Religious Knowledge Thread

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Thanks. I'll see if I can get my hands on it.

I also noticed the word "Deuterocanonicals" used a good deal, in regards to Bibles. What does this mean?

I might be wrong but I think it's another name for the Apocryphal books....

[Lotesse]

I thought I'd give this thread a budge, because it's fascinating, and it is not solely regulated to discussions on modern christianity. I'd like to hear what other mooters might have to say about gnosticism and the knights templar, and the cathars. These are subjects in which I have much interest, and they're fun to discuss. I still have a long way to go to learn more about the Cathars and the Gnostic gospels and stuff like that, but perhaps some of my fellow mooters can volunteer some info.

I know! I'll start by stating something that'll get a lot of people's backs up - I am under the impression that Mary Magdalene was in fact Jesus's girlfriend, and his favourite disciple, and that the catholic church put immense enery and effort in concealing this fact from its "constituents". Anybody have any thoughts on this one?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I'll start by stating something that'll get a lot of people's backs up - I am under the impression that Mary Magdalene was in fact Jesus's girlfriend, and his favourite disciple, and that the catholic church put immense enery and effort in concealing this fact from its "constituents". Anybody have any thoughts on this one?

What makes you think that the Catholic Church did that?

[Lotesse]

Ahh, and I will say, "what makes you think that the catholic church DIDN"T do that?

[Lief Erikson]

You give an assumption of truth to a conspiracy theory?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You give an assumption of truth to a conspiracy theory?

I give no assumption of truth to conspiracy theories, Lief; I am not some potato-head. I've read into the subject, and have done a little research, and combining my findings with a logical working knowledge of how the catholic church has operated since its beginning days, I came to my own conclusion.

[Lief Erikson]

I know of no Christian scholar or historian that espouses the view that Mary Magdalene was anything more to Jesus than friend, and I see no evidence to support that view in either the Bible or the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The only pieces of evidence for it that I've seen is a few fragmentary and occasionally conflicting passages from Gnostic writings, and even these have uncertain translation.

It's clear in this case that the burden of evidence rests not on the traditional view, but on the conflicting.

[Lotesse]

Do you know of any NON-christian scholar or historian that espouses the view that Mary Magdalene was anything more to Jesus than a friend? If not, than we probably shouldn't be debating one another at this point. Religious bias can throw any discussion completely out of whack.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

a few fragmentary and occasionally conflicting passages from Gnostic writings, and even these have uncertain translation.

If those Gnostic translations have uncertain translations, what makes you so convinced that the King James version of the Bible, or any version available to the average layman, for that matter, doesn't itself contain "uncertain translations", to say the least?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Do you know of any NON-christian scholar or historian that espouses the view that Mary Magdalene was anything more to Jesus than a friend? If not, than we probably shouldn't be debating one another at this point. Religious bias can throw any discussion completely out of whack.

I mentioned that because I have seen it written on Catholic websites that there is no Christian scholarly support for this position. I don't believe that you will find much scholarly support for this view.

I think I was also way too kind as regards the Gnostic scriptures. There isn't even anything in them to indicate that Mary Magdalene was anything more to Jesus than a friend. They also were written well after the canonical scriptures.

Anyway, I think it's clear where the burden of evidence lies in this discussion.

[Lotesse]

The burden of evidence as supplied by the catholic church, one of the planet's most powerful institutions, which it goes without saying stands to lose an awful lot if such a bit of information should be generally revealed. The roman catholic church has spent hundreds and hundreds of years diligently creating a believeable and enforcable (and enforced) dogma that insures its continued existence, prosperity and power. What does the church stand to GAIN by such information being easily researched, published and believed?

I am under the impression that the two of us going back and forth like this is heading in a pointless direction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have gained the impression that you are an extremely devout and perhaps slightly fanatical christian, and while I am very familiar with this sort of devotion, having been raised with religion crammed down my throat by shameless hypocrites and those who call themselves "christians", it feels like all we're gonna end up doing is tring to "outsmart" each other with an underlying veneer of emotional irrationality.

All I wanted to do by bumping this thread was to awake the interest and input of others here who might have interesting material or comments to provide regarding stuff like mary magdalene's relationship to jesus and/or gnosticism or whatever. I sure didn't want to pave the way for innovative veiled invitations at potential insult, or initiate a contest to see who's opinon may be more "valid" based upon his or her personal religious ideas.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

The burden of evidence as supplied by the catholic church, one of the planet's most powerful institutions, which it goes without saying stands to lose an awful lot if such a bit of information should be generally revealed. The roman catholic church has spent hundreds and hundreds of years diligently creating a believeable and enforcable (and enforced) dogma that insures its continued existence, prosperity and power.

