Mary Magdalene - sister wife of Jesus

Originally posted by andy1972
Maybe you´ll find that Lazarus was his brother in law .....

Nope. He had no siblings. Texts in scripture refer to his
'brethren' ... no where does it say someone's name and reference
them as son of Joseph brother of Jesus. It's all 'brethren'.
Could be cousins, could be people who think the same way...
but no where does it specifically say so and so, son of Joseph
and brother of Christ.

BRETHREN

The Greek word for brother in the New Testament is adelphos. The
PROTESTANT linguistic reference – An Expository Dictionary of New
Testament Words says –

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or a near kinsman; in the plural a community
based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:

1. male children of the same parents …
2. male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26, Heb 7:5
4 people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22, Romans 9:3 …
5 any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3
6 persons united by a common interest, Matt 5:47
7 persons united by a common calling, Rev 22:9
8 mankind, Matthew 25:40; Heb 2:17
9 the disciples, and so by implication, all believers, Matt 28:10; John 20:17
10 believers, apart from sex, Matt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thess
1:4; Rev 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers, only in 1 Tim 5:2) …

- In the KJV, Jacob is called the ‘brother’ of his Uncle Laban
(Gen. 29:15; 29:10).
- Lot and Abraham (Gen 14:14; 11:26-27)
- RSV uses “kinsman” at 29:15 and 14:14
- Use of brother or brethren for mere kinsmen: Deuteronomy 23:7;
2 Sam 1:26; 1 kings 9:13, 20:32; 2 Kings 10:13-14; Jeremiah 34-9;
Amos 1:9

Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for COUSIN. The NT was written in
Greek which does have such a word, but it was written from the Hebrew
and Aramaic which had already used the word brethren - brother word.

- Matthew 23:8 Jesus calls the crowds and disciples (23:1) his brethren.
- Matthew 12:49-50 He calls the disiples who do the will of His father
– my brothers.

********************************************
Some say that the term 'Firstborn' shows that Jesus had
brothers and/or sisters.

FIRSTBORN - a term to indicate a position of pre-eminence ...

So again ... being called 'firstborn' is not in itself definitive of
meaning that there are others afterwards ...

Quote from the book - A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong

Firstborn. The use of this term to assert that Mary had 'second-borns' and
'third-borns' proves nothing, since the primary meaning of the Greek
'prototokos' is "pre-eminent". to illustrate: David is described by God as
the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth (ps. 89:27). Likewise,
God refers to Ephraim (Jer. 31:9) and the nation Israel (Exod. 4:22) as
"my firstborn". Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Colossians
1:15, meaning, according to all reputable Greek lexicons, that he was pre-
eminent over creation, that is, the Creator. The Jewish rabbinical writers
even called God the Father Bekorah Shelalam, meaning "firstborn".
Similarly, God is called the "first" in Scripture (Isa 41:4, 44:6, 48:12
cf Rev 1:8, 21:6-7). Christians are called "the firstborn" in Hebrews 12:23.
Literally speaking, however, among Jews, the firstborn was ordinarily the
child who was first to open the womb (Exod 13:2), whether there were
older children or not. This is probably the meaning of Matt 1:25, in which
case, hypothetical younger children of Mary are not implied at all,
contrary to the standard present-day Protestant assertions.

********************************************

And another quote that some point to trying to
say it proves that there were other children by Mary
and Joseph after Jesus. And once again, just like
'firstborn', the word 'until' is not definitive.

Mary didn't have relations with Joseph 'until' after Jesus was born -

The word 'till' does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different
footing afterward - as will be evident from the use of the same word in
1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20; also Romans 8:22,
1 Timothy 4:13, 6:14, and Rev 2:25. All these also use the word
'until'. The situations do not change after the word 'until' in any of
these instances.

'Until' can not be pointed to as an absolute proof of change, since
'until' didn't change the courses in other situations in the bible.
It's just a point of reference. It's not necessarily a point of change
like in our 21st century American English.

Protestants who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity (and thus
no 'other children') - John Calvin, Martin Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger
and John Wesley. Also - It was absolute belief in the early church
until the fourth century when a fellow named Helvidus tried to argue
against it .. against St. Jerome. Jerome cleaned his clock.

In the end - there is NO biblical proof of blood brothers and sisters
of Jesus. If anyone wishes to believe there were such relatives
... go right ahead. However, it is a belief based on your thoughts
and not on absolute biblical reference because there are NO absolute
biblical references to any blood brothers or sisters of Christ.



[edit on 11/30/2005 by FlyersFan]

This is also why Mary Magdalene was sometimes called a prostitute (pro-stitute). The term comes from the Latin 'pro statuere', meaning 'before the statue'. This describes her function precisely, because she stood before the statue of Atum and masturbated it to ensure the regeneration of the world.

