Was Mary Magdalene Jesus' wife?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I take it the fact that that isn't what the term 'immaculate conception' refers to is beside the point.

To be fair a lot of Christians make that mistake, so it's hardly fair to bust Andrew over it.  However both the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth strike me as doctrines that deny the humanity of Jesus.  They also to me seem to contradict a major theme of the gospels that this man who came from obscurity was the Christ.  At least the Virgin Birth has support in the canonical texts, tho not the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.  For that bit of nonsense, one has to go to the Protevangelium of James from the apocrypha.

[afleitch]

I take it the fact that that isn't what the term 'immaculate conception' refers to is beside the point.

It was in any case an impressive feat of ingenuity on Gregory's part. One was required, I fully admit that.

Given that fact I was Catholic for 20 plus years, you could perhaps have forgiven an overfamiliarity with that particular choice of words.

In either event, you cannot drag DemP over the coals because regardless of what you think god is, the Christian god presented itself as male. Twice. It ‘seeded’ a woman (a ‘male’ act) and was born as a man. Even if it had to do the first of these in order to manifest itself, it didn’t have to engender as a male by birth. Zeus carried a god who would be ‘twice born’ in his thigh, subverting his own gender and Vishnu rather beautifully placed his whole self within Devaki, subverting the need to have any conception and by extension, committing an act that could be interpreted as male at all.

Proto-Christianity’s need to have its own ‘miraculous birth’ myth has, unintentionally or not, engendered it’s deity. Now of course I’m not saying by extension that the Christian god is male, just that it has presented itself as such. Why should we be disputing that? Queer theologians often get lost in the fugue of defining god as essentially sexless or ‘suprasexual’ based almost entirely on an external perception of god (and I dare say it for some, belief that this ‘ought to the be the way things are anyway’) yet pay little attention to the implications of god actually presenting itself in an engendered form recognisable to us.

What gender something presents itself as is more important to me than what gender, if any, a third party would allocate to it. I’m not going to suspend that approach for a deity. (Now of course we have the ‘third’ part of god; the spirit, in which there’s debate over whether it’s masculine, feminine or genderless which for me has the same substance as trying to debate the gender of air.)

Looking at the issue of sexuality in general, if we roll back modern heteronormativity (an unfortunate hangover that Pauline Christianity itself has left the western world) to a more ancient ordering; namely that ‘sexuality’ was divided into those acts and relationships that were supportive of the social hierarchy (procreative but also between a superior male and inferior male) and those that subvert this (two adult free men or any female/female relationship) then this allows us to regain a sense of ‘place’; namely that adult men should never be passive and women should never be active (see David Halperin). When dealing with the NT, we are dealing with a Greek ‘re-orientation’ of the narrative to fit their own audience. Much of that is lost on us. However under no circumstances could god ever be considered passive, which is why he impregnates Mary and why he is presented in birth as a male. Dworkin hits the nail on the head here; insemination as an act is an act of greater maleness than committing a mere sexual act because it redeems a man from the ‘gender ambiguity of any sex act he might commit for his own pleasure.’ Which is why god doesn’t do what other ancient gods do and commit the deed himself.

Inseminating Mary is evidently more ‘male’ than actually being born in a male form. God did both of these things. At least according the Greeks. And according to the Greek ideal, he would have had to.

As Ernest has perhaps touched upon, though I know he approaches this from a slightly different angle, the adoptionist position (which as you know I contend was the intentional position and was the position on the nature of Jesus that I last held before I lost my faith - so I will admit my bias there) eliminates that in part. Jesus was chosen by god. It just so happened that it chose a human male as a son. A ‘son’ can belong to a mother or a father or a parent of another gender. There’s no need for god to inseminate a female nor be born in the form of a man. Nor does it open god up to quite legitimate, even if uncomfortable accusations of adultery.

The ‘real’ answer to all of this if any answer can be found, including indeed what position Mary Magdalene held, is more likely to be found outside the New Testament and therefore, strictly speaking, outside of Christianity.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

[afleitch]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

Thank goodness he does, otherwise this board would be nothing more than a talking shop A monotheistic faith might not have interest in gendering it's god, but as has been highlighted it seems that god has done so himself.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I find it pretty sad that this pointless discussion has taken over the board and overshadowed the much more interesting threads below it.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

Thank goodness he does, otherwise this board would be nothing more than a talking shop A monotheistic faith might not have interest in gendering it's god, but as has been highlighted it seems that god has done so himself.

