Who says that Mary Magdalene was young and attractive anyway? Nowhere in the bible does this topic come up that I'm aware of. The only things that I'm certain of have to do with her character. But when folks tell lies about Jesus I usually call to mind that Jesus said that there was forgiveness for speaking ill of him and that helps me be patient with them. But I'm thinking that it's much more likely that Mary Magdalene would be violently opposed to people shooting their stupid mouths off about what they think the Lord Jesus Christ did to her.
Jesus Christ knew about his betrayal and crucifiction from the very beginning of his ministry. If he committed to a marriage knowing that I would tend to think less of him, but nowhere in the scriptures is anything written about him that in my mind doesn't speak to the very, very best of the human condition. It was spoken to his mother that sorrows would pierce her heart, and she had to watch what they did to him and then have him go to the father.
Mary Magdalene did not have to deal with her mate leaving when the Lord said he was going to the father because the Lord was the one who set what marriage was and it would be cruel and hypocritcal if he was to put Mary Magdalene in the position of saying goodbye to her husband and the father of her child and/or children.
SO, IS THERE ANY BASIS TO THESE OTHER IDEAS OF JESUS' AND MARY MAGDALENE'S RELATIONSHIP THAT ISN'T UNFOUNDED AND OFF BASE?
SO, IS THERE ANY BASIS TO THESE OTHER IDEAS OF JESUS' AND MARY MAGDALENE'S RELATIONSHIP THAT ISN'T UNFOUNDED AND OFF BASE?
Hi Jeff,
Hope you are doing well. . . just off the top of my head, I think the idea stems from speculation. . .I am pretty sure some of it has its root in the gnostic gospels(MAybe :) ). . . it is speculation about the years of Jesus life that are unaccounted for. . .
I am not sure if there is anything in the gospel of Peter that would lead to that speculation, but I know Mary was spoken of in stronger terms there.
It is difficult to account for those years. . . hard to really piece anything together other than a general picture. There are only a few records for the historical Jesus.
People speculate. Dan Brown made a fortune doing it and many people just blithely accepted it as historical fact.
I think the Mormons debate it. . . Jesus is a controversial figure. He claimed to be the Son of God. Salvation of humanity rests on whether He told the truth.
Some speculate He survived crucifixion. Is that the Muslims? Some say He ran off to India. . .
Anything but really deal with who He is I guess?
I do love the way Jesus was with women. A radical departure from the culture of the day.
Tell us more about Him, what you believe? I have so enjoyed reading it thus far.. . . . .
I don't think that, even in the gnostic gospels or the so-called apocryphal or pseudopigraphical (sp?) writings from the early days of Christianity is there any suggestion that Jesus and Mary had any kind of sexual relationship or that Mary had any kind of "special" relationship or position at all. Some folks will postulate that such writings existed but that the "patriarchal" church leaders destroyed them to subjugate women or some such argument, but there's no evidence of that either. I would think that writings of this kind would have left some trace, if only the writings of those who wished to refute them.
Most of you know that I am not a Christian, much less a believer in the inerrancy of the bible, but I think that any information about Jesus needs to come from the existing documentary evidence, of which the bible is one of the main sources, and not speculation or chanelling of some kind.
In the gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene(you can find it online) Mary is referred to as the disicple Jesus loved more than the others--I guess that is where it comes from. And the Davinci code book.
Most of you know that I am not a Christian, much less a believer in the inerrancy of the bible, but I think that any information about Jesus needs to come from the existing documentary evidence, of which the bible is one of the main sources, and not speculation or chanelling of some kind.
Oakspear,
My knees are nearly worn out praying for your sorry soul :) I don't give up though. . . and neither does God.
I was sincere when I asked Jeff to tell more of his thoughts about Jesus---I am enjoying his posts. . . I wonder what your thoughts are on this man Jesus and His mission to save the world. . . I know you could tell me you don't give it much thought, but since you are here. . . who is this guy Jesus? What do you think of Him?
Humor me. . . :)
You too Bramble. . . if you want. . . can we separate religion of men from the man Himself?
I am not interested in a thread about why bramble is not a Christian, so this is all I will say to the above.
geisha, I self identify as an eclectic Wiccan( or eclectic Wiccanlike pagan, depending who I am chatting with). That 'title' gives people a connecting place.
I am not pagan because LCM and VPW were jerks and TWI was a cult. In my view, the pagan beliefs are the real authentic me. It fits. I don't have other words to describe it, but I know it at a nonverbal level within myself.
I don't believe in the Bible as the Truth( I also don't believe the gnostic gospels as the truth), or in one god, or in the Fall, or original sin or in a savior for mankind, or in one way, one religion for all mankind.
I'm not positive Jesus of the Bible actually existed, but if he did I think he may have been a wise and radical teacher who fit into the dying god mythos of the ancients... I do not believe in the divinity, son of God etc.
Those are Christian beliefs, obviously, not mine. I am not fearful of the Bible God or Hell and am willing to take full responsibilty for my life in this life and the next.
I find the idea of someone praying for me to leave my beliefs and accept their beliefs rather insulting. Some Wiccans/pagans believe that type of prayer is manipulative magic and brings no good because manipulation of another without their consent is a type of harm.
I do not see the doctrinal forum as a place to 'win' people to my religion. I believe they should seek and find their own truths.
I in no way meant to offend you, but if I did I am sorry. Since this is a thread about Jesus and you answered Jeff, I thought it no way proselytizing to ask what you thought of Jesus.
If nothing else, Jesus has a very interesting message. . . . one that often deals with the human condition . . . . something we can all relate to as humans.
I was playing with Oakspear a bit when I mentioned the knees and his sorry soul. . . note the smiley face.
When I pray for someone it is done with a heart of love, I cannot imagine praying to God for someone any other way.
It so happens I pray for you and your health and well being. . . how could that possibly offend. . . if nothing else. . . it is someone wishing only good things for you.
In the gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene(you can find it online) Mary is referred to as the disicple Jesus loved more than the others--I guess that is where it comes from. And the Davinci code book.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. Seems like pretty slim pickin's to build a whole mythology on, but more enduring myths have been built on less. As far as The DaVinci Code, I enjoyed it, but it was fiction for the most part. Thanks for the reference.
My knees are nearly worn out praying for your sorry soul :) I don't give up though. . . and neither does God.
Before I reply...I saw the smiley, and understood the (lame attempt at) humor <_< - better start praying for 'dem knees though...you're going to be on 'em for a while longer. :B)
As far as the serious part of you praying for me...I'm going to start another thread in order to keep this one on track.
I wonder what your thoughts are on this man Jesus and His mission to save the world. . . I know you could tell me you don't give it much thought, but since you are here. . . who is this guy Jesus? What do you think of Him?
Humor me. . . :)
In order for me to give my opinion on Jesus, I first need to give my opinion on the bible.
I see no reason to believe that it was directly inspired by God, that it is infallible or inerrant. I believe that, at best, it was an honest attempt to put in writing what was known or guessed about this mysterious Jesus guy. At worst it is a series of pamphlets designed to push the writers' points of view. The way that I look at it there are conflicting theologies, as well as internal contradictions. Certain parts of it seem to be written as refutations to theologies that did not "make the cut". There are numerous disagreements among the different manuscripts, some trivial, some major.
That all being said, I personally believe that there was an historical Jesus that the gospels in some fashion refer back to. I also personally believe that he probably bore little resemblence to the Jesus of the bible. I believe that it is possible that the Jesus of the bible is a composite of various roughly contemporary figures. The different gospel writers appear to have very different agendas and views of Jesus. Supposed fullfillments of Jewish prophecies are intermixed with the mythos of the mother goddess and the slain god.
So, in short, I don't think that the real Jesus (or Jesuses) made it through the editing process.
I am often as clear as mud. . . . let me be a bit more clear. . . .
Jeff painted an amazing picture of Jesus in his first two posts. To me intriguing. . . to you and Bramble. . . obviously it must have been interesting enough to cause you to participate in a thread about a possible MARRIAGE of Jesus. Even the ORIGINS of such a rumor.
Jeff mentioned Jesus fufilling scripture. . . . he also spoke of Jesus and His radical departure from the cultural norm concerning women. . . How He ministered to women. . . whether you believe the bible to be the inspired word of God is actually irrelevant to you participating in a discussion. . . . a fact you and Bramble have illustrated by your responses. In your response you indicated some kind of familararity with extra biblical writing. . .
Hence my query.
So, given that there is much speculation about the man. . . . and given that there is MORE than enough information about Him. . . available for you to form an opinion. . . . I asked.
You don't have to believe the bible historically accurate. . . to know what it says and to discuss a documented historical figure.
He is probably THE MOST discussed man in the last 2000 years of HISTORY. . . the most specualted on. . . one of the most CONTROVERSIAL. . .
For some old dead Jew. . . He makes it onto the cover of Time magazine quite a bit. . . .
