Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Like I stated before in a post in the Mary Born Without Original Sin Thread, why was the role of Mary Magdeline diminished throughout Christian Tradition?


Why are the 12 Disciples given more credit for active roles in Jesus' life, when Mary Magdeline actually had a far larger role.

Mary Magdeline never doubted, or denied Christ. EVER. All the Disciples denied him, or doubted him, at one point or another, one even betrayed him.


yet, Mary never doubted him, not even for a second. When the Disciples (well most of them) were absent during Christ's crucifixion, she was there, watching, walking with him, crying, suffering.


She was the first to ask where his body had been, and witness his resurrection.

The Apostles even doubted her when she brought them the news.




The way I see it, looking at the Christian mythos from every possible angle, Mary Magdeline was truly Jesus' most loyal Disciple, and it seems she is hidden in the shadows of the Bible, her role and position in Christ's life diminished and swept under the rug.



Even Leonardo DiVinci recognized the power of the feminine, and the fear that Christian men in power had over the influence that the power of the feminine would have on thier followers.


Did Christian men feel threatened ? Did they mean to disregard the role of women because they feared the power women could have (or did have) ?

You raise a pretty good point. I saw this documentary that was basically disproving the da vinci code, but they found that mary magdaline may have been Jesus' main deciple. But they cound discover if it was anycloser than that becuase most of the text (cant remember the name) was destroyed.

Mary Magdalene was a very loyal disciple, but she wasn't chosen by Jesus for leadership in the church at before his death. Why? It seems that it might have been a bit about spiritual immaturity, or perhaps it was simply that she was given a different spiritual gift than the disciples. I consider the disciple John the Beloved to be the most loyal disciple as he was also at the cross, was very close to Jesus, was present at the transfiguration, etc.

I think it is unfair to say that she was swept under a rug. She is venerated as a saint in both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches, second only to Mary, Jesus's mother amongst women. And considering the Mary is considered the greatest saint, that is very high esteem. Tradition says that she converted the entire province of Provence in France. She wasn't swept under the rug, she simply wasn't one of the twelve that Jesus chose to teach. She wasn't the closest to Jesus, nor does it seem that she was particularly knowledgeable of scripture, etc.

She was his wife, no?

Their remains were found together.

Originally posted by Boris
She was his wife, no?

Their remains were found together. I find it funny that you cling so dearly to that thought. Real research indicates that you are either ignorant or lack the intelligence to interpret data.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I find it funny that you cling so dearly to that thought. Real research indicates that you are either ignorant or lack the intelligence to interpret data.

What I find funny is how so many christians think so many non-christians think so much of it at all.

Much like the religion forum, it's not changing anyone's opinion.

I don't think that most non-Christians think highly of it. However, Boris seems to because he states it like a trumping fact and has tried to use it more than once.

And you'd be surprised what the religion forum has done.

Originally posted by Nellinator
And you'd be surprised what the religion forum has done.

Suprise me.

Nah, you won't appreciate it.

Of course Mary Magdelene was loyal. Ho's betta be loyal after how much Jesus paid for it.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Nah, you won't appreciate it.

Either you have no answer for me or you think I won't understand because, like most christians, you think you've gotten something the rest of us can't grasp.

The church doesn't like anything feminine, so they ousted Mary and also changed all female pagan deities into witches or images of evil.

Originally posted by debbiejo
The church doesn't like anything feminine, so they ousted Mary and also changed all female pagan deities into witches or images of evil.

Bingo.

Originally posted by debbiejo
The church doesn't like anything feminine, so they ousted Mary and also changed all female pagan deities into witches or images of evil. Yes, the Catholic church changed Mary and Mary Magdalene into images of evil instead of venerating very high amongst canonized saints... Believe what you want to believe I guess, but that argument is sad.

Originally posted by Devil King
Either you have no answer for me or you think I won't understand because, like most christians, you think you've gotten something the rest of us can't grasp. Actually, I know you will understand it because it is nothing that can't be understood. It's nothing spiritual, but people's opinions have changed and people have converted both ways.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually, I know you will understand it because it is nothing that can't be understood. It's nothing spiritual, but people's opinions have changed and people have converted both ways.

Who? On either side of the divide?

Originally posted by debbiejo
The church doesn't like anything feminine, so they ousted Mary and also changed all female pagan deities into witches or images of evil.

Well put. Satanism could've well come from a woman's hatred of Christianity. Satanism views women as idols, not rubbish.

Oh whoops, did I just type that?