I think the conversations that you and I are having have diverged somewhat.

[afleitch]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

Thank goodness he does, otherwise this board would be nothing more than a talking shop A monotheistic faith might not have interest in gendering it's god, but as has been highlighted it seems that god has done so himself.

I think the conversations that you and I are having have diverged somewhat.

A conversation involves more than one person talking

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

Thank goodness he does, otherwise this board would be nothing more than a talking shop A monotheistic faith might not have interest in gendering it's god, but as has been highlighted it seems that god has done so himself.

I think the conversations that you and I are having have diverged somewhat.

A conversation involves more than one person talking

Preferably not about increasingly different issues as the conversation goes on.

[afleitch]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

Thank goodness he does, otherwise this board would be nothing more than a talking shop A monotheistic faith might not have interest in gendering it's god, but as has been highlighted it seems that god has done so himself.

I think the conversations that you and I are having have diverged somewhat.

A conversation involves more than one person talking

Preferably not about increasingly different issues as the conversation goes on.

I think it dovetailed neatly. How can we talk about a perceived relationship with Mary Magdalene without addressing the issue of the gender of god? It's probably the first conversation this forum has had about the matter.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

Thank goodness he does, otherwise this board would be nothing more than a talking shop A monotheistic faith might not have interest in gendering it's god, but as has been highlighted it seems that god has done so himself.

I think the conversations that you and I are having have diverged somewhat.

A conversation involves more than one person talking

Preferably not about increasingly different issues as the conversation goes on.

I think it dovetailed neatly. How can we talk about a perceived relationship with Mary Magdalene without addressing the issue of the gender of god? It's probably the first conversation this forum has had about the matter.

I think the issue is that for me the former issue is a non-starter, but one I'm comfortable with addressing, whereas the latter is potentially very interesting and fecund (word choice intended!), but not one I was expecting to have sprung on me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In either event, you cannot drag DemP over the coals because regardless of what you think god is, the Christian god presented itself as male. Twice. It ‘seeded’ a woman (a ‘male’ act) and was born as a man. Even if it had to do the first of these in order to manifest itself, it didn’t have to engender as a male by birth. Zeus carried a god who would be ‘twice born’ in his thigh, subverting his own gender and Vishnu rather beautifully placed his whole self within Devaki, subverting the need to have any conception and by extension, committing an act that could be interpreted as male at all.

[...]

As Ernest has perhaps touched upon, though I know he approaches this from a slightly different angle, the adoptionist position (which as you know I contend was the intentional position and was the position on the nature of Jesus that I last held before I lost my faith - so I will admit my bias there) eliminates that in part. Jesus was chosen by god. It just so happened that it chose a human male as a son. A ‘son’ can belong to a mother or a father or a parent of another gender. There’s no need for god to inseminate a female nor be born in the form of a man. Nor does it open god up to quite legitimate, even if uncomfortable accusations of adultery.

Given the time and place, to be an itinerant prophet, Christ had to be male, so I don't see where any theological implications can be made from the gender of Jesus.

The ‘real’ answer to all of this if any answer can be found, including indeed what position Mary Magdalene held, is more likely to be found outside the New Testament and therefore, strictly speaking, outside of Christianity.

For obvious reasons, I resent the implication that unless one fully accepts a traditional canon, one is not really a Christian.

[© tweed]

At least the Virgin Birth has support in the canonical texts,

2 of 4 Gospels.  no knowledge by Paul.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

the only argument that I've seen that makes sense is to use John 19:25, and argue that in 1st Century Judaism such a privilege was reserved for only the closest of kin, and then claim that Magdalene was the mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved". 

John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved."

As for Mary Magdalene, it's certainly possible that she was Jesus' wife, but it doesn't matter.  Anybody ever considered the possibility that Jesus was widowed?

Those who argue for M.M. being the disciple whom Jesus loved argue that the Gospel was edited to obscure who it was so that it could become part of the canon.  That strikes me as silly,  That said, some of the other theories of who else the disciple could be are plausible.  Keep in mind that the Gospel of John uses the term disciple in contexts that refer to any follower of Christ (or others) and not just the Twelve Apostles, so any theory that depends upon eliminating the other eleven doesn't suffice.  Given the contexts in which it is used, I'm sympathetic to the idea that disciple whom Jesus loved was intended as a literary device by which the reader (or hearer) of the Gospel could insert emself into the story.  Joseph of Aramathea also strikes me as a plausible intended disciple, but since John himself also works, I'm not particularly worried about this.

