Talk:Mary Magdalene
Wot, no mention of the latest document about Jesus' wife 'discovered'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to add.
sshole
19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's really way early to be adding that. YOu are talking a document that just hit the journals a month ago or less. I like King, so I'm betting it's a very valid source to teh extent it can be, but it's not been truly reviewed yet. And we are talking one line without any context.
Godot44 days and counting - Be informed. Vote. 20:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- And there's no mention that this "wife" whether literal or symbolic, is Mary Magdalen, so there's probably no reason to put it here. SophieWilder 20:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- WEll, it is MARY, and given her position in both the Gospels and the early church (good and bad) that would be the likely candidate if Jesus were ever off doing it with soemone. and you do have the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mary, both of which suggest a little hanky panky going on in the back room there. or at least "love". So if it's decided it's relevant, it would be this mary. There are some really good arguments in fact that the Mary who is the sister of Margaret is probably one and the same as mary of Madgdela. ah oral tradition, you doth make my heart beat so! Godot44 days and counting - Be informed. Vote. 20:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you care, by the way, here's Karen's page - incause you don't know what we are talking about or want to read it for yourself! Karen King, harvard
- WEll, it is MARY, and given her position in both the Gospels and the early church (good and bad) that would be the likely candidate if Jesus were ever off doing it with soemone. and you do have the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mary, both of which suggest a little hanky panky going on in the back room there. or at least "love". So if it's decided it's relevant, it would be this mary. There are some really good arguments in fact that the Mary who is the sister of Margaret is probably one and the same as mary of Madgdela. ah oral tradition, you doth make my heart beat so!
- And there's no mention that this "wife" whether literal or symbolic, is Mary Magdalen, so there's probably no reason to put it here. SophieWilder 20:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's really way early to be adding that. YOu are talking a document that just hit the journals a month ago or less. I like King, so I'm betting it's a very valid source to teh extent it can be, but it's not been truly reviewed yet. And we are talking one line without any context.
BBC[edit]
He [The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester] said it was all the more upsetting because it is being screened at midday on Good Friday – the moment the Bible says Jesus was put on the cross. (...) “Why is the BBC doing this on Good Friday and why is it doing it in such a provocative way?” [1]
The British BBC is a corporation with many different people and many different agendas. Obviously screening the programme at a provocative time will get extra publicity and encourage viewers who aren’t committed Christians to watch this. Committed Christians aren’t likely to watch it at any time. Christians within the BBC may hope any backlash to the programme will help prevent similar programmes being screened at other times in future. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Go participate in the discussion on your talk page.
13:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's hardly anything new, but it isn't about sexualizing Jesus but humanizing him. It's about grounding the Bible onto solid, real "evidence based" (to the extent you can do that with a document 2000 years old, missing huge chunks) research, that necessarily includes works like "The Gospel of Mary" taht are as real as any other gospel, but were discarded by The Church. Worth your time watching, PC, since you are so interested. But not really anything worth mentioning in this article. And I doubt BBC did this with any agenda other than showing a good documentary in a time slot. If they had WANTED to piss someone off, they'd have done it on Easter.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's hardly anything new, but it isn't about sexualizing Jesus but humanizing him. It's about grounding the Bible onto solid, real "evidence based" (to the extent you can do that with a document 2000 years old, missing huge chunks) research, that necessarily includes works like "The Gospel of Mary" taht are as real as any other gospel, but were discarded by The Church. Worth your time watching, PC, since you are so interested. But not really anything worth mentioning in this article. And I doubt BBC did this with any agenda other than showing a good documentary in a time slot. If they had WANTED to piss someone off, they'd have done it on Easter.
Mary after Jesus[edit]
Her survival capacity is probably much higher in her native land than in 'the lands which would become France (or why not Glastonbury for that matter?)' - and 'going across land to the Magi' would be far more practical than 'crossing the water.' (Besides, 'the authorities' would have no image of her, so couldn't identify her.)
Given that her children would have been fairly young, it would have made sense for Jesus' adult disciples to take on his role - and her situation was downplayed or forgotten - for her own safety or because it was not considered relevant (Offhand - how many children did Gerald Ford or Harold Wilson have?).
And even if there is a line of descent from Jesus and Mary to 'any and all monarchs' - #where is the paperwork#, and how is the descent calculated - the proverbial heir has 'two bastards by different mistresses, born on the same day, six daughters by his wife and then a son'; the grandchildren of the fifth and sixth daughters marry and have heirs - how does the descent go? (Pity the poor monks having to keep family tree records for several centuries to ensure that the heir was known.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)