Was Mary Magdalene the mother of Jesus?

The canonical gospels don't report everything Jesus do, such as sleeping, eating, bathing, or sneezing.

Does it really matter if Jesus was married or not? It shouldn't matter.

But let make one thing clear for Steve at JRM. Mary Magdelene is not Jesus' mother. She is a different woman. Perhaps, you friend made a mistake, and meant she was Jesus' girlfriend or wife, or even disciple.

beckysoup61 said:

Actually I thought this way before the DaVinci Code, mind you a lot of people did.

Click to expand...

The first time I remember hearing about the possibility that Jesus was married was at EFY (Especially For Youth - kind of an LDS Vacation Bible School, on a very large scale). The presenter that mentioned it proposed that Mary, the sister of Lazareth, was Jesus' wife. I don't remember his reasoning. Mary Magdalene makes more sense. Ultimatley, it doesn't matter who he was married to, or if he was married at all. Like I said before, if finding out that Christ was married destroys your faith, you need to work on you faith.

I know we have already determined that Mary Magdalene was not the Virgin Mary. But I wanted to add my two cents. And I'll probably get some change back. I first saw Jesus Christ Superstar when I was about 12 years old. And I thought Mary Magdalene was his girlfriend, way before the Di Vinci code came out.

I found through my own study of the bible that she was not the prostitute. She was the sister of Lazarus, and Jesus cleansed her of 7 devils.

Later on in life when I started studing other religions, a came to realize that Jews used to arrange their marriages, so if Jesus and Mary were married, it would have been unrecognized by any church. I also found out that back then, men and women were not to travel together, so the fact that Jesus had women in his flock was also a sin according to the church.

A little something I learned about the traditions back then was that right before a wedding, the bride to be would anoint the feet of her beloved with a very special oil. Spikenard. Then she would carry a vial around her neck until the time of her husbands death, where she would again annoint him with the oil of their engagement.

I have never read the Di Vinci Code, but the bible says that Mary annointed Jesus with Spikenard, and Judas was upset with her for not selling such expensive oil and using the money to help the poor. Jesus responded by saying that she is prepairing him for his death.

Joh 12:3 - Show Context
3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
Mr 16:1 - Show Context And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

lilithu said:

In essence what the web site is saying is that it was an honest mistake on Pope Gregory's part based on poor exegesis.

Click to expand...

That's how I understood it.

lilithu said:

I don't agree that it makes no difference whether Mary Magadalene is considered your garden-variety sinner like we all are sinners or considered a prostitute. It made a huge difference in how she was perceived. It still does, as Steve's reaction shows. He's incensed that she would be called a "whore" but inherent in that indignation is the belief that being a "whore" is one of the worst things that one could be. (I do not share that view personally, or else I would have been more circumspect in my comments.)

Click to expand...

I hardly focused on the whore part myself. Even before being aware of this controversy. I didn't see it any different then St. Paul who killed many believers. Not in the degree of the sin, but rather they both sinned and changed.

lilithu said:

And if it was a "mistake" on Pope Gregory's part, of which I am not conviced, it was a mistake stemming from a patriarchal bias.

Click to expand...

What exactly did this bias consist of?

lilithu said:

I don't see the recognition of Gregory's "mistake" as a "tool for the feminist movement."

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily think it's solely that movement, but yes I do think it plays a role in it's push. We'll have to disagree on this. Perhaps if I read more on this movement pushing to save St. Pauls character as well.

lilithu said:

I see this as recognizing a clear historical bias within the church. (One person's ideology is another person's truth.) Tho I would be the first to say that such biases occur in other religious traditions as well, and it is somewhat mitigated within the Catholic tradition by the exaltation of Mother Mary. I did not mean to single out the Catholic church for criticism (I didn't not even think that what I said was that controversial) and honestly, if I had known about the John quote proving that Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene were separate people, I would have used that from the beginning and avoided this whole thing.

Click to expand...

I wasn't taking it harshly in that manner lilthu. Don't worry.
I'm just not grasping this "bias" you noted (which everybody has anyways) in light of the mitigation you noted. It would seem to me that the Catholic Church has never had a problem with elevating a women.

SoyLeche said:

if finding out that Christ was married destroys your faith, you need to work on you faith.

Click to expand...

It's me finding out that so many LDS believe that Christ was married that has me stunned. I grew up in the Salt Lake area and attended church all my life and went on a full time mission, and in all my years I don't remember anyone seriously thinking that Christ ever married. Maybe they were just too scared to say that they believed this for fear of ridicule. It was only after coming here to RF that I discovered that many believed this false theory.

SoyLeche said:

if finding out that Christ was married destroys your faith, you need to work on you faith.

Click to expand...

It's not a question of faith, it's a matter of setting the record straight, as we have done with this false theory, that Mary Magdelene was the mother of Jesus. Which was so easy to disprove, with a simple scripture, from John, thanks to Lilithu's persistence.

FFH said:

It's me finding out that so many LDS believe that Christ was married that has me stunned. I grew up in the Salt Lake area and attended church all my life and went on a full time mission, and in all my years I don't remember anyone seriously thinking that Christ ever married. Maybe they were just too scared to say that they believed this for fear of ridicule. It was only after coming here to RF that I discovered that many believed this false theory.

Click to expand...

I don't think you are going to find many General Authorities saying anything on the subject. It makes sense that he was married though, for various reasons - not the least of which is D&C 131:2. As far as I know, however, the church has no official stand on the issue, and it isn't something that is going to come up regularly in Sunday School.

Also, I don't think that there are many of us that do lean that direction that would be devastated to learn that we were wrong. It just isn't an important issue.

The passage is
John 19:25 "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."
Now is this four women, or two. One being the sister of the Mother of Jesus (Mary the wife of Cleophas) and another, the Mother of Jesus (Mary Magdalene)

Mark 15:40 There were also womenl ooking on afar off, among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joses and Salome"
This passage mentions two Mary's at the cross.

Matthew 27:56 "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children"
Again, two Mary's at the cross.

Luke 8:2 "And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils"
What does this mean? That Mary Magdalene had seven devils cast out of her, or certain women who were present had seven devils cast out, and who cast the devils out? They were there with the twelve disciples.
Luke 8:19 "then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press".
The brethren are his disciples, and the only Mary mentioned that was with them was Mary Magdalene. So you see, it's not as cut and dried as one might assume.

steve at JRM said:

John 19:25 "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."
Now is this four women, or two. One being the sister of the Mother of Jesus (Mary the wife of Cleophas) and another, the Mother of Jesus (Mary Magdalene)

Click to expand...

i see this as being three people

1. Mary, his mother
2. his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas
3. and Mary Magdalene

i assume the passage to mean:

his mothers sister, who is called Mary, the wife of Cleophas

Ori said:

Then again, no records of Christ actually existing exist.

Click to expand...

Have you never of the ancient Jewish historian named Josephus? Most of his description of Yeshua Nazareth has been altered by Christian zealots, but Josephus clearly asserts that a wise teacher or rabbi who existed and was crucified. In a different passage in his Antiquities, Josephus again refers to Yeshua, but this time with no introduction or elaboration.