Mary Magdalene was indeed the "disciple that Jesus loved"

[Onyiiboy]

Mary Magdalene is perhaps the most misunderstood woman in the entire Bible. For the last 2000 years, the church has made it their mission to assassinate her character by labeling her as a prostitute and portraying her as nothing more than a groupie of Jesus. All of this begs the question...why? Why would the church put so much energy into defacing the character of one woman? Could it be because she was a threat? I think that an objective analysis of the Gospels can indeed show that it was Mary Magdalene that was the "disciple that Jesus loved" and not John And that this is the reason that her character has been slandered all these years.


Keep the following thoughts in mind:

1. "The disciple that Jesus loved" is never named, and is assumed to be John (without any strong evidence for that matter)

2. The Gospel of John, which is the only gospel that claims to have been written by an eyewitness, was almost not included in the Bible

3. The Gospel of John was only included in the Bible after "editing" was done to it

4. The Gospel of John was very very popular amongst Gnostic Christians, who believed in equality between men and women

5. There are a number of verses that give away that the "disciple that Jesus loved" was originally a woman:

John 13:23-26:
3 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was of whom He spoke.
25 Then, leaning back[a] on Jesus’ breast, he said to Him, “Lord, who is it?”
26 Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.” And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

This verse shows that "the beloved disciple" was leaning on the breast of Jesus during the last supper, and Peter had to go and ask them to get an answer from the Christ. Does it seem logical that a man was laying on the breast of Jesus?



John 18:15-16
15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another[a] disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest. 16 But Peter stood at the door outside. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought Peter in.


Keep in mind that in the book of Mark, he says that all the 12 disciples fled



John 19:25-27
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus [b]His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene[b]. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.


Four women are named here, and one of them is said to be "the beloved disciple." It is likely that the original text said "behold your daughter" instead of "behold your son"

Also keep in mind that there were no disciples at the crucifixtion...besides the beloved one which they refuse to name.



John 21:7
1 After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and in this way He showed Himself: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.”
They said to him, “We are going with you also.” They went out and immediately[a] got into the boat, and that night they caught nothing. 4 But when the morning had now come, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Then Jesus said to them, “Children, have you any food?”
They answered Him, “No.”
6 And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish.
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from land, but about two hundred cubits), dragging the net with fish. 9 Then, as soon as they had come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have just caught.”
11 Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish.
14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.


The beloved disciple was the first one to recognize the resurrected Christ...as was Mary Magdalene when she went to the tomb.



Now keeping in mind the points that I raised at the beginning, also consider these things:

1. Mary was indeed the first person that Christ appeared to
2. The Gospels of Mary and Phillip assert that Mary was the beloved disciple
3. The book of John was written by the beloved disciple, who is never once named


Would it be crazy to assert that Mary indeed was the "disciple that Jesus loved"? Questions? Answers? Thoughts? Attacks? References are available upon request.

[eby187]

Originally Posted by Onyiiboy

Mary Magdalene is perhaps the most misunderstood woman in the entire Bible. For the last 2000 years, the church has made it their mission to assassinate her character by labeling her as a prostitute and portraying her as nothing more than a groupie of Jesus. All of this begs the question...why? Why would the church put so much energy into defacing the character of one woman? Could it be because she was a threat? I think that an objective analysis of the Gospels can indeed show that it was Mary Magdalene that was the "disciple that Jesus loved" and not John And that this is the reason that her character has been slandered all these years.


Keep the following thoughts in mind:

1. "The disciple that Jesus loved" is never named, and is assumed to be John (without any strong evidence for that matter)

2. The Gospel of John, which is the only gospel that claims to have been written by an eyewitness, was almost not included in the Bible

3. The Gospel of John was only included in the Bible after "editing" was done to it

4. The Gospel of John was very very popular amongst Gnostic Christians, who believed in equality between men and women

5. There are a number of verses that give away that the "disciple that Jesus loved" was originally a woman:

John 13:23-26:
3 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was of whom He spoke.
25 Then, leaning back[a] on Jesus’ breast, he said to Him, “Lord, who is it?”
26 Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.” And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

This verse shows that "the beloved disciple" was leaning on the breast of Jesus during the last supper, and Peter had to go and ask them to get an answer from the Christ. Does it seem logical that a man was laying on the breast of Jesus?



John 18:15-16
15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another[a] disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest. 16 But Peter stood at the door outside. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought Peter in.


Keep in mind that in the book of Mark, he says that all the 12 disciples fled..and why didn't the high priest recognize this disciple?



John 19:25-27
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus [b]His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene[b]. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.


Four women are named here, and one of them is said to be "the beloved disciple." It is likely that the original text said "behold your daughter" instead of "behold your son"

Also keep in mind that there were no disciples at the crucifixtion...besides the beloved one which they refuse to name.