Originally posted by Devil King
Who? On either side of the divide? Ones that you know would be debbiejo going from devout Catholic to an agnostic something rather. There are wonderful things called PMs. People that never openly talk on the forum ask questions all the time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Ones that you know would be debbiejo going from devout Catholic to an agnostic something rather. There are wonderful things called PMs. People that never openly talk on the forum ask questions all the time.

You think it had something to do with the Religion Forum? I've known Debbiejo a hell of a lot longer than you have, her spiritual beliefs far predate the existence of the religion forum.

Next?

I disagree.

Why do you care so much? I'm not revealing the names of people that obviously wished to remain private.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I disagree.

Then you'd be wrong.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Why do you care so much? I'm not revealing the names of people that obviously wished to remain private.

You're not revealing the names of people who don't exist?

Originally posted by Devil King
Then you'd be wrong.



You're not revealing the names of people who don't exist? Nope. You are an idiot if you think that you can definitively know that as a fact.

Believe what you want. Your bitterness and skepticism is boring.

This thread fails, and, for once, it's not because of Urizen. Or JIA.

Originally posted by FeceMan
This thread fails, and, for once, it's not because of Urizen. Or JIA.

There is no such animal as a failed thread.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is no such animal as a failed thread.
It evolved out of the mess that is the KMC religion forums. (It certainly wasn't created or intelligently designed.)

The argument between Devil King and Nellinator is becoming as unprofessional and personal as the disputes between myself and JIA.

We don't need that though.


Nellinator, you raise a good point that John was in fact, an extremely loyal disciple of Christ, and he is the ONLY Apostle who I would consider has a loyalty that rivals Mary Magdeline's in any way, shape, or form.


However...


I do not consider the other Apostles anywhere as loyal as she is.

Consider the following:


1) The Apostles denied Christ
2) The Apostles questioned Christ
3) The Apostles doubted Christ
4) The Apostles feel asleep on Christ at the Garden
5) John was the only Apostle there to help Christ, and u know what..Mary was there 2
6) The Apostles did not beleive Mary Magdeline when she claimed she saw Christ resurrected


Mary Magdeline:


1) Never doubted Christ
2) Never questioned him
3) Never denied him
4) was always there for him
5) witness his resurrection, followed his body, she could have been killed


Mary Magdeline, besides John, seemed to be the only person who was truly willing to risk her life for Jesus



you know i wondor.....the Greek Orthodox talk about a Gospel written by Mary Magdeline...

How come it's not in the Bible ?

How come it's never taught ?


Probably cuz she's a woman, and mainstream Christianity sees women as inferior...as it always has

Just admit it bro...who r u kidding trying to argue that Christianity sees men and women as equal ????

Not all the apostles denied Christ. Only Peter. However, Peter is given a special commission by Jesus and that is what makes him more frequently lauded than Mary Magdalene. Also, the other apostles were willing to die for Jesus. In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter attacked the Roman guards to defend Jesus and Peter was later crucifed for his belief.
Actually, I just realized the irony of you saying John was the only other one willing to die for Christ because Mary Magdalene was never martyred and John was the only disciple who wasn't martyred.

The Gospel of Mary wasn't included in the Bible because it wasn't written Mary Magdalene for one as it was written too late and originated from an area where Mary Magdalene simply never was. Secondly, it was a gnostic text. Third, it supported a gnostic demiurge, which is really one of the most heretical things to Christianity that there is. Finally, it rejects the Jesus's sacrifice on the cross as a important event that paved the way for our salvation. I can understand why people argue that some gnostic texts are valid even though I disagree, but the Gospel of Mary is definitely not one of those. Also, remember that female authorship is no reason for rejection from the Bible. I'd direct you to the Book of Ruth in the OT. Women were not seen as inferior. They were seen as different. That is an important distinction to make. There were deaconesses mentioned in the Bible, Paul commends many women, Mary is venerated as the greatest saint by Catholics, etc.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not all the apostles denied Christ. Only Peter. However, Peter is given a special commission by Jesus and that is what makes him more frequently lauded than Mary Magdalene. Also, the other apostles were willing to die for Jesus. In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter attacked the Roman guards to defend Jesus and Peter was later crucifed for his belief.
Actually, I just realized the irony of you saying John was the only other one willing to die for Christ because Mary Magdalene was never martyred and John was the only disciple who wasn't martyred.

