...there's an entire gospel (Gospel of Mary Magdalene), with better provenance than any of the canonical gospels, that says otherwise. There is also an 800 year history of Christian sects believing this (the Cathars; Bogomils; Albigensians; Hibernians; Aryans etc). In fact, for about a thousand years, more Christians believed Jesus and the Magdalene were a couple... than didn't. Besides a widowed wife isn't allowed to take charge of a mother, nor assume the role of head of household according to Jewish custom.
But I suppose I too should dismiss all this because you dismiss it.
What are you talking about? John is the one who takes charge of Mary, NOT Mags.
Whether they believed Jesus and Mags were a couple or not isn't the issue. And, notwithstanding the spurious nature of your claim concerning the "Gospel of Mary Magdelene" vs. the canonical Gospels, it's a simple case of four vs. one, a difference made even clearer by the fact that:
- Jesus' claim that His kingdom was not an earthly one
- Mags, had He been Jesus' wife, would have been redeemed by one of Jesus' unmarried brothers.
...how do Simon's comments change first century Jewish tradition?
Simon's comments show that he knows Mags WAS NOT Jesus' wife, as a Jewish man would not refer to another man's Mrs. in such a manner. And, from the gist of his comments (and those of Jesus). The issue of wives only being able to wash a man's feet is a dubious one. Though Simon isn't pleased about the incident, no formal (or informal) charges are brought up, concerning her behavior.
In first century Judea, among traditional Jews (and even Hellenized Jews), the washing of feet was only done by a mans mother or wife. This isn't a matter of interpretation. That's why the disciples are so surprised when Jesus assumes the role of servant and washes their feet.
The disciples are astonished because they believe He's the Messiah and that the LAST thing the Messiah would do, in their minds. Mags was not Jesus' mother nor His wife. Again, one of Jesus' brothers would have been sought to redeem her, had she been that.
...let's see the scriptural quote.
The wedding at Canae is obviously Jesus' wedding for the reasons I already gave: according to Jewish tradition the grooms mother is responsible for the reception... Mary (Virgin) is the one who tells Jesus about the wine shortage. As a guest she wouldn't have even been aware of such.
So obvious that the ruler of the feast thanks, NOT JESUS, but an unnamed groom for the good wine, not to mention that the wedding had more or less started BEFORE HE EVEN GOT THERE.
I already posted it, Luke. Apparently, you didn't read it the first time.
John 2:1-11
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: butthou hast kept the good wine until now.
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him. Jesus would NOT need to be summoned at His own wedding. The passage ends with the wine as being the BEGINNING of miracles. Jesus always performed miracles for others, NOT FOR HIMSELF.
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
...learn your Church history.
The perpetual virginity of Mother Mary is one of only two fundamental Christian tenets backed with the seal of Papal Infallibility (the other being that Christ is risen). This is fact, and has been Church teaching for two thousand years... despite what your particular creepy Protestant Evangelical cult might have believed for the past century or so.
Take your own advice, again, and learn yours.
Perprtual virginity may be an issue for Catholics. But to Protestants, the Pope ain't nothing but an old guy in a "funny hat".
Again with the brothers and sisters... sigh, didn't I already explain that this is a modern translation of a term that just as easily applies to cousins; clansmen; tribe members; extended family; as it does to "siblings"?... didn't YOU already explain that it is a translation of a term that is not specific to siblings but includes most family members?
Ummm....NO!! The primary meaning of "aldepho" is "brothers". The surrounding context in which it's used validates whether or not is it talking about actual brothers or other relatives. The context of that verse talks about Jesus' IMMEDIATE FAMILY, starting with His mother. It identifies Jesus as a carpenter and asks about His immediate family. The only ones claiming that it's talking about more distant relatives are people like you, foolishly assuming that the Scripture talks about Mary being a virgin indefinitely. Mary's virginity is only mentioned twice: in the opening chapters of Luke and Matthew.
...it does.
On the 25th of December, when the sun rises in the east, it dawns on the horizon just one degree beyond it's weakest ever dawn (21st of December, the midwinter solstice and shortest/weakest day of the year). So the 25th of December is the "birth" of the new sun: the first time a solar measurement will reveal a strengthening of the sun after 6 months of waning.
The 25th of December dawning sun rises directly below Sirius the Dog Star (the "brightest star" in the sky) and the Dog Star "leads" the trio of stars known as the "Three Kings" or "Three Wise Men" that point in a straight line to the EXACT point on the horizon beneath Sirius where the newborn sun rises.
So, a story about a "son of god" (the sun) "born" under a "bright star" that involves "Three Kings" or "Three Wise Men" IS INDEED referencing the 25th of December dawn. That's why the births of Mithras; Attis; Horus; Hercules and ALL 30-odd other solar deities (Jesus included) are all celebrated on the 25th of December.
And NONE of that to do with Jesus Christ being born Dec. 25, for reasons, mentioned multiple times. But, since you don't grasp hints, that well:
1) The number of wise men is UNDETERMINED by Scripture. It is Western Tradition that fixes the number at three; Eastern Tradition has magi traveling in groups of 12.
2) The shepherds find Jesus, immediately after His birth......AND THEY DON'T USE A STAR, AT ALL
3) When the wise men find Jesus, He's around TWO YEARS OLD. They don't find Him as a newborn baby.
Your assertion that the Jesus story is completely original makes the nativity story pretty suspicious if we are to believe (as you seem to insist we should) that the Jesus story just happens to accidentally include ALL of these astrological metaphors.
That is merely Jesus-mythers like you, trying to dismiss the account of His actual life by foolishly and inaccurately trying to wedge accounts of other figures into the Jesus account or vice versa. The trick is old, fairly easy to spot, and has been refuted by traditional scholars early and often.
