Quote:

Thank you for that Berserk. Your explanation makes so much sense to me.
Though we might never know if Mary Magdalene was indeed Jesus aunt,  I don't believe she was Jesus wife either.
Besides all the prejudices that his immaculate conception would have brought him, I think he had a different agenda on this planet. I believe He took a human body but He was above most earthly needs. Having a family life would have been completely irrelevant to him. 
I attended a catholic school since the age of 4 and was always force fed their interpretation of the truth without any reasoning. No wonder I lost interest quite soon and Religion class only meant to me boredom and a huge headache (literally). I was so put off the subject that when anyone would mention Jesus, God, The Virgin Mary or the BIble my interest level dropped below zero and i'd make my excuses to run a mile. I feel they delayed my spiritual awakening and I wasted many years thinking Jesus was boring and associating him with a headache. ::)
I suspect things would have been different had I attended your lectures instead.
Thank you again. :)

Peace.

S.C.

Sunrise--They way I was brought up: God and Jesus were vengful and I was to fear them. It was difficult for my to understand how Jesus could love the children when they gathered around him, because the priest and nuns told us that those children were good and didn't sin and there reward we being able to sit next to Jesus.
My catholisim was nothing but putting fear into me. I feared my father and other men. It took me many years after I was married and had children of my own that I finally stopped fearing the male figure. However, that didn't just go away. It took years for my to figure that Jesus and God were loving beings . To this day, my mother and mother-in-law still view God and Jesus as vengeful. The HAVE to go to church, obey the church laws, etc. I care not if Jesuse, the half human, half God (as I was taught) was married or not. My father was a Godly man and he was married.  Most Buddah's were not married (and also were mainly men). As long as Jesus judges me for my merits and is not vengeful, that's fine with me if he stayed celibate. I would prefer that in some lifetime he expierenced marraige. I believe I correct in quoting: I have come many times before, but you did not recognize me.

Elysiumfire

"The suggestion that Mary might have been Jesus' aunt, although interesting, is not possible, as none of the Mary's (3 in all) were NOT blood-related to Jesus' mother or even Joseph."
_________________________

This sentence is self-contradiictory.  I think what you mean to say is that none of the Marys were blood-related to Jesus' mother or Joseph.  if so, you are simply being dogmatic and ignoring my argument from the Greek text that demonstates the possibility of Mary Magdalene being the sister  of Jesus' mother.  

"Magdalene is also identified with one Mary of Bethany - the sister of Martha, and of Lazarus whom the Christ healed and resurrected."
______________________________________

Wrongly so.  Martha's sister is from Bethany, 2 miles east of Jersualem.  Mary Magdalene is named after her village, Magdala (or Migdal) in Galilee near Tiberias.  Magdala and Bethany are about 65 miles apart.  

"Thirdly, Magdalene is also identified with the 'woman sinner', whom in the 3rd and 4th centuries was considered as being 'unchaste' by the Church Fathers of those times."
_______________________________

You seem to miss the point.   This "woman sinner" is the prostitute in Luke 7:36-50.  I repeat: she is not named and no one knows her name!  Later tradition commonly assigns false names to unknown biblical figures.  

"Some scholars view Magdalene as the unidentified 'beloved disciple' whom wrote the 'fourth gospel' traditionally accepted as written by John."
________________________________________

Uh, the masculine pronoun is used to refer to this disciple!   There is no evidence that points to any woman, let along Mary Magdalene.   Besides, this disciple is never named in the Fourth Gospel.  The fact that Mary Madgalene is named a few times in itself excludes her candidacy.  But the Beloved Dsciple may not be the apostle John.   For example, every time the Beloved Disciple appears, the context provides clues that neatly apply to Jesus' brother James.   I have spent many years researching the identity of the Beloved Disciple.  No mainstream scholar seriously thinks that Mary Magdalene is a viable candidate.  

Further significant documents are the fragments of 'Gnostic', and the apocryphal 'Gospel of Mary Magdalene'
___________

The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip are the source of the tradition that Mary and Jesus were lovers, though neither Gospel implies that they wre romantically involved!    But both Gospels are far too late to preserve historically genuine tradition.  The Gospel of Philip was likely written in "the 2nd half of the 3rd century ("The Nag Hammadi Library,"  p. 141).

