Author Topic: NYT: The Gospel of Jesus Wife? (Read 3529 times)

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #15 on:** September 20, 2012, 10:25:30 AM »

Quote from: Sigismund

There are heretical "gospels" that say all sorts of things. Like most, this one is four hundred years removed from Our Lord's earthly life. Why would even a non-believer take this seriously?

I don't know if it is so much non-believers that care about this stuff. It is those who identify as Catholic that made The Da Vinci code such a hit. Prots and non-believers aren't as fascinated with church history and any potential mysteries as those who have grown up steeped in so called "cultural Catholicism."

Your average, modern, liberal Catholic would just love to have something they could use to say "See...the church was wrong about this (Jesus' marital status) so it could also be wrong about gαy marriage, birth control etc. Jesus loved everyone, we should accept everyone, tolerate everything..."

Read this is this morning, from a "Catholic"

Who would have thought initially that Dan Brown's novels would have provoked the responses they provoked from institutions like Opus Dei, assorted bishops and cardinals, and the subdean of Westminster Abbey! WHAT IF Jesus had married, had married Mary Magdalene, made babies enough for a championship football team, and retired to a small cave in southern France -- after the ascension of course!
Religion has long been a fertile ground for a transcendent brand of doctrine styled "my way or the highway" theology. That's how we silence people who disagree with us, or just plain get rid of them, as in bonfires and gas chambers. 'Tis a bit early for anyone to prognosticate how this discovery will "change" Christianity, if it does at all. Whatever may come of it, perhaps it will become a personal invitation to all to leave their good Christian lives and follow Jesus, who may (or may not) be a husband and daddy.

As far as the "finding" itself? I was a young teen when I saw The Da Vinci Code. Unfortunately, I did seek out the gnostic "gospels" and wanted to see if Jesus really did kiss Mary Magdalene. It is crazy how media can mess with people.

When my bff got married, she had major problems with her priest (this is the priest that later ended up helping me back to the Faith) and after the ceremony was over she decided to basically taunt him and tell him that it was her belief that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene so much, that he gave the church to her, not St. Peter. Peter, she believed was just as much a "misogynist" as Paul (this was her words) and he couldn't stand it that Jesus was a feminist, so he "stole" it back.

You might be shocked at how many people believe things like that.

http://www.gnostic.info/rose_Mary%20Magdalene.html

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #16 on:** September 20, 2012, 12:15:48 PM »

Quote from: PenitentWoman

When my bff got married, she had major problems with her priest (this is the priest that later ended up helping me back to the Faith) and after the ceremony was over she decided to basically taunt him and tell him that it was her belief that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene so much, that he gave the church to her, not St. Peter. Peter, she believed was just as much a "misogynist" as Paul (this was her words) and he couldn't stand it that Jesus was a feminist, so he "stole" it back. You might be shocked at how many people believe things like that.

Did you see her behave in this manner or did she tell you later on herself? People sometimes like to exaggerate.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #17 on:** September 20, 2012, 12:32:42 PM »

A disciple of our enemy says they have something slightly smaller than a business card that was provided by an unnamed collector who insists on maintianing his privacy to "experts" who can never have what they are saying questioned and all this small piece of paper contains is that Jesus was married and that Mary Magdalene was to be a disciple so, logically, the Holy Church is wrong about celibacy in the priesthood and wrong about women priests. They even have a Jєωιѕн specialist from an Israeli university who gives this piece of evidence the thumb's up.

That's all they're saying. :rolleyes:

Hey, at least they have more than just a pig's tooth this time (From only a pig's tooth, the concept of Piltdown Man was conceived in the 1920's.)

The enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ are up late at night coming up with all kinds of gimmicks. It's our job to not follow along with such foolery!

Elizabeth · « **Reply #18 on:** September 20, 2012, 12:48:56 PM »

The precursor to Ms. King is Elaine Pagels. She is from an elite academic background, her dad was a noted biologist, she graduated from Stanford and Harvard, published The Gnostic Gospels in 1979 and she has been a Macarthur Fellow for decades at Princeton. She's the head of Religion there. I read her Gospels maybe 30 years ago. My Catholic girlfriend gave me her copy.

So, these Luciferian works have been taught to the elite children for decades. This is how social engineering occurs. "First the classes, then the masses". The prestige of the movers and shakers in elite universities, their influence should not be underestimated.