In regards to this, I went to answers.com and obtained the following definition of Prostitute:

One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts.
One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.
tr.v., -tut·ed, -tut·ing, -tutes.

To offer (oneself or another) for sexual hire.
To sell (oneself or one's talent, for example) for an unworthy purpose.

[Latin prōstitūta, from feminine past participle of prōstituere, to prostitute : prō-, in front; see pro–1 + statuere, to cause to stand.]

Please note the text inside the brackets.


[edit on 30-11-2005 by Toelint]

I wasn't going to honor this thread with a post, but despite my better judgement -

I'm glad I am not the only one who thinks ralphellis2 is so full of crap his eyes are brown. If there is any one who warps and distorts things in the name of publicity it is most assuradly him. Why else would someone waste so much time and effort on something so bogus. - Fortunately I found this preposition before I bought any of his books.

If he was desirious of writing something remotely plausable he should start with jesusneverexisted.com...

It never ceases to amase me at the amount of ignorance put forth by idiomatic christians, and writers trying to pass themselves off as authorities on topics they know nothing about. 2+2=5 just ain't right.

I have no idea how anyone who knows anything can come to a conclusion or idea that Magdilin was the sister of Jesus it is beyond preposterious.
The only thing that comes remotely close is that lazarus was any one besides lazarus.

The conncept that Christ and Magdelin were married does hold water, despite "Mainstream Christian" beliefs. (Yes it is quite debatable, and makes for rather passionate discussions).

My tounge is starting to bleed, so I'll post before I edit again.

Originally posted by ralphellis2
Lazarus, was Jesus' brother.

I sincerely doubt this. Lazarus represents El'Azar in 1 Samuel 7, who was the keeper of the ark of the covenant. The death and resurrection of Lazarus represents the death of the old covenant and the new life of the new covenant (which then represent the death of the age of aries and the birth of the age of pisces in underlying astrotheology).

It's an allegorical story, and Lazarus is not a historical figure.

ENRON - I reposted with the two book quotes inside quotes
for better reading. If you like, go ahead and delete the first
post of this at the top of this page. Thanks. LIZ

Originally posted by andy1972
Maybe you´ll find that Lazarus was his brother in law .....

Nope. He had no siblings. Texts in scripture refer to his
'brethren' ... no where does it say someone's name and reference
them as son of Joseph brother of Jesus. It's all 'brethren'.
Could be cousins, could be people who think the same way...
but no where does it specifically say so and so, son of Joseph
and brother of Christ.

BRETHREN

The Greek word for brother in the New Testament is adelphos. The
PROTESTANT linguistic reference – An Expository Dictionary of New
Testament Words says – (taken from the book, there is no link
that I know of)

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or a near kinsman; in the plural a community
based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:

1. male children of the same parents …
2. male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26, Heb 7:5
4 people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22, Romans 9:3 …
5 any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3
6 persons united by a common interest, Matt 5:47
7 persons united by a common calling, Rev 22:9
8 mankind, Matthew 25:40; Heb 2:17
9 the disciples, and so by implication, all believers, Matt 28:10; John 20:17
10 believers, apart from sex, Matt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thess
1:4; Rev 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers, only in 1 Tim 5:2) …

- In the KJV, Jacob is called the ‘brother’ of his Uncle Laban
(Gen. 29:15; 29:10).
- Lot and Abraham (Gen 14:14; 11:26-27)
- RSV uses “kinsman” at 29:15 and 14:14
- Use of brother or brethren for mere kinsmen: Deuteronomy 23:7;
2 Sam 1:26; 1 kings 9:13, 20:32; 2 Kings 10:13-14; Jeremiah 34-9;
Amos 1:9

Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for COUSIN. The NT was written in
Greek which does have such a word, but it was written from the Hebrew
and Aramaic which had already used the word brethren - brother word.

- Matthew 23:8 Jesus calls the crowds and disciples (23:1) his brethren.
- Matthew 12:49-50 He calls the disiples who do the will of His father
– my brothers.

********************************************
Some say that the term 'Firstborn' shows that Jesus had
brothers and/or sisters.

FIRSTBORN - a term to indicate a position of pre-eminence ...

So again ... being called 'firstborn' is not in itself definitive of
meaning that there are others afterwards ...

