Did Peter turn Magdeline into a Prostitute?

[lifebreath]

For economy of time, I'm copying my other post and adding to it:

After studying the issue for many years now, I am of the opinion that the whole line of gnostic tradition about Mary Magdalene and Jesus being married and having offspring was simply an attempt to "gnosticize" Jesus. In other words, the various gnostic groups at the time of Jesus wove him into their mythos in a way that would "legitimize" their existence. Thus, the gnostic archtypes are projected onto Jesus and Mary Magdalene, regardless of any historical veracity or factual basis.

As to the "royal bloodline" of Jesus that we read so much about these past few years, I believe much the same thing happened (i.e., if I claim to be descended from Jesus, I have "legitimized" my claim to "divine aristocracy.") Jesus made it clear that his "kingdom" what not of this world (i.e., it was of a spiritual nature), when his disciples thought, as other Jews of the time did, that Messiah would drive out the Romans and re-establish an earthly throne.

Yeh, go ahead and reply that the "Roman Church/State, etc." supressed the "truth" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, .... If that is the case, why do the Eastern Orthodox churches, like the Syrian or Indian Orthodox rites, hold to essentially the same "orthodox" teachings of the Roman Church? The Syrian Othodox church in Antioch was founded by Peter and The Malankara Orthodox Church was founded in Kerala, India, by St. Thomas the Apostle around AD 52. These churches remained autonomous from the beginning, meaning they were never "Roman." Yet, amazingly (or maybe not so amazingly), their foundational beliefs are almost identical to Roman Catholic beliefs and their sacraments are the same seven as the Roman Church!

With respect to women and the early church (and by this I mean the traditional church, not some gnostic variant), women were accorded honor and a role as teachers. Paul, whom you accuse with Peter of being a misogynist, clearly states in his leter to the Galatians, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This approach to women was radically superior to the common view of the time. In fact, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is held up in VERY high esteem among both Orthodox and Roman Catholics, not just because she bore Jesus, but because of her great virtue and openess to God. In traditional Christian though, without her (a woman) fiat, or "yes," to God, Jesus, the Christian Savior, would not have been incarnated! Thus, her role (in the Christian theology) is right up alongside of Jesus'!

Contrary to what you imply, I believe that it can be easily shown that traditional Chistianity has afforded high honor and esteem to women. In contrast, when one studies much of the gnostic writings and beliefs, they, in reality, reduce woman to a mere tool for men to use in their rites, much like Alister Crowley's view in the last century.

[xander]

christ was a radical. He was a seditionist. He challenged the laws and customs of his time. Indeed it would not be beyond possibility to think that Peter and others would have slandered Mary and other women. At that time women were considered property, not complete human beings.

As far as Crowley goes, perhaps you should look for the deeper meanings of his writtings. Better yet read a translation of his writings such as commentary on the Book of the Law. If anything, thelema and OTO raise women to an almost goddess like status since they can "create" life.

In ancient Egyptian rites the High Preistess was considered botha virgin and a whore. She was considered Holy and initiation into the mysteries included copulation with the High Preistess. A very Sex Positive message compared to the early jews and modern xians.

Xander

[Lighthouse]

quote:Originally posted by lifebreath


Paul, whom you accuse with Peter

I did not mean to imply that Paul was a misogynist, I have no basis for that claim, that was your own misinterpretation of my post.  I did, however mean to accuse Peter.

Additionally, the people who found these codecies in the desert were all scholars and the translations were read over by others in order to combat any bias.  If you are unfamiliar with the history of the Gnostic Gospels, I suggest reading Elane Pagels The Gnostic Gospels  It's pretty short and gives a summary and history of the origin, secrecy, and carelul transcription processes of the original works, carefully guarded by monks until hidden in the Nag Hammadi desert.

quote:
Contrary to what you imply, I believe that it can be easily shown that traditional Chistianity has afforded high honor and esteem to women. In contrast, when one studies much of the gnostic writings and beliefs, they, in reality, reduce woman to a mere tool for men to use in their rites, much like Alister Crowley's view in the last century.