John 21:7
1 After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and in this way He showed Himself: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.”
They said to him, “We are going with you also.” They went out and immediately[a] got into the boat, and that night they caught nothing. 4 But when the morning had now come, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Then Jesus said to them, “Children, have you any food?”
They answered Him, “No.”
6 And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish.
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had removed it), and plunged into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from land, but about two hundred cubits), dragging the net with fish. 9 Then, as soon as they had come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have just caught.”
11 Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish.
14 This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.


The beloved disciple was the first one to recognize the resurrected Christ...as was Mary Magdalene when she went to the tomb.



Now keeping in mind the points that I raised at the beginning, also consider these things:

1. Mary was indeed the first person that Christ appeared to
2. The Gospels of Mary and Phillip assert that Mary was the beloved disciple
3. The book of John was written by the beloved disciple, who is never once named


Would it be crazy to assert that Mary indeed was the "disciple that Jesus loved"? Questions? Answers? Thoughts? Attacks? References are available upon request.

Good research. Amazing insights. I am now more inclined to believe your theory.

[eby187]

Sometimes i am strongly inclined to believe she was his wife. But for whatever reason, that idea does not appeal to most christians. God forbid that Jesus got married. It would mean the falling apart of Christendom. All of a sudden his message would become void? o yea, i forgot. Jesus is God and God cannot marry.
*exits thread*

[Onyiiboy]

Originally Posted by eby187

Good research. Amazing insights. I am now more inclined to believe your theory.

Thank you my sister

Originally Posted by eby187

Sometimes i am strongly inclined to believe she was his wife. But for whatever reason, that idea does not appeal to most christians. God forbid that Jesus got married. It would mean the falling apart of Christendom. All of a sudden his message would become void? o yea, i forgot. Jesus is God and God cannot marry.
*exits thread*

If they did get married, I don't think it was before the crucifixtion. I think it would have been very irresponsible of Jesus to marry her knowing what would happen to him in the future (unless of course he didn't know until later). Of course, it is fully possible that they got married after he resurrected.

[Mr. T]

"2. The Gospel of John, which is the only gospel that claims to have been written by an eyewitness, was almost not included in the Bible

3. The Gospel of John was only included in the Bible after "editing" was done to it

Four women are named here, and one of them is said to be "the beloved disciple." It is likely that the original text said "behold your daughter" instead of "behold your son""

Provide evidence for number 2 and 3. And I have issue with you saying that it is "likely", meaning there is a more than 50 percent chance, that the text was altered to say "son". I have no problem with you positing it for the sake of argument, but you should not cross your epistemic boundaries by saying that this is "likely" what happened. You're not in position to do that.

[Onyiiboy]

Originally Posted by Mr. T

"2. The Gospel of John, which is the only gospel that claims to have been written by an eyewitness, was almost not included in the Bible

3. The Gospel of John was only included in the Bible after "editing" was done to it

Four women are named here, and one of them is said to be "the beloved disciple." It is likely that the original text said "behold your daughter" instead of "behold your son""

Provide evidence for number 2 and 3. And I have issue with you saying that it is "likely", meaning there is a more than 50 percent chance, that the text was altered to say "son". I have no problem with you positing it for the sake of argument, but you should not cross your epistemic boundaries by saying that this is "likely" what happened. You're not in position to do that.

2.
Authorship of an eyewitness:
John 21:24:
This is the disciple who testifieth of these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

Resistance to addition to Bible:
"Admittance of the Gospel of John into the official canon had to overcome a great deal of resistance; many in the church felt that it had too much Gnostic content"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_chov.htm

3. Gospel of John was only added after extensive editing:

http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html

"The popularity of the Fourth Gospel among Gnostics made it important for the early church to pursue the question of its apostolic authorship (Perkins: 946). It was Irenaeus who defended the apostolicity of the Fourth Gospel by appealing to a tradition circulating in Asia Minor which, he claimed, linked John of Zebedee to the Fourth Gospel. The testimony of Irenaeus, however, makes for very tenuous evidence establishing John of Zebedee as the Fourth Gospel's author. First of all, it turned out that Irenaeus confused John of Zebedee with a presbyter from Asia Minor who was also named John. Secondly, Irenaeus claimed that he got his information about Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel when he was a child from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (d. 156) (Perkins: 946). The church tradition that established John as the author of the Fourth Gospel was based, primarily, on Irenaeus' childhood recollections! It is mainly for this reason, in the absence of other supporting evidence, that the majority of biblical scholars today assert that John was not the author of the Fourth Gospel.

