axiom of an arguement, but has been shown to be questionable and from a scholarly position, not authoratitive.

Thomas

[flowperson]

Hi Thomas:

Having worked in administration at a large research university myself, I am well aware of the highly formalized intellectual assassinations that take place when one creates enemies in one's research field. This is where present-day politics was invented in the middle ages in Italy. However inside backstabbing of this sort holds little sway with the layperson who takes the time to study such refreshingly alive materials as Pagels' writings.

It's just that most liberally educated people these days know that lots has been hidden from them over the centuries, and what they end up believing about all of that is what really matters at the end of the day.

Since we've had these sort of discussions before without favorable resolution, I'll retire to the locker room and shower up if you don't mind.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Hi Thomas:

Having worked in administration at a large research university myself, I am well aware of the highly formalized intellectual assassinations that take place when one creates enemies in one's research field. This is where present-day politics was invented in the middle ages in Italy. However inside backstabbing of this sort holds little sway with the layperson who takes the time to study such refreshingly alive materials as Pagels' writings.

It's just that most liberally educated people these days know that lots has been hidden from them over the centuries, and what they end up believing about all of that is what really matters at the end of the day.

Since we've had these sort of discussions before without favorable resolution, I'll retire to the locker room and shower up if you don't mind.

flow....

Don't forget to use soap...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by pfw

The last point raised by 'I, Brian' is the best one so far for believing Jesus to be Celibate. Personally I don't think it matters either way and if GENUINE evidence either way were to come about I don't think it would make any difference.One person earlier posted the point that it would scupper Jesus claim to being the last decendant of David and therefore the 'Last King of the Jews'- why don't Christians read the Bible? First off that claim was NOT made by Jesus, he actually denied being a king of this world. Second, despite being totaly different the claim of him being of the line of David comes from the geniologies from 2 gospels- both put that on Joseph's side. Now, try to keep up here, if Jesus was 'born of a virgin' If Mary was a virgin and Jesus father was God and Joseph was the last decendant of David, Jesus would have NO CLAIM WHAT-SO-EVER to any title, right or claim of kingship.(i believe the actual translation for 'virgin' should actually be 'young woman', you'd have to check with a linguistics expert to find out if that phrase would also mean or imply virgin). Also, and please check you Gospels before critising this point, even if Jesus did have any claim to the title King of the Jews it would ONLY be as the first born son of Joseph and Mary- check it out, he had brothers and sisters, named in one gospel...And (as Dan Brown didn't bother to do) it's advisable to study not just the Gnostic Gospels but also the Gnostic sect- I'd suggest reading 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagels (isbn 014134689) before making any snap decicions on the reliability of them as any form of 'historical documents.

Actually His lineage was taken from the old testament. And Mary was of the tribe of Levi and Judah, and Joseph, the tribe of Judah (David's lineage). So, Jesus' claim to the lineage of David is sound. Hence He was able to be both Rabbi and king (by all rights).

The term in the Bible that describes Mary at the time of conception is in fact "virgin", not "young woman". There is a totally different word to describe a young woman. The fact that the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is of the line of David (stated many times), is also something that can't be disputed.

Jesus never claimed to be king of the world. Indeed He stated His kingdom was not of this world. You are correct. That is Lucifer's domain. Jesus claimed to be the "Alpha and Omega". I believe that implies everything from beginning to end...

What significance Jesus' siblings have in His right to kingship, I fail to see. It's not like they were about to jump up and take His place should He die...

v/r

Joshua

[Zagreus]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I agree. I don't see what somebody could respond back with after Quahom's superb point on this.

I'll give you a response ... although most people will be forced to take it with a grain of salt - because of what the churches have taught.

Originally Posted by Quahom

Now let's look at the "hypocracy" that Jesus would have displayed, had He taken a wife and had children. What did He tell his followers? "Follow me, and I will make you "fishers" of men". So they left their homes, their livelyhood, their wives, and they followed Him. What a joke, had He a wife, but they had to leave theirs...

Often, though not always, those of equal or greater spiritual attainment than Jesus of Nazareth have lived the life of a hermit, without families ... or other of the trappings that go with life in the world of appearances.

