Newbie Question

[Silhouette]

I've been troubled about the Bible ever since a friend of mine sent the following link. Apparently the Gospel of John isn't really John but rather Mary Magdalene. At first I laughed my you-know-what off. But then I read it and I was amazed. It really does seem like Magdalene was "edited" out of the Bible. I'm still not sure she wrote the Fourth Gospel but it really appears as if she did.

Can anyone tell me how to resolve this crises in my faith? If Mary Magdalene was edited from the Bible, was it because women weren't allowed to Witness? If that's true then what is my place with Jesus??

Help! You can email me too if you want.

 

[Philip]

I've been troubled about the Bible ever since a friend of mine sent the following link. Apparently the Gospel of John isn't really John but rather Mary Magdalene.

The Early Fathers unanimously that the Fourth Gospel was written be the Holy Apostle John. There is no historical evidence that it was written be St Mary Magdalene.

At first I laughed my you-know-what off. But then I read it and I was amazed. It really does seem like Magdalene was "edited" out of the Bible. I'm still not sure she wrote the Fourth Gospel but it really appears as if she did.

Do you care to present any of this "evidence"? While you consider it, please consider this question as well: Why is there no ancient record of anyone claiming that the Fourth Gospel was written by St Mary Magdalene.

Can anyone tell me how to resolve this crises in my faith? If Mary Magdalene was edited from the Bible, was it because women weren't allowed to Witness? If that's true then what is my place with Jesus??

The Holy Myrrhbearer and Equal-To-the-Apostles Mary Magdalene was not editted out of the Bible. She is mentioned in it several times. Further, Sacred Tradition records that she went to Rome to testify to Emperor Tiberias. She ministered to the Church there until St Paul arrived. He even mentions her in his Epistle to the Romans (Romans 16:6). After Paul was imprisoned, she fled to Ephesus. She joined the Holy Apostle John and St Timothy in their labors their. She died in Ephesus, and her relics are preserved in Constantinople to this day.

She is greatly honored in the Eastern Church.

Standing before the Cross of the Savior,
Suffering with the Mother of the Lord,
The most glorious Mary Magdalene offered praise with tears.
She cried out: What is this strange wonder?
He who holds the whole creation in His hand chooses to suffer:
Glory, O Lord to Your power!​

When God, who is transcendent in essence,
Came with flesh into the world, O Myrrhbearer,
He received you as a true disciple, for you turned all your love toward Him;
Henceforth you would yourself work many healings.
Now that you have passed into heaven, never cease to intercede for the world!​

 

[clinzey]

I'm not Eastern Orthodox like Philip, but he and I are in complete agreement that the Gospel According to John (because it is the Gospel of Jesus), has never been attributed to Mary M. In fact, before your post I had never even heard it proposed, and I've done some Johannine research.

Church tradition (and even the book itself, in a semi-veiled way) attribute the book to the testimony and witness of John. Although I, like Philip, would like to know what on earth your friend could possibly have been talking about....

~clinzey

 

[Silhouette]

Well, I'm not allowed to post links yet, otherwise I would. But if you want to email me, I can give you a link to a master's thesis that is pretty convincing that Magdalene was edited out of importance to Jesus and therefore her account was also made "unimportant". That her account was in part held back (as in the Gnostic Gospel of Mary), and also included, in the form of using the name "John" as her alias.

The theory is that because of the patriarchal influence of old; women were not tolerated by the new emerging church as authoring the official Word of Christ. Hence we have no Gospel of Mary included in modern Bibles. Yet she was very important to Christ and bore Witness to unique musings of Jesus. These musings were debated as inadmissable by Peter and Levi as written in the Gospel of Mary; and in fact we find the Gospel of Mary missing this critical information. The information appears purposefully removed because the missing pages start literally with the words, "and Jesus said unto Magdalene [next 6 pages missing]". Words to that effect.

If this happened as this man in the link has researched quite well; that means that women have not been fairly represented in Christianity. My thoughts are that Jesus told Magdalene that women are equal to men in God's eyes. This I believe is the missing information. Christ, in effect was "edited". Half of all christians are women. This is significant.