The Gospel of Mary wasn't included in the Bible because it wasn't written Mary Magdalene for one as it was written too late and originated from an area where Mary Magdalene simply never was. Secondly, it was a gnostic text. Third, it supported a gnostic demiurge, which is really one of the most heretical things to Christianity that there is. Finally, it rejects the Jesus's sacrifice on the cross as a important event that paved the way for our salvation. I can understand why people argue that some gnostic texts are valid even though I disagree, but the Gospel of Mary is definitely not one of those. Also, remember that female authorship is no reason for rejection from the Bible. I'd direct you to the Book of Ruth in the OT. Women were not seen as inferior. They were seen as different. That is an important distinction to make. There were deaconesses mentioned in the Bible, Paul commends many women, Mary is venerated as the greatest saint by Catholics, etc.



I have not yet read the scriptures of Ruth, I should probably get on taht as soon as possible.


I have only read bits and pieces of the Gospel of Mary, lil of the Gospel of Tomas.

Female Authorship, or lack thereof, is not my reason for rejecting the Bible. In fact, I do not entirely reject the Bible, nor do I discourage others in my life from utilizing it when they need it.


I just do not beleive in the infallibility of the Bible like you do. For one, it certainly puts men and women on different levels of equality, there is no logically denying that. Men first. It's pretty clear.

Secondly, it encourages and promotes violence and intolerance. Unreasonable violence and intolerance, in many passages, especially where Paul is concerned.

eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth- yet love thy neighbor....contradictions galore.

there are far more reasons as to why I reject the Bible as a source of Truth. A source of Inspiration ? Sure

A source of Truth.....

Originally posted by Nellinator
Nope. You are an idiot if you think that you can definitively know that as a fact.

Believe what you want. Your bitterness and skepticism is boring.

I'm not bitter, I am skeptical.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not bitter, I am skeptical.


lol coulda fooled me

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The argument between Devil King and Nellinator is becoming as unprofessional and personal as the disputes between myself and JIA.



I'm certainly not taking anything he says personally, perhaps he is.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
lol coulda fooled me

it's not all that difficult, and I'm not even trying to.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm certainly not taking anything he says personally, perhaps he is.



it's not all that difficult, and I'm not even trying to.





Devil King, I actually agree with you (no surprise, ofcourse the two Atheist gay guys agree)

But as much as I disagree with Nellinator, I understand where his frustration is coming from.


You on more than one occasion respond to people in an extremely disrespectful manner.

Sure, I have acted like a jackass (making fun of myself) on many occasions, but you actually speak to people so nasty when they disagree with you, or hold some kind of personality that you dislike.

You claim you are taking nothing personally, but I have to wondor...if you truly dont care, why do u act the way u do ?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Devil King, I actually agree with you (no surprise, ofcourse the two Atheist gay guys agree)

I am not an atheist. I have said this many times.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
But as much as I disagree with Nellinator, I understand where his frustration is coming from.

I don't care where his frustration is coming from.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You on more than one occasion respond to people in an extremely disrespectful manner.

Sure, I have acted like a jackass (making fun of myself) on many occasions, but you actually speak to people so nasty when they disagree with you, or hold some kind of personality that you dislike.

I'm not going to sit here and be lectured by you on forum etiquette. If you're wrong, I can deal with that. I've been wrong before. But to couple that with acting like you get some profound truth that no one else has, I find that personally offensive. Not to me, but to themselves.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You claim you are taking nothing personally, but I have to wondor...if you truly dont care, why do u act the way u do ?

Because I have a response that isn't based on sucking off Jesus, doesn't mean I'm taking it personally. It might offend my opinion, but there is no measure of personal investment in their response. I don't seperate the personal merrits of a person from their personal opinion, and that's all we have here on KMC. It isn't a matter of caring about their opinion, it's a matter of caring about my own. And then, when you get into a discussion about the bible, or the mythology that goes into the christian religion, their only response to logic and actual faults in the stories is to post smilies or tell you you can't understand what they're saying or better yet, not even answer the question at all.

Bottom line, what goes on here in the religion forum is tantamount to half the people who post telling us how bad we are based on their fanatacism, which is based on lies told by men, which is no different than any other mythology that came before or after it.

Well Devil King, I cannot argue with you there, because I happen to agree with pretty much 90% of what you said.


It's a very tough wall to crack, and it's a question I've been asking a million times, and never recieved an answer to.

How to they expect us to beleive ?


Most, not all, of the religious people on these forums, primarily of Christian and Muslim perspective, will argue that they know Truth, and the rest of us know lies.

Then when you or myself ask them to prove themselves they will either argue that they don't have to, OR that they have some kind of insight the rest of us don't.



I personally do not mind that they beleive what they beleive. No matter how far fetched or offensive thier beleif, I leave it alone, because the beleif is only in thier realm of thought...and cannot harm myself or you.


