Metaphysics and the Marriage of Jesus - or, how fundamental assumptions shape and determine Christianity

Our fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality (i.e. our "metaphysical" assumptions) have a decisive effect upon our perceptions and interpretations - such that when our metaphysics rules-out something, then that thing is often unperceived - or, if perceived, then regarded as impossible. 

This is, I presume, why the marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene (who is the same person as Mary of Bethany) is either unnoticed by readers of the IV Gospel (called "John"), and/or why each mention of it is interpreted-away - despite that there is ample and coherent reference to the marriage and its profound spiritual significance in that Gospel.  

The reason is not far to seek; because most Christians have the fundamental assumption that Jesus cannot be married, because Jesus is mystically conceptualized (in an Athanasian-Trinitarian fashion) as one of the three persons of the One Godhead. And, as such, a cosmically-significant marriage of Jesus to a human being is so impossible as to be absurd. 

Consequently, each and every mention of the marriage of Jesus and Mary must mean something else; and the only task is to suggest what these references might mean. Since humans are natural experts at explaining-away whatever they regard as impossible, this is an almost automatic process.  

The same applies to reading the IV Gospel itself. As I described at the beginning of Lazarus Writes; when mainstream, orthodox, traditional Christians read this Gospel; they do so by implicitly-but-decisively subordinating it to the numerical majority "consensus" of the rest of the New Testament. First to the Synoptic Gospels (i.e. Gospels I, II, III; but especially Matthew and Luke), and/or the Epistles (especially Pauline), and to some parts of the Revelation/ Apocalypse.

(Almost as if spiritual authority was determined by majority vote!)  

My understanding - that the IV Gospel is the only eye-witness, earliest, and qualitatively most authoritative source concerning Jesus - is regarded as idiosyncratic, and indeed arbitrary. 

Therefore; the New Testament, and whole Bible, are being read in terms of fundamental assumptions concerning the weight and validity of its components, and how this question ought to be determined; that washes-away anything stated in the IV Gospel, or omitted from it, that is regarded as significant but contradictory to the majority of Books (or to other sources such as Matthew, Luke and Paul; that are treated as de facto more authoritative). 

By assumption, therefore, the IV Gospel must be explained in terms that harmonize it with other parts of the Bible; those parts that have, through history and as maintained by the churches, been accorded an assumed primacy. 

Another assumption relates to how we personally (each of us) ought to read The Bible - including the IV Gospel. 

It is assumed that we ought to defer to and obey some external authority in allowed ways of reading or understanding the Bible. 

Which particular authority we ought to defer to is a matter of contention between Christian denominations and churches (e.g. church tradition, or current authoritative church teaching as a whole or of specific persons, or some version of theology, or current linguistic and historical scholarship...). 

Among among those Christians who state that the Bible is primary, and its own authority, and ought to be understood as inerrant and literally true; there are always prior assumptions as to whether this means the Bible as a whole is true, or else the New Testament primarily, or particular parts of the New Testament. 

And the "correct" way of understanding the Bible is likewise a prior assumption. Should its ultimate meaning be understood in an overall sense of mutual cohesion - including all Boks in both Old and New Testaments? Or understood one Book at a time? 

Or does truth reside in the Bible verse by verse - or even word by word? 

And/or do those words ascribed to Jesus (spoken by him, as recorded), have the highest authority?

Even those denominations that assert we ought to read the Bible for ourselves by personal revelation, invariably insist upon some particular interpretations; at least for key doctrines, and for church members we aspire to have good standing in the institution. 

My point here is that our understanding of what is significant and what it means, is structured by assumptions that we all have before we embark on Christian exegesis; and before we read The Bible - or indeed seek guidance from any external source.

This is just a fact of things: our fundamental metaphysical assumptions have structured our Christian faith, determine what counts as evidence, and shape what that evidence means.  

We cannot choose not to have fundamental assumptions. 

Therefore your choice and my choice as Christians; lies in whether we acknowledge and become aware of the fact of prior assumptions; or - as is more usual - to deny and refuse to discuss the fact.  

 

NOTE ADDED: A further example of a prior-to-Christianity and fundamental structuring assumption is the nature of God-the-creator. Most theologically-minded Christians insist that God is and must be an Omni-God that created ex nihilo. Such a person's entire Christianity is built within such assumptions; such that (for example) "God is Love" is conceptualized within the metaphysical assumption that the loving God must be the Omni-/ ex nihilo-God; such that whatever Love means to them (their conceptualization of the nature of Love) is subordinated to the imperatives of the Omni-/ ex nihilo-God. Yet, such persons usually refuse to admit that their metaphysical assumptions regarding God Just Are prior-to, and therefore not derived-from, Christianity. 