Quote from the book - A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong
Taken from the BOOK -

Firstborn. The use of this term to assert that Mary had 'second-borns' and
'third-borns' proves nothing, since the primary meaning of the Greek
'prototokos' is "pre-eminent". to illustrate: David is described by God as
the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth (ps. 89:27). Likewise,
God refers to Ephraim (Jer. 31:9) and the nation Israel (Exod. 4:22) as
"my firstborn". Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Colossians
1:15, meaning, according to all reputable Greek lexicons, that he was pre-
eminent over creation, that is, the Creator. The Jewish rabbinical writers
even called God the Father Bekorah Shelalam, meaning "firstborn".
Similarly, God is called the "first" in Scripture (Isa 41:4, 44:6, 48:12
cf Rev 1:8, 21:6-7). Christians are called "the firstborn" in Hebrews 12:23.
Literally speaking, however, among Jews, the firstborn was ordinarily the
child who was first to open the womb (Exod 13:2), whether there were
older children or not. This is probably the meaning of Matt 1:25, in which
case, hypothetical younger children of Mary are not implied at all,
contrary to the standard present-day Protestant assertions.

********************************************

And another quote that some point to trying to
say it proves that there were other children by Mary
and Joseph after Jesus. And once again, just like
'firstborn', the word 'until' is not definitive.

Mary didn't have relations with Joseph 'until' after Jesus was born -

The word 'till' does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different
footing afterward - as will be evident from the use of the same word in
1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20; also Romans 8:22,
1 Timothy 4:13, 6:14, and Rev 2:25. All these also use the word
'until'. The situations do not change after the word 'until' in any of
these instances.

'Until' can not be pointed to as an absolute proof of change, since
'until' didn't change the courses in other situations in the bible.
It's just a point of reference. It's not necessarily a point of change
like in our 21st century American English.

Protestants who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity (and thus
no 'other children') - John Calvin, Martin Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger
and John Wesley. Also - It was absolute belief in the early church
until the fourth century when a fellow named Helvidus tried to argue
against it .. against St. Jerome. Jerome cleaned his clock.

In the end - there is NO biblical proof of blood brothers and sisters
of Jesus. If anyone wishes to believe there were such relatives
... go right ahead. However, it is a belief based on your thoughts
and not on absolute biblical reference because there are NO absolute
biblical references to any blood brothers or sisters of Christ.


[edit on 12/1/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
ENRON - I reposted with the two book quotes inside quotes
for better reading. If you like, go ahead and delete the first
post of this at the top of this page. Thanks. LIZ

That was completely my misunderstanding Liz and apologize, but I do appreciate your firm resolve

Originally posted by FlyersFan
In the end - there is NO biblical proof of blood brothers and sisters
of Jesus. If anyone wishes to believe there were such relatives
... go right ahead. However, it is a belief based on your thoughts
and not on absolute biblical reference because there are NO absolute
biblical references to any blood brothers or sisters of Christ.


[edit on 12/1/2005 by FlyersFan]

The Bible is not the only source of information.

The Ebionites certainly believed Jesus had blood siblings. Why discount that when there is not even anything in the Bible that would preclude it?

The Ebionites are probably the best evidence in favor of a historical Jesus. Unfortunately, the Roman Christians wiped them out and destroyed almost everything. What we know of early competing non-Pauline sects of Christians comes mostly from early church fathers, although archaeology has been uncovering more.

Originally posted by spamandham
The Bible is not the only source of information.

GLAD you brought that up! Absolutely. The reason I quoted
the bible and explained those quotes is because those are what
people usually point to and use as 'evidence' that Christ had
blood relatives. Those bible quotes are not difinitive when it
comes to blood siblings.

The Ebionites certainly believed Jesus had blood
siblings. Why discount that ....

I certainly can't discount the Ebionites when I don't know
anything about them. Please, tell us about them, who they
are, what they believed and why. It would be interesting
to read. Thank you.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I certainly can't discount the Ebionites when I don't know
anything about them. Please, tell us about them, who they
are, what they believed and why. It would be interesting
to read. Thank you.

The wiki has a good introduction to them.

Sarah WAS Abrahams sister. His half sister. They shared a father but not a mother.

But they were related.

In Corinthians chapter 7:7
For I would that all men were even as I myself.
But every manhath his proper gift of God,one after this manner,
and ,another after that.
7:8.I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9.But if they cannot contain,let them marry:for it is better to marry then to burn.

The above proves that the Lord Jesus Christ was not married or had any relations.

IX
helen

The above proves that the Lord Jesus Christ was not married or had any relations.

Actually NO you are wrong. The statements you quote are from Pauls writings,
or at least by a person that was a follower of Paul. They have nothing to
do with R. Yehoshua bar Yosef.

If there were a genealogical link between Mary Magdalene and Jesus, it would have been exposed long ago by scholars, and not by novelists.

What else can I say?

