• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Prostitue, Mary M Founded Christianity?

rhinefire said:
One of the few truths about Christianity is Mary Madeleine claims she saw Jesus resurrected making him "holy". It is because of this claim that he became regarded as holy thus the start of a religion in his name hundreds of years after he was killed. I often wonder after she and Jesus spent so much of their time together while avoiding the other disciples (and they disliked her for her time with Jesus) did she just make it all up in order to make his name bigger than it was because she loved him?
Click to expand...

I don't think a single one of these assertions is true.

1. There is no evidence Mary Magdalene was a prostitute
2. The sources that list Mary Magdalene as having been an eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection all claim she was not alone at the time and that the disciples subsequently encountered the risen Jesus. You can claim the sources are wrong and no one saw the risen Jesus; but it doesn't make any sense to accept part of the claim (Mary Magdalene was among the first to see the risen Jesus) and reject all the other parts of it (she wasn't alone at the time and others later saw him).
3. The latest evidence shows that Paul was already writing letters to Christian groups 15 years after Jesus' death. That would mean that Christian groups existed no later than 15 years after Jesus' death (and almost certainly earlier). The idea that Christianity arose over a hundred years after Jesus' death fell out of favor among the experts back in the 80s. The idea that it took hundreds of years (as in, more than one set of a hundred) has never been supported by anyone (at least not anyone reputable) as it obviously flies in the face of all historical evidence.
4. There is no evidence that Jesus spent any time alone with Mary Magdalene.
5. Mary Magdalene was highly respected by Christians from the first century on. It doesn't make any sense to claim that the disciples disliked her.

Other than that...your theory makes perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
rhinefire said:
One of the few truths about Christianity is Mary Madeleine claims she saw Jesus resurrected making him "holy". It is because of this claim that he became regarded as holy thus the start of a religion in his name hundreds of years after he was killed. I often wonder after she and Jesus spent so much of their time together while avoiding the other disciples (and they disliked her for her time with Jesus) did she just make it all up in order to make his name bigger than it was because she loved him?
Click to expand...

Didn't his mother Mary also see him rise after death? Or did Magdalene merely tell the mother about it?
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, several things here. The concept that Mary Madeleine was a prostitute is not biblical. It was from a pope living several centuries after the Bible was written that concept came into play. There is no reason to connect Mary Madeleine with the 'sinful woman' in Luke.

Now, while the apostles might have been jealous of her, we do not have Mary Madeleine's testimony directly. We have people who make claims about her, but we don't have what she said herself. It might be. However, if Mary Madeleine was the source of that story, the story went through 40 to 50 of oral tradition before it was written down. Because of the variations between the two accounts that we have today that were written down, it is difficult to know what the original story was.
Or, for that matter, the origin of the original story.
Click to expand...

Ramoss, We DO have Mary's gospel. The Church decided not to include that gospel in the Bible. I think some people think it may be the gospel of the Virgin Mary, but most seem to think it's Magdalene. It's short, since only parts of it exist. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene It doesn't describe the resurrection.

There are other gospels, too, that are not in the Bible. There were a lot of stories going around before they were formalized by the Churh. The Church decided which ones the people should follow, and put them in writing in one book, maybe paring them down.
 
JumpinJack said:
Ramoss, We DO have Mary's gospel. The Church decided not to include that gospel in the Bible. I think some people think it may be the gospel of the Virgin Mary, but most seem to think it's Magdalene. It's short, since only parts of it exist. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene It doesn't describe the resurrection.

There are other gospels, too, that are not in the Bible. There were a lot of stories going around before they were formalized by the Churh. The Church decided which ones the people should follow, and put them in writing in one book, maybe paring them down.
Click to expand...

The Gospel of Mary Mag was a gnostic work, which is highly fragmentary from probably the second century. The GOM is from a different , pretty much now extinct Christian tradition.


The Gospel of Mary Magdalene was a
 
JumpinJack said:
There are other gospels, too, that are not in the Bible. There were a lot of stories going around before they were formalized by the Churh. The Church decided which ones the people should follow, and put them in writing in one book, maybe paring them down.
Click to expand...

Some things were not included because they were just more of the same that didn't add anything to the Apostolic writings, like 1 Clement. Others were second century fabrications and never would have been included.
 
JumpinJack said:
Ramoss, We DO have Mary's gospel. The Church decided not to include that gospel in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

That's a gnostic gospel. It wasn't included in the bible because it was never part of the Christian tradition, it was only part of the gnostic tradition. Gnosticism is a different movement separate from Christianity. So, it was never up for consideration because it was never a scripture that was in use by Christians. It was a writing created by a different group, with a different world view, in a different era, and with a different agenda, for their own use.

No one believes any of the gnostic gospels are from actual eyewitnesses or from prior to the 2nd century, with the exception of the gospel of Thomas.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Well, several things here. The concept that Mary Madeleine was a prostitute is not biblical...
Click to expand...

How would you know? You claim you've never read the New Testament and now you want to pose as an authority on it?
 
Logicman said:
How would you know? You claim you've never read the New Testament and now you want to pose as an authority on it?
Click to expand...

Where did I ever claim not to have read the New Testament? Are you making things up, or do you invent things out of thin air??
 
RAMOSS said:
Where did I ever claim not to have read the New Testament? Are you making things up, or do you invent things out of thin air??
Click to expand...

That's even worse - to claim to have read it and still haven't recognized the truth of Jesus Christ.
 
Logicman said:
You'll find out how bankrupt that statement is when you belly-up.
Click to expand...

And this is the logical fallacy known as 'Appeal to consequences'. Since there is no way for you to show someone who is alive that this is true, it is also fantasy.
 
RAMOSS said:
And this is the logical fallacy known as 'Appeal to consequences'. Since there is no way for you to show someone who is alive that this is true, it is also fantasy.
Click to expand...

And a very sick fantasy too. I don't gloat over the thought that some of my fellow men will be tortured in hell for eternity. I thought that religion was supposed to make one a better person.
 
Logicman said:
You'll find out how bankrupt that statement is when you belly-up.
Click to expand...

Well, if I'm burning and your gloating I wonder if god will consider that a sin and send you to be burnt too.
 
Henrin said:
Well, if I'm burning and your gloating I wonder if god will consider that a sin and send you to be burnt too.
Click to expand...

Logicman is in trouble, he's supposed to love everybody.
 
RAMOSS said:
And this is the logical fallacy known as 'Appeal to consequences'. Since there is no way for you to show someone who is alive that this is true, it is also fantasy.
Click to expand...

Once again, you don't recognize the truth.
 
Henrin said:
Well, if I'm burning and your gloating I wonder if god will consider that a sin and send you to be burnt too.
Click to expand...

Who says I'm gloating? That's your lie. And God does consider lying a sin.

Luke 13:3
 
Logicman said:
Who says I'm gloating? That's your lie. And God does consider lying a sin.

Luke 13:3
Click to expand...

If god exists I'm already in hell. All he can do to me now is increase the punishment. To bad I already decided I don't give a ****.
 
zyzygy said:
Logicman is in trouble, he's supposed to love everybody.
Click to expand...

Love speaks the truth, and without Christ as your Savior, the Bible says you're a crispy critter (John 3:36, etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom