Did Jesus bang Mary M.?

[The Yosemite Bear]

ok, one of my more favorite heretical bits. So how much of the board thinks that he did have relations with that woman*

*provided acceptance of individual as a person, not as a made up figure.

[Dakarne]

Most definitely...

[drachefly]

Well, he definitely had relations with *someone*. (providing there was a Jesus, that is)
A) Being 30 and not married was so abnormal it would have been mentioned somewhere.
B) That wedding with the water to wine. Read that story. Remember that he was not yet a big miracle-worker. Why the heck are people coming to him to fix things up if he's not, oh, THE GROOM?
C) There are other gospels that got cut in the fierce internal struggles that went on while Christianity was persecuted under the Romans. In one, some of the disciples complain that Jesus only kisses Mary Magdalene on the lips, and not them (note, at them, such an act was very familiar but would have been appropriate for two men)
D) The harlot at the well is not Mary Magdalene, and the allegation that she was was started to discredit her as a source of information (she provided a gospel which was just sayings and advice and wisdom, no story. It was gnostic, which was precisely what got stamped out)

Note that point C is straight from the Nag Hammadi finds, which are basically indisputable in their validity as ancient texts (if not their accuracy), and not based on the way-out-there speculative stuff you get in, say, Holy Blood, Holy Grail or The Da Vinci Code (and even if they're right, all that means is that there's some family which thinks it's descended from JHC).

[Pick]

Again, if he did exist (as you stipulated) he was definitely screwing someone, and chances are good it was Mary M in my book.

[Vendetta]

Rabbis (and if there were a real figure behind the Jesus myth, that's likely what he was) do have families.

It's only maladjusted types that require celibacy from their preisthood.

[The Yosemite Bear]

nbot to mention his mother Mary was way too familiar with her for a friend of her son. For crying out loud Mary M. treated Mary wife of Joseph of Nazereth in a level of a daugther in law to a mother in law.

[Tokaji Kyoden]

I would definitely say yes. If all of you haven't read the DaVinci Code, I highly recommend it, it discusses a lot of these prospects. It's a really good book.

[Archaic`]

I would definitely say yes. If all of you haven't read the DaVinci Code, I highly recommend it, it discusses a lot of these prospects. It's a really good book.

*Attempts to hold back his laughter*
The author might state, and even might believe, that the book is based on fact, but there's so many inaccuracies and mistruths in it that I don't see how it could be considered a good book.

[Vendetta]

*Attempts to hold back his laughter*
The author might state, and even might believe, that the book is based on fact, but there's so many inaccuracies and mistruths in it that I don't see how it could be considered a good book.

The problems with DVC spring not from the fact that Brown makes most of it up (it is, after all, fiction), but from his utterly incompetent mishandling of the English language. Barely a page goes by without some objectionable choice of word, incompetent scene composition (like a character's eye colour being described when he's in silhouette, do they light up from the inside?). And every single chapter, even if it's only a page long, ends in a cliffhanger.

Dan Brown is to published fiction what the writers of Sunset Beach are to TV drama.

Frankly, the image of the bloodline of Christ in Preacher was more compelling and believable.

[Lord Zentei]

Did he exist, is more to the point.

If he existed, was he straight?

If both of the above questions are answered "yes", I'd say yes. I understand that celibacy only became an issue much later.

There is of course the matter of the sex being extramarital, though the gospels don't rule out marriage, per se.


Another question: how could Mary have remained a virgin if she was married to Joseph?



There is also the question about how she could keep her hymen after giving birth... a miracle I guess (yes, I know about those passages in the Bible that suggest that JC had siblings).

[Solauren]

I always understood Mary was a virgin until after she had Jesus.

After that, she was 'open for business' with Jospeh

[Pablo Sanchez]

I always understood Mary was a virgin until after she had Jesus.

IIRC, Catholic doctrine is that sexual intercourse is technically a sin even if it is strictly for procreative purposes (that is, it's a necessary evil), and Saint Mary lived a blameless and holy life. Therefore she never ever had sex. This is also why Jesus is considered to have been celibate, since he never at any point committed any sins. Both of these ideas are stupid and merely symptomatic of Catholicism scizophrenic attitude towards physical pleasure.