The above quote tells it all!

helen

Originally posted by helen670

If there were a genealogical link between Mary Magdalene and Jesus, it would have been exposed long ago by scholars, and not by novelists.

What else can I say?

The above quote tells it all!

helen

But it has been for years. Dan Brown was not the first, Nor were Baigent,Leigh and Lincoln.

A Shocking Theory

I was involved in a discussion last night about the Sangreal / Holy Grail.

As I have posted here before my theory is that Mary Magdelene is the Holy Grail. She is the vessel in which the blood of Christ ( the child of Christ/Sangreal/Royal blood) was carried to France after being spirited away from Jerusalem by Joseph of Arimathea.

This is not such a wild a theory in fact it's a fairly popular one these days.

However someone mentioned last night the links between Jesus and Egyptian Magi, rituals which I had already knew about and another person for a joke quipped " Well the Egyptians were famous for incest maybe Jesus and his mother got down to some loving"

Now I appreciate that this is high blasphemy but it got me thinking.

If Jesus was deep into the Egyptian rituals/Mystery schools etc then whose to say he didn't go that step further.

Egyptian Royalty famously engaged in sexual relations with relatives in order to keep the bloodline pure ( hell, so did the royal families of europe for that matter) so it's possible that Mary Magdelene was a relative of Jesus or that Mary Magdelene is none other than the Catholic Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

This wild I know and probably unfounded but what actually happened to the mother of Jesus, she seems to disappear from records.

Here is a link discussing the mystery schools

Mystery Schools

Lest we forget that incest is not mentioned in the ten commandments

Here is another that links Jesus with incest claims

Jesus the Mamzerut

As I said above. The egyptians and royal dynasties throughout history have practiced incest in order to keep the bloodline pure so if Jesus was a member of an egyptian cult or copied many egyptian rituals then he may have taken that extra step.

I propose two possible theories ( Let's discount for a minute any notion that Jesus was the Son of God which is unproven and open to immense speculation) which under certain circumstances could be possible.

1) The Virgin Birth of Jesus was a result of Mary's union with a relation. Possibly even Joseph. This would imply Mary and Joseph also followed the egyptian ways.

2) That Mary Magdelene and Jesus were related or that Mary Magdelene was Jesus Mother and their union gave birth ( so to speak) to the holy grail legends.

Wild theories maybe, but not without foundation.

I shall look for more evidence.

Those links again

Mystery schools

Jesus the Mamzar

I'd like to point out that I was forced to move my original thread to here because they crossed paths (apparently).

I was moved by Nygdan who so happens to have posted earlier disputing this claim.

Funny that

Its post like this that make me consider drugs... so now poor Mary Magdalene was Jesus' sister ...people will not stop at anything to defame someone they havent even met....

I dont understand... ok ..so you're not a Christian and dont wanna be one ?...but is it really necessary to go around making up stories like this ?
Just because soem dud came out with that idea, does NOT make it true...

It could have been possible if Jesus was from Alabama (just joking), but he wasnt ... and even if it was that would mean Mary Magdalene would be his cousin... not sister...lol

anyway...you got your history wrong...it was the Romans who enjoyed to "keep it in the family" .... now please leave Jesus and Mary Magadalene alone...they never caused you any harm, and they really can't defend themselves of such non-sense.

BaastetNoir - You'e going around threads posting nonsense and not adding to the discussion so run along little boy and stop trying to end threads with stupid comments.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by StJude]

Originally posted by StJude
BaastetNoir - You'e going around threads posting nonsense and not adding to the discussion so run along little boy and stop trying to end threads with stupid comments.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by StJude]

...

I love irony. That was too funny.

StJude, what Nygdan did is a policy of ATS. If a thread already exists talking about something, people are to post in that thread, not create another talking about the same thing. It happens that sometimes we can't find a similar topic through the search or just miss one talking about the same thing. This way, rather than shallowly discussing issues, the conversation can get truely deep from so many people contributing to the same conversation.

However, I thought your thread was going in an interesting direction, addressing the assumption you had made.

As for contributing to the thread, I'm not sure how I could add onto Dr_Strangecraft's points. The problem with this argument is that the whole principle is founded on a precarious mountain of assumptions. If I can quote madnessinmysoul:

well, after the slaughter of the innocents it's said that jesus and family went to egypt. he could have picked up some mysticism while there as a refugee.

also, the bible does have gaps pertaining to about 30 years of the life of jesus, so we can't really know what he was like with only the bible.

Could have, can't really know, gaps. This argument is based on filling in gaps with assumptions based on gnostic writings, poor Biblical translations and a desperate wish to discredit Christ through any means possible, the truth be damned.