Have you even read eeither Gnostic  Gospel?  Just consider this sample quote from the Gospel of Philip: "God is a man-eater" or this sample quote from he Gospel of Mary: "The Savior said, `There is no sin.'"  Duh! Do you really imagine that Jesus denied the reality of sin?
(e. g. The Lord's prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.")

"What the institutionalized Church is really hiding is the correctness of Jesus' message. That in itself is the 'Grail'. The 'Gnostic' texts of Nag Hamadi tend to support his message more sucinctly than the traditionally accepted texts as canonised by the Church leaders at the Council of Nicea in 325AD."
_______________________________________

In typical New age fashion, you are being dogmatic about a subject about which you are vitually illiterate.  As I've repeatedly demonstrated, our New Testament Gospels all stem from the first century and can be confidently identified with eyewitness testimony.  The Nag Hammadi library is very late and historically worthless when it comes to correcting the traditional picture of Jesus' life and teaching.

You are spouting the standard misinformed New Age drivel about Nicea.  Nicea did not even take up the issue the canon of Scripture.   The contary assertion is as ignorant as the absurd freqent New Age claim that Nicea removed the  teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.   In fact, only regional councils like the Council of Laodicea (363 AD), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) touched on the issue of the New Testament canon. 

"This Council, instituted by Constantine, was when the 'split' occurred and sent Christianity down a path that alienated Jesus' 'true' message."
______________________________________

More New Age nonsense!  You  need to study what reputable historians can prove about canonical history  (e.g Hans van Campenhausen, "The Formation of the Christian Bible").   Have you even studied the criteria of canonicity?  The accepted New Testament texts had to be apostolic either in the sense that they were composed by an apostle or written in the apostolic age.  None of the Gnostic texts qualify on this score.  The accepted texts needed to have proven their spiritual relevance to Christian churches from earlist times and needed to be "catholic" (a word meaning "universal") in the sense that they were relevant to the church at large.  The Nag Hamadi library was never mainstream.  There is not even clear evidence of Christian Gnosticism before the 2nd century.  None of the Nag Hamadi documents are first century texts.

Don

P.S. I just received an E-mail from a woman who has now abandoned this site because of the double-standard displayed by the censuring of Craig.   Posters here often make vicious comments about the Bible and Christianity with impunity.  One poster slandered women without censure.  The hypocrisy and historical illiteracy of the New Age ghetto is breath-taking.  I make no apology for responding to this with blunt rhetoric.   New Agers need a mirror that allows them to learn how it feels to be treated as they treat others.  By their silence at religious bigotry they convey tacit approval, whether they approve or not.  Besides, my rhetoric is always addressed to significant issues.

My real concern is this site's myopia in the face of (1) powerful evidence against Moen-Monroe claims from masters like Swedenborg and from NDEs which refute the patient's prior belief in reincarnation and (2) evidence that demonstates the even the best of alleged channeled contacts with the dead is better explained as ESP.   Do I really need to repeat this evidence to finally entice a head-on response?    

Don

 

First off,

I don't see why Don, when you disagree, with someone, you have to lump everyone into the "new age ghetto."  Personally, I do not think you should be banned for your sharp rhetoric, since your knowledge lends useful information to the forum.

If you had done your point/counterpoint with Elysium, without any of the "duhs,"or other signs of anger, your case would, in my mind have been a sound one.  Your knowledge is extensive.

There is merit to saying that gospels and texts written more than one century after Christ's passing are less reputable sources than other's to verify accuracy. 

However Christ's message for love and service to others is what matters; the place of Mary Magdalene is interesting, but will likely not be settled by debate alone. 

To all you who would consider censure for Don, I still say; "lighten up." A debate is a debate.  This site does not defend New Age, nor classify itself as such. 

If attacks are not made against a specific person, in a derogatory manner, I would not myself censure Don were I to moderate.  However, Don, your scholarly points, minus the anger and new age taunts would go over even better.  Many people, myself included read your input quite carefully.

Matthew

Elysiumfire

The New Age thought police (in this case, Kathy) have ratted me out to the moderator.  So I'd better formulate my reply in a hurry before censure.  Ha!  

You said: "The suggestion that Mary might have been Jesus' aunt...is not possible, as NONE of the Mary's (3 in all) were NOT blood-related to Jesus' mother or even Joseph."  
____________________________

You might reread your wording.  A sentence with the structure "No S are not P" is logically equivalent to "All S are P."  So as worded, your sentence is equivalent to "All of the Mary's were blood related to Jesus' mother or even Joseph."  I know that was not your intended meaning, but it is self-contradictory as presently worded.  