Brown's research reveals that there was a schism early in the history of the Johannine Community. He posits that the community divided in two due to an internal christological disagreement. The majority of the community, whom Brown refers to as the Secessionists, defended the community's high christology and moved toward Docetism, Montanism, and Gnosticism (Brown 1979: 149). The rest of the community, whom Brown refers to as the Apostolic Christians, were amalgamated into the emerging institutional church. The Apostolic Christians became accepted as "orthodox" believers because they were willing to modify their christological beliefs in order to conform to the teachings of the emerging church hierarchy. The Secessionists, the majority of the Johannine Community, were quickly labeled as "heretics" by the institutional church because they did not make any such modifications. This schism took place before the final canonical redaction of the Fourth Gospel. The final redaction that we have today is the work of an editor belonging to the group which aligned itself with the institutional church. Both groups, however, took their pre-canonical version of the Fourth Gospel with them after the schism and claimed it as their own (Brown 1979: 149)."


And for the record, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with me inferring that it was something else that "likely" happened...especially when the context clues and historical evidence allude to that. So regardless of whether you "like it" or not, me being armed with common sense and underlying information about Biblical history DOES in fact put me "in that position" to make that type of statement. Thank you

[monblaze]

nobody's trying 2 eliminate anybody
if jesus was married
it doesnt affect hes image jus shows his support 2 marriage
but if he was married
it would hv been mentioned
if not there'd b no need 2 mention mary magdalene at all

[Mr. T]

Originally Posted by Onyiiboy

2.
Authorship of an eyewitness:
John 21:24:
This is the disciple who testifieth of these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

Resistance to addition to Bible:
"Admittance of the Gospel of John into the official canon had to overcome a great deal of resistance; many in the church felt that it had too much Gnostic content"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_chov.htm

3. Gospel of John was only added after extensive editing:

http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html

"The popularity of the Fourth Gospel among Gnostics made it important for the early church to pursue the question of its apostolic authorship (Perkins: 946). It was Irenaeus who defended the apostolicity of the Fourth Gospel by appealing to a tradition circulating in Asia Minor which, he claimed, linked John of Zebedee to the Fourth Gospel. The testimony of Irenaeus, however, makes for very tenuous evidence establishing John of Zebedee as the Fourth Gospel's author. First of all, it turned out that Irenaeus confused John of Zebedee with a presbyter from Asia Minor who was also named John. Secondly, Irenaeus claimed that he got his information about Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel when he was a child from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (d. 156) (Perkins: 946). The church tradition that established John as the author of the Fourth Gospel was based, primarily, on Irenaeus' childhood recollections! It is mainly for this reason, in the absence of other supporting evidence, that the majority of biblical scholars today assert that John was not the author of the Fourth Gospel.

Brown's research reveals that there was a schism early in the history of the Johannine Community. He posits that the community divided in two due to an internal christological disagreement. The majority of the community, whom Brown refers to as the Secessionists, defended the community's high christology and moved toward Docetism, Montanism, and Gnosticism (Brown 1979: 149). The rest of the community, whom Brown refers to as the Apostolic Christians, were amalgamated into the emerging institutional church. The Apostolic Christians became accepted as "orthodox" believers because they were willing to modify their christological beliefs in order to conform to the teachings of the emerging church hierarchy. The Secessionists, the majority of the Johannine Community, were quickly labeled as "heretics" by the institutional church because they did not make any such modifications. This schism took place before the final canonical redaction of the Fourth Gospel. The final redaction that we have today is the work of an editor belonging to the group which aligned itself with the institutional church. Both groups, however, took their pre-canonical version of the Fourth Gospel with them after the schism and claimed it as their own (Brown 1979: 149)."


And for the record, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with me inferring that it was something else that "likely" happened...especially when the context clues and historical evidence allude to that. So regardless of whether you "like it" or not, me being armed with common sense and underlying information about Biblical history DOES in fact put me "in that position" to make that type of statement. Thank you

For starters, you're citing something that is, more or less, presented as theoretical/hypothetical as a legitimate historical footnote. If you actually read the article in the second link that you posted, you'll see that the text is replete with phrases such as "his hypothesis", "his theory", or "he posits." Find me a legitimate historical reference that claims that the Gospel of John as we know now is a product of several redactions within the early church. I am not eliminating the possibility, but it appears to me as though this is just a fortress used to prop an otherwise baseless hypothesis. The "Gospel of John" as we know it today is not a single document excavated from some mystical cave in the Holy City. It was compiled from several source documents dating back to the early centuries A.D. As far as I know, there is NO probative evidence to suggest that the Gospel of John was, in any way, edited to remove Mary Magdalene's rightful historical position.

And as I said earlier, you are not in position to state that there was a "likely" interpolation. You can say that this is a possibility or that it is conducive to your argument to assume this, but you cannot say that this is likely what happened. No epistemic warrant.