Notice in the East, for example, that in India and Hindu societies, there are even specific stages through which we all can generally be said to pass, wherein Sannyasin, that of monkhood or renunciation, corresponds to that for which the 12 Apostles were called. Prior to this, we go through the stages of brahmacharya, grihastha, and vanaprastha ... meaning that of studenthood (or chastity), householder, and forest dweller (or hermit-hood), respectively.

It is not suggested that every man or woman must pass through all of these. Some may not proceed past the householder stage in a given lifetime, while others may even skip this stage altogether, and proceed to hermit-hood or even the final stage of a Sannyasin. As we remember that Jesus was a man - a human being - called for a high and Holy Purpose, yet also fully subject to the conditions of life on planet Earth ... let us borrow from the Wisdom of the East in approaching this question.

For Jesus to call the 12 Apostles to their respective stage(s) of vanaprastha or Sannyasa, while he himself was undergoing that of grihastha or householder, is not hypocrisy. We PRESUME to fully know God's plan, when we say that Jesus could not have been going through something different than the 12 Apostles whom he called to follow him. In fact, if we say that there was no difference between what they were going through, then I think we are in error, for surely there were similarities, but was not Christ Jesus exemplifying for us what it means to Master life's challenges on a HIGHER turn of the spiral?

There are people in the world today, as there have been both before the times of Jesus, and since, who are of equal and greater spiritual attainment ... and who also have, or have had, families, even as they served in a high, holy office spiritually speaking. I do not mean with the Catholic Church; I mean with God's Church (which encompasses the entire planet, and not one specific sect or division). Men and women living in our world today bear witness to this fact; they testify to it with their very presence among us. Ask their children, their wives, their husbands.

The skeptics, or those who have long been taught by the ecclesiastical "authorities" that Jesus had only (or primarily) MALE followers, will find it difficult to believe, as the truth unfolds, that some of Christ's closest disciples were women. Why do people continue to insist on enthroning a MAN ... rather than acknowledging the Presence of the LIVING GOD, within every human heart? Is it, perhaps, because if we keep him JUST out of reach ... then we do not have to take things so hard WHEN we fall short?

If Jesus of Nazareth and a wife, and even children, why can't we simply accept that THIS, too, was in keeping with Divine Law and Order? Why would this somehow LESSEN the Lessons ... which Christ taught us? Why does HAVING A FAMILY mean that somehow, God loved, or loves, us LESS ... through Christ? WHY, oh WHY, do people insist on saying things like, "God gave us His only begotten SON, Christ (Jesus)" ... yet find it so objectionable that Jesus of Nazareth may have reared children of his own?

Quahom, if there is hypocrisy ... then surely it is in THIS - discrepancy - in the "thinking" of so many a believer ... and NOT in any of the possible actions or choices of a Jesus of Nazareth, or Mary Magdelene, or other Holy One.

Thus, we have it precisely BACKWARDS.

~Zagreus

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Zagreus

I'll give you a response ... although most people will be forced to take it with a grain of salt - because of what the churches have taught.

Often, though not always, those of equal or greater spiritual attainment than Jesus of Nazareth have lived the life of a hermit, without families ... or other of the trappings that go with life in the world of appearances.

Notice in the East, for example, that in India and Hindu societies, there are even specific stages through which we all can generally be said to pass, wherein Sannyasin, that of monkhood or renunciation, corresponds to that for which the 12 Apostles were called. Prior to this, we go through the stages of brahmacharya, grihastha, and vanaprastha ... meaning that of studenthood (or chastity), householder, and forest dweller (or hermit-hood), respectively.

It is not suggested that every man or woman must pass through all of these. Some may not proceed past the householder stage in a given lifetime, while others may even skip this stage altogether, and proceed to hermit-hood or even the final stage of a Sannyasin. As we remember that Jesus was a man - a human being - called for a high and Holy Purpose, yet also fully subject to the conditions of life on planet Earth ... let us borrow from the Wisdom of the East in approaching this question.

For Jesus to call the 12 Apostles to their respective stage(s) of vanaprastha or Sannyasa, while he himself was undergoing that of grihastha or householder, is not hypocrisy. We PRESUME to fully know God's plan, when we say that Jesus could not have been going through something different than the 12 Apostles whom he called to follow him. In fact, if we say that there was no difference between what they were going through, then I think we are in error, for surely there were similarities, but was not Christ Jesus exemplifying for us what it means to Master life's challenges on a HIGHER turn of the spiral?