Christ may have afforded High esteem to women, yet surely this was not the mainstream thought of other men.  Here is a quote from the Gospel of Thomas;
Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males.  For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

That's affording women High Honor???  

--Kerri

[lifebreath]

quote:Here is a quote from the Gospel of Thomas;
Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

That's affording women High Honor???

Thanks for affirming my point! The so-called Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic writing that does not reflect the view of Jesus or of traditional Christianity. The gnostic thought was that "female" represented all that was earthly, material and thus corrupt. "Male" represented that which was heavenly, spiritual and thus pure. This stems from the gnostic dualism that pits the matter against spirit and calls matter evil, per se.

Thus, in the gnostic scheme and not the traditional Christian one, we see that womanhood is associated with evil matter and women are only saved by becoming "male." This is the very same "liberation" that we see in the last century under the guise of "woman's liberation." Woman has not really been liberated or esteemed for her innate womanhood, but rather has been forced to "become male" to have validity! What I mean is that in order to "be somebody," woman now feel they must attain positions of POWER, i.e., become "man," since these positions were traditionally held by men. If that logic is followed to the extreme, then the only way to "be somebody" is to have power.

The traditional Christian view is that every person has inherent worth, not because of their sex or position, but because they are made in the image and likeness of God. Thus, all human life is sacred, valued and esteemed, regardless of gender, race, physical stature, etc., and manhood and womanhood are regarded with awe and wonder for their unique inner essence that combines and conjoines in harmony, each playing its role in creative and salvivic life.

Of course, regarding the quote, one could interpret it allegorically or symbolically to simply mean that that which is earthly must be transformed and lifted up into that which is spiritual, in which case the whole discussion becomes moot! []

[Lighthouse]

Lifebreath,

So how does your post prove that Peter did not have his own agenda?  Certainly you don't believe that there were 2 different guys named Peter in those accounts.  

Perhaps "to be made male" meant that a woman would be free to express her own truth.  Im sure you can imagine that for a woman living in a world where the only occupation that a woman could have was one where she served the sexual needs of men; Women had few choices and relied heavily upon men to provide them with all of their physical needs.  I'm sure you can also imagine the caged feelings a person in such a situation might feel if her viewpoints were contrary to those of her male counterpart and provider.  People can not feel free to explore their spirituality if they are living in fear of losing their security through those expressions.  Jesus valued Magdalenes viewpoint because it was contrary to the men in the group.  She offered a different viewpoint and as a woman, she had an inherently different viewpoint because of her station in life (that of being a woman and living in a time of female oppression.)  Christ provided her with the security to feel free to express her opinions and through doing this, he "made her male"  because she felt free to express her own truth.  Certainly the men in the group had no feelings that they should withold their opinions in the presence of a woman, however, I would challenge you to tell me that the opposite would have been true for Magdalene if Jesus did not love her so much.

By the way, the church has tried to muffle the opinions of women, in fact, women were burned for voicing their opinions so your statement;

quote:The traditional Christian view is that every person has inherent worth, not because of their sex or position, but because they are made in the image and likeness of God.

may have been true for the teachings of Christ, it still was not the viewpoint of Peter or the Church that he had such an important role in creating.  How many female Popes have there been?  If every human is seen as having their own inherent worth, why are women excluded from this equation?


--Kerri

[lifebreath]

LH -

quote:So how does your post prove that Peter did not have his own agenda? Certainly you don't believe that there were 2 different guys named Peter in those accounts.

This is a good question that leads to a more fundamental issue in my mind. Does the "Gospel of Mary" really record the words of the historical figures it portrays? You are assuming it does, I am questioning that.

What I mean is that I believe, based on a number of factors that would take too long to type here, that the Gospel of Mary is an example of first or second century pseudepigrapha, or "false writings." During this time, many writings were produced under the names of apostles that introduced a wide array of ideas not always consistant with what Jesus actually taught and that was transmitted via the apostles. Thus, it is my opinion that the Gospel of Mary is simply a device by which traditional gnostic themes of the day were put into the mouths of Jesus and his disciples as a kind of mythos.