I think we once agreed the bible is one of the best preserved ancient books we have. . . if not I can happily refresh your memory. . . you don't have to believe IN it to discuss it. Otherwise, why answer at all?
Jeff obviously put a great deal of time and effort into his thoughts. . .
My question?. . NOT out of the realm of a logical inquiry. . . . NOT an attempt to convert, and certainly NOT an attempt to insult. . . .NOT out of bounds considering I didn't summon you. . .
Bramble you could have just ignored me. . . . I certainly gave you that option. . . . . . I only asked you out of politness and an overflow of good manners.
But now . . . before worrying so I am out convert you. . . consider this. . . I am admonished not to cast pearls before swine. . . not very flattering I know. . . . but honestly, the bible is not always so concerning unbelievers.
I just try to be polite to you. . . another admonishment.
I don't think you were unclear G, I just didn't answer the same question that you asked :blink: - not exactly anyway.
To me, having any opinion about Jesus is like having an opinion about a fictional character...well not strictly fictional, more like one of those "historical dramas" that are "based on a true story"; I can have an opinion about what is presented, but it's not necessarily related to the real person behind the story.
I answered on this thread because I had read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene a few years ago and also read the Davinci Codewhich had Jeff's issue as the huge plot point--thought maybe Jeff wan't aware of the gnostic gospel.
I just found this dvd "Magdalena, Released from Shame," which shows the story from beginning to end, as narrated by Mary Magdalena.
And it includes her rejoicing and praising God, laughing and skipping, on the way to tell the brethren that He is Risen.
I thought the movie was truly love-ly, and worth a look to see a view of what the women were doing (they shared from their households to feed and serve the disciples as shown by scenes of the women, including Mary Magdalena part of the women feeding the 12.
The scene I thought was most impressive was the hurt in Mary M's eyes as the Samaritan woman passed by and was insulted by the Jewish folk for being a halfbreed and in response to "what did she do?" [to deserve the insults] "She's a samaritan. Isn't that enough?" Then Jesus spoke with that woman at the well. . . and well, it was just delightful!
I am glad that there has been some action on this thread. I was hoping that it provoked some conversation and I'm glad to see that it did.
I am hoping that for TWI victims who still believe in Jesus that it helps them to see that the Jesus of the bible stories is not the same as the abusive sociopath that Wierwille was. Even though Wierwille spoke enough about loving God to snooker me into thinking that he was the real deal his actions were vile, unbiblical, and despicable. It seems plain to me that when the Jesus of the bible stories pays Wierwille back that his reward will be very, VERY UNPLEASANT.
Dear Oakspear and Bramble,
This is what I like about you two, you both seem to be exactly what you say that you are. Lying two-bit, scum-sucking perverts like Wierwille give God, love, and humanity a bad name.
Dear Geisha,
I've been thinking a lot about some of the things in this thread.
First off, whether or not someone believes the bible stories to be true seems paramount. It seems to me that if someone does not believe the bible stories that it is inevitable that they would try to figure out what the truth is, this IMO is human nature. I desire to see them as true, and that is a lot harder to do honestly than to discount them out of hand.
I think there may be some people at the Greasespot that were so wounded by TWI actions that they have a hard time seeing truth and purity when and where it exists because they were taught truth by a sociopathic predator. Even if they may tend to project their experiences into the relationship of Jesus and Mary Magdalene I find it very easy to be patient and kind with them.
If people speculate about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene without anything solid to base their speculation on I think that it reveals more about themselves than anything else. It's just that if they also happen to be in a teaching position that they will end up fulfilling one of the scriptures in that you will know them by their fruit.
Dear Wordwolf,
I think that is always interesting to consider WHAT IF one record refers to the same individual as another record, but find it wise to not say for sure. A teacher who makes such unsubstantiated claims surely isn't as wise as they think they are IMO.
I thought that these non-biblical pictures of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's relationship might be some combination of gnostic gospel and foolish speculation but I wanted to see where this thread went first.
Since the gnostic story line seems to flatly contradict the bible records it seems obvious to me that they cannot both be true. I choose to throw the gnostic story line into the garbage file in my thinking! Especially as the gnostic story line would force me to seem to accept some kind of bad and/or foolish motives on Jesus and Mary M.'s part.
(added in editing)
This is one of the things that I ALWAYS CONSIDER WHEN A TEACHER IS TALKING ABOUT A BIBLICAL CHARACTER. What would it look like if this teacher tried to say it to the face of the biblical character.
One possible scenario.......
1. Someone tells Mary M. that Jesus kept her as some kind of concubine.
2. Mary M. gets VERY, VERY OFFENDED.
3. Jesus hears that Mary is very, VERY OFFENDED and gets worked up about it. After all, didn't Paul say that he would burn when the believers were offended.
4. The foolish big mouth that told it to her in the first place might pee his pants and have a change of heart.
In the gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene(you can find it online) Mary is referred to as the disicple Jesus loved more than the others--I guess that is where it comes from. And the Davinci code book.
The apostle John was the disciple that Jesus loved more than the others.
Before I reply...I saw the smiley, and understood the (lame attempt at) humor <_< - better start praying for 'dem knees though...you're going to be on 'em for a while longer. :B)
As far as the serious part of you praying for me...I'm going to start another thread in order to keep this one on track.
In order for me to give my opinion on Jesus, I first need to give my opinion on the bible.
I see no reason to believe that it was directly inspired by God, that it is infallible or inerrant. I believe that, at best, it was an honest attempt to put in writing what was known or guessed about this mysterious Jesus guy. At worst it is a series of pamphlets designed to push the writers' points of view. The way that I look at it there are conflicting theologies, as well as internal contradictions. Certain parts of it seem to be written as refutations to theologies that did not "make the cut". There are numerous disagreements among the different manuscripts, some trivial, some major.
That all being said, I personally believe that there was an historical Jesus that the gospels in some fashion refer back to. I also personally believe that he probably bore little resemblence to the Jesus of the bible. I believe that it is possible that the Jesus of the bible is a composite of various roughly contemporary figures. The different gospel writers appear to have very different agendas and views of Jesus. Supposed fullfillments of Jewish prophecies are intermixed with the mythos of the mother goddess and the slain god.
So, in short, I don't think that the real Jesus (or Jesuses) made it through the editing process.
Refering back to my first post I shared that there was one verse that I was thinking of, but did not know where it was.
Psalm 91:14
Because he has set his love upon Me, therefore I will deliver him. I will set him on high because he hath known My name.
This verse is immediately after the prophecies of the Messiah that the devil tempted Jesus with by telling him the God had promised to take care of him. It is clear to me that this verse is refering to Jesus of Nazareth also.
I also find this to be entirely consistent with Paul's thinking about living for the Lord as an unmarried believer. He shared that when a person is married they are to care for the other, and not just serve God. It seems certain and consistent with every scripture that I can recall that the Lord Jesus did not have a mate, and if he did it would mean that the Lord didn't keep the scriptures, that he didn't practice what he preached, or there is something else vastly wrong with the scripture records. But I see it as consistent and convincing to be sure that the Lord did not have the kind of relationship with mary Magdalene that many imagine.
I can't help but wonder how many of these "other Jesus's" that are preached of might have served to help Wierwille justify his actions in the eyes of others.
The apostle John was the disciple that Jesus loved more than the others.Right...according to one of the canonical gospels, but not according to the source that Bramble mentioned, which answers somewhat the question of where the speculation started.
For all the claims that Wierwille made about watching out for "that other Jesus" it seems that Wierwille was the worst offender that I know of in this category.
According to the Lynn letters Wierwille pumped his own juices up with a constant series of sexual encounters that fill the range betwween adultery and sexual abuse like some kind of fertiltiy god's right might use except that Wierwille's actions were worse than that because they were done in JESUS' name.
The Jesus of the bible had nothing to do with these things, but apparently the Jesus of the gnostic gospels did.
WIERWILLE SERVED ANOTHER JESUS!
(ADDED IN EDITING)
As a matter of opinion I wonder if the thinking behind the many, many sexually abusive groups throughout history might have included a version of the gnostic jesus into their doctrine to justify their twisted doctrines.
I don't know if the gnostic view of Jesus played into abuse in TWI or in other groups though it would be an interesting study.
I think obedience to authorities with no check and balance, having people with more power over others as an accepted standard, able to 'demand' actions from those lower than them on the totem pole, and the historical practices of forced marriages for young women, women historically having less political or legal power all play or played into abusive situations.
I never heard the movie or read anything that would tie into the Davinci code-book that you mentioned in post #5. But I do recall hearing somewhere that the movie that I think goes along with it have some tie in to TWI.
Even though I always thought that any ties between TWI and Gnosticism seemed odd before now, it certainly seems to make sense now. Institutional perversity and all.
It seems to me that TWI wasn't just abusive to women, it was abusive to all of it's members in different ways as their position required. But I'll go along with what you have said also. The abuse was equal opportunity at least. <_<
(added in editing)
Kind of off track with my own thread..... but I think it is a fair observation that in any hierarchtical and abusive group the ones that are at the bottom of the hierarchy seem to get the worst of the abuse.
It seems to me that by Jesus own words He will remember and avenge how his disciples are treated.
In my splinter group one fatal error among many in terms of being prepared for the Lord's judgment is thinking that they were qualified to execute judgment in the Lord's name while the leader had his head so far up his you-know-what due to twisted TWI teachings and his own form or forms of insanity that he himself only compounded the inevitable result of his own problems by forcing his insane dogma upon others.
Jesus and Mary Magdalene IMO is an example of simplicity, respect, and pure love between a teacher and a disciple. I can't help but consider how much joy they will have when they can see each other face to face again like the bible says will happen some day. Jesus delivered her and she supported Jesus out of her own substance and was there for Him and his family throughout the very, very worst of times. EXCELLENT, PURE, AND NOTEWORTHY IS THEIR RELATIONSHIP.
I don't really care if Wierwille screwed up his own ministry BECAUSE of gnostic thinking or simply because he was a pervert. Either way in filling his own twisted belly on young ladies flesh he will deserve the thrashing (at least) that is due him.
Recommended Posts
JeffSjo
Who says that Mary Magdalene was young and attractive anyway? Nowhere in the bible does this topic come up that I'm aware of. The only things that I'm certain of have to do with her character. But when folks tell lies about Jesus I usually call to mind that Jesus said that there was forgiveness for speaking ill of him and that helps me be patient with them. But I'm thinking that it's much more likely that Mary Magdalene would be violently opposed to people shooting their stupid mouths off about what they think the Lord Jesus Christ did to her.
Jesus Christ knew about his betrayal and crucifiction from the very beginning of his ministry. If he committed to a marriage knowing that I would tend to think less of him, but nowhere in the scriptures is anything written about him that in my mind doesn't speak to the very, very best of the human condition. It was spoken to his mother that sorrows would pierce her heart, and she had to watch what they did to him and then have him go to the father.
Mary Magdalene did not have to deal with her mate leaving when the Lord said he was going to the father because the Lord was the one who set what marriage was and it would be cruel and hypocritcal if he was to put Mary Magdalene in the position of saying goodbye to her husband and the father of her child and/or children.
SO, IS THERE ANY BASIS TO THESE OTHER IDEAS OF JESUS' AND MARY MAGDALENE'S RELATIONSHIP THAT ISN'T UNFOUNDED AND OFF BASE?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Jeff,
Hope you are doing well. . . just off the top of my head, I think the idea stems from speculation. . .I am pretty sure some of it has its root in the gnostic gospels(MAybe :) ). . . it is speculation about the years of Jesus life that are unaccounted for. . .
I am not sure if there is anything in the gospel of Peter that would lead to that speculation, but I know Mary was spoken of in stronger terms there.
It is difficult to account for those years. . . hard to really piece anything together other than a general picture. There are only a few records for the historical Jesus.
People speculate. Dan Brown made a fortune doing it and many people just blithely accepted it as historical fact.
I think the Mormons debate it. . . Jesus is a controversial figure. He claimed to be the Son of God. Salvation of humanity rests on whether He told the truth.
Some speculate He survived crucifixion. Is that the Muslims? Some say He ran off to India. . .
Anything but really deal with who He is I guess?
I do love the way Jesus was with women. A radical departure from the culture of the day.
Tell us more about Him, what you believe? I have so enjoyed reading it thus far.. . . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I don't think that, even in the gnostic gospels or the so-called apocryphal or pseudopigraphical (sp?) writings from the early days of Christianity is there any suggestion that Jesus and Mary had any kind of sexual relationship or that Mary had any kind of "special" relationship or position at all. Some folks will postulate that such writings existed but that the "patriarchal" church leaders destroyed them to subjugate women or some such argument, but there's no evidence of that either. I would think that writings of this kind would have left some trace, if only the writings of those who wished to refute them.
Most of you know that I am not a Christian, much less a believer in the inerrancy of the bible, but I think that any information about Jesus needs to come from the existing documentary evidence, of which the bible is one of the main sources, and not speculation or chanelling of some kind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
In the gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene(you can find it online) Mary is referred to as the disicple Jesus loved more than the others--I guess that is where it comes from. And the Davinci code book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Oakspear,
My knees are nearly worn out praying for your sorry soul :) I don't give up though. . . and neither does God.
