Was Mary Magdalene Jesus' wife?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No. In addition to what Ernest said about the lack of any real support for the idea, the idea is potentially more offensive (from a feminist standpoint, not a theologically orthodox standpoint) than it may seem at first blush because it's often argued for and seems in many cases to have been developed as a notion under the assumption that a close relationship between a man and a woman, or a relationship in which a man puts a woman in some position of trust and authority, has to have some sexual component.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

The prostitute who anoints Jesus' feet in Luke was a different woman. The mix-up is a medieval conflation.

Besides which, the idea that that automatically constitutes 'making oneself available' in that sense, or that it's somehow more reasonable than not to expect that Jesus would have taken advantage of that even if she had, strikes me as...concerning, extremely so. (People will point out that 'feet' is sometimes used as a euphemism in Biblical Hebrew, but it's not always, and this part of the Bible isn't even in Hebrew anyway; by the same token, a modern (for instance) German novel describing a character 'riding a horse' would never have anything to do with heroin.) It's not even clear that the character in question was a prostitute, either (not that the 'made herself available' comment would be any less concerning if she were one); all that's said is that she 'lived a sinful life', and even that is only said of her in Luke.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He's too good for a simple human.

While I believe that Jesus was celibate, and that it's a matter of theological import that He was celibate, this is not a good reason to argue for that position.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

The prostitute who anoints Jesus' feet in Luke was a different woman. The mix-up is a medieval conflation.

Besides which, the idea that that automatically constitutes 'making oneself available' in that sense, or that it's somehow more reasonable than not to expect that Jesus would have taken advantage of that even if she had, strikes me as...concerning, extremely so.

But why? I mean, whether it be a man or a woman that he would be attracted to, why would a deity who wants to be human reject that aspect of humanity?

That's not what's concerning. 'Made herself available?' That's really how you want to word this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't get why a monotheistic religion would be interested in presenting God as in some sense neuter, human form or otherwise?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

The prostitute who anoints Jesus' feet in Luke was a different woman. The mix-up is a medieval conflation.

Besides which, the idea that that automatically constitutes 'making oneself available' in that sense, or that it's somehow more reasonable than not to expect that Jesus would have taken advantage of that even if she had, strikes me as...concerning, extremely so.

But why? I mean, whether it be a man or a woman that he would be attracted to, why would a deity who wants to be human reject that aspect of humanity?

That's not what's concerning. 'Made herself available?' That's really how you want to word this?

It's all the same. I find it odd that someone would think Jesus would reject her out of hand if he found her attractive. And if not her, then maybe someone else. That's just how it works.

All I can really say to that is not for everybody it isn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not at all. I think it would be the opposite.
[/quote]

You think a monotheistic religion would, or should, be interested in presenting God--the one and only--as having defined gender or sexual characteristics or preferences? Really?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You think a monotheistic religion would, or should, be interested in presenting God--the one and only--as having defined gender or sexual characteristics or preferences? Really?

Well Christianity cannot escape from not giving god sexual characteristics because it did; it 'engendered' itself enough to impregnate a female who then gave birth to his son. Not his daughter. Indeed there is nothing to have stopped an almighty god from carrying it's own child, but that would require that god is penetrated, or should I say 'seeded' or 'dominated' by the someone who wasn't godlike. We can't have that can we; better let god confirm to patriarchal thinking

A lot of theologians--and this isn't just a liberal theology thing, you can find it in sources like Gregory of Nazianzus--have been at least a little uncomfortable with the implications of what's going on there and have sought to mitigate them or frame them in less gendered terms, not double down by presenting a sexual Jesus.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I take it the fact that that isn't what the term 'immaculate conception' refers to is beside the point.

It was in any case an impressive feat of ingenuity on Gregory's part. One was required, I fully admit that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

Thank goodness he does, otherwise this board would be nothing more than a talking shop A monotheistic faith might not have interest in gendering it's god, but as has been highlighted it seems that god has done so himself.

I think the conversations that you and I are having have diverged somewhat.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

Thank goodness he does, otherwise this board would be nothing more than a talking shop A monotheistic faith might not have interest in gendering it's god, but as has been highlighted it seems that god has done so himself.

I think the conversations that you and I are having have diverged somewhat.

A conversation involves more than one person talking

Preferably not about increasingly different issues as the conversation goes on.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The things about DemPGH's posts in this thread with which I take issue are that he associates washing and perfuming someone's feet with making oneself sexually available, which horrifies me for wholly secular reasons, and that while not being religious he nevertheless assumes and expects that a monotheistic faith would or should be interested in gendering its God. Those of us who are Christian and understand ourselves as bound to the Creeds have to deal with this feature of our religion as best we can. He is under no such requirement, but for whatever reason does so anyway.

Thank goodness he does, otherwise this board would be nothing more than a talking shop A monotheistic faith might not have interest in gendering it's god, but as has been highlighted it seems that god has done so himself.

I think the conversations that you and I are having have diverged somewhat.

A conversation involves more than one person talking

Preferably not about increasingly different issues as the conversation goes on.

I think it dovetailed neatly. How can we talk about a perceived relationship with Mary Magdalene without addressing the issue of the gender of god? It's probably the first conversation this forum has had about the matter.

I think the issue is that for me the former issue is a non-starter, but one I'm comfortable with addressing, whereas the latter is potentially very interesting and fecund (word choice intended!), but not one I was expecting to have sprung on me.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

the only argument that I've seen that makes sense is to use John 19:25, and argue that in 1st Century Judaism such a privilege was reserved for only the closest of kin, and then claim that Magdalene was the mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved". 

John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved."

As for Mary Magdalene, it's certainly possible that she was Jesus' wife, but it doesn't matter.  Anybody ever considered the possibility that Jesus was widowed?

Those who argue for M.M. being the disciple whom Jesus loved argue that the Gospel was edited to obscure who it was so that it could become part of the canon.  That strikes me as silly,  That said, some of the other theories of who else the disciple could be are plausible.  Keep in mind that the Gospel of John uses the term disciple in contexts that refer to any follower of Christ (or others) and not just the Twelve Apostles, so any theory that depends upon eliminating the other eleven doesn't suffice.  Given the contexts in which it is used, I'm sympathetic to the idea that disciple whom Jesus loved was intended as a literary device by which the reader (or hearer) of the Gospel could insert emself into the story.  Joseph of Aramathea also strikes me as a plausible intended disciple, but since John himself also works, I'm not particularly worried about this.

As far as I know, Mary Magdalene wasn't one of the 12 Apostles.

And?