So, Captain, I think it is unlikely that PW's friend was exaggerating. This is a common belief among educated Catholic ladies; their college-educated moms had already been seduced by the Luciferian gnostic material years ago.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #19 on:** September 20, 2012, 01:58:25 PM »

Elizabeth,

Regarding PW's friend, I was just suspicious that someone would be that rude on her wedding day.

I know what you mean and I'm minimally familiar with Elaine Pagels. There are many others just like her. Back in the 1990's there was the "Jesus Seminar" and this group specialized in deciding which statements of Jesus were actually said by him and which weren't and they decided this by a vote.

There was a socialist activist named "Rev" Barry Lynn of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State but he's not called on by the press so much anymore because just about everyone has figured out the game he's playing.

There's Bishop Shelby Spong who has written of slew of pretentious books about why Christianity must change of die.

There's dozens and dozens of docuмentary producers who are always producing films which purport to debunk Christianity.

These guys and gals are all out there.

Some spread lies to deceive the flock others debunk Catholicism because Catholicism stands in the way of their evil temporal plans. Either way, they spread lies and work againt Our Lord.

We know the liars have an ulteriour motive, but the question we should be concerned with is why do some souls believe lies about Our Lord Jesus Christ and Our Lady?

Why do some souls not ask basic questions about the evidence in favor of the fraud? It's not hard to discern that a story based on such scant evidence should attract a lot of skepticism.

It's not the absence of curiosity but instead is a willingness and eagerness to be free from moral judgement. I'm sure there are some other reasons but they would be unsavory.

People who believe lies about Our Lord and Our Lady do it because they WANT to believe those lies. Perhaps people who so willingly believe lies about Our Lord and Our Lady aren't part of the fold to begin with. It's possible. It could even mean that they may actually possess rancid souls and that they are in jeopardy of being condemned eternally. Even when I was in the novus ordo and hadn't been clued in to their abominations and fakery, I was already figuring it out for myself.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #20 on:** September 20, 2012, 03:42:59 PM »

I think Pagels was especially seductive, and infused with a superior demonic intelligence. But, it is heartening to hear that you have a strong defense against such snares, Captain! :cheers:

Theillhard de Chardin passed off a fake discovery, and only God knows the spiritual wreckage he is responsible for.

Loriann · « **Reply #21 on:** September 20, 2012, 03:54:57 PM »

Not all of the Gnostic gospels are evil. There are certainly some that are garbage, and writtien with an agenda far after the fact, but some Gnostic Gospels were used by the churches in Jerusalem Antioch and Egypt--after all, there was no Magisterium or authority that began to define all of the collections until around 170. It was a growing church and some churches were lucky enough to have letters from Elders like Peter Paul and James. But there came the time when the church had to start making things consistent. Some things were omitted just because they didn't serve a huge purpose, and they wanted to keep the scriptures a reasonable size. Others were banned as heresy or inaccurate.

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #22 on:** September 20, 2012, 04:16:25 PM »

Quote

Did you see her behave in this manner or did she tell you later on herself? People sometimes like to exaggerate.

Quote

I was just suspicious that someone would be that rude on her wedding day.

Half of the wedding party was present for this conservation, so yes, I heard it, and sadly was not surprised. Granted, she was sort of grinning as she said all this, but she wanted to get a rise out of him and because of other conversations we have had, I know for certain that she fully believes Mary Magdalene's role in the early church was greatly suppressed.

The reason she said it when she did is because her wedding almost didn't happen. BFF is involved in a lot of things with her church, and her and this priest just did not mesh well. Just weeks before the ceremony the priest found out her and her fiancee were living together and he said he wasn't comfortable marrying them. Of course, her response to that was that if he has such an interest in stopping pre-martial relations then he should WANT to marry them asap, and not refuse to marry them and leave them living in sin. He stood is ground and wanted her to move her stuff out. She did it, but was not happy about it and her parents made a big fuss...her Dad made some comment about how they no longer publish banns (spelling??) so it was none of his business, it isn't his job to be an investigator etc. They had further issues with the music and the readings at her wedding, and it was just tense. Yet because her fiance's family had been going to this parish for a long time, and she was on a few committees, they did not want to go elsewhere. Well, the mass homily "coincidentally" touched on some sensitive topics regarding married life. (High five to him...lol)

and the lovely bride wasn't happy at all. So that is why she decided to share her conspiracy theory right after they were married. She thinks he is a male chauvinist, so she wanted to push some buttons as payback for the homily.

