It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mary Magdalene - sister wife of Jesus

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
anyway...you got your history wrong...it was the Romans who enjoyed to "keep it in the family"


How many OT examples would like of marriage to close relatives by the Hebrews? If you read that collection, you will discover it was the preferred practice.




posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Marriage? I can think of several examples of incest, such as Lot or Amnon, but those weren't received so well. I think you're going to have to define what "close" relations are.

We in America say third cousin is the closest relative you can be married to. Other cultures say second, some even first. None (that I know of) promote immediate family relations, though. Even the Ancient Greeks, who were rather...Orgirific...condemned direct familial relations. So what do you define as incest? The incest proposed here is son and mother. Explicitly condemned in the Bible:

Leviticus 18:6-18


6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.


I dunno about you, but I don't think it gets any more explicit than that.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Jungle Jake - Quoting Leviticus is hardly a defence. Unless you are saying That God himself wrote or dictated Leviticus and if that is the case i'd like to hear any evidence to support that which doesn't contain the word faith.

Here is a few interesting links that carry on the idea that Jesus was a Mamzar.

Conception Chart

Message board

This one shows the Egyptian and Christian parallels:


www.theosophical.ca..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Egyptian/Christian Link


It's interesting to note that the average person on the street thinks that people of Jewish faith worshipp Jesus as the Messiah.

I'll be back with more



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
It was said to me once that the proposal of Jesus being married was somehow discreditting him, or a putdown, but I feel the opposite, if anything. It is either of no consequence, or it means he experienced more fully mortal life and thus would feel more of what the human experience is.

When I read that the wedding at Canaa was suggested to be Jesus' and Mary Magdalene's union, I very meticulously reread the account.
It is hard to refute that the most sensible and literal conclusion, requiring the least mental gymnastics, is that the wedding is His.
Of course many will point to John 2:3, which states Jesus and his disciples had also been invited.
So, if that is all you need to hear to discount the notion of it being His wedding, there is no use reading further........note that it is John who shares this.
To summarize my reasons for thinking Jesus and Mary Magdalene were betrothed:

1. Mother Mary takes charge of supplying the wine when it ran out, an odd thing for a guest to do, when tradition is that the groom's family does so.
2. The couple who are married at Canaa, are curiously anonymous. Why?
3. Jesus supplies the wine, and the mc praises the groom, thereby supporting the traditional responsibility is the groom's family.
John 2:11 states that this is the 1st miracle, reveals Jesus' glory, and the disciples believed in Him.
4. Nowhere in the NT does it mention Jesus' marital status, one way or the other..........why? A valid question, I feel.
5. Three, not one or two, three times He is called Rabbi, a title which has as a firm prerequisite that the man be wedded.
6. So.....if He is not wedded, why does no one notice the obvious and comment on the contradiction?
7. Jesus preached that marriage is good, and divorce is bad. In this case, we are asked to believe that He did not take His own advice,
on top of the half dozen previous suggestive points. I look at Him as a do as I do, not do as I say kind of teacher, how do you see Him?
8. At the empty tomb, who would you predict would arrive at the tomb first that morning? Those who were closest to Him would. Interesting side note, different bibles list different names, but Mary Magdalene is in all of them, supporting the posit that she was his closest confidante.
Luke 24:10 KJAV"It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James........."



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Here is a basic link that implies Jesus was married

Factsheet

If it was tradtion for Jews at that time to have an arranged Marriage then it's possible it was with one of his realtions, his cousin Mary for instance.

Maybe Mary was the name bestowed upon women who entered the sect ( We have three Mary's after all, His mother, Mary of Bethany and Magdelene) which would mean that Jesus Mother was a member of this sect and Jesus learnt from her teachings.

Then again. Joseph has always been the shadowy figure as far as I'm concerned.

He was older than Mary and he accepts she is to give birth to Gods son after the visitation by angels but what do we really know about Joseph?