As far as I know, Mary Magdalene wasn't one of the 12 Apostles.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

the only argument that I've seen that makes sense is to use John 19:25, and argue that in 1st Century Judaism such a privilege was reserved for only the closest of kin, and then claim that Magdalene was the mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved". 

John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved."

As for Mary Magdalene, it's certainly possible that she was Jesus' wife, but it doesn't matter.  Anybody ever considered the possibility that Jesus was widowed?

Those who argue for M.M. being the disciple whom Jesus loved argue that the Gospel was edited to obscure who it was so that it could become part of the canon.  That strikes me as silly,  That said, some of the other theories of who else the disciple could be are plausible.  Keep in mind that the Gospel of John uses the term disciple in contexts that refer to any follower of Christ (or others) and not just the Twelve Apostles, so any theory that depends upon eliminating the other eleven doesn't suffice.  Given the contexts in which it is used, I'm sympathetic to the idea that disciple whom Jesus loved was intended as a literary device by which the reader (or hearer) of the Gospel could insert emself into the story.  Joseph of Aramathea also strikes me as a plausible intended disciple, but since John himself also works, I'm not particularly worried about this.

As far as I know, Mary Magdalene wasn't one of the 12 Apostles.

And?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

the only argument that I've seen that makes sense is to use John 19:25, and argue that in 1st Century Judaism such a privilege was reserved for only the closest of kin, and then claim that Magdalene was the mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved". 

John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved."

As for Mary Magdalene, it's certainly possible that she was Jesus' wife, but it doesn't matter.  Anybody ever considered the possibility that Jesus was widowed?

Those who argue for M.M. being the disciple whom Jesus loved argue that the Gospel was edited to obscure who it was so that it could become part of the canon.  That strikes me as silly,  That said, some of the other theories of who else the disciple could be are plausible.  Keep in mind that the Gospel of John uses the term disciple in contexts that refer to any follower of Christ (or others) and not just the Twelve Apostles, so any theory that depends upon eliminating the other eleven doesn't suffice.  Given the contexts in which it is used, I'm sympathetic to the idea that disciple whom Jesus loved was intended as a literary device by which the reader (or hearer) of the Gospel could insert emself into the story.  Joseph of Aramathea also strikes me as a plausible intended disciple, but since John himself also works, I'm not particularly worried about this.

As far as I know, Mary Magdalene wasn't one of the 12 Apostles.

Did you bother reading what I said?  I pointed out that the fact that John's usage of the word of disciple means that we can't infer that the disciple that Jesus loved was necessarily an Apostle and thus could conceivably be a woman.

[Famous Mortimer]

I think no, the main reason being that if Jesus was married, why would they want to hide this?

Additionally, if Jesus' real message differed so greatly from the message we know today, why would the powers that be even use Jesus as a reference point. He's not very well documented, despite what someone else in this thread bizarrely asserted. If Jesus were married, why would an anti-sex movement make him their symbol? Why would they see a passing, second-hand, after-the-fact references to a married guy and say "hey, let's retroactively make him the founder of our weird anti-sex cult" rather than just invent a fake person, who would be only slightly less documented?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think no, the main reason being that if Jesus was married, why would they want to hide this?

The hunt for possible offspring would be never ending.

[ingemann]

I think no, the main reason being that if Jesus was married, why would they want to hide this?

Additionally, if Jesus' real message differed so greatly from the message we know today, why would the powers that be even use Jesus as a reference point. He's not very well documented, despite what someone else in this thread bizarrely asserted. If Jesus were married, why would an anti-sex movement make him their symbol? Why would they see a passing, second-hand, after-the-fact references to a married guy and say "hey, let's retroactively make him the founder of our weird anti-sex cult" rather than just invent a fake person, who would be only slightly less documented?

First of all the Christian Church is and was never anti-sex. The adoption of ecclessial celibacy among one branch was purely a matter a political and economic matter and this have the Catholic Church never hidden. They adopted it, out of a fear that the clergy should become class people was born into, and to ensure the Church continued central control over Church vast properties. Even today a major argument against ending celibacy is that it would mean that priest suddenly should have a wage a family could survive on.