New evidence supports marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all

Quote :

A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 18, 2012

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife ...’ ”
--------------------

The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

“It would be impossible to forge,” said Dr. Luijendijk, who contributed to Dr. King’s paper.
Dr. Bagnall reasoned that a forger would have had to be expert in Coptic grammar, handwriting and ideas. Most forgeries he has seen were nothing more than gibberish. And if it were a forgery intended to cause a sensation or make someone rich, why would it have lain in obscurity for so many years?
“It’s hard to construct a scenario that is at all plausible in which somebody fakes something like this. The world is not really crawling with crooked papyrologists,” Dr. Bagnall said.

Of course, a Coptic document would have been written centuries after, so while it is probably not forged, it is not proof of a marriage - only that the concept was being discussed in the early church.

but seeing the concept coming up again reinforces, I think, the validity of the Hieros Gamos ( Sacred Marriage) as a "new mythology of this unified earth as one harmonious whole" (Joseph Campbell), which I discussed in my blog article for the MythNow Blog at the JFC website:

http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php?categoryid=37&blogid=20

Quote :

During this short century, at least two cogent metaphors have surfaced which embody this [sacrd marriage] concept. One, from linguist George Lakoff, is the political metaphor describing the Democratic Party as a “nurturing parent” as opposed to the Republican “strict father.” ("Metaphor, Morality, and Politics" 1995) The nurturing parent is not just a mother, but a concept that can apply to either or both men and women, mothers and fathers working together for the good of the “children,” the citizens of the country under the leadership of government, and a step into a new paradigm, out of the patriarchal Industrial Age of competing forces into a global Age of Information. We live in a rapidly imploding world where we can no longer afford to see ourselves as separate entities.
We need a new metaphor or myth that can bring us all together in a state of cooperation rather than one of competition. We need a metaphor or myth that embraces diversity. We need a means to end patriarchal dominance, not replacing it with its opposite, a matriarchy, but with what Riane Eisler in The Chalice and the Blade calls a “gylany,” a partnership society. What we need to do is to marry the masculine and feminine elements into an integrated whole.

Ann

Ann, based on my wife's study of religion and the numerous books she read, she had already broached that subject and believed there was much either hidden or not revealed about the life of Jesus. It was suspected by many biblical scholars that he was more than friendly with Mary Magdalene. It is therefore our opinion that there is truth in this revelation.
There is much discussed by scholars that never make print. The oppositon to traditional beliefs make it difficult to pursue.

It would be curious that Jesus was not married since, according to Jewish law, men had to be married. Since his ministry didn't start until he was about 30 years old, what he did before is not known.

Abe F. March wrote:

It would be curious that Jesus was not married since, according to Jewish law, men had to be married. Since his ministry didn't start until he was about 30 years old, what he did before is not known.

Yes, Abe. This is one of the major arguments in favor of the marriage.

The linked article mentions the early controversy over whether or not a priest should be celibate, which could very well have led to suppression of evidence.

BTW, the more you tell us about Gisela, the more I know that I would like her.

Ann

Ann, I'm sure you would.

A lot of misery has arisen from the Catholic church dogma that seems against human nature. It just illustrates that those who believe church dogma is "literal" are basing their opinion on limited writings, selected for the lifestyle at the time they were put together.

Buddha led a very secular life before he reached a spiritual understanding. Makes sense to me.

As far as I know, there is no way, yet, to prove or disprove the existence of a Higher Power. A society or culture addresses the possibility through its mythology. A lot of people think of the term, "myth," as a lie - just a myth refers to something that is not true. But in its broader sense, a mythology includes the whole history and literature of a culture. So, there is a Judeo-Christian-Muslim mythology, in addition to the three separate but related mythologies which all worship one god - from different perspectives, just as there is are Eastern mythologies, many of which include stories of Buddha.

Jesus of Nazareth and Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha were very probably actual historical figures, but their primary importance has to do with the mythologies that have developed about them. The same is true of the more recent, known historical figure of Muhammad. They are all examples of visionaries, whose ideas have had a profound influence on history and culture, through the mythology that has developed around their visions, contemplations, and teachings.

Comparative mythology looks at the stories of different visionaries, legends, and heroes. Invariably, they find significant similarities across the various groups. The similarities are often so profound that they point toward a common source - that perhaps the contemplations and visions are an indication of a universal truth - an ultimate reality that lies beyond what we can see, hear, and prove.

The different cultures and their visionaries each express a perspective of that higher reality/power/truth - what Joseph Campbell has called a "mask" of God. The masks have individual differences, but the God behind each is the same power or force. (at least, that's the idea.)