I've always had trouble with any biblical passage that denigrates women; being a woman myself. I am very intelligent and was beyond most of my peers in school. Yes, most of my MALE peers. Then I read in the bible that I should cleave to and be sujected to male dominance. This is a dicotomy I can't live with. And now, after reading this link it's like the nail has been driven home. I always knew in my heart that Jesus saw men and women as equals. How could he not? For we are. The only differences are physical. I've known this all my life. In one sense this new information challenged my faith. In another; it refreshed it! Jesus was fair all along! It was the some of the apostles who apparently weren't. Judas wasn't the only traitor I guess.

 

[Philip]

That her account was in part held back (as in the Gnostic Gospel of Mary), and also included, in the form of using the name "John" as her alias.

The Gospel of Mary was not written until at least AD 120. Most likely, it was closer to AD 150 or even 180. It was not written by St Mary Magdalene. Further, IIRC, it was written in Egypt, a place Mary never visited.

The theory is that because of the patriarchal influence of old; women were not tolerated by the new emerging church as authoring the official Word of Christ. Hence we have no Gospel of Mary included in modern Bibles. Yet she was very important to Christ and bore Witness to unique musings of Jesus.

These "musings" are not unique to the Gospel of Mary. The appear in the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic writings.

These musings were debated as inadmissable by Peter and Levi as written in the Gospel of Mary; and in fact we find the Gospel of Mary missing this critical information. The information appears purposefully removed because the missing pages start literally with the words, "and Jesus said unto Magdalene [next 6 pages missing]". Words to that effect.

Yes, this is common Gnostic practice. The Gnostics claimed to have special teachings given to them but to no one else. Among these claims were teachings that the God of the Old Testament was an evil imposter and not the True God. Abraham, Noah, David and the Prophets were evil men because they served this "false" God. The Gnostics also taught that Christ did have a physical body, but was just a spirit. And so on...

How much of Gnosticism have you read?

I've always had trouble with any biblical passage that denigrates women; being a woman myself. I am very intelligent and was beyond most of my peers in school. Yes, most of my MALE peers. Then I read in the bible that I should cleave to and be sujected to male dominance. This is a dicotomy I can't live with. And now, after reading this link it's like the nail has been driven home.

I have read the Bible several times and have never found a passage that requires women to be subjected to male dominance. Perhaps you have the wrong interpretation of some passages.

 

[Philip]

BTW, how do believe that Mary wrote the other books attributed to John?

 

[Silhouette]

Well this set of passages from Timothy has particular impact with respect to my education experience particularly:

1 Timothy 2:11-15
"2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

The message here is, pardon my extreme bluntness, but:
"shut up woman and do as you're told. Do not instruct others, especially men, in anything. You're only worth to God and humanity is as a broodmare." Sounds like it came straight from the Koran. But no, sadly it came from the KJV of today's Bible.

Imagine; half the world's original thoughts, ideas and dreams squelched from our collective heiritage. I wonder how many potential female Einsteins there were who for fear of contradicting the Bible, remained forever silent to our collective detriment?

I just know Jesus knew this too and chose Magdalene as his Witness to this information of injustice. The rest is history. Well at least the part that wasn't edited from our eyes.

essenes.crosswinds.net/fourth.html I think I have the minimum number of posts now if you want to check out this study.

 

[Philip]

The message here is, pardon my extreme bluntness, but:
"shut up woman and do as you're told. Do not instruct others, especially men, in anything. You're only worth to God and humanity is as a broodmare." Sounds like it came straight from the Koran. But no, sadly it came from the KJV of today's Bible.

As I said, you have the wrong understanding of this passage. You must place it in its proper cultural context. In Greek culture, women were not to speak publicly. It was concidered shameful and immoral for a woman to do so. St Paul is instructing St Timothy that he must be aware of this. Paul opposed women teaching in the Church because it would inhibit his ability to spread the Gospel. If Christians were seen as immoral, they would be able to teach.

As for your "broodmare" comment, it is completely wrong. When Paul wrote "she shall be saved in childbearing" he was praising Mary Theotokos's role in God's plan for salvation. It was through a woman that Christ entered the world.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow Phillip. I guess it just goes to show how simple words in the english language can be iterpreted so very differently by two different people.

Since the Bible is held as the Word of God, isn't it used as a means to instruct people how to live today? Yes, back then as you say, women were subdued and descriminated against in many facets of daily life. But is it not also true that these passeges can be used by some to justify the same treatment of women today? In fact, is it not blasphemous to ignore the direct edicts of the Bible such as in 1 Timothy 2: 11-15? Are we to pay attention to only certain passages nowadays? Some of them? All of them? And if only a select few, then which ones? Who decides?