Very very little. He's not around at the tomb so we assume that he died but that's a big assumption to make I think.

Joseph was a decendant from the line of David so he must have been a man of some power and influence and yet his life and passing remain a mystery.

Joseph

Interesting. In this article it mentions that Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body of Jesus. A Duty that would have fallen upon the first Joseph if he was alive.

Here we have another Shadowy figure who goes by the name of Joseph.

Joseph of Arimathea

Mmm. There is something more to all this I am sure

Back with more later



[edit on 19-1-2006 by StJude]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
www.nexusmagazine.com...

This is a brief summary which outlines the theory that they did indeed wed, and then had children, and that the descendents are still alive.

www.newdawnmagazine.com...

More from the same author. An outline of a newer book that expands on the former, and discusses the novel, the Da Vinci code.

www.graal.co.uk...

And this is his website.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
How many OT examples would like of marriage to close relatives by the Hebrews? If you read that collection, you will discover it was the preferred practice.


A sister is a litle BEHOND "close relative" dont you think... we address second or thrid cousins and such as "close relatives"...you dont introduce a sister or a brother as " here .. this is Jane my close relative sister", do you ?

there are plenty of marriages between cousins, uncles and nieces etc, and it can turn out in very serious problems for children of those marriages. thats the problem with it.


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]


Oh...you mean saying "Jesus married his Sister" is suppose to be taken serious ??? LOL... and by the way...my posts make total sense...in fact they make so much sense I didnt even need to quote the bible to debunk this trash. And obviously, it hit a nerve or you would be so "spiced up". As to not making any sense ...well maybe YOU are the one with LACK of understanding, once you can't even read what my profile says about my GENDER ?

It amazes me how much peope, hate Jesus for no reason... hate him enough to go around making up garbage... It really makes me wonder that He must have been who the Bbile says he was or noone would really care enough to stopp this low.

First came the Da Vinci code with the "Jesus married Mary Magdalene", based SIMPLY on a painting of Leonardo DaVinci and his personal beliefs... now people seem to forget THAT IT WAS PAINTING !!!!!! A PAINTING ! painted THOUSANDS of years later... A PAINTING not a photograph taken by the "Papparazzi" at the Last Supper... or was it ? If we are suppose to take all Renascence and other genres of paintings that serious, than I am sure somewhere in this world there is a Lady Called Venus standing naked inside of an oyster shell ( in case this one has been a litle to over your head, Google "Venus paintings" and you'll know what i mean... its deffinately something worthy spending time with, on the oppsite of incestuous "biblical" marriages that never happened).

Anyway, going back to the wedding "party"... it would be in EVERY CHURCH best interest to have these " offsprings of Jesus and Mary Magdalene" in their hands, so why bother hidding it when they could be using them for they're own proffit, just like Churches use everything else for profit ??? the answer is simple....THERE ARE NO CHILDREN... because THERE WAS NO MARRIAGE.

And even if there had been a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene what exactly would be the problem ?? None... Marriage is NOT a sin... and he still made miracles and healings and exorcisms...so obviously there would be no problem with the marriage ...would it ?

With that settled, we come up to the next point....When "The DaVinci Code" came out with the "big secret marriage"... as if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, it cause somewhat of a confusion... but it was quickly debunked by many Scholars.

So the "brainiacs" out there got together and decided... "wait a minute ...saying he was married isnt bad enough... cause some Christians will say marriage isn't a sin, so no problem there... Lets say ..HE MARRIED HIS SITER !!!...yeah ...thats a good one...because incest is pretty sick sounding"...so there... an easy, prett low, cheap, childish way to trow more mudd on two characters who can't really defend themselves.

One of these days i would not be surprised if some other "internet Scholar" came out and said ...
" weellll ... Jesus did get married with Mary Magdalene,...buttt...there is ancient script that PROOVES she wasnt really a woman... but a transexual from downtown Betlehem"...

I think sooner or later that will come too...