There are people in the world today, as there have been both before the times of Jesus, and since, who are of equal and greater spiritual attainment ... and who also have, or have had, families, even as they served in a high, holy office spiritually speaking. I do not mean with the Catholic Church; I mean with God's Church (which encompasses the entire planet, and not one specific sect or division). Men and women living in our world today bear witness to this fact; they testify to it with their very presence among us. Ask their children, their wives, their husbands.

The skeptics, or those who have long been taught by the ecclesiastical "authorities" that Jesus had only (or primarily) MALE followers, will find it difficult to believe, as the truth unfolds, that some of Christ's closest disciples were women. Why do people continue to insist on enthroning a MAN ... rather than acknowledging the Presence of the LIVING GOD, within every human heart? Is it, perhaps, because if we keep him JUST out of reach ... then we do not have to take things so hard WHEN we fall short?

If Jesus of Nazareth and a wife, and even children, why can't we simply accept that THIS, too, was in keeping with Divine Law and Order? Why would this somehow LESSEN the Lessons ... which Christ taught us? Why does HAVING A FAMILY mean that somehow, God loved, or loves, us LESS ... through Christ? WHY, oh WHY, do people insist on saying things like, "God gave us His only begotten SON, Christ (Jesus)" ... yet find it so objectionable that Jesus of Nazareth may have reared children of his own?

Quahom, if there is hypocrisy ... then surely it is in THIS - discrepancy - in the "thinking" of so many a believer ... and NOT in any of the possible actions or choices of a Jesus of Nazareth, or Mary Magdelene, or other Holy One.

Thus, we have it precisely BACKWARDS.

~Zagreus

No, "we" do not. God, made Man incarnate would in no way have been able to put together a "team" of indiviuals who would give up everything, unless He gave up everything (as an example).

Secondly, Jesus never sinned. And that is no discrepancy, save your perceived ones.

I will tell you this however...you remind me of my own father, your thinking, your words, even the way you write...

But of course you are not him, just similar.

v/r

Joshua

[Zagreus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No, "we" do not. God, made Man incarnate would in no way have been able to put together a "team" of indiviuals who would give up everything, unless He gave up everything (as an example).

Don't be so hasty to limit God, to Whom all things are possible. Yes?

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Secondly, Jesus never sinned. And that is no discrepancy, save your perceived ones.

I didn't say Jesus sinned. He was tried, and not found wanting.

But I'm not just seeking to be argumentative. I happen to agree that Jesus most likely didn't father any children with Mary Magdalene, or with any other woman. I don't know, maybe he did. But yes, it wouldn't seem consistent.

The difficulty, it seems, is that we still have an unfortunate undercurrent of Victorian era prudishness and just plain foolheadedness ... which clouds the whole subject of sex - so that it's difficult to really approach this question on even ground.

Besides that, there is a dead-letter reading of the most mystical and clearly allegorical book of the entire Bible, Genesis, such that otherwise sane and thinking individuals ... suddenly become rather thick about this whole sex and sepent thing. Until the spurious doctrine of `original sin' has been laid to rest once and for all, we shall never be able to properly ask the question, Could Jesus have had children?

It's not so much a question of did he, as interesting as this possibility is. It's the unfortunate set of associations - both consciously and unconsciously - with which we still approach the qeustion, that still taint our answer!

Of COURSE Jesus could have had children, and that would IN NO WAY have reduced, or altered, his capacity to carry forth His Ministry and Mission from God, to Humanity - save in the most obvious, practical of senses. Indeed, the hypocrisy would be to father a child, or children, and leave that responsibility on a woman, a family, or anyone else ... rather than honor it himself.

Sex ≠ Sin ... that's all I'm trying to say.

~Zag

[Thomas]

Hi Flow –

It's just in the world I live in, the fabrication of evidence to make a case is frowned upon ...