I've always been taught that a christian existance is a one on one relationship with God through Jesus Christ and no other. The reason for this is simple. When "another" such as a priest or pastor intervenes; there is potential for misrepresentation. With the scandals nowadays with molesting priests and wayward pastors hitting the presses every other day; the need for this one-on-one through just Christ himself becomes paramount.

But then we have the problems with how to go about doing that. The New Testament is supposed to reflect the Word of the Lord. But with that link's new discovery and other scholarly discoveries of possible conspiracy within the newest emerging "orthodox" Church to sudue certain teachings of Christ and interject common non-christio agendas of the time (of which CLEARLY descrimination against women was entrenched as you just admitted above and which is exhaustively documented) this becomes difficult, particularly for women to do.

This thesis has been congratulated by top Biblical scholars on its plausibility. The ramifications are huge if Christ's word was not accurately represented especially with respect to the place of women within human rights. As I've said; over half the world's population is female. If this gigantic populace of the potential congregation to Jesus' Word is disenfranchised by purposeful deceit of early editors, then christianity itself as we know it is half sham/half Truth; depending on which gender one happens to belong to.

I think there is too much fodder for gender wars as it is. I think an honest look at the fact that the Biblical editing has erred in this way would solidify the sexes and bring both of them together on a common ground. The alternative of course is to sudue anyone's thoughtful attempts to explore this possible error and carry on as if nothing had happened; content to live with descrimination and subjection of half the world's populace.

I don't think this is the answer. It certainly wasn't the answer to black slavery. If it was up to slaveowners back when, they'd love to have the idea of black equality permanently squelched. Thank God a few brave souls stood up against this botched mindset and fought bravely to defeat it. The Truth will set us all free.

(By the way Phillip, I like your name. It's one of the Apostles that was held back for standing up for Mary. I'm sure he took his place in Heaven at the side of Christ and the Magdalene.)

 

[clinzey]

Since the Bible is held as the Word of God, isn't it used as a means to instruct people how to live today? Yes, back then as you say, women were subdued and descriminated against in many facets of daily life. But is it not also true that these passeges can be used by some to justify the same treatment of women today? In fact, is it not blasphemous to ignore the direct edicts of the Bible such as in 1 Timothy 2: 11-15?

Silhouette - even though the Bible has a timeless quality, the books in it were written to address specific cultural and religious problems. That means that some of the instruction Paul gave, while being inspired, is not meant to deal with situations today.

To answer your question, yes - some of these passages are indeed used by some to justify poor treatment of women - but the people that do that fail to see that Paul is being situation specific. Paul clearly cannot mean for women to be treated as lessers - he praises female leadership in his letters. And the Gospel According to Luke makes abundantly clear that Jesus had a contingency of female disciples that followed and supported his ministry.

And no, I don't think it is blasphemous to ignore culturally specific instruction when that situation is no longer present.

 

[Silhouette]

Well that's a relief that it's not blasphemous to ignore parts of the Bible. But again I pose the question: which ones? It's all well and good for you and I to suppose that Paul meant this or that: but what did he really mean? Or better yet, what did Peter and Timothy mean? And why is the "beloved disciple" not named? There is no clear reason for this whatsoever. When the Bible has a clear and tedious penchant for naming not only the specific characters in important events (as in the crucifixion and the rising), but also their relatives and friends too. Why in the Bible repeatedly do we hear about "the beloved [anonymous]disciple]"? I'd be very interested to hear anybody's take on this.

Meanwhile; if we do have derogatory passages towards women in several of the chapters of the NT, why isn't this revised to fit the new times? And, are we saying that in the old days, descrimination against women was OK, or even covertly less committal, "appropriate for the times". Do we think that black slavery was "appropriate for the times" in the 17 and 1800s? Isn't human subjection abhorrent at any time? And if so, can we at once be in shock of a man's acceptance of this subjection (Paul and others in ancient times) and simultaneously hold them up as purveyors of Jesus' Truth. Especially when His message of that Truth was to include all people: male and female? I argue that these Apostles were not conveying the Truth.

I'm saying that I feel as comfortable with this dicotomy as a black person would, with signing on to the KKK under the provision that he/she accepts that he/she is in subjection to whites. It's repulsive and demeaning. Women have gotten the short end of the stick since this patriarchal mutiny of the Good Ship Jesus. I'd like to see Magdalene restored to her status as Jesus' beloved disciple and then watch over half of the world's christians elevated to their proper status within the Fold. Magdalene is the leader of christian women. Without her, the perversion of Jesus' word is a virtual guarantee. Beloved and equal are all under the Eye of God. Nothing less than that.