It's a near certainty that Jesus nailed Mary Magdalene. There are hints of a deeper relationship between the two throughout the bible (she is described as the most beloved of Jesus, Jesus chooses to appear to her first after his resurrection, etc.), but we'll never know for sure because of (oh, cliche!) the apparent patriarchal conspiracy to cut the poor lady out of the mythos, probably beginning with Saint Peter himself. I've always noted how Mary Magdalene outright disappears from the bible immediately after the resurrected Jesus appears to her. I think the male disciples were probably pissed off that Jesus told to give the best news ever to a woman instead of them.

[EmperorSolo51]

I always understood Mary was a virgin until after she had Jesus.

IIRC, Catholic doctrine is that sexual intercourse is technically a sin even if it is strictly for procreative purposes (that is, it's a necessary evil), and Saint Mary lived a blameless and holy life. Therefore she never ever had sex. This is also why Jesus is considered to have been celibate, since he never at any point committed any sins. Both of these ideas are stupid and merely symptomatic of Catholicism scizophrenic attitude towards physical pleasure.

It's a near certainty that Jesus nailed Mary Magdalene. There are hints of a deeper relationship between the two throughout the bible (she is described as the most beloved of Jesus, Jesus chooses to appear to her first after his resurrection, etc.), but we'll never know for sure because of (oh, cliche!) the apparent patriarchal conspiracy to cut the poor lady out of the mythos, probably beginning with Saint Peter himself. I've always noted how Mary Magdalene outright disappears from the bible immediately after the resurrected Jesus appears to her. I think the male disciples were probably pissed off that Jesus told to give the best news ever to a woman instead of them.

Ah Yes, More of the great "Catholic conspiracy!!"" nonsense as spouted by one Dan Brown. Putting shitty writers who can't write for crap aside, There is no textual evidence in The bible or Canon or anywhere else that says that they had anything more that close relationship as a student would have to a teacher or a brother to a sister. Zero-zilch.

Before you go yelling at me regarding the Supposed Gnostic "gospels". Let me remind you what Gnosticism is. Gnostcism is a relion that has it's roots in mid-eastern mystery cults and several forms of Judaism. Gnostics believe that the world was created by an evil god and everything created henceforth from that time is Evil. This includes material and intrinsic possessions, the rocks, trees, animals, so forth. Gnostics also believe that there is a second God that is good. The only way to reach him is not through prayer but through philosphical enlightenment by rejecting all worldly things including sex its self. That's very much an anathema to what has been written in Biblical Judaism and Christianity. Infact most Gnostic writings don't even show up until the 3rd or 4th Century's AD, and thus can not be taken down as anything serious.

[HemlockGrey]

There is of course the matter of the sex being extramarital, though the gospels don't rule out marriage, per se.

I don't recall any Gospel verses prohibiting extramarital sex, that appears to mostly be a Judaic thing and a later invention of Paul.

[Molyneux]

There is of course the matter of the sex being extramarital, though the gospels don't rule out marriage, per se.

I don't recall any Gospel verses prohibiting extramarital sex, that appears to mostly be a Judaic thing and a later invention of Paul.

Judaism prohibits adultery...that isn't the same thing as extramarital sex.

Sex outside of marriage is frowned upon, but not outright outlawed...before the advent of birth control, sex was much more strongly linked to marriage, though. It's supposed to prevent kids from being born out of wedlock.

[tharkûn]

A) Being 30 and not married was so abnormal it would have been mentioned somewhere.

That would have been a sign of poverty. This was not a society where you married for love, you got a wife by being able to support her and sometimes buying off her father. If Jesus was sufficiently poor it would not have been atypical.

B) That wedding with the water to wine. Read that story. Remember that he was not yet a big miracle-worker. Why the heck are people coming to him to fix things up if he's not, oh, THE GROOM?

It's not "people" it's his mother, who happens to have had the whole visited by angles thing (not to mention the distrurbing incidient when he was a child at the temple).

C) There are other gospels that got cut in the fierce internal struggles that went on while Christianity was persecuted under the Romans. In one, some of the disciples complain that Jesus only kisses Mary Magdalene on the lips, and not them (note, at them, such an act was very familiar but would have been appropriate for two men)

I am unfamiliar with any seriously contended book. The Gospel of Philip, which is what I think you are describing, wasn't event included in the early canon debate, let alone the ones that occurred during serious Roman persecution.

D) The harlot at the well is not Mary Magdalene, and the allegation that she was was started to discredit her as a source of information (she provided a gospel which was just sayings and advice and wisdom, no story. It was gnostic, which was precisely what got stamped out)

When did the pope invent time travel? That 'allegation' came about Pope Gregory the Great during the sixth century, the gnostic gospels being officially not part of the cannon since the fourth and not listed in the major canons since they were first compiled in the third.