Mary Magdalene at the tomb and after: Two presumed later excisions from Easter Sunday in the Fourth Gospel

Mary and the resurrected Jesus at the tomb

Where I presume later excisions is marked: [...]

John 20: [1]: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [2] Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [3] Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. [4] So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. [5] And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. [6] Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, [7] And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. [8] Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. [9] For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. [10] Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. [11] 

But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, [12] And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. [13] And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. [14] And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 

[...] 

[17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. [18] Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. 

[...]

It seems evident that there is something missing between "Master" and "Jesus saith" - because we have no explanation as to what Jesus meant by "touch me not" - in a context that the Gospel is nearly always self-explanatory and indeed detailed with respect to observed, recorded or experienced action - such as the detailed descriptions of how the author and Simon Peter ran t the tomb, and what they saw. 

And also because I am prepared to assume further excisions (and insertions) by a later hand; in the (not-very many, as a proportion) other places where the Gospel is not self-explanatory, nor is "poetic" in form.

And then there is the fact that the Gospel, as we have it, leaves Mary unaccounted for: having been so very important throughout - her story is just "left-hanging". 

This is marked as my inferred second excision.

But I think it can be inferred what is missing in these instances, and why. 

Such inferences derive from the basis of an assumed fact that Mary was married to Jesus; and that the Fourth Gospel tells us this by implication in several places. 

But later hands have removed all explicit references to this, for what may be theological reasons. Presumably they were deleted on the basis of assuming that, because the Mary relationship was (later) regarded as theologically impossible, such references must themselves have been erroneous.

Somewhat as I wrote: The exchange of words between Jesus and Mary at the tomb may imply that she would join the risen Jesus after he had ascended. 

“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” means, therefore: stop touching me just-now – we will be able to touch one another when I am ascended. 

After all, it wasn't forbidden to touch Jesus - Doubting-Thomas was invited-to. 

My inference is that Mary touched Jesus in some fashion as a wife would touch him - but this was not correct or appropriate until after the ascension: until after their ascension.

Then Jesus describes his ascension “unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Such a very specific form of address (the reiterated symmetry of my-your) is appropriate to the wife of Jesus; in the sense that God the Father has become Mary's Father-‘in Law’, and 'her' God – in the same kind of direct and personal way as for Jesus. 

So, we are being-told, by Mary's brother Lazarus, author of the Fourth Gospel; that Mary Magdalene ascended to God to be with her divine husband.  

However, it seems - I assume, that such further explicit and explanatory reference to Mary Magdalene was deleted by some later hand. 

I also assume that this Gospel reference was removed because seen as contradicting metaphysical-philosophical - but not genuinely Jesus-derived - assumptions of a "Trinitarian" and Monotheistic nature; assumptions that seemed to entail that Jesus could not have been married.

Or maybe that, even if Jesus was married, this could be of no theological significance; i.e. marriage could have no relevance to Jesus's divine work.

At any rate; when marriage to Mary Magdalene is not regarded as by-prior-assumption impossible, and when the Fourth Gospel is acknowledged as our first, only eye-witness, and most authoritative source - then the Good Friday encounter between Mary and the risen Jesus at the tomb; emerges as of something close-to primary significance, in our understanding of Jesus's life and work. 

The Corpus Christi carol

He bore him up, he bore him down, 

He bore him into an orchard brown. 

(Chorus) 

Lully, lullay, lully, lullay! 

The falcon has borne my make away. 

And in that hall there standeth a bed: 

It was hanged with gold so red; 

(Chorus) 

And on that bed there lieth a knight, 

His woundis bledyng day and night; 

(Chorus) 

And by that side there kneleth a may, 

And she wepeth both night and day; 

(Chorus)

And by that bed there standeth a stone, 

“Corpus Christi” written thereon.

(Chorus)

Key: "make" = "mate"; "may" = "maid"; "Corpus Christi" = "body of Christ"

There are many variants of title and lyrics, and even more of the melody.

But this is the tune I regard as definitive (although the performance is only adequate IMO - I can't find any better online). 

It is composed in the Doric/ Dorian Mode, which runs from D to D on the white notes of a piano; and is characterized by a minor third and a flattened seventh (no "leading note"). This lends a suitably "medieval" quality to the ancient song. 

This "carol" (it isn't really a carol) is very mysterious in its subject matter; seeming like an imaginary journey of initiation as we are led from scene to scene to a climatic revelation - none of which scenes are explained, and all of which seem "symbolic" in some way. 

Some ideas about the poem are that it is to do with a slain knight and his betrothed, the Holy Grail and the Fisher King; or Mary and Jesus (maybe the Blessed Virgin Mary, or perhaps Mary Magdalene) - or perhaps all of these at the same time. 

 

My problems about Easter

(For recent readers, mainly.) 

