This question has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of God's existance or non-existance.

But it is a question I would like ask the religious folks out in Bible land.

Can anyone explain why a Jewish teacher,
a Rabbi, traveled in the middle east with an unmarried woman?

If you can explain that for me, can you tell me why this Icon of Christianity Jesus,
would have engaged in public displays of affection, such as kissing a woman full on the lips in public view, a woman he was not married to?

And can anyone tell me why the disciples were annoyed and upset with these public displays?

Wolf

Umm...where are you getting this from?

Most "religious folks out in Bible land" may have no idea what you're talking about because what you have discovered is not from the Bible that Christians read.

It is most likely from the Gospel of Phillip, a Gnostic work of the 2nd/3rd century. The Gnostics were a heretical group with specific teachings that were in conflict with the Church.

The exact verse is: "55b. The Saviour loved Mary Magdalene more than all the disciples, and kissed on her mouth often."

According to the Gnostic Gospel of Phillip, yes.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 25, 2001).]

Thank you Ish, for your reply.
I have to admit that I was looking to see if
any Christians would know what I was refering to.
I would think that Mary and Jesus had a special relationship based on the Gospels of Mary, Thomas, Phillip.

In the Gospel of Mary 5) Peter said to Mary "Sister we know that the savior loved you more than the rest of women".
But he goes on to state his disbelief pertaining to instructions Jesus had given Mary, to relay to the rest of them.

Peter actually makes a statement that he did not believe Mary had spoken with Jesus,and Jesus had given her information that he had not given the rest of the disciples.
Peter questioned why Jesus seemed to "love" Mary more than the rest of the disciples. In other words a jealous streak.

Levi steps in 8)" But if the savior made her worthy, who are you indeed, to reject her? Surely, the savior knows her very well.
9) That is why he loved her more than us".

My question is did Jesus and Mary have a physical relationship?
In some of the other non-canonical gospels they are seemingly portrayed as man and wife.
And the wedding supposedly was theirs.
But this is more speculation than fact,
and it has never been actually validated
that Jesus and Mary were man and wife.

It would seem that this relationship is contrary to what the Bible teaches with regard to sexual matters.

Jesus himself supposedly stated that to look upon a woman with lust in the mind, was an adulterous act just as the physical copulation would be.

Does this mean that Jesus may have been saying do as I say, not as I do? I have to wonder if this situation is not exactly what
Christian leadership would like to publish
regarding the Son of God and his relationship
with a female.

In most of the Christian literature I have read, and the canonical books of the NT, no one mentioned the relationship between these two, and the writers seem to skip over this relationship without even trying to make an
excuse.

This is very strange considering the writers go to great lengths to explain other
parts of the life of Jesus.
(In the canonical books).

I am just starting to look into the Gospel of Thomas, maybe you can save me some time if you have any information from other sources.

Thank you for your response.
Wolf

About Jesus and Mary Magdalene you have to realize that John
was the first gospel written and the last gospel edited.
Dogma has it that the gospels were written after A.D. 70 and
this is simply not true. John was written first and before
St. Paul came on the scene in A.D. 37.

In John, Jesus was the Word of God.
JOH 01:01 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.


ACT 06:07 And the word of God increased; and the number of
the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great
company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

In the above verse Jesus became a father of a son. Girls do
not count.


ACT 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

Birth of second son to Jesus and Mary.

ACT 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of
purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God,
heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended
unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Jesus' second wife.
CO1 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but
the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

Above is St. Paul defending Jesus in taking another wife.
Mary Magdalene left Jesus. She refused to follow the
westernized Peter and Paul.

Thanks, Offa

Toto

I have been reading about the Gnostics. I don't think you should assume that the Gnostics even thought that they were writing literal history. They dealt in symbolism, mysticism, etc. Their enemies in the orthodox church insisted on literalism.