I'm doubtful that Jesus and Mary M. ever married, for the simple fact that she has been consistently been known by a name other than "Jesus's wife" in the earliest surviving literature. This is a time when the identity of a wife was subsumed in that of her husband. As far as sex outside of marriage, it seems a bit far fetched that in the numerous Jewish critiques of Jesus this was never mentioned. It is not just Jesus's followers who fail to mention anything here - it is also his Jewish and pagan detractors (or at least all those with surviving records).

[Jesus Christ]

Every night, my son, every night.

[The Yosemite Bear]

A) Being 30 and not married was so abnormal it would have been mentioned somewhere.

That would have been a sign of poverty. This was not a society where you married for love, you got a wife by being able to support her and sometimes buying off her father. If Jesus was sufficiently poor it would not have been atypical.

he joined the roman army as a carpenter auxilery at age 14, and wasn't heard again for another ten years. Theoretically he should have had quite a bit of money, given that he had a monthly wage when other carpenters didn't

[TimothyC]

he joined the roman army as a carpenter auxilery at age 14, and wasn't heard again for another ten years. Theoretically he should have had quite a bit of money, given that he had a monthly wage when other carpenters didn't

I've never heard that. Would you have a source to back it up?

[EmperorSolo51]

Well, he definitely had relations with *someone*. (providing there was a Jesus, that is)

C) There are other gospels that got cut in the fierce internal struggles that went on while Christianity was persecuted under the Romans. In one, some of the disciples complain that Jesus only kisses Mary Magdalene on the lips, and not them (note, at them, such an act was very familiar but would have been appropriate for two men)

Ah Yes the supposed Gospel of Philip. I was wondering when somebody would bring this one up. If you actually read the history behind it you will have noticed a couple of things that should debunk this one quite nicely. First, If you have read the history of the this particular gospel, You will notice that on the actual scroll, much of the writing has been destroyed that includes that particular scene where the narrator talks about how Jsesus kisses Mary. In fact, that addition was inserted by modern scholars after it was dug up and repaired.

Second, is the fact this document is unlike most Jewish and Christian documents floating around the same time. This "Gospel" itself is very Gnostic in nature and in body. We can see reading it it makes mention of the fact that there are 2 Gods, One that is an evil Creator and another that is the true "good" god. Much of the Gospel has Jesus saying that it's not through Faith, Prayer ,or works that will lead you to be saved. On the contrary it believes that through meditation and Mysticism, will only lead you to gain enlightenment. This goes against the Old Testament and the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

[Stofsk]

I would definitely say yes. If all of you haven't read the DaVinci Code, I highly recommend it, it discusses a lot of these prospects. It's a really good book.

*Attempts to hold back his laughter*
The author might state, and even might believe, that the book is based on fact, but there's so many inaccuracies and mistruths in it that I don't see how it could be considered a good book.

Absolutely, I mean the Gospel according to Mel not only states that Jesus was banging Mary M, because she was hot, but that he was into all sorts of kinky shit too.

[EmperorSolo51]

Did he exist, is more to the point.

If he existed, was he straight?

If both of the above questions are answered "yes", I'd say yes. I understand that celibacy only became an issue much later.

There is of course the matter of the sex being extramarital, though the gospels don't rule out marriage, per se.


Another question: how could Mary have remained a virgin if she was married to Joseph?



There is also the question about how she could keep her hymen after giving birth... a miracle I guess (yes, I know about those passages in the Bible that suggest that JC had siblings).

There is also a theory that the siblings referred to in the Bible maybe Joseph's from a previous marriage/

[drachefly]

I'm doubtful that Jesus and Mary M. ever married, for the simple fact that she has been consistently been known by a name other than "Jesus's wife" in the earliest surviving literature. This is a time when the identity of a wife was subsumed in that of her husband.

No having a bible on me, do check whether Lazarus' wife had this poor treatment. Oh, and what was Joseph's wife's name?

[Jawawithagun]

I always understood Mary was a virgin until after she had Jesus.

After that, she was 'open for business' with Jospeh

AFAIK the "Virgin Mary" bit stems from a mistranslation and the original reads "young woman", meaning a great age difference between her and her hubby.

[drachefly]

Tharkun, thank you for providing me with valuable additional information in referece to the Gospel of Philip. Sorry for neglecting to do this in my previous post.