The Bible doesn't reflect this in many of it's passages. We cannot simultaneous ignore and forgive misrepresentations of Truth, especially to the potential harm or detriment of another christian, while simultaneously courting Jesus' salvation, can we? We owe it to Jesus to make darn sure that this guy is dead wrong in his Thesis. Because if he's right; I'm praying hard for everyone who's bought the bill of goods without reading the fine print. Including myself for many years....

 

[clinzey]

Well that's a relief that it's not blasphemous to ignore parts of the Bible. But again I pose the question: which ones? It's all well and good for you and I to suppose that Paul meant this or that: but what did he really mean? Meanwhile; if we do have derogatory passages towards women in several of the chapters of the NT, why isn't this revised to fit the new times?

Silhouette - The sarcasm isn't necessary. I was reiterating the same thing Philip said a few posts ago, that Paul was writing to specific situations at specific times (at least I think I read you correctly, Philip...?). And I never meant that we are to "ignore" anything in the Bible. There are simply some parts that do not apply to our time and culture. Though not everyone may agree with this at first, it is something by which we all live.

For example, look at Galatians 3:1. Paul writes, "You foolish Galatians...." I don't know anybody that walks around saying, "I sure am bummed because the Bible told me I'm a foolish Galatian." Now, that may be an extreme example, but there are things in the Bible that are not meant for us. Even though there are things we may learn and apply to our lives, one cannot simply believe that there is a 1:1 ratio of Biblical instruction and how we should live our lives.

You asked what parts of the Bible are we to ignore or not ignore.... As far as direct instruction goes (because there is a difference in theme and intent between Biblical narrative and non-narrative instruction), many of Paul's writings are case specific. What is a constant are the "sin lists" in the Bible. Peter uses them. Paul uses them. Jesus uses them. It's an ancient genre telling people right or wrong, moral or immoral behavior. There seems to be no give and take in these.

And one last thing - it is obvious that you have a lot of strong feelings about women being mistreated in the church. I in no way wish to denegrate female members of the faith. Both my mother and father are members of the clergy. I fully support women in ministry.

~clinzey

 

[Silhouette]

Well that's cool; I know a few women clergy myself. I guess I understand why there are so many sects of christianity today. Some believe this part of the Bible; some believe that part of the Bible.

By the way; I don't speak sarcastically. I speak literally. I pose things that are intended to get people to think, not to offend people.

Once we start chopping up this and that part of the Bible according to current trends aren't we skating on thin ice? That's what was done in the beginning I feel. I can just see this 20 years from now where MTV will be quoting certain passages that say it's alright for men to "lie" with more than one woman. Oh, wait a minute. The Mormons already do this....and so on.

I think the more exploring we do that gets back to Christ's original unadulterated teachings, the more accurate and pure christianity will be. Christ was a feminist. But the authors who made it to the Big Book clearly depict that he was not. Or if they don't come right out and say this; they at least contradict Christ's position on women's equality. Which is blasphemy.

Contradicting the Holy Words of Jesus Christ is defined as blasphemy. Now I ask; who are the heretics? (no sarcasm, just logical deduction). Several of the Apostles are being blasphemous when they include passages that denigrate women as in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Forget today; this is the issue. And it's pretty big. If they contradicted Christ on this issue..what other issue did they augment or diminish? Who can say at this late date?

Just trying to get people to think here..

 

[clinzey]

Christ was a feminist. But the authors who made it to the Big Book clearly depict that he was not. Or if they don't come right out and say this; they at least contradict Christ's position on women's equality.

Just for curiosity's sake, to which passages/teachings do you allude when you say that Jesus was a feminist but the Biblical authors contradict him? Remember, I think that the instructions from the epistles are case specific - and as far as I know, Jesus never mentioned who had authority to speak at the assembly. It appears to me that Paul and Peter and company are instructing in the practics of how faith in Jesus should be played out (and as far as the anti-woman passage from Timothy, I think that in our day and age Paul would prohibit any unskilled, uncontrolled, divisive person from speaking, regardless of gender, race, etc.).