But this is something that keeps sticking in my mind as an argument against the existence of a historical Jesus, or at least any person who resembled the Jesus of the Gospels. Where has there been a charismatic leader able to hold a movement together even after his death, who did not radiate sexual energy? Male sexual vibes that pull in both men and women are the essense of charisma (think Kennedy, Castro, even Clinton - people who have been in Clinton's presence have described the sexual energy that eminates from him.)

But the straight Gospel Jesus might as well be an anemic ghost.

Well, the problem with this is that these texts are recognized as from the Valentinian branch of Gnosticism. In my own opinion, these texts are fictional stories drummed up by the Gnostics to support their views of Jesus. Elaine Pagels has a different opinion.

It sounds like you may be reading from the Nag Hammadi Library editied by James M. Robinson? Another interesting book on Gnostics and their different branches and texts is The Gnostic Scriptures by Bentley Layton.

Personally, I have always seen this idea as absurd, and it completely contradicts the Gospels' account.

I do not believe these texts (which were rejected as non-canonical for a reason) reflect the real Jesus, and I doubt that they will matter much to most Christians. They are interesting to read, however.

Ish

I found this interesting passage years ago in the Jerusalem Bible. It paints a rather lusty picture of Jerusalem and Samaria:

"The Babylonians came to her, shared her love bed and defiled her with their debauchery. Once defiled she lost interest in them. She flaunted her whoring, she stripped naked; then I turned away from her as I had turned away from her sister. She began whoring worse than ever, remembering here girlhood, when she had played the whore in the land of Egypt, when she had been infatuated by profligates big-membered as donkeys, ejaculating as violently as stallions." (Ez. 23:17-20)

My guess is that this passage may have been far more graphic in the mind and words of the writer than it is here.

rodahi

Yes, the information was from The Nag Hammadi.

I find this interesting from the standpoint that these "gospels" give a completely different picture of the man.

I have some trouble with the thought that the Jesus portrayed in the canonical Gospels
was in fact a real Historical personage.

I have read the "Jesus Mysteries", "The Search for the Historic Jesus". I have read
quite a bit of Earl Doherty's work, and was very impressed.

My questions are somewhat centered in the area of documentation of Jesus life by objective outsiders, which I can find very little, useful information.

Most of the historians have very little to say. And the greatest majority of them
have had their truthfulness called into question, even by the Jesus Seminars.

What I find interesting about these non-canonical books is the thought that maybe they were left out for a reason "other" than the early church writers not being able to validate them.

It certainly seems that the Catholic authorities did not go to a great deal of work to validate the other books, the canonical books.

I wonder why they decided not to include the Gnostics works, even if they were not
number one on the best seller list, the inclusion of those books could have given Jesus more credability in History.

If they had included some information that was not flattering to Jesus, it would have bolstered my confidence level in the Gospels.
As it is, I dont see a real flesh and blood
individual with divine qualities and gifts,
I see a person that was possibly a mythologic
figure, that was embellished to a point of disbelief.

Wolf

Simply because they believed the teachings to be incorrect and not what had been passed down by apostolic succession... They added no credibility in the minds of some early church fathers.

For extra reading about Gnosticism, I would suggest the following:

New Testament Apocyprypha Vol 1 & 2
(ed. by Schneemelcher, trans. by Wilson)

The Gnostic Scriptures by Bentley Layton
(I don't have the newest version and I'm not sure if it is the same. The version I have is an excellent resource for the different schools of Gnosticism and their beliefs.)

The Nag Hammadi Library
(ed. by James M. Robinson - which I believe you have already)

The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels
(I don't agree with her, but she still has some good beginning information on Gnosticism.)

Finally, to understand a little more about what reasons the early church had for rejecting Gnosticism, you should try some reading in the early church fathers.

Perhaps you can start with Justin Martyr or Irenaeus(who wrote a ton of material against the Gnostics).

I see what you're getting at if you believe Jesus was only a man, then he should seem like it in the narratives. However, if you believe that he was the Son of God, then you might expect some extraordinary information about him... At least I would...

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 26, 2001).]