I think you'll need to enlighten me some on this history. As far as I am aware, most of the Catholic Church's doctrines come straight from the scripture, and much of their interpretations of scripture from the texts of the Early Church Fathers, documents that are available for anyone to read.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

What does the church stand to GAIN by such information being easily researched, published and believed?

It only has something to lose if it has something to hide.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I am under the impression that the two of us going back and forth like this is heading in a pointless direction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have gained the impression that you are an extremely devout and perhaps slightly fanatical christian, and while I am very familiar with this sort of devotion, having been raised with religion crammed down my throat by shameless hypocrites and those who call themselves "christians", it feels like all we're gonna end up doing is tring to "outsmart" each other with an underlying veneer of emotional irrationality.

I do not very easily get emotionally upset. Ask Insidious Rex; I believe he knows me well enough by now to tell you. I assure you that you're on safe ground.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

All I wanted to do by bumping this thread was to awake the interest and input of others here who might have interesting material or comments to provide regarding stuff like mary magdalene's relationship to jesus and/or gnosticism or whatever. I sure didn't want to pave the way for innovative veiled invitations at potential insult, or initiate a contest to see who's opinon may be more "valid" based upon his or her personal religious ideas.

I have no desire to show which opinion is more valid based upon personal religious ideas. In my opinion, such ideas aren't a very good backing to demonstrate validity. For example, when I debate with GrayMouser, Insidious Rex or jerseydevil about the Bible, who wrote it, how we know it's valid and such, I never use my own personal religious ideas as an evidence. They would roll over laughing at me, with good reason. Instead, I show the textual evidence, its age, its quantity, all the measures that modern scholarship use to ascertain the truth of what happened in the past.

In the discussion I am rather hoping will ensue between us, both of us will present evidence supporting our differing opinions and based upon what we believe most convincing, will make up our minds.

[Lief Erikson]

Posting to make my above post visible.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As far as I am aware, most of the Catholic Church's doctrines come straight from the scripture, and much of their interpretations of scripture from the texts of the Early Church Fathers, documents that are available for anyone to read..

Oh, really? Are you sure that those early texts weren't revised to suit the aims of the church? Was it only the clergy, and monks, who were permitted to even learn how to read never mind gain access to original scripture text and were they permitted to translate scripture texts word for word, inclusive of ALL scripture text that existed and most likely still exists in the vaults of the vatican?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It only has something to lose if it has something to hide.

This is exactly my point; I think they have something to hide.

On the last assertion you make about how you don't get emotional, that's cool and I respect that, but I gotta tell you, I do get emotional, sometimes violently so; this is the premier reason I wish not to keep going on about this stuff like this with you, or with anyone.I didn't seek out an argument when I opened this bloody pandora's box, I just wanted to trade ideas. Besides, I do not have a neatly arranged, prepared stack of references and quotes to do battle with you with; I DON"T WANT A FREAKIN" IS IT TRUE/IS IT UNTRUE DISCUSSION WITH ANYONE!! And I'll say it again: I just wanted to hear the input and knowledge of others who are interested in the mary magdalene thing, NOT a debate as to whether or not it can be validated by christian scholars.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

when I debate with GrayMouser, Insidious Rex or jerseydevil

Whatever, name-dropper! Just yankin' your chain!

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I am under the impression that Mary Magdalene was in fact Jesus's girlfriend, and his favourite disciple, and that the catholic church put immense enery and effort in concealing this fact from its "constituents". Anybody have any thoughts on this one?

It's my personal belief that Mary Magdalene was not Jesus's girlfriend but just a disciple. As I haven't seen much convincing evidence that she and Jesus were romantically involved, I find it easier to believe they weren't. Not that they couldn't have been but to me that seems unlikely as there are too few and too unclear proofs that this was the case. I haven't studied the gnostic texts a lot but as far as I know, they can be interpreted in many ways and in some places, the text is missing and scolars have tried to fill in the blanks the best they could.

The thing about the Catholic church having concealed and distorted facts sounds too much like fiction to me. I did enjoy reading the Da Vinci code but I tend not to believe in conspiracy theories of any kind

Btw, nice to see this thread come back to life. Especially since my Pentecostal friends gave me a new good-looking bible yesterday. Maybe they still cling to the hope that my atheistic soul isn't lost forever

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Oh, really? Are you sure that those early texts weren't revised to suit the aims of the church? Was it only the clergy, and monks, who were permitted to even learn how to read never mind gain access to original scripture text and were they permitted to translate scripture texts word for word, inclusive of ALL scripture text that existed and most likely still exists in the vaults of the vatican?