 

[wonder111]

http://www.jesus-institute.org/life-of-jesus-modern/jesus-feminist.shtml

 

[clinzey]

Okay, I check out the website, and there is nothing on there with which I disagree. But Jesus wasn't just a feminist. He advocated proper treatment of all of "undesirables." I think Jesus was an outright Social Democrat (and I say this as a Republican ) even though he was a moral conservative.

At any rate, I don't think that the writers of the epistles contradict Jesus in any way. If the letters are case specific, and if the women in Timothy's church were causing problems, it makes sense for Paul to disallow those women to speak. There is no indication that Paul meant for or even knew that his letters would be passed around as law. He was only instructing certain people at certain times.

Once this is seen then we realize that he wan't against women at all! Some of the church leaders he has high praise for are women. The fault lies not with Paul but with our own misunderstanding and inability to properly interpret the Bible (as Philip was saying earlier).

 

[Silhouette]

Clinzey writes:
"(and as far as the anti-woman passage from Timothy, I think that in our day and age Paul would prohibit any unskilled, uncontrolled, divisive person from speaking, regardless of gender, race, etc.)."


Romans 1:14
I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

It would seem that Paul speaks in direct contradiction to your supposition. He says he's indebted both to the wise and unwise, the Greeks and Barbarians. The Barbarians were uncontrolled, divisive people to the hilt.

Imagine, they'd rather hear from Barbarians than women of their own fold...

And if the women of Timothy's church were upstarts; why did he not just address them by name? It is a prejudicial statement. Timothy put down, for all of humanity, to judge all women by the actions of some in his church. ie, if some blacks steal then all blacks are thieves... And we should put this information forward as an religious edict?

 

[clinzey]

Romans 1:14
I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

It would seem that Paul speaks in direct contradiction to your supposition. He says he's indebted both to the wise and unwise, the Greeks and Barbarians. The Barbarians were uncontrolled, divisive people to the hilt.

Imagine, they'd rather hear from Barbarians than women of their own fold...

Silhouette, i think you misunderstand Paul's language. Barbarian doesn't mean what you think it means. Barbarian - a Greek word used in the New Testament (Rom. 1:14) to denote one of another nation. In Col. 3:11, the word more definitely designates those nations of the Roman empire that did not speak Greek. In 1 Cor. 14:11, it simply refers to one speaking a different language. The inhabitants of Malta are so called (Acts 28:1,2, 4). They were originally a Carthaginian colony. This word nowhere in Scripture bears the meaning it does in modern times. Paul is once again speaking his lines of "neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free...." It doesn't matter to Paul where you come from - he has benefited from people of all nations (not just Greeks and Romans).

And like I said, there is no evidence that Paul intended for his instruction to be used anywhere else but the church to whom he wrote. They were not written as universal standards of conduct. He didn't mean for us to judge all women by some. And I specifically said that this should not be put forward as edict. It is a specific response to a specific problem - only poor understandings of the text keep it alive as an excuse to denigrate women.

 

[Silhouette]

Incorrect. Look at the passage again. In one thought he says the Greeks and the Barbarians; the wise and the unwise. Those are respective comparisons. He is calling the Barbarians "unwise". And at once he is saying that even the unwise have something to be indebted to; something to offer in the collective wisdom. Yet women remain utterly gag-censured by Timothy's passages. And apparently supported by the orthodox institution because there they are today..

What is this saying? "Even the musings of the unwise are preferable to any woman's thoughts". Why skirt around it? It's as plain as the nose on one's face. Subjection of women as essentially non-humans, under the radar, outside Christ's message of equal acceptance and love under God's Eye. It's embarassing yes. But the embarassment will pass when Enlightenment takes over.

 

[clinzey]

Look at the passage again. In one thought he says the Greeks and the Barbarians; the wise and the unwise. Those are respective comparisons.

Yes, they are respective comparisons. But you have to remember that the Greeks considered themselves to be the height of wisdom and intellect. Paul is not affirming that the "Barbarians" are unwise, but saying that even the people that are considered "unwise" by the elite have something to offer. In a sense, he is affirming that elitism is not the way to go - this may also be applied to anti-woman feelings. Paul is a supporter of the underdog and social outcast just as Jesus was (and no, I don't think that any gender or race, etc. should be socially outcast).

As for your saying about the musings of the unwise, where does that come from? I had never heard it. I don't deny that women have been treated poorly - Iam saying that Paul did not have anything against women in general.