Was Mary Magdalene Jesus' wife?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It sure seems possible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  While I do think her role in the early church has been overly minimized in the canonical texts by those unwilling to admit that females are the equal of males, there's no reason to think that if Jesus had a wife that it would have escaped notice in at least some of the non-orthodox early texts.  I think in part such thoughts today are largely because the medieval conflation of Mary Magdalene with the prostitute who anoints Jesus' feet in Luke still causes people to think of her in terms of sex first.  Rather she was the principle female disciple of Jesus, tho not an apostle because it simply would not have been possible for women to have been sent out independently in first century Palestine to preach.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

No. In addition to what Ernest said about the lack of any real support for the idea, the idea is potentially more offensive (from a feminist standpoint, not a theologically orthodox standpoint) than it may seem at first blush because it's often argued for and seems in many cases to have been developed as a notion under the assumption that a close relationship between a man and a woman, or a relationship in which a man puts a woman in some position of trust and authority, has to have some sexual component.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Nah they were just BFFs.

[H. Ross Peron]

Nah they were just BFFs.

So Jesus got friend-zoned?

[© tweed]

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".  

that's the best argument you can make, and it's not enough.  (anti)-Christians like the idea because the idea of a sexually active Jesus is anathema to most American Christians.

[DemPGH]

Seems that she, assuming he existed, might have at least been a lover. It's not unreasonable. He was a man, yes? The reaction against it is almost a jealous "Noooooo!" But it probably would have been expected. And she made herself available.

If he had a conventional relationship with her, it would make him all the more real to me. Why would you become a man, allow yourself to be barbarically tortured and executed, and forego that? Nah.

[politicus]

Seems that she, assuming he existed, might have at least been a lover. It's not unreasonable. He was a man, yes? The reaction against it is almost a jealous "Noooooo!" But it probably would have been expected.

Well documented, no reason to go there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

The prostitute who anoints Jesus' feet in Luke was a different woman. The mix-up is a medieval conflation.

[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?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

The prostitute who anoints Jesus' feet in Luke was a different woman. The mix-up is a medieval conflation.

Besides which, the idea that that automatically constitutes 'making oneself available' in that sense, or that it's somehow more reasonable than not to expect that Jesus would have taken advantage of that even if she had, strikes me as...concerning, extremely so. (People will point out that 'feet' is sometimes used as a euphemism in Biblical Hebrew, but it's not always, and this part of the Bible isn't even in Hebrew anyway; by the same token, a modern (for instance) German novel describing a character 'riding a horse' would never have anything to do with heroin.) It's not even clear that the character in question was a prostitute, either (not that the 'made herself available' comment would be any less concerning if she were one); all that's said is that she 'lived a sinful life', and even that is only said of her in Luke.

[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.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No. She may have liked Him that way, and she likely meant a lot to Him, (Why else do you think she was one of the first people to see Him after coming back to life?) but He's too good for a simple human.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

He's too good for a simple human.

While I believe that Jesus was celibate, and that it's a matter of theological import that He was celibate, this is not a good reason to argue for that position.

[ingemann]

I think it's likely, of course I also don't think it's important one way or another.

[afleitch]

He's too good for a simple human.

While I believe that Jesus was celibate, and that it's a matter of theological import that He was celibate, this is not a good reason to argue for that position.

Given that this was 'god becoming man' for some sort of metaphysical sabbatical, given that he experienced every other human facet, challenge or emotion it seems a bit strange for him to miss out one of the most base and human. In either event, there's more homoeroticism in the NT than any other form of 'eros.' Whether this is just a Greek imagining for that particular audience and it's familiarity with the 'teacher/learner' secular and religious narrative in the oral tradition is another matter.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

The prostitute who anoints Jesus' feet in Luke was a different woman. The mix-up is a medieval conflation.

Besides which, the idea that that automatically constitutes 'making oneself available' in that sense, or that it's somehow more reasonable than not to expect that Jesus would have taken advantage of that even if she had, strikes me as...concerning, extremely so.

But why? I mean, whether it be a man or a woman that he would be attracted to, why would a deity who wants to be human reject that aspect of humanity?

It's true that only a tiny sliver of Jesus' life and teachings are recorded in the pages of the Bible, and what's there is cryptic enough to leave room for romantic relations. I'm just reacting against the notion that he absolutely positively would NOT have had romantic relations with anyone. It sounds like Christians who think this are demanding that God-in-human-form be celibate, and I think that speaks more to them than God. Deities in other religions were certainly not celibate, so I don't get the reactionary tendency to say, "NO!" 

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

The prostitute who anoints Jesus' feet in Luke was a different woman. The mix-up is a medieval conflation.

Besides which, the idea that that automatically constitutes 'making oneself available' in that sense, or that it's somehow more reasonable than not to expect that Jesus would have taken advantage of that even if she had, strikes me as...concerning, extremely so.

But why? I mean, whether it be a man or a woman that he would be attracted to, why would a deity who wants to be human reject that aspect of humanity?