There are many translations of the documents available that have been dated to very close to the times of the authors. We have documents from 200 AD of the Gospels, and that's way before Constantine. Other documents of the Early Church Fathers are also plentifully available. Dating processes show that it's impossible these documents were alterred. I can argue further on this and other matters, but I respect what you say below.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

On the last assertion you make about how you don't get emotional, that's cool and I respect that, but I gotta tell you, I do get emotional, sometimes violently so; this is the premier reason I wish not to keep going on about this stuff like this with you, or with anyone.I didn't seek out an argument when I opened this bloody pandora's box, I just wanted to trade ideas. Besides, I do not have a neatly arranged, prepared stack of references and quotes to do battle with you with; I DON"T WANT A FREAKIN" IS IT TRUE/IS IT UNTRUE DISCUSSION WITH ANYONE!! And I'll say it again: I just wanted to hear the input and knowledge of others who are interested in the mary magdalene thing, NOT a debate as to whether or not it can be validated by christian scholars.

I'm somewhat surprised, but I respect your wish and therefore will close the debate before it begins.

I'm not particularly interested in the Mary Magdalene thing, actually. I don't find it plausible enough to be interesting . I am interested in "is it true/is it untrue", for debate or discussion are key ways I utilize in order to learn.


I won't debate the issue with you, as you ask that I not. I will lay my notes down on the table though, before I go. Just "giving input" .

The Bible

In the scripture (dated to well before the Catholic Church), Mary is referred to as "Mary of Magdala". This indicates strongly that she was unmarried, for women at that time who were unmarried were referred to by their hometown, and those that were married were identified in connection with a son or husband.

Now, the scripture is clear that Christ will be married. He will be married to the "Bride of Christ" which is the Church. Christians that are Born of God will enjoy the "Bridal Feast of the Lamb." This doctrine could not have become so strong as it is if Jesus actually had a flesh and blood wife.

We have many scripture texts of the New Testament that come from well before Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church. They could not have been alterred without such changes having been recognized by modern methods of historical inquiry.

Gnostic Writings

Now let's take a look at Gnostic scripture.

The Gnostics accepted five books of the Bible that we don't accept. They come at the very earliest a century after the cannonical scriptures. Gnostic belief has frequently fluctuated and changed over time. They never claimed to be historically accurate, and this is critical to understand. In their religious beliefs, they always considered spiritual truth higher and historical truth lower. They make no claims such as Luke did in the beginning of his Gospel, that they're trying to make an orderly or accurate account of events. According to John Glyndwr Harris' writing "Gnosticism", from the Sussex Academic Press,

Gnosticism accommodates a variety of modes of thought and insights, from the most mysterious and profound to the most magical and bizarre. It cannot be compressed into a neat or simple definition. Gnosis is 'insight' into reality that is beyond the reach of normal intellectual understanding.

Now, here are key Gnostic passages used to attempt to confirm that Jesus was married to Mary:

Passages:

1) There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.

2) And the companion of the [. . .] Mary Magdalene. [. . .] her more than [. . .] the disciples, and [. . .] kiss her [. . .] on her [. . .] . The rest of the disciples [. . .]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

3) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.

These passages were used in "The Da Vinci Code". Those parts of section 2 that are in brackets are parts that are illegible in the actual documents, and the meaning has to be guessed at.

Refutations:

1) "Companion," in the Greek, could mean colleague, business associate, or friend. There was a specific Greek word for spouse, and it was not used here.

2) It is clearly written in the Gospel of Philip that a kiss indicated spiritual significance, and was not necessarily romantic. PLUS, if Jesus was married to her, his disciples wouldn't have been surprised by his loving her more than them.

3) This, from the fragmentary "Gospel of Mary" is undated and not even clearly referring to Mary Magdalene. It's likely that gnostic efforts to make Mary Magdalene appear special were a device used to support individual enlightenment over Church authority.



Now let's take a look at another Gnostic scripture, and see from it whether or not the Gnostic Jesus might have been interested in marriage . . .

Originally Posted by Gospel of Thomas

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

How noble of him, don't you think? Sounds like a man in love to me.

Sorry for teasing you, a little. I hope you're not angry. I won't debate. I probably won't look into this thread much more, because if I did, it would only be to debate. This is my available input for now. I hope it causes you to think again.