You wrongly imply that my statement is self-contradictory:

"The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip are the source of the tradition that Mary and Jesus were lovers, though neither Gospel implies that they were romantically involved!"  

Can't you see a distinction between Platonic and romantic love?   No contradiction here.   The Gospel of Philip claims that Jesus' used to kiss Mary on the [blank].  There is a hole in the manuscript; so nothing romantic need to read into this kiss. Besides, Platonic kissing was an early Christian  custom: e. g. "Greet each other with a holy kiss (1 Corinthians 16:20)."

You actually imagine that Jesus denied the reality of sin.  Don't you realize that all 4 New Testament Gospels contain many references to the need to confess sin, to repent from sin, the danger in dying in sin, and the unpardonable sin?  And you take the word of a bizarre 2nd century Gnostic Gospel beyond the the age of valid oral tradition over the converging witness of 4 first century Gospels which can be connected with eyewitness testimony?  It's one thing for you to embrace the New Age denial of sin and evil, but to claim support for this claim from the historical Jesus--that's truly amazing!

"Regarding Nicea. I am not wrong."
______________________________

OK, what is your specific evidence for the Nicene discussion of the shape of the New Testament canon?  And how can you refute the criteria of canonicity I identified that establish our canonical texts and exclude the much later Gnostic texts, none of which can be traced to the apostolic age?  Read a basic scholarly book on the canon like Hans Von Campenhausen's "The Formation of the Christian Bible."  Then we'll have something to discuss.  

Don

P.S. Notice how my replies though admittedly blunt, always address the point at issue, wheras Marilyn's personal attacks, so typical of this site's New Agers,  are purely ad hominem.  This distinction between my posts and theirs was recently pointed out to me in a PM.

Hi Don,

I thankyou for your more reasoned response. Unfortunately, work intrudes at the present moment, so I'll have to reply later.

I have no problem with 'directness' in a reply to my posts, as long as it doesn't wander off into 'personal space'. I'm sorry that you seem to have received the attention of a moderator,  though I do understand the sentiment of others as to why you have. I am quite capable of tendering my own defence - some replies might take a little longer to appear, and may be less than brief, but if we both defend our positions (and in the interim be ready to adapt them upon the realisation that one or both of us might be in error) as and best we can, then I see no reason why the debate cannot be vibrant.

I may not be doctorate, but I'm no slouch either! Will reply later.

Regards

Quote:


Hello Don,

Bruce asked you to abide by the posting guidelines.  You intentionally decided to test the water in his absence.  This shows the utmost disrespect to Bruce and that is the bottom line.  Personally I love reading most of what you write as you very well know.  You do have the ability to debate without violating posting guidelines; you simply are choosing to show disrespect to Bruce and other people that populate this website. 

The thread where Bruce spoke to you is located here on pages 2 and 3 just incase you forgot what he said, but I doubt that since it was only a month ago:

http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anounc;action=dis...

I asked you to edit the following out of respect for Bruce.  You chose to “tone down” your post a little, however you also chose to continue your power struggle with Bruce.  You did this behind his back, knowing full well that he is out of the country.

Quote:


I also thanked you for editing the above and asked you to do a little more editing on the following.  You chose not to do this.  Out of rebellion perhaps?

Quote:


Then a poster with whom you were having a previously respectful conversation asks you a question and you chose to “bully” her in your response.

Quote:


And then you continue to make comments like the following in subsequent posts in which you talk down to posters.  I could probably name at least a hundred people that have left this site because of the way you have treated them.

Quote:


Don, debate is one thing, being outright disrespectful to people is abuse.  If people don’t speak up, the abuse will continue because the abuser is struggling for power.  The abuser has a fear of powerlessness and seeks to puff him or her self up by taking power from someone else.  That is not debate Don and it is against this website's posting guidelines whether you see it that way or not.

Your future on this site is Bruce's decision and the result of that decision is your own doing.  You and you alone are responsible for whatever happens.

I wish you well and hope you find what you are looking for.

Kathy

OK, two things. Don, not everyone that questions religion is " new age". To lump everyone not of your views together isn't fair.
Kathy, I believe that you too have become a "bully" I feel that you are taking things waaay too personally. By pointing everything out you seem to be overly focused on what Don is posting. Don't you have anything else to do?