So, every mythology is valid since it all points to a collective unity - a One - behind those different faces.

Over time and expansion, our perspective of reality grows and changes, and if our myths do not grow with those changes, we get conflict, confusion, and anxiety, because we do not have a guide that fits our life experience. In other words, we do not have a viable mythology.

We are clearly in such a place right now, so that is why we need to find an image - a new "face" or "mask" - a symbol - that will allow us to develop a common myth.

I am one of many students who believes that a ""marriage" of God and Goddess is a necessary step for this new mythology to develop and grow. We need an equal blend of feminine and masculine characteristics if we are going to get beyond the extreme polarities that have us so divided today. That, I think, is why this idea of a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene keeps popping up in our modern consciousness.

That's my perspective, anyway.

Ann

Interesting comments, Ann. We are still searching for answers that fit our modern views. In the book, "History of God" it was a faceless God. That's difficult to grasp. People want an Icon - some visual person or thing. How does one pray to "nothingness"? Is God a Spirit or a being?

When we return from whence we came, we may finally know the truth.

The Ten Commandments called it a "graven image." It was unlawful to use the name, which is why so many Old Testament passages refer to the Lord (Adonai) instead of using the name, Yahweh, that was supposedly given to Moses. Yahweh means something like "I am that I am," or sometimes translated "I am that which causes being."

Are you familiar with Paul Tillich's theology? He does a good job of explaining the difference between a being and the Source, or Ground of Being.

There is also that idea that our Source is "No-thing."

Ann

alj wrote:

There is also that idea that our Source is "No-thing."

The last of the short stories in my "Off the Wall Stories" collection addresses that philosophy.

Just downloaded it, Al. My reading for this evening is now planned.

Ann

Al, is there time in Nowhere?

Ann

alj wrote:

Al, is there time in Nowhere?

Ann

I think not after assimilation into the Collective, but I don't remember when I was there, so I don't know.

Were you not Abel to manage time? I suppose it is no thing. Kind of like a cellphone's hook.

I am having a blast, reading your stories. They really are off the wall. I highly recommend them.

Ann

Thanks, Ann. Here's the song that the story is about.

http://www.alstevens.com/mp3s/nowhere.mp3

I like it. I miss big bands.

Ann

Ann, the Unity Church that I attend incorporates much of what you posted above. They believe in the feminine/masculine qualities of the Spirit ( what they consider a more encompassing vision of God) that is within all living things in the universe (a Buddhist concept) as opposed to "out there" where it is also.

It is a church of thinking people who are free to question and seek their own answers from their spiritual understandings. It regards the Bible as a guidebook for the people in the times for which it was written but open to mythical interpretations for modern life also. The minister is more of a guide who shares his search and findings with the congregation, always pointed to a global view of the world and love as our primary purpose for existence.

It's roots are from Christianity and the Bible, so those guiding principles that are universal in appeal - peace, love, charity, hope - etc. are central to its themes.

One of the sermons even took the principle of "all living things" to consider the scientific bits of life at the sub-atomic level that are in all things, living and inanimate.

Because the church accepts everyone, the poor, the disheveled, the reforming alcoholic and drug addicted person, people who choose alternative lifestyles, etc., main line churches consider it a "cult" or some other demeaning word.

We believe everyone approaches their spiritual core through their own experience, and we do not judge them as more or less spiritual if their approach is different. We believe we are all in the Spirit's image, equal across the earth, and responsible for each other. We are expected to be good custodians of the world resources and share them. We are expected to seek peace and not war.

We believe that every thought, heard by our spiritual self at all times, is a prayer, a conversation with Spirit. Therefore, it behooves us to put positive energy into the universe consciously until it becomes an unconscious habit.

There'a a lot more; but overall, it gives some organization to my own collective of spiritual beliefs though there are aspects that I don't follow related to some beliefs in healing. However, they are a great group of people with whom to share because they are always seeking - and that search is to find the gifts in life as opposed to the ugliness.

Life is more complicated however when you are forced to think. It is much easier to have a memorized dogma. I note on Facebook when the religious right runs out of responses to logical questions of fact, they revert to, "Jesus Christ knows the Republicans are saving the country; I will pray for you." or "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama." And they are correct in that approach to stop facts - it usually stops a conversation because by invoking a religious prophet, the argument is with their prophet not them - and their minister has given them the prophet's opinion.