That's not what's concerning. 'Made herself available?' That's really how you want to word this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't get why a monotheistic religion would be interested in presenting God as in some sense neuter, human form or otherwise?

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

The prostitute who anoints Jesus' feet in Luke was a different woman. The mix-up is a medieval conflation.

Besides which, the idea that that automatically constitutes 'making oneself available' in that sense, or that it's somehow more reasonable than not to expect that Jesus would have taken advantage of that even if she had, strikes me as...concerning, extremely so.

But why? I mean, whether it be a man or a woman that he would be attracted to, why would a deity who wants to be human reject that aspect of humanity?

That's not what's concerning. 'Made herself available?' That's really how you want to word this?

It's all the same. I find it odd that someone would think Jesus would reject her out of hand if he found her attractive. And if not her, then maybe someone else. That's just how it works.

You don't get why a monotheistic religion would be interested in presenting God as in some sense neuter, human form or otherwise?

No, not at all. I think it would be the opposite.

But either way, this is religion, so you and I are perfectly free to project onto God whatever characteristics we see fit.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Probably not, and as far as I've seen the only reason this theory even exist is so that Anglo-Saxon atheist militants can say "gotcha" to devout Christians.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

The prostitute who anoints Jesus' feet in Luke was a different woman. The mix-up is a medieval conflation.

Besides which, the idea that that automatically constitutes 'making oneself available' in that sense, or that it's somehow more reasonable than not to expect that Jesus would have taken advantage of that even if she had, strikes me as...concerning, extremely so.

But why? I mean, whether it be a man or a woman that he would be attracted to, why would a deity who wants to be human reject that aspect of humanity?

That's not what's concerning. 'Made herself available?' That's really how you want to word this?

It's all the same. I find it odd that someone would think Jesus would reject her out of hand if he found her attractive. And if not her, then maybe someone else. That's just how it works.

All I can really say to that is not for everybody it isn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not at all. I think it would be the opposite.
[/quote]

You think a monotheistic religion would, or should, be interested in presenting God--the one and only--as having defined gender or sexual characteristics or preferences? Really?

[afleitch]

You think a monotheistic religion would, or should, be interested in presenting God--the one and only--as having defined gender or sexual characteristics or preferences? Really?

Well Christianity cannot escape from not giving god sexual characteristics because it did; it 'engendered' itself enough to impregnate a female who then gave birth to his son. Not his daughter. Indeed there is nothing to have stopped an almighty god from carrying it's own child, but that would require that god is penetrated, or should I say 'seeded' or 'dominated' by the someone who wasn't godlike. We can't have that can we; better let god confirm to patriarchal thinking

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You think a monotheistic religion would, or should, be interested in presenting God--the one and only--as having defined gender or sexual characteristics or preferences? Really?

Well Christianity cannot escape from not giving god sexual characteristics because it did; it 'engendered' itself enough to impregnate a female who then gave birth to his son. Not his daughter. Indeed there is nothing to have stopped an almighty god from carrying it's own child, but that would require that god is penetrated, or should I say 'seeded' or 'dominated' by the someone who wasn't godlike. We can't have that can we; better let god confirm to patriarchal thinking

A lot of theologians--and this isn't just a liberal theology thing, you can find it in sources like Gregory of Nazianzus--have been at least a little uncomfortable with the implications of what's going on there and have sought to mitigate them or frame them in less gendered terms, not double down by presenting a sexual Jesus.

[afleitch]

You think a monotheistic religion would, or should, be interested in presenting God--the one and only--as having defined gender or sexual characteristics or preferences? Really?

Well Christianity cannot escape from not giving god sexual characteristics because it did; it 'engendered' itself enough to impregnate a female who then gave birth to his son. Not his daughter. Indeed there is nothing to have stopped an almighty god from carrying it's own child, but that would require that god is penetrated, or should I say 'seeded' or 'dominated' by the someone who wasn't godlike. We can't have that can we; better let god confirm to patriarchal thinking

A lot of theologians--and this isn't just a liberal theology thing, you can find it in sources like Gregory of Nazianzus--have been at least a little uncomfortable with the implications of what's going on there and have sought to mitigate them or frame them in less gendered terms, not double down by presenting a sexual Jesus.

You cannot portray the immaculate conception in which god essentially impregnates a female with the resultant physical birth of god as a man in anything other than gendered terms. Eve was born of Adam for goodness sake. There is an intent here. As much as the Greeks despised women, even Zeus acted as a surrogate and birthed from his own thigh.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No. She may have liked Him that way, and she likely meant a lot to Him, (Why else do you think she was one of the first people to see Him after coming back to life?) but He's too good for a simple human.

That is one of the shortcomings of traditional Christianity in my opinion.  It so emphasizes the divine aspect of Christ that it minimizes and even denigrates the human aspect of Jesus.  Yet without that human aspect, the crucifixion and resurrection becomes a farce rather than an inspiration.  Trying to find the right balance between the human and divine has always been one of the most contentious aspects of Christianity.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.