Remember that modern scholarship and modern historians put very little credence in these guesses people like to make about Mary of Magdalene, and remember that the Gnostics themselves wrote much later than the cannonical scriptures, and without a serious goal at historical accuracy.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Btw, nice to see this thread come back to life. Especially since my Pentecostal friends gave me a new good-looking bible yesterday. Maybe they still cling to the hope that my atheistic soul isn't lost forever

I'm glad to have this thread come back too. I missed the religion debates . I might do better to raise up a different religion thread, of course, but it's not usually me that starts a religion conversation going.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I do not very easily get emotionally upset. Ask Insidious Rex; I believe he knows me well enough by now to tell you. I assure you that you're on safe ground.

Ha ha! Of course hes right. I get him frustrated and worn out but Ive never seen him flip out on anyone like us lesser mortals are wont to do on occasion...

And hes always good for a healthy debate. Hes always straight forward and never resorts to trickery to try to win a point. If he isnt familiar with something he'll say so up front. My only complaint is he likes to make posts and end them with “well don’t bother replying as theres probably no point.” Frustrating!! We have good interaction (whatever happened to that thread about me you and rian arguing about everything from AIDS to genetics to monastic life and brewing beer?) Invariably, however, on many issues I have found that we tend to get into a tail chasing contest and only wind up dizzy and in the same place we started much to the chagrin of other board members who have to put up with our monster post after monster post. But its always interesting to have a direct debate with someone of such a vastly different perspective on the universe. For the most part, people who believe as he does tend to be useless in debate or incoherent at best because they are so far out in left field. He approaches things with some level of logic and intelligence, however, so you get to have a direct glimpse into a vastly different way of thinking that you cant have with many others too inarticulate to relate to. Alas, the gulf is still usually too broad on many issues and as I said we tend to get nowhere usually. Wouldn’t you say lief? But its still fun to debate. You hone your skills and knowledge in various areas if nothing else…

Anyway... As far as Magdalene, I think its a bit dubious that she would be Jesus’ "girlfriend" per se but who knows how he truly viewed her emotionally (and what may have happened physically). Would be near impossible to tell. I think its clear from the Gnostic gospels that he held her in high esteem and he may have even seen her as the number one disciple on some levels which Peter may have had some issues with. But that after Jesus’ death the male disciples essentially closed her out as far as that kind of influence in the new Judeo-Christian cult that became christianity. But again stuff like this is so mired in the mists of ancient history that its probably impossible to ever know for sure without a time machine.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We have good interaction (whatever happened to that thread about me you and rian arguing about everything from AIDS to genetics to monastic life and brewing beer?)

That was fun .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Invariably, however, on many issues I have found that we tend to get into a tail chasing contest and only wind up dizzy and in the same place we started much to the chagrin of other board members who have to put up with our monster post after monster post.

My most vivid memory of this is the discussion of evil, genetics vs. the soul . Soul choice vs. biological predestination. That was a BIG rabbit hole.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Alas, the gulf is still usually too broad on many issues and as I said we tend to get nowhere usually. Wouldn’t you say lief?

Yes, neither of us convince one another. So in that sense, we don't get anywhere. But it appears that each of us increases a good deal in our own personal knowledge and understanding. It forces me to think in new ways, or more deeply about things I otherwise wouldn't have thought about. It strengthens my faith . I wouldn't be nearly so strong a Christian as I am now if not for you . So thanks!!!

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But its still fun to debate.

Yes . I miss some of those old religion threads. Granted though, I sure have a lot more time on my hands without them.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Anyway... As far as Magdalene, I think its a bit dubious that she would be Jesus’ "girlfriend" per se but who knows how he truly viewed her emotionally (and what may have happened physically).

Well, Jesus spoke out against sexual immorality in the New Testament scriptures. The Early Church Fathers stated in their writings that sexual immorality includes premarital sex. They were taking their beliefs from Jesus. You can think, if you want to, that Jesus was a hypocrite and a liar, like some of our modern Christian ministers. However, the only existing evidence is against his having had sexual relations with Mary of Magdalene.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think its clear from the Gnostic gospels that he held her in high esteem

I think that's supported in the canonical Gospels as well. She was the first person he appeared to, upon his resurrection from the dead.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and he may have even seen her as the number one disciple on some levels which Peter may have had some issues with. But that after Jesus’ death the male disciples essentially closed her out as far as that kind of influence in the new Judeo-Christian cult that became christianity. But again stuff like this is so mired in the mists of ancient history that its probably impossible to ever know for sure without a time machine.

The Gnostic gospels never made an effort to be historically reliable. "Spiritual truth over intellectual truth". They also were written well after the accepted Christian gospels. Scholars don't put any faith in them. They are just thoroughly not so reliable.

Another point is that the reliable scriptures, the Gospels and Epistles, mention nothing at all of any romance between Mary and Jesus. This is a significant omission in texts that are broadly accepted by scholars and historians as reliable.