As far as I'm concerned ...to anyone who decides to believe garbage like this with no proof or whatesover..Go ahead...you deserve what you get.

The more i read stuff like this, the more i feel like becoming a Christian.
There is no way people would stoop so low, unless Jesus was actually the Son of God... must be "brotherly" Jealousy ????

As to your final childish statement that "i'm trying to finish discussions"...all i can say is ... dude your so damn lucky i'm not a moderator or this would have been closed before it even started!

Chew on that



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
BaastetNoir - I'm not here to be Anti Christian or to cause trouble. I'm here to discuss and offer my theories.

I admit that sometimes these theories will be wild but none are without foundation.

Maybe Jesus was a Alien, maybe he married a horse, swam the English channel and danced the Bolero with John the Baptist...nobody knows for sure and all I'm doing is offering ideas and thoughts that other people may latch onto.

I'm not here for a fight but that doesn't mean I'm not a fighter so I'd appreciate if we could respect each others opinion enough to agree to disagree.

Neither of us are right or wrong we are just hear to try and find a shred of truth in a subject full of lies, deception and rumour.

Thanks for your reply and hopefully next time we chat our discussion will be of a more postive nature.


[edit on 19-1-2006 by StJude]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by StJude
Maybe Jesus was a Alien, maybe he married a horse, swam the English channel and danced the Bolero with John the Baptist.

BLASHPEMER! Everyone knows it was the merengue! And only heretics say its the Lambada!



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by StJude
Maybe Jesus was a Alien, maybe he married a horse,


I ran across a site yesterday that claimed that the original pronuciation for Jesus was phonetically the same as "horse" in Aramaic, so perhaps he did marry a horse.


(I really did run across such a site yesterday)



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
First came the Da Vinci code with the "Jesus married Mary Magdalene", based SIMPLY on a painting of Leonardo DaVinci and his personal beliefs... now people seem to forget THAT IT WAS PAINTING !!!!!! A PAINTING ! painted THOUSANDS of years later... A PAINTING not a photograph taken by the "Papparazzi" at the Last Supper... or was it ?


Contrary to popular belief, the theory that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene does not stem solely from a painting by Leonardi Da Vinci.

It stems from Gnostic Christian texts such as Pistis Sophia, and is supported by the relatively new Nag Hammadi Library, especially The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene, and The Gospel of Philip.

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic

[edit on 19/1/2006 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
It is kind of ironic that I have been aware of the Jesus/Mary wedding theory for 20+ years now. I was made aware of, and had a close look at, the Last Supper not more than three weeks ago. lol
It sure looks like a woman sitting there, and since Leonardo was known to be handy with a paintbrush, I would guess he meant to paint a woman. As to his beliefs, I have not ever been made aware of them, though he is listed as one of the heads of the Priory of Sion.
Leonardo was no slouch. He has been rated by some intelligence theorists as being the smartest person to ever live. I wouldn't be surprised. But, if I learned that he was of the belief that the Jesus/Mary wedding was probable, I would be very glad to have that kind of support. But I don't know that. The bible has plenty of suggestive lines which could mean he was married. It is all in the interpretation. Mine is not all that popular, but that has not been my goal.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Egyptian sex overview

Interesting.

Lets stay with idea that Jesus was heavily into or influenced by Egyptian religion.

"The royal family, on the other hand, did have more incestuous marriages. The royal blood ran through the females, not the males. To become pharaoh, a man had to marry a royal princess... which would be his sister or half-sister"

Now correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Pharoahs claim to be living Gods and that claim was not disputed but recognised as fact in Egyptian society.

Was Jesus trying to become a Pharoah, a living God and if so what rituals did he go through in order to acheive this?

More later.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
The problem with jesus making a claim at being pharoah is that the gospels all seem to indicate that his tradition was rooted in the hebrew traditions. The parallels and justifications are from judaism, not the egyptian religion, or, as one time thought, european paganism.