However, when this person begins to enforce thier beleifs upon the rest of us, expecting us to take thier word, but cannot substantiate or prove their claims, that's when I get critical.

Especially with Jesusisalive...the reason I actually disrespect him and his perspective entirely, is because not only does he sort bullshit references such as the National Examiner, the Sun, and yourgoingtohell.com, but he will make outrageous claims such as that He is a Saint., and that he speaks directly to the Holy Spirit.


And even worse...he judges us. He demands that we all change our lives and lifestyles to fit his version of what he thnks is "the right life to live"


That is a WHOLE LOT to ask of someone....the LEAST he can do is provide proof for what he is saying.

And then what pisses me off is that he will argue "I am not here to prove anything, only speak the word of God".

So he makes outrageous claims, says horribly offensive things (i.e. Gays, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Atheists are evil), that good people will burn in Hell, and actually expects us to beleive him and change our lives to his perception of what is right and wrong.

And then he REFUSES to prove to us that he is right....

Nellinator:
The Gospel of Mary wasn't included in the Bible because it wasn't written Mary Magdalene for one as it was written too late and originated from an area where Mary Magdalene simply never was. Secondly, it was a gnostic text. Third, it supported a gnostic demiurge, which is really one of the most heretical things to Christianity that there is. Finally, it rejects the Jesus's sacrifice on the cross as a important event that paved the way for our salvation. I can understand why people argue that some gnostic texts are valid even though I disagree, but the Gospel of Mary is definitely not one of those.

*******Luke possibly could've authored the Gospel of Luke (it is not confirmed). The majority of New Testament scholars do not believe that John authored his gospel (nor that any of the apostles wrote it, and it is the gospel scholars are the most unsure about it's authenticity). And most scholars agree that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are compilations of their testimonies but not directly authored by the two disciples.

The disciples were to go all over the land to spread the "good word." I think the Gnostic Gospels show the spread of Jesus thus mapping out early Christian geographic landscape.

The Catholic Church picked the 4 gospels to be in the bible out of hundreds of gospels that were out there. The church picked the four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John because it shared the characteristics the church wanted to propagate. And mind you , these gospels had sketchy authorship and they were picked over other gospels that are authentic (authored by actual disciple, no additions, no editing parts out). Isn't this a bit like nit-picking? The gospels are all a testament to the teachings of Jesus, so for the church to simply pick the gospels it liked and to leave out the rest because it doesn't convey the message they would like to depict is bogus! You don't get to nit-pick the parts you like and leave out the parts you don't; otherwise it ceases to be the truth.

I believe the 4 gospels, including Mary's were written around 2nd century.

Originally posted by j89rt
The Catholic Church picked the 4 gospels to be in the bible out of hundreds of gospels that were out there. The church picked the four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John because it shared the characteristics the church wanted to propagate. And mind you , these gospels had sketchy authorship and they were picked over other gospels that are authentic (authored by actual disciple, no additions, no editing parts out). Isn't this a bit like nit-picking? The gospels are all a testament to the teachings of Jesus, so for the church to simply pick the gospels it liked and to leave out the rest because it doesn't convey the message they would like to depict is bogus! You don't get to nit-pick the parts you like and leave out the parts you don't; otherwise it ceases to be the truth.

This is true.

Lots of people, especially Christians, overlook this. Some say that they were inspired of by God to select which versions would be made into gospels. Other religious groups know that the gospels were flawed and the selection process was political (Mormons).

Originally posted by j89rt
I believe the 4 gospels, including Mary's were written around 2nd century.

That's true for the most part. Some sections were written, supposedly, when Jesus was still alive. But these were compiled, as you hinted, into a composite "telling" after the apostles kicked the bucket. So you get a mixture of abridgment and original mixed in. In the research circles, they refer to these original documents as the "source" materials.


Is amalgamation an appropriate term of what we have, now? I think Frankenstein compilation would be a better fit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is true.

Lots of people, especially Christians, overlook this. Some say that they were inspired of by God to select which versions would be made into gospels. Other religious groups know that the gospels were flawed and the selection process was political (Mormons).



That's true for the most part. Some sections were written, supposedly, when Jesus was still alive. But these were compiled, as you hinted, into a composite "telling" after the apostles kicked the bucket. So you get a mixture of abridgment and original mixed in. In the research circles, they refer to these original documents as the "source" materials.


Is amalgamation an appropriate term of what we have, now? I think Frankenstein compilation would be a better fit.

you da mahn! ; )