I refrained from posting anything about my churlish "Easter Problem" during the celebrations - because (apparently) these mean a great deal to many Christians. 

But anyone who wants to understand my own reservations about this feast can take a look at some previous posts.

(My own main celebration this year was to re-read the 20th, and I believe final, chapter of the Fourth Gospel. During this reading I was strongly struck by the conversation between the risen Jesus and Mary Magdalene - and I had the conviction that the original meaning of this exchange was that Mary would ascend to Heaven with Jesus, and at the same time as Jesus.) 

Yet another Easter irritation I haven't previously mentioned; is the way that I was taught as a child (and this is still, apparently, a frequent theme - even theologically) that Jesus's sufferings during his last days were the greatest any human has experienced; and indeed of a qualitatively greater scale and significance than any other being has experienced. 

This idea has often had a strong popular appeal - I think especially among women. 

Even as an infant-school-kid, but far more so now; this emphasis on Jesus's extremity of suffering seems to me a spectacular misunderstanding, a gross misplacement of effort and belief.  

For a start, the assertion is un-proveable because we can neither know objectively nor measure the degree of suffering. And this is a fact, despite that the geopolitical system of the entire modern world is rooted in "utilitarian" values that assume suffering (and also "happiness") can be quantified. 

Secondly; although the degree of Jesus's suffering seemed very bad indeed; even as a child, it seemed easy to imagine worse - especially in duration; and I was also able to imagine that some people (perhaps many people) had actually endured worse suffering. 

Thirdly, Jesus's suffering seemed irrelevant to me-here-now. 

I am nowadays aware of various theological explanations as to an alleged purpose for the extremity of Jesus's suffering, and its personal and immediate relevance; but as a child nobody seemed to know these explanations, or else they were unwilling or unable to provide a coherent explanation for how Jesus's suffering "worked" as a way of doing something for me. At any rate, the impression I got was of a bizarre insistence on Jesus's sufferings for no apparent reason*. 

It is only relatively recently, and especially since my 2018 intensive focus on the Fourth Gospel - that I have begun to see this as more than a mistake of emphasis; and instead evidence of a fundamental error concerning "what Christianity really is" - or, more accurately, "what Jesus did for us" - and how he did it. 

*Another such bizarre insistence from early childhood, was related to "rolling away the stone" from the tomb of Jesus. I got the impression the point of this was that moving the stone must have required superhuman strength, therefore proving divine intervention. It was not long before I began to wonder how the stone had been moved to block the tomb in the first place - that this must have been done by ordinary Romans - and this seemed to me to disprove the evidence for resurrection. I just mention this as evidence of how children's minds work, and the problem of counter-productive attempts at Christian teaching in a world where the church does Not have a monopoly, and where not many people get informed beyond a primary school level of "Bible stories". 

The male and female principle in Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene

For an idea of what I intend by the "male and female principles", see this book review and the quotations from Owen Barfield and DE (Doris Eveline) Faulkner Jones. A terse summary of their argument is provided by Faulkner Jones:

One might call the special gift of women 'creative receptivity', and it should be used in close co-operation with the 'creative activity' of men... An example of the harmonious working-together of the male and female principles in social life is medicine in the nineteenth century. New discoveries were revolutionising medical work when there emerged in Florence Nightingale a woman powerful enough to feel deeply, and comprehend fully, the importance of these discoveries and of medical work in general. It was through her work in founding and organising nursing as a profession for women that the new medical ideas, generated through the male creative intellect, could be applied beneficently and systematically, on a wide basis, to all the classes of the community. Without the steady, loving, systematised, daily and hourly attention of trained nurses, the most brilliant surgical or medical treatment would fail.

Of course I am here comparing the cosmically great reality of Jesus and Mary, with the micro-cosmically specific instance of the male founders of modern medicine and Florence Nightingale and her nurses. 

But I would like to suggest that Jesus was - inevitably - specifically a man, hence male - and therefore essentially engaged in "creative activity"; therefore in need of a woman and the female principle of "creative receptivity" in order fully to fulfil the potential of his work. 

In the Fourth Gospel (for my understanding and explanation of this scripture, see here) we have a vivid and human portrait of Jesus provided by an eye-witness; and it can be seen that Jesus's character is distinctively that of a man. Jesus is neither androgynous, nor a fusion of man and woman: he is archetypically male. 

By contrast, of the five episodes that feature Mary Magdalene; the first is the marriage feast at Cana, which I believe to be a (later redacted) version of the marriage of Jesus and Mary; but it provides no information as the bride's behaviour or character. 

However, the next four descriptions of Mary Magdalene all mention archetypically female, indeed wifely, behaviour: these are:

1. Mary weeping at Jesus's feet at the resurrection of Lazarus, her brother - expressing direct sadness and empathy for the here-and-now situation;

2. Mary anointing Jesus's feet in Bethany and wiping them with her hair - demonstrating her knowledge of Jesus's divine status, and a focus on the present moment - and "indifferent" to larger and abstract masculine issues such as "the poor". 