I was sincere when I asked Jeff to tell more of his thoughts about Jesus---I am enjoying his posts. . . I wonder what your thoughts are on this man Jesus and His mission to save the world. . . I know you could tell me you don't give it much thought, but since you are here. . . who is this guy Jesus? What do you think of Him?
Humor me. . . :)
You too Bramble. . . if you want. . . can we separate religion of men from the man Himself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
geisha, I self identify as an eclectic Wiccan( or eclectic Wiccanlike pagan, depending who I am chatting with). That 'title' gives people a connecting place.
I am not pagan because LCM and VPW were jerks and TWI was a cult. In my view, the pagan beliefs are the real authentic me. It fits. I don't have other words to describe it, but I know it at a nonverbal level within myself.
I don't believe in the Bible as the Truth( I also don't believe the gnostic gospels as the truth), or in one god, or in the Fall, or original sin or in a savior for mankind, or in one way, one religion for all mankind.
I'm not positive Jesus of the Bible actually existed, but if he did I think he may have been a wise and radical teacher who fit into the dying god mythos of the ancients... I do not believe in the divinity, son of God etc.
Those are Christian beliefs, obviously, not mine. I am not fearful of the Bible God or Hell and am willing to take full responsibilty for my life in this life and the next.
I find the idea of someone praying for me to leave my beliefs and accept their beliefs rather insulting. Some Wiccans/pagans believe that type of prayer is manipulative magic and brings no good because manipulation of another without their consent is a type of harm.
I do not see the doctrinal forum as a place to 'win' people to my religion. I believe they should seek and find their own truths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Bramble,
I in no way meant to offend you, but if I did I am sorry. Since this is a thread about Jesus and you answered Jeff, I thought it no way proselytizing to ask what you thought of Jesus.
If nothing else, Jesus has a very interesting message. . . . one that often deals with the human condition . . . . something we can all relate to as humans.
I was playing with Oakspear a bit when I mentioned the knees and his sorry soul. . . note the smiley face.
When I pray for someone it is done with a heart of love, I cannot imagine praying to God for someone any other way.
It so happens I pray for you and your health and well being. . . how could that possibly offend. . . if nothing else. . . it is someone wishing only good things for you.
Thanks for the response. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
As far as the serious part of you praying for me...I'm going to start another thread in order to keep this one on track.
In order for me to give my opinion on Jesus, I first need to give my opinion on the bible.
I see no reason to believe that it was directly inspired by God, that it is infallible or inerrant. I believe that, at best, it was an honest attempt to put in writing what was known or guessed about this mysterious Jesus guy. At worst it is a series of pamphlets designed to push the writers' points of view. The way that I look at it there are conflicting theologies, as well as internal contradictions. Certain parts of it seem to be written as refutations to theologies that did not "make the cut". There are numerous disagreements among the different manuscripts, some trivial, some major.
That all being said, I personally believe that there was an historical Jesus that the gospels in some fashion refer back to. I also personally believe that he probably bore little resemblence to the Jesus of the bible. I believe that it is possible that the Jesus of the bible is a composite of various roughly contemporary figures. The different gospel writers appear to have very different agendas and views of Jesus. Supposed fullfillments of Jewish prophecies are intermixed with the mythos of the mother goddess and the slain god.
So, in short, I don't think that the real Jesus (or Jesuses) made it through the editing process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Kinda makes me wonder if people, 2,000 years from now, will consider The DaVinci Code part of the Biblical Canon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Right after the Blue book :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Oakspear,
I am often as clear as mud. . . . let me be a bit more clear. . . .
Jeff painted an amazing picture of Jesus in his first two posts. To me intriguing. . . to you and Bramble. . . obviously it must have been interesting enough to cause you to participate in a thread about a possible MARRIAGE of Jesus. Even the ORIGINS of such a rumor.
Jeff mentioned Jesus fufilling scripture. . . . he also spoke of Jesus and His radical departure from the cultural norm concerning women. . . How He ministered to women. . . whether you believe the bible to be the inspired word of God is actually irrelevant to you participating in a discussion. . . . a fact you and Bramble have illustrated by your responses. In your response you indicated some kind of familararity with extra biblical writing. . .
Hence my query.
So, given that there is much speculation about the man. . . . and given that there is MORE than enough information about Him. . . available for you to form an opinion. . . . I asked.
You don't have to believe the bible historically accurate. . . to know what it says and to discuss a documented historical figure.
He is probably THE MOST discussed man in the last 2000 years of HISTORY. . . the most specualted on. . . one of the most CONTROVERSIAL. . .