[rush3k]

Originally Posted by Mr. T

For starters, you're citing something that is, more or less, presented as theoretical/hypothetical as a legitimate historical footnote. If you actually read the article in the second link that you posted, you'll see that the text is replete with phrases such as "his hypothesis", "his theory", or "he posits." Find me a legitimate historical reference that claims that the Gospel of John as we know now is a product of several redactions within the early church. I am not eliminating the possibility, but it appears to me as though this is just a fortress used to prop an otherwise baseless hypothesis. The "Gospel of John" as we know it today is not a single document excavated from some mystical cave in the Holy City. It was compiled from several source documents dating back to the early centuries A.D. As far as I know, there is NO probative evidence to suggest that the Gospel of John was, in any way, edited to remove Mary Magdalene's rightful historical position.

And as I said earlier, you are not in position to state that there was a "likely" interpolation. You can say that this is a possibility or that it is conducive to your argument to assume this, but you cannot say that this is likely what happened. No epistemic warrant.

Very nice Mr. T.

[rush3k]

Originally Posted by Onyiiboy

And for the record, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with me inferring that it was something else that "likely" happened...especially when the context clues and historical evidence allude to that. So regardless of whether you "like it" or not, me being armed with common sense and underlying information about Biblical history DOES in fact put me "in that position" to make that type of statement. Thank you

So why draw a "was indeed" (an absolute) conclusion based on half-facts? This is a good place for some of that "common sense".

[Mr. T]

Originally Posted by rush3k

Very nice Mr. T.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

[Onyiiboy]

Originally Posted by Mr. T

For starters, you're citing something that is, more or less, presented as theoretical/hypothetical as a legitimate historical footnote. If you actually read the article in the second link that you posted, you'll see that the text is replete with phrases such as "his hypothesis", "his theory", or "he posits." Find me a legitimate historical reference that claims that the Gospel of John as we know now is a product of several redactions within the early church. I am not eliminating the possibility, but it appears to me as though this is just a fortress used to prop an otherwise baseless hypothesis. The "Gospel of John" as we know it today is not a single document excavated from some mystical cave in the Holy City. It was compiled from several source documents dating back to the early centuries A.D. As far as I know, there is NO probative evidence to suggest that the Gospel of John was, in any way, edited to remove Mary Magdalene's rightful historical position.

And as I said earlier, you are not in position to state that there was a "likely" interpolation. You can say that this is a possibility or that it is conducive to your argument to assume this, but you cannot say that this is likely what happened. No epistemic warrant.

Baseless argument? The argument that the Apostle John was the "disciple that Christ loved" is the baseless argument (such as the argument that Mary Magdalene was the unnamed prostitute that washed the feet of Christ). And what evidence do you have at all that it was in fact written by the Apostle John? I have made MANY compelling arguments that it was Mary Magdalene, and I didn't' even bother to bring up other gospels (that were conveniently left out of the Bible) that actually name who the beloved disciple is. If you cannot think of a better conclusion, then it wouldnt' be wise to condemn mine as "baseless".

By using context clues like the one that I stated above (the beloved disciple laying on the bosom of Christ, four women being named at the crucifixion, and then one being named the beloved disciple), one can indeed infer that its likely that the text was changed at some points because reading it in its current form makes no logical sense. Most of the evidence is pointing towards the beloved disciple being a female, and if that is not the case, then Jesus must be a homosexual.

[Mr. T]

Originally Posted by rush3k

So why draw a "was indeed" (an absolute) conclusion based on half-facts? This is a good place for some of that "common sense".

Exactly. So which one is it? Is it what "likely" happened, as you just professed, or is it "indeed" what happened, as indicated in your title?

[Onyiiboy]

Originally Posted by rush3k

So why draw a "was indeed" (an absolute) conclusion based on half-facts? This is a good place for some of that "common sense".

My argument based on "half facts" that Mary was the beloved disciple is alot better than the "no facts" argument that it was John. So rather than attack my logical conclusion, come up with a better one and then we can talk

[Onyiiboy]

Originally Posted by Mr. T

Exactly. So which one is it? Is it what "likely" happened, as you just professed, or is it "indeed" what happened, as indicated in your title?

Well being as how none of us were there 2000 years ago, we don't know that anything is "indeed" what happened, but we can make intelligent guesses (and concluding that the Gospel of John was written by John is not one of them). For all we know, the entire story could be fiction. But by using the reading skills that we all hopefullly learned in grade school, we can infer from this particular story (which may be a myth or based on true events) that:

A. Jesus was a homosexual (who enjoys men laying on his bosom) or
B. Jesus had a female disciple that he loved (as stated in the Gospel of Phillip and Gospel of Mary)