View Single Post
  #120  
Old 07-06-2011, 11:02 AM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 3,952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackUnicorn View Post
Mags, are you basing your interpretation on Jesus being married to Mary on Gospels of Philip and Thomas or some other source(s)?
Several gnostic gospels, as well as evidence in the canon. The Eden story in Genesis, and the Song of Solomon are both based on the heiros gamos, or sacred marriage concept. In the New Testament, if you take into consideration the plethora of Marys, and a couple of unnamed women, and bring them all together into one unit as a recurring goddess figure, you'll see the heiros gamos tradition subtly presented. Mary Virgin brings Jesus into physical being. Mary Magdalene anoint Jesus and then finds him risen at his tomb. She is called the Apostle to the Apostles, the only apostle that truly understands his message.

Yahweh splits the first human into male and female in Eden. Male and female are reunited in another garden in the synoptic gospels.

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. Rabbis were/are required to be married. The idea that it is more spiritual to be celibate came from Paul, who seemed to have trouble dealing with his sexual urges. Humans back then were suspicious of any woman having power. Therefore Christianity became anti-woman, anti- sex, and wholly patriarchal (thanks, St Augustine!), despite Jesus' different attitude towards women as found in the gospels.

A few of the many books I have read on early Christianities can elucidate this concept in detail, if you care to look them up.

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar by Margaret Starbird
The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels
Lost Christianties by Bart Ehrman
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

This article sums up much of the information on Jesus and Mary M as consorts.

http://www.llewellyn.com/journal/article/659

Quote:
If the idea of Jesus as married seems strange or offensive, or the idea of the inclusion of our bodies and sexuality in our spirituality sounds outrageous, then there is certainly something within us in dire need of being acknowledged and healed. Quite frankly, the idea that our bodies and sexuality must be excluded from our spiritual life and practice, or are in some way opposed to enlightenment or God, is a strange and unnatural idea that makes very little sense (at least from a Sophian perspective). After all, our bodies and lives are part of God’s creation. So is the drive of creatures to the joy of procreation, and our own recreation in our human experience of love and sexuality. If this is true, then the whole of ourselves and our lives is inherently sacred and holy, assuming we open ourselves to embody something of the Divine within them. Isn’t this the true message of the myth of the Divine Incarnation central to the Gospel: that the human being is meant to embody something of Divine Being?
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place. --Shaw

me: Mags, 59, loving and living with
miss pixi, 37
I am also casually dating presently, and miss pixi is open to dating as well
Reply With Quote