So on the count of him trying to follow the egyptian religion, it seems shakey. Especially since the pharoah would be the son of Osiris, not a supreme god, and only a child of the pharoah could make a traditional claim to be pharoah.

Also, the last pharoah was Cleopatra, so there wouldn't've been a pharoah when/if jesus was in egypt.

Additionally, it wasn't allways required that a pharoah marry his mother or daughter. Its somethign that the egyptians did do at times, as did the Iranians in the deep past, but its clearly not a requirement.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
IMO, I do not believe that Jesus was ever married. He knew what his future had in store for him. I believe that the secret is that Jesus and Mary were brother and sister, twins to be exact. I believe that they were seperated at birth for Mary's protection. I say this for two reasons. For one, in the begining, when God created man in his own image, he created them male and female. I believe that God is male and female. By putting a male and female together you achieve true completion. In order for God to have a child, it would have had to been twins a male and a female. The other reason is through the stories in the bible, I personaly think that they behave more like brother and sister than friends. I feel that is how the blood line continues.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Abraham and Sarah, Vizier Joseph, and most prominent of all, raised as a prince of Egypt, Moses, whose name is like the Egyptian royalty, TutMoses, and RaMoses. The fleeing couple and their son, who the bible delineates were of the Davidic (Royal) line, were heading towards the homeland of a very long established, related family line. They were descended from Moses, yes? Why wouldn't they be able to go there and be welcomed as kin? Even now we have a record of the long history of the family ties. He may have had a shot at being Pharaoh. Or, he may have studied under the Egyptian high priests, and learned their greatest lessons. It is all just me speculating, but from a standpoint of what we have to go on.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
One other thing, the painting The Last Supper, is very dear to me. My Grandma had a tapestry of it hanging in her kitchen. When I was little, I would always sit there at the table and just study it. I thought it was so interesting. She about fell over (being a strict Catholic woman) when I told her that the person sitting next to Jesus was a woman. She tried to argue with me, but "Grandma, she has boobs, and she doesnt have a beard" I would tell her. She couldnt argue with that. Another thing to point out is that John the baptist was beheaded before the last supper. Comming from an artist standpoint, after studing it for most my life, the light in the room is comming from Mary. There arent very many shadows in the room, but the ones that are there, are comming from her.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Interesting Blackguard

Jesus is indeed related to Moses via the Davidic Line.

Ever hear the theory that Moses was in fact Akhenaten:

Akhenaten

Akhenaten/Moses Link

Something to build on I think.

Matthew say's:

Mt.2:14

"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt."

Whilst Luke say's:

Lk.2:39
"And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Thats a major flaw in the Bible If ever I saw one, which is the real senario?

Speaking of which ( I'm speaking directly to Christians here) how can you have flaws in a supposed perfect document written by the hand of God himself?

Here is another example of Matthew and Luke contradicting about the subject of who Joseph father was:

Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

I'd say these where very important errors. Did Jesus go to Egypt where he studied the Egyptian ways, customs and rituals or did he return to the backwater village of Nazareth (which some say never even existed at the time) and stay there for who knows how many years.

It's always seemed strange to me that Joseph was a humble carpenter even though he was of the Davidic Line so who was his father exactly, Heli or Jacob?

Lots of interest here.

Back with more later



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
On the thread 'the great pyramid the sphinx, the lies and deceptions'
It is about the theory of them both being the same person. If you go to that thread, check it out. Re: humble carpenter Joseph, I have heard his title referred to not as a master craftsman, a carpenter, but as a 'master of the craft.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
First, TDVC did not start the Jesus and Mary theory. I ran across it almost 30 years ago. The belief has been around ( as stated) for many centuries.

Second , there is some indication of Egyptian influence on R. Yehoshua's
teachings. Also a lot of pre-saducee(sp) Jewish/Hebrew teaching.

Third, am I the only one that sees the likelyhood that the Brother/Sister connection Is in actuality a Priest/Priestess , God/Goddess, Brother/Sister of the same Order relationship?




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join