3. Mary's presence at the foot of the cross during the crucifixion: being-present, while Jesus dies, i sympathetic participation.

4. Mary's discovery of the empty tomb, and her later first-witnessing of the resurrected Jesus; Mary apparently visited the tomb alone, and with no functional purpose other than - again - to be there, to participate in Jesus's condition. When she meets, and then recognizes, the resurrected Jesus; she desires primarily to touch him - again, an archetypically female response to the situation.   

None of Mary's behaviours are surprising, but in their here-and-now immediacy and care, they do emphasise the contrast with Jesus's own "Big Picture" words and behaviours. 

Mary's behaviours emphasize too that "creative receptivity" which is missing from, and complementary to, and necessary to the completion of, the masculine creative activity of Jesus.

This is one reason why I consider that Mary Magdalene later became one of the dyad that is the Holy Ghost; our guide (masculine active creativity) and comforter (feminine receptive creativity). 

If I were to draw any tentative lessons from this analysis for this, our mortal lives; and for the ideal relationship between a man and a woman towards which we might strive; such lessons would be along the lines of understanding the ultimate and spiritual nature of these male and female characteristics. 

"Behold they son!... Behold thy mother!"

John 19:25-27. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

For a background summary and supporting argument, see Lazarus Writes: 

This is described by the eye-witness author of the Fourth Gospel - who was the resurrected Lazarus. Present with Lazarus at the foot of the cross stood Jesus's mother and aunt; and Mary Magdalene who was Jesus's wife; and Lazarus himself, brother to Mary M, and who was therefore Jesus's brother-in-law. 

This web-of-relationships explains why Jesus specifically asked his brother-in-law, the author of the Fourth Gospel, to "adopt" Jesus's mother after Jesus's death - Jesus's mother already being mother-in-law to Lazarus's sister. 

Jesus's wife's brother becomes the "son" to Jesus's mother; reciprocally, Jesus's mother became his brother-in-law's "mother".  

The Dyadic Holy Ghost

Since I regard God the Creator as dyadic, our Heavenly Parents, Father and Mother (actual, and presumably eternally incarnate, persons)...

And since I regard Jesus Christ's marriage to Mary of Bethany (Mary Magdalene) as a vital and transformative aspect of His work of the Second Creation...

Then it seems to follow - and has a intuitive rightness - that the Holy Ghost is also dyadic, and a consequence of the eternal commitment of Jesus and Mary in love (their "celestial marriage"). 

I think this is necessary because ultimate creativity comes from the eternal dyadic love of our Heavenly Parents (that is, the concept of creation includes (and/or arises from) love, as it includes freedom and agency - as distinguishable but inseparable aspects).  

Thus the Holy Ghost is both guide and teacher, and comforter; and it may be that these aspects reflect Jesus Christ the man and Mary Magdalene the woman; after their death, resurrection and ascension. 

In other words (bearing in mind these are emphases, not separate domains), the main theme of Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost is to contribute discernment and purpose in a long-term, strategic way; while Mary contributes immediate help, here and now, in a tactical way. 

Jesus shows us the path, Mary keeps us upon it. 

Of course this cannot (even in principle!) be proved from the Gospels; yet the account of Mary in the Fourth Gospel strikes me as compatible by what I have just said - and from other traditions in Christianity. 

By my understanding, Mary Magdalene makes five appearances in the The Fourth Gospel: 1, implicitly in Jesus's Marriage at Cana (a passage that seems clearly tampered-with, including by deletions), in the resurrection of Lazarus (Mary's brother), the episode of the ointment on Jesus's feet in Bethany, at the foot of the cross and after Jesus's resurrection. 

Mary's concerns in the latter four episodes are very immediate, supportive, "caring" - and indeed it seems possible that Mary had a role in the resurrection of Jesus in a way analogous to John the Baptist's role in the divine but mortal transformation of the pre-baptism Jesus into Jesus Christ*. 

I get this from the hints contained in the reported conversation between the resurrected Jesus, and Mary, when she was the first to meet Jesus after his death, thus.

John 20: 14... she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. [17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.  

It strikes me that Jesus may here be talking of their future eternal union - to include the spiritual emanation of the Holy Ghost, available to all who follow Jesus - to happen (only) after Mary's death and resurrection. 

In very general terms - to include Mary Magdalene/ of Bethany in the Holy Ghost is a further development and explication of the deadly rejection of the feminine that afflicted Christianity from early-on (and which I blame of the monotheist philosophers who captures and continue to torment Christin theology!)

The progressively increasing emphasis on Mary the mother of