I could go on, because just a few months ago she did something else really rude against him, but I won't derail the thread. I'm ashamed of her blasphemy, and she has pretty much disowned me. I just see the bright side...I met him through her wedding, and despite being N.O. he taught me a lot and really helped me. Of course, to bff it was brainwashing me with "Paulist doctrine" but whatever. :wink:

Back to the original topic: I know someone who went to Loyala in Chicago and she claims she had a Jesuit priest professor who said it was quite possible that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. So yes, "Catholics" absolutely do believe and promote these ideas. (destruction from within...)

Even Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" implies that Jesus was in love with Mary Magdalene. It's a strangely popular topic, despite no real evidence.

Cuthbert · « **Reply #23 on:** September 20, 2012, 04:26:17 PM »

{Penitent Woman }----------

"Well, the mass homily "coincidentally" touched on some sensitive topics regarding married life. (High five to him...lol)

and the lovely bride wasn't happy at all. So that is why she decided to share her conspiracy theory right after they were married. She thinks he is a male chauvinist, so she wanted to push some buttons as payback for the homily.

I could go on, because just a few months ago she did something else really rude against him, but I won't derail the thread. I'm ashamed of her blasphemy, and she has pretty much disowned me. I just see the bright side...I met him through her wedding, and despite being N.O. he taught me a lot and really helped me. Of course, to bff it was brainwashing me with "Paulist doctrine" but whatever."

I feel sorry for the poor fellow that married this woman. Most likely he's in for a few years of ever worsening misery, until she finally gives him the stab in the kidney of a surprise divorce because she's no longer haaaaaapy (extra a's used to indicate petty whinging tone of voice).

JohnGrey · « **Reply #24 on:** September 20, 2012, 04:27:51 PM »

Quote from: PenitentWoman

Even Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" implies that Jesus was in love with Mary Magdalene. It's a strangely popular topic, despite no real evidence.

It's popular because the implicit goal of casting such aspersions on our Lord is to downplay His divinity, the very fact of His place in the Godhead. If he was married then He wasn't really God, He was just a nice Jєωιѕн boy that got killed for having good ideas about loving one another.

This same discussion came up when I was reviewing the Criterion release of Scorsese's film (doing so was against my better judgement, but I'm OCD about finishing collections). The most common remark that I found from those that supported the film, or the heretical notion of His matrimony to a woman rather than the Church, was that it made him more approachable, more "human." What it really meant was that it made him as flawed and unworthy as any other fallen human being, and the spiritual agony felt by their souls was soothed by that Christoatheism.

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #25 on:** September 20, 2012, 04:51:14 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: PenitentWoman
Even Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" implies that Jesus was in love with Mary Magdalene. It's a strangely popular topic, despite no real evidence.

It's popular because the implicit goal of casting such aspersions on our Lord is to downplay His divinity, the very fact of His place in the Godhead. If he was married then He wasn't really God, He was just a nice Jєωιѕн boy that got killed for having good ideas about loving one another.

This same discussion came up when I was reviewing the Criterion release of Scorsese's film (doing so was against my better judgement, but I'm OCD about finishing collections). The most common remark that I found from those that supported the film, or the heretical notion of His matrimony to a woman rather than the Church, was that it made him more approachable, more "human." What it really meant was that it made him as flawed and unworthy as any other fallen human being, and the spiritual agony felt by their souls was soothed by that Christoatheism.

You give a good explanation. I've always wondered why people move from just being curious about it (like I was as a young teen) to outright wanting it to be true.

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #26 on:** September 20, 2012, 06:27:04 PM »

Quote from: Cuthbert

I feel sorry for the fellow that married this woman. Most likely he's in for a few years of ever worsening misery, until she finally gives him the stab in the kidney of a surprise divorce because she's no longer haaaaaapy (extra a's used to indicate petty whinging tone of voice).

LOL, you should have heard my toast at her reception.