So, in essence, I do believe that the "Peter" (and Jesus, Mary and others) in the Gospel of Mary is not really Peter the apostle, but rather simply the device of the writer to transmit gnostic philosophy.

You raise the issue of the history of these writings and in that regard, I would simply say that it is a MUCH debated issue - not so much as to their authenticity (i.e., they are not middle-age forgeries), but rather regarding if they represent, with any accuracy, the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. My opinion as I have stated, based on years of personal research and looking at the issue from various angles, is that they do not.

Not to say that some truth and insightful reflections can't be gained by reading them, but I do believe that to pick them up and say "Ah ha! THESE are the REAL teachings that were suppressed ....", and throw out the traditional canon of the New Testament as some conspiratorial revision, is erroneous based on weight of verifiable historical evidence.

Regarding the church, it has certainly been less than perfect in many ways and many times. That, unfortunately, is the nature of humans when they are involved in a group of more than one, and even a group of one can be problematic! I will repeat my opinion, though, that it has indeed held up the ideal of the nobility of every human being and the sacredness of life, based not on their utility, but their humanity. How well that is reflected in action varies and is imperfect, but we see examples of the ideal being lived to some high degree in people like Mother Theresa, St. Francis and many other unnamed, unknown mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers who follow Christ under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, because like your Mary, they have encountered the Risen Christ.

[Lighthouse]

Last night, I was reading the gospel of Mary (Mary Magdalene) from the Nag Hammadi Library where she talks about some information that the Risen Christ imparted to her during a private conversation.  Unfortunately, most of the conversation between herself and Christ were missing from the codecies (supposedly people were using the pages to fuel fire) when they were discovered in the Nag Hammadi desert.   When reading this, it struck me that it is not so important about the content of their conversation as the way it was received by the other apostles in her company.  

My observations in reading these are that the apostle Peter had great contempt for Mary Magdalene because she was a woman.  Also based on the language used, I believe that Magdalene was indeed married to Christ and was turned into a prostitute by the church... I will expand upon this later.  Over and over again, it is stated that Mary Magdalene was loved by Christ more than any other woman and more than all the other male apostles.  In fact, after the risen savior had this conversation with Magdalene, when she told the other apostles of their conversation, Peter said this, "Did he really speak to a woman without our knowledge and not openly?  Are we to turn around and listen to her?  Did he prefer her to us?"  In Magdalene's defense, Levi stated to Peter, "Peter you have always been hot tempered.  Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.  But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her?  Surely the savior knows her very well.  That is why he loved her more than us.  Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect man and acquire him for ourselves as he commanded us, and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or law beyond what the savior said."  



I used to work in a Glatt Kosher hotel and the clientele was mainly a very religious sect of Judaism known as the Hassidic Jews.  It is my opinion that this sect who is very traditional in lifestyle would be very similar to the devout Jews during the time of Christ.  In this sect, my observations were that women were seen mainly as second class citizens and their opinions on spiritual matters were seen as insignificant.  In fact, in the Synagogue, women are not allowed on the main floor where the lessons are taught and are expected to remain in the balcony or separated off from the men in some way.  In fact, they are not even allowed to use the main entrances and are usually relegated to using some side door into the house of worship.  

Since Peter and Paul went forth and created the Christian Church, if Peter were indeed a misogynist (woman hater,) wouldn't it make sense that he (being human) had an agenda when going forward and teaching the gospels to the people?  If indeed his attitude were one that women were inferior to men (which seems obvious to me,) might he then try to discredit Magdalene and turn her into a prostitute in order to dismiss her role as an equal counterpart in the life of Christ, the Savior?   Wouldn't it serve his own self interests to do so, creating a bachelor of Christ (requiring no physical feminine counterpart) and thereby denying Magdalene and (as a result) all women the true understanding that we are as valuable in the eyes of God (Christ being the human incarnation of God in the Christian tradition) as any man?

Thoughts?

--Kerri