Arcadia Discussion Zone

I don't quite understand this Sparty. How does the position the church gives Mary "The Magdalene", indicate a bloodline?

Presumably Sandy must have somehow acquired access to Mystic Rog's crystal ball!

You are just being a pain in the ass sparty and you know it.

No, it's absolutely essential to the point I'm making! The topic of conversation is the exalted position of MM as documented in the sacred texts of the developing Christian mythos, a mythos based, in one way or another, on the texts promulgated by the 'Church'. So, in effect, the 'Church', and its own documents, are the ultimate source of the exalted state under discussion.

Your claim to know what Jesus did or did not do, while not undermining the point I'm making, will I suspect, be used as a mental pole vault by the less lucid to ignore the 'illogic' of their position.

It doesn't in my opinion!

I guess I am the less lucid, but the bloodline was never in the mainstream until the publishing of the non-cannonical gnostic gospels. It was only after that, someone could say, "Shazam, thats what they meant". The church denies any bloodline to this day, and also denies the anointing, which in the context of this discussion is more important than any bloodline.
Remember, we were discussing the "Tour Magdala" and how Micah 4:8 could be related.

The topic of conversation is the exalted position of MM as documented in the sacred texts of the developing Christian mythos, a mythos based, in one way or another, on the texts promulgated by the 'Church'. So, in effect, the 'Church', and its own documents, are the ultimate source of the exalted state under discussion.

Sparty,

I know all that.

But the Gospels are historical texts and you treat them as so.

You can debate until the cows come home about why certain books aren't included in the Canon, why certain paragraphs were left out, who wrote the original Gospels and why. And you can debate the Church and its role therein. The argument anyway is usually about the Church and its subjugation of women's roles in that church.

The historical texts, even in their earliest forms before we have the Canon as it is now - clearly show Mary Magdalene as the first witness to the major tenet of this 'new' religion.
Did Jesus reveal his 'back from the dead' to a woman by accident or design?

You have to work with what is there.

To try and argue on something you haven't read or don't know or think may have happened because you don't know is a waste of time.

Lets not talk about anything in that case.

Your claim to know what Jesus did or did not do, while not undermining the point I'm making, will I suspect, be used as a mental pole vault by the less lucid to ignore the 'illogic' of their position.

Stop being so pedantic just to make a petty point. I don't claim to know anything - but the texts quite clearly speak for themselves. The earliest group around Jesus put Mary Magdalene in a privileged position whether you accept it or not. And Jesus's so called rise from the dead was first revealed to her and in the full sense of the word was the first Apostle. Which bit of that dont you accept and what are your reasons for not accepting it?

The church denies any bloodline to this day, and also denies the anointing, which in the context of this discussion is more important than any bloodline.

No the Church didnt always deny any bloodline.
Eusebius talks about the leaders of the Jerusalem church that were relatives of Jesus.

The bloodline you refer to is one of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
We are talking about where did that first appear, this idea, right?

Yes, the Desposyni, and yes, I believe we are now talking about a Jesus-Mary bloodline. There has always been an undercurrent of belief in each of these, and both were similarly erased out of the scriptures. The Desposyni were easy, simply create a concept called perpetual virginity. The other a little more difficult.

Sorry Sandy, I still think your missing my point.

Sandy wrote:



Supposedly historical texts. There is an argument that Jesus was not a historical figure, but lets leave that aside. The Gospels are an expression of the understanding, beliefs, and/or agenda of the people who created and promulgated them in the 'Church'. It is from these 'Church' documents that we 'learn' that Mary Magdalene supposedly traveled with Jesus, and supposedly perhaps supported him financially, and supposedly perhaps anointed him, and supposedly witnessed His supposed Resurrection. We also 'learn' that Mary Magdalene may have had some form of responsibility over His supposedly dead body, something that I find interesting but rarely, if ever, see discussed! The 'bloodliners' use all this 'Church' lore to argue that the Magdalene was clearly important, while at the same time claiming the 'Church' was desperately trying to make her unimportant. Are we to assume that they were all idiots?

Sandy wrote:



Exactly...

Sandy wrote:



Let's not claim certainty were none exists...

Sandy wrote:



IMHO the point is not pedantic, it is crucial!

Sandy wrote:



I fully accept that 'Church' lore, tradition, narrative etc documents the Magdalene as First Apostle, Apostle to the Apostle, etc...

Wayward wrote:



Can you show where, how, or when these things were 'erased out of the scriptures'?

But not descendants of Jesus. Big difference. And to my knowledge, the Church has never denied that Jesus had cousins.

TCP

Wayward wrote:



Try and keep up man, for heavens sake. The story of the anointing comes to us courtesy of 'the church'. Isn't that what I have been 'pedantically' banging on about...



Yes, and you still haven't told me what you're thinking is on the matter...

I did but you won't listen, its called perpetual virginity.

Bill, can you direct us to any passages in the Gnostic Gospels where a bloodline descending from Jesus and MM is discussed, or perhaps just mentioned?

And, actually, the source for the "anointing" story is the New Testament itself, so I'm not sure how anyone can logically deduce that the Church denies it. Which hasn't stopped several people from trying and a whole lot more from parroting them, but still...

TCP

The story of the anointing of Jesus as the Christ (King) by Mary "The Magdalene", does not come from the church.
I guess I can't keep up with you Sparty. Beer calls me.

So you know of scriptures that spoke of a bloodline, that were then altered to erase any knowledge of a bloodline?

As I just told Sparty, the church in no way ever accepts that Mary "the Magdalene" anointed Jesus to be the Christ (King).
and btw, this anointing is more important than the bloodline, and I had thought that is what we would be discussing.

Bill, it would be great for the benefit of us halfwits here on the forum if you could demonstrate - evidentially, not speculatively - the "undercurrent of belief" of the Desposyni as "a Jesus-Mary bloodline."

"Some people say" or "some people think" works well for sourcing stories on Fox News, but that technique used to be called "pandering."

TCP

That's likely because it's a modern invention.



Whatever floats your boat, Bill.

TCP

Tim you evidently misread me, I never said that the Desposyni had anything to do with Mary "the Magdalene".

Hold on, wasn't it 'Church' tradition for centuries that MM, Mary of Bethany, and the 'anointing sinner' were one and the same. Isn't that why MM was regarded as possibly being a prostitute?

Wayward wrote:



I'm discussing it...keep going

Why is that, why do you believe the anointing is more appointment then the bloodline? What makes it stand out to you?

Yes, the Desposyni, and yes, I believe we are now talking about a Jesus-Mary bloodline. There has always been an undercurrent of belief in each of these, and both were similarly erased out of the scriptures. The Desposyni were easy, simply create a concept called perpetual virginity. The other a little more difficult.

Are you saying that the Mary in this "Jesus-Mary bloodline" you believe in is someone else?

TCP