...that's a misunderstanding, but an understandable misunderstanding.
Since the time of Ashuribal II (Emperor of Chaldea upon whom Moses is modelled) and the historian Berossus, an implicit understanding spread across the ancient world: that state-sponsored traveling academics were to be beneficiaries of the protection of whichever potentates domain they traveled within.
Hence a historian such as Berossus could travel from centre of learning to centre of learning just as assuredly, and with all the confidence, of a king.
Here in Ireland this class of learned storytellers/historians/astrologers were referred to as "Filiocht". Should any of them be harmed, the local tribal chief would massacre the entire population of the town responsible for fear that the other tribal kings would challenge his standing as warlord. The Filiocht, travelling form town to town and demanding food and shelter from the locals were referred to as "a nation of kings" due to this special status.
The same convention also applied in the Middle East. Some of these traveling "Magi" even retained small armies to protect themselves in bandit country... hence they were often known as "Priest Kings".
That is why the constellation of three stars which mark the 25th December dawn are known interchangeably as either the "Three Kings" or "The Three Wise Men".
Again, look up Magi.
...your reasoning here is faulty. Just because Herod supposedly ordered the deaths of ALL children under two (another astrological metaphor) doesn't mean Jesus was two years old.
There'd be no reason for Herod to kill two-year-old boys, unless He believe Jesus to be around that age. Had the wise men seen the "star" any sooner than that, Herod would have been able to narrow his search for Christ, based on age.
...I think I claimed the Magdalene (as Jesus' wife and/or secret disciple) was the first and sole witness to the risen Jesus. She was, wasn't she... everyone else sees the risen Jesus later on.
Look at what you just said!!
"SOLE" means one. If someone else, besides Mags, see the risen Jesus (and there are at least a dozen who do), that means Mags isn't the "SOLE" witness, is she?
...I claimed they were crucified. I never claimed they "died via crucifixion". That's just your attempt to paraphrase and then nitpick.
What was that you were saying about dishonesty again?
Crucifixion is a method of EXECUTION; it's how you kill people. You don't crucify those who are ALREADY DEAD, as Osiris, Attis, and others were.
For the record, the dying/resurrecting godmen named were:
-nailed to a tree/rack then quartered/dismembered, piled into a box that then ended up stuck in a tree
-bled to death then was either nailed to a tree or nailed to a cross
-burned to death, or in another version of the story: flogged to death while nailed to a cross.
So... potaTOE... poTAtoe...
Boy are you struggling or what? Attis wasn't nailed to a tree. In fact, depending on which version you pick, Attis may or may not be the tree himself. In any event, he's already dead. The "tree" has no bearing on the cause of his death.
Jesus wasn't burned to death, nor was He flogged while on a cross. Once again, you're struggling to fuse pieces and bits together to make your weak claims stick.
You can't even gets your facts straight about the other figures. Osiris was put in that box ALIVE AND WHOLE. Isis finds his body and takes it away. It is Set who catches up to her, took the box, and dismembered AN ALREADY-DEAD Osiris into 14....NOT 72....pieces.
If that ain't bad enough, Osiris remained in the underworld. So, the resurrection stuff don't fly on him.
...so are you claiming the Jesus story is NOT copied, but rather... plagiarised?
...you still have yet to find a single detail that isn't an astrological metaphor/allegory lifted from a previous religion.
Wrong, and myopic, yet again. But, what else is new?
Haven't you noticed that all your dismissals involve you downplaying obvious congruences... Attis isn't crucified because he either dies under a tree; or is nailed to a tree after he bleeds to death; or turns into a tree... ?
What part of "crucifixion is a form of EXECUTION" fails to register in that head of yours? You said that's how Attis died; that ain't the case. He cuts his balls off and bleeds to death.
Isn't it obvious that the story always involves the death of a solar deity in conjunction with the Southern Cross constellation (a tree/cross)?
Jesus ain't a solar deity; so all of that gibberish is moot.
If you are so willing to accept the three different alternate endings of the Attis story (all of them astrological), then why won't you accept the alternate versions of the Dionysus; Tammuz; Hercules; Mithras; Bacchus and Achilles stories in which each of them are crucified?
Because the "alternate" endings DO NOT involve crucifixion, contrary to your repeated and inaccurate claims.
...forgery only defended by Christian apologists unwilling to denounce the very last hope of a historical Jesus.
That's funny!! I could have sworn that Louis Feldman was JEWISH. Jesus' existence is hardly in question, with the lone exception and ramblings of the "Jesus-myth" posse, whose rehashes from the so-called "Enlightenment" period have been torn into almost as many pieces as Osiris.
...the oldest copy of ANY gospel is a 155 AD copy of Mark.
Key word......COPY!!!!!!
All the canonical gospels are believed to be copies of a lost source document, usually named "Q" by linguists. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, on the other hand is considered to be first century. That's a lifetime closer to the first person in this game of Chinese Whispers.
The wishful opinions of Christian true believers don't change any of these FACTS.
The day you start quoting some facts is the day the Bills win a Super Bowl.
Spectral analysis of this oldest Gospel of Mark document has shown it to be original manuscript... EXCEPT for one important detail: the final line... "After three days he arose from the dead and ascended into heaven"... that was added later... much later.
The Luke
I believe Loco covered the spectral analysis stuff. Of course, the fact that there are fragments of the Gospels (other than Mark) that date around that time OR EARLIER, not to mention the writings of early Christians from late 1st/early2nd-century AD (loaded with verses from the Gospels), pretty much cancelled this feeble quip of yours.