Thomas

[pfw]

I'll just answer a few points that have been raised re my original posting and the elaine pagels book.Ok- E P may have had an 'agenda' with her work- sorry, but who doesn't? was Dan Brown completely unbiased when he wrote the Da Vinci Code? (before I get it in the neck- yes D B was writing fiction but it was fiction he'd heavily researched and believed the conclusions he'd come to and still stands by them. and his novel has influenced the way a lot of people think.)Being as brief as possible E P's conclusions re The Gnostics and their Gospels can be summed up as 'the Gnostics were an early Christian sect that incorperated many elements of the Eastern Mystery religions into their belief system- most noticably that they 'wrote their own Gospels to express deeper spiritual truth rather than historical fact'- something backed up by epistles, letters and denouncments by contempry orthadox (small 'o', not the denomination) bishops of the time.My point was- seeing as D B- the man responsible for this sudden interest in the subject- bases a lot of his claims on Gnostic Gospels (particularly The Gospel Of Mary {Magdaline})- it might help to read a counter point argument to that.And Thomas, have you actualy read the book? I'm only asking because of the acusation that she 'renders orthadoxy suspect if not ill founded'-just were did that come from?As for her finding 'comfort' from the Gnostic Gospels- some of them are very beautiful (some are bl@@dy terrifying and a few- insanity might be the authors best plea). As it happens I find great comfort and beauty in The Lord Of The Rings- and if I were to write a dissitation on that trilogy my love for the book would no doubt colour my work- would that make my conclusions any less valid?(taking into account my next point)The accusation that she's missquoted and 'mucked about with' certain texts- if true and deliberate (as opposed to missinterpritation or genuine mistake- which SHOULD be corrected and revised in later editions) then obviously there's no excuse for that what-so-ever.While it's true that E P was heavily critisised at the time of publication more recent reviews of her work (some scolarly) have been very positive. Lets face it when a 'new idea' is put forward it is often met with resistance- a good and recent example of this is David Rohls 'new chronology for Ancient Egypt'. It seems reasonable to a lay person like myself (I've little interest in Ancient Egypt beyound 'how did they build THAT?'), he's got a ton of evidence to back it up (which he freely quotes, references and is relativly easy to check up on for the most part), yet the reaction from his peers? A well respected expert in archeology, specalising in Ancient Egypt suddenly finds himself the victim of character assassination... (admitedly that's calmed down now and cooler heads are prevailing). JESUS LINIAGE:NEW TESTEMENT Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.Mark- has nothing to say on the matter.Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazereth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;(because HE was of the house and liniage of davidJohn- has nothing to say on the matter.It's through Joseph that the New Testement makes the claim.JESUS' SIBLINGS-particularly brothers. If Jesus was heir to the kingship of Israel- then his brothers would also have been in line as well- meaning he wasn't the 'last legitimate heir'. That's how sucession works.And my original point, which seems to have been lost is- DOES IT REALY MATTER? In reality what would it actually change?

[pfw]

Just to answer a few points- and hello again Thomas, by the way-& pop over to my post on the Nephilim Race... I recomended the Elain Pagels book simply because it offers a different interpritation to the Gnostic movement and Gospels than the one currently held by the majority of people and, far from 'rendering orthadoxy suspect or ill founded', does the opposite.Putting it in a nutshell she describes the Gnostics as a kind of 'Christian Mystery religion', with one of their 'rites of passage' being the writing of a Gospel that- while not based on any 'real history', should 'impart and show a greater spiritual knowlwdge and understanding'- something which is given some considerable backing by the 'orthadox' bishops of the time accusing them of 'making up their own Gospels and teaching them as if they were the truth'(there were other bugs to bear as well, like women priests and so on).Admitedly her writing is coloured by an obvious sympathy for the Gnostics (and in many ways that's understandable, it is quite an appealing religion/belief system in many ways). As for the accusation of misquoting and 'mucking about with' some texts- if true and deliberate then there's no excuse for that what-so-ever. If these are genuine mistakes (mistranslations, further info coming to light at a later date and so-on), then those errors should have been corrected in later issues of the book.All I can say in her defence is in 1990, when the book was reprinted in England, it was very well recieved- even in scolarly circles.JESUS AND THE LINE OF DAVID:Matthew 1:16 The line is through Joseph.Luke 2:4 The line is again through Joseph.JESUS' SIBLINGS:Jesus younger brothers would have a claim to the kingship if Jesus had died-that's how succession works.My original point is- does any of it actualy matter one way or the other?