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #27 on:** September 20, 2012, 06:36:30 PM »

Quote from: Loriann

Not all of the Gnostic gospels are evil. There are certainly some that are garbage, and writtien with an agenda far after the fact, but some Gnostic Gospels were used by the churches in Jerusalem Antioch and Egypt--after all, there was no Magisterium or authority that began to define all of the collections until around 170. It was a growing church and some churches were lucky enough to have letters from Elders like Peter Paul and James. But there came the time when the church had to start making things consistent. Some things were omitted just because they didn't serve a huge purpose, and they wanted to keep the scriptures a reasonable size. Others were banned as heresy or inaccurate.

Can you give any specific examples of non-evil gnostic gospels? I had always thought they were all bad.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #28 on:** September 20, 2012, 06:44:34 PM »

Loriann said:

Quote

Not all of the Gnostic gospels are evil.

Gnosticism in itself is evil, so therefore any gospel that is called "gnostic" would be evil... Accordingly, your statement is objectively evil.

Quote

There are certainly some that are garbage, and writtien with an agenda far after the fact, but some Gnostic Gospels were used by the churches in Jerusalem Antioch and Egypt--after all, there was no Magisterium or authority that began to define all of the collections until around 170.

Please show me any evidence whatsoever of Gnostic gospels being used in Jerusalem, Antioch and Egypt by Catholics, because I aver this is a complete falsehood. If you're talking about Gnostic churches, sure, they were most likely used there.

Even if they were used by local bishops or priests because the Bible had not yet been compiled by St. Jerome -- which I strongly doubt -- it has long been determined by Catholics what they really are, and they are all in total disrepute.
Just read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Gnosticism where it discusses the various Gnostic gospels that sprung up during the early years of the Church. The reason why so many sprung up, was the devil was trying to bury the truth with lies, and they are all bad.

Quote

It was a growing church and some churches were lucky enough to have letters from Elders like Peter Paul and James. But there came the time when the church had to start making things consistent. Some things were omitted just because they didn't serve a huge purpose, and they wanted to keep the scriptures a reasonable size. Others were banned as heresy or inaccurate.

The whole implication of what you're saying, that certain gnostic gospels were not so bad, but were just omitted for the sake of brevity, is probably heretical in itself. You are very subtly tying in the Gnostic gospels with less scandalous apocrypha. I will just assume you are doing this innocently. At any rate, gnosticism is a heresy, so the reason why they were not included in the canon is not for space reasons...

Loriann · « **Reply #29 on:** September 20, 2012, 08:52:49 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Loriann said:
Quote
Not all of the Gnostic gospels are evil.

Gnosticism in itself is evil, so therefore any gospel that is called "gnostic" would be evil... Accordingly, your statement is objectively evil.

Quote
There are certainly some that are garbage, and writtien with an agenda far after the fact, but some Gnostic Gospels were used by the churches in Jerusalem Antioch and Egypt--after all, there was no Magisterium or authority that began to define all of the collections until around 170.

Please show me any evidence whatsoever of Gnostic gospels being used in Jerusalem, Antioch and Egypt by Catholics, because I aver this is a complete falsehood. If you're talking about Gnostic churches, sure, they were most likely used there.

Even if they were used by local bishops or priests because the Bible had not yet been compiled by St. Jerome -- which I strongly doubt -- it has long been determined by Catholics what they really are, and they are all in total disrepute.
Just read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Gnosticism where it discusses the various Gnostic gospels that sprung up during the early years of the Church. The reason why so many sprung up, was the devil was trying to bury the truth with lies, and they are all bad.

Quote
It was a growing church and some churches were lucky enough to have letters from Elders like Peter Paul and James. But there came the time when the church had to start making things consistent. Some things were omitted just because they didn't serve a huge purpose, and they wanted to keep the scriptures a reasonable size. Others were banned as heresy or inaccurate.

The whole implication of what you're saying, that certain gnostic gospels were not so bad, but were just omitted for the sake of brevity, is probably heretical in itself. You are very subtly tying in the Gnostic gospels with less scandalous apocrypha. I will just assume you are doing this innocently. At any rate, gnosticism is a heresy, so the reason why they were not included in the canon is not for space reasons...

Gnosis is knowledge and then a movement. Like the Wisdom books are Wisdom. St Paul mentions both types in 1 Timothy. The Gnostic Gospel of the Hebrews was used in ancient churches. In fact, when St JErome was working on the compilation, the Nazoreans came to him with it so did the Ebionites. But Jerome declared that it was an earlier draft of Matthew. Yes the gnostic movement is a heresy.