For some old dead Jew. . . He makes it onto the cover of Time magazine quite a bit. . . .
I think we once agreed the bible is one of the best preserved ancient books we have. . . if not I can happily refresh your memory. . . you don't have to believe IN it to discuss it. Otherwise, why answer at all?
Jeff obviously put a great deal of time and effort into his thoughts. . .
My question?. . NOT out of the realm of a logical inquiry. . . . NOT an attempt to convert, and certainly NOT an attempt to insult. . . .NOT out of bounds considering I didn't summon you. . .
Bramble you could have just ignored me. . . . I certainly gave you that option. . . . . . I only asked you out of politness and an overflow of good manners.
But now . . . before worrying so I am out convert you. . . consider this. . . I am admonished not to cast pearls before swine. . . not very flattering I know. . . . but honestly, the bible is not always so concerning unbelievers.
I just try to be polite to you. . . another admonishment.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I don't think you were unclear G, I just didn't answer the same question that you asked :blink: - not exactly anyway.
To me, having any opinion about Jesus is like having an opinion about a fictional character...well not strictly fictional, more like one of those "historical dramas" that are "based on a true story"; I can have an opinion about what is presented, but it's not necessarily related to the real person behind the story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I answered on this thread because I had read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene a few years ago and also read the Davinci Codewhich had Jeff's issue as the huge plot point--thought maybe Jeff wan't aware of the gnostic gospel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Some people claim that Mary Magdalene was the woman caught in the act of adultery
that Jesus told to "GO and sin no more." I can find no Scriptural reason to support
this claim. However, lots of people claim it anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
I just found this dvd "Magdalena, Released from Shame," which shows the story from beginning to end, as narrated by Mary Magdalena.
And it includes her rejoicing and praising God, laughing and skipping, on the way to tell the brethren that He is Risen.
I thought the movie was truly love-ly, and worth a look to see a view of what the women were doing (they shared from their households to feed and serve the disciples as shown by scenes of the women, including Mary Magdalena part of the women feeding the 12.
The scene I thought was most impressive was the hurt in Mary M's eyes as the Samaritan woman passed by and was insulted by the Jewish folk for being a halfbreed and in response to "what did she do?" [to deserve the insults] "She's a samaritan. Isn't that enough?" Then Jesus spoke with that woman at the well. . . and well, it was just delightful!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I am glad that there has been some action on this thread. I was hoping that it provoked some conversation and I'm glad to see that it did.
I am hoping that for TWI victims who still believe in Jesus that it helps them to see that the Jesus of the bible stories is not the same as the abusive sociopath that Wierwille was. Even though Wierwille spoke enough about loving God to snooker me into thinking that he was the real deal his actions were vile, unbiblical, and despicable. It seems plain to me that when the Jesus of the bible stories pays Wierwille back that his reward will be very, VERY UNPLEASANT.
Dear Oakspear and Bramble,
This is what I like about you two, you both seem to be exactly what you say that you are. Lying two-bit, scum-sucking perverts like Wierwille give God, love, and humanity a bad name.
Dear Geisha,
I've been thinking a lot about some of the things in this thread.
First off, whether or not someone believes the bible stories to be true seems paramount. It seems to me that if someone does not believe the bible stories that it is inevitable that they would try to figure out what the truth is, this IMO is human nature. I desire to see them as true, and that is a lot harder to do honestly than to discount them out of hand.
I think there may be some people at the Greasespot that were so wounded by TWI actions that they have a hard time seeing truth and purity when and where it exists because they were taught truth by a sociopathic predator. Even if they may tend to project their experiences into the relationship of Jesus and Mary Magdalene I find it very easy to be patient and kind with them.
If people speculate about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene without anything solid to base their speculation on I think that it reveals more about themselves than anything else. It's just that if they also happen to be in a teaching position that they will end up fulfilling one of the scriptures in that you will know them by their fruit.
Dear Wordwolf,
I think that is always interesting to consider WHAT IF one record refers to the same individual as another record, but find it wise to not say for sure. A teacher who makes such unsubstantiated claims surely isn't as wise as they think they are IMO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought that these non-biblical pictures of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's relationship might be some combination of gnostic gospel and foolish speculation but I wanted to see where this thread went first.
Since the gnostic story line seems to flatly contradict the bible records it seems obvious to me that they cannot both be true. I choose to throw the gnostic story line into the garbage file in my thinking! Especially as the gnostic story line would force me to seem to accept some kind of bad and/or foolish motives on Jesus and Mary M.'s part.