It's amazing how many positions in this campaign are taken by the invoked Jesus Christ. I didn't know so many people had a direct line or that He had time to be involved in our politics. My belief is that Jesus Christ would feel very comfortable walking into my church and joining with the congregation. I've often thought He would feel good with the Quakers, too, who have a more humble religion. I do think that the words recorded as those of Jesus Christ reflect a man of universal love and peace. His primary lesson was to treat our brother as we would wish to be treated. I find the insulting language used on the Internet and invoking the name of Jesus Christ with offensive language in the same post would not appeal to HIm. But then, I don't have that direct line. I only know what I feel in my heart. He wanted us to care for "the least of us" and he didn't seem to favor the wealthy over the poor. He didn't say the poor were the scourge of the earth, lazy etc. I think He would find more to like in the Democrat party where actions speak louder than words and invoking Christ is not necessary when the facts are on your side.

It's always been of interest to me how people are always saying "I'll pray for you" when they disagree, or invoking Christ or God by repeating those words many times in a conversation. Most of the very spiritually evolved people I know show their beliefs by their loving and compassionate nature, not by the words they speak.

Good post, DK. I also get irritated when God is used to try and win an argument. The second irritation are those who talk as though they know the mind of God. With all the Prophets in our midst competing to be Prophet Number one, why is there so little love in the world? Have the Prophets become capitalistic and feel the need to win? The modern-day Prophets cheery-pick passages from the Bible that fit their Agenda and make a farse out of the religion they profess.
There is so much we have yet to learn. The problem is separating truth from fabrication.

I am familiar with the Unity Church, DK. Its stand is similar to my own. I am an Episcopalian who agrees with the national church's stands. Unfortunately, the diocese here is taking a while to come around to many of them, so, I am currently not involved with a local parish.

Kathering Jefferts-Schori is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church - USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori

In an interview with Time Magazine, just after her election in 2006, she answered questions about her beliefs and her hopes for Christianity and for the Episcopal Church. You and Abe might find the article interesting:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211587,00.html#ixzz271O5kDRX

Quote :

Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?
We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.

While I have a lot of problems with the question itself, I think she handled it quite well.

The Episcopal Church in the US is a branch of the Anglican Communion.

Ann

I, personally, do not believe in church. Up the road is the Southern Baptist and down the road a quarter of a mile is the Bunker Hill Missionary Baptist church....membership of 5.

Neither one of these churches have much kindness in the heart of their congregations as a whole. Individually, the members would do any kindness without thinking about their reward in the hereafter to and for any life that lives (animal or human).

My neighbor down the road came here one day to sew up my goat who had been attacked by the other neighbor's Pit Bull. Her belly was wide open, yet she still breathed. He brought the twine and I had the curved carpet needle. I stood in awe as he sewed her together. She did not cry. The goat stayed in the house for almost a week until she was well enough to go out.

For me, that was a great Christian act.

David and I went to this same neighbors's house to feed his many pigs when he went away for two weeks. It involved boiling slop in a huge cauldron, letting it cool and then dishing it out. The Flies were the exterestials! hahah. But that is what Christianity is all about. Helping one another through the hard times. Not just blabbing away on a podium in front of a bunch of well dressed heathens.

Off the box I go.

Love,

Betty

"There are many paths." Yes, Betty, I agree with you. I also agree with Ann. I think Abe and I see things similar. I'm sure there are more. I don't go to church every Sunday but find my spiritual feeling at the sea or in the Everglades or riding a bike. I haven't done many charitable things lately - I spent my career in community service and spent a year a while back doing the same for Farmworkers. However, my Y friends and I would do anything for each other - and I never turn down a request. I have been involved with family of late - and their needs often require a patient heart ---

I feel so good about your relationship with your neighbors and the animals, such a validation that all life is sacred.

And I agree with everyone here. There are individuals in that parish church I no longer attend who are still my friends. Last month, we all got together for dinner. We had a great time.

There are good people in every group. There are also a**h**es. why do we give them such a voice?

It is a good thing to have a supportive group of friends that you can count on when things are going downhill. That is what it ought to be about.

Just me,

Ann

The thought of Jesus and Mary being married is a new idea to me, but not a disturbing one.
After all, Jesus showed us how to live.

As to churches,I moved my church membership to England when we purchased a second home there in 2006.
It was a great way to escape church politics.
It worked well.
So well that this year they called me up and asked me which office I would like to hold.I forgot to remind them I was ineligible
because I was not a local member.

Oh well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I demand to see the marriage license. And a photo ID.

Sorry, they were destroyed when Theophilus ordered the destruction of the Library of Alexandria in 391 AD

Annie