(added in editing)
This is one of the things that I ALWAYS CONSIDER WHEN A TEACHER IS TALKING ABOUT A BIBLICAL CHARACTER. What would it look like if this teacher tried to say it to the face of the biblical character.
One possible scenario.......
1. Someone tells Mary M. that Jesus kept her as some kind of concubine.
2. Mary M. gets VERY, VERY OFFENDED.
3. Jesus hears that Mary is very, VERY OFFENDED and gets worked up about it. After all, didn't Paul say that he would burn when the believers were offended.
4. The foolish big mouth that told it to her in the first place might pee his pants and have a change of heart.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
The apostle John was the disciple that Jesus loved more than the others.
:unsure: Pamphlets??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Refering back to my first post I shared that there was one verse that I was thinking of, but did not know where it was.
Psalm 91:14
Because he has set his love upon Me, therefore I will deliver him. I will set him on high because he hath known My name.
This verse is immediately after the prophecies of the Messiah that the devil tempted Jesus with by telling him the God had promised to take care of him. It is clear to me that this verse is refering to Jesus of Nazareth also.
I also find this to be entirely consistent with Paul's thinking about living for the Lord as an unmarried believer. He shared that when a person is married they are to care for the other, and not just serve God. It seems certain and consistent with every scripture that I can recall that the Lord Jesus did not have a mate, and if he did it would mean that the Lord didn't keep the scriptures, that he didn't practice what he preached, or there is something else vastly wrong with the scripture records. But I see it as consistent and convincing to be sure that the Lord did not have the kind of relationship with mary Magdalene that many imagine.
I can't help but wonder how many of these "other Jesus's" that are preached of might have served to help Wierwille justify his actions in the eyes of others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
For all the claims that Wierwille made about watching out for "that other Jesus" it seems that Wierwille was the worst offender that I know of in this category.
According to the Lynn letters Wierwille pumped his own juices up with a constant series of sexual encounters that fill the range betwween adultery and sexual abuse like some kind of fertiltiy god's right might use except that Wierwille's actions were worse than that because they were done in JESUS' name.
The Jesus of the bible had nothing to do with these things, but apparently the Jesus of the gnostic gospels did.
WIERWILLE SERVED ANOTHER JESUS!
(ADDED IN EDITING)
As a matter of opinion I wonder if the thinking behind the many, many sexually abusive groups throughout history might have included a version of the gnostic jesus into their doctrine to justify their twisted doctrines.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I don't know if the gnostic view of Jesus played into abuse in TWI or in other groups though it would be an interesting study.
I think obedience to authorities with no check and balance, having people with more power over others as an accepted standard, able to 'demand' actions from those lower than them on the totem pole, and the historical practices of forced marriages for young women, women historically having less political or legal power all play or played into abusive situations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Bramble,
I never heard the movie or read anything that would tie into the Davinci code-book that you mentioned in post #5. But I do recall hearing somewhere that the movie that I think goes along with it have some tie in to TWI.
Even though I always thought that any ties between TWI and Gnosticism seemed odd before now, it certainly seems to make sense now. Institutional perversity and all.
It seems to me that TWI wasn't just abusive to women, it was abusive to all of it's members in different ways as their position required. But I'll go along with what you have said also. The abuse was equal opportunity at least. <_<
(added in editing)
Kind of off track with my own thread..... but I think it is a fair observation that in any hierarchtical and abusive group the ones that are at the bottom of the hierarchy seem to get the worst of the abuse.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
It seems to me that by Jesus own words He will remember and avenge how his disciples are treated.
In my splinter group one fatal error among many in terms of being prepared for the Lord's judgment is thinking that they were qualified to execute judgment in the Lord's name while the leader had his head so far up his you-know-what due to twisted TWI teachings and his own form or forms of insanity that he himself only compounded the inevitable result of his own problems by forcing his insane dogma upon others.
Jesus and Mary Magdalene IMO is an example of simplicity, respect, and pure love between a teacher and a disciple. I can't help but consider how much joy they will have when they can see each other face to face again like the bible says will happen some day. Jesus delivered her and she supported Jesus out of her own substance and was there for Him and his family throughout the very, very worst of times. EXCELLENT, PURE, AND NOTEWORTHY IS THEIR RELATIONSHIP.
I don't really care if Wierwille screwed up his own ministry BECAUSE of gnostic thinking or simply because he was a pervert. Either way in filling his own twisted belly on young ladies flesh he will deserve the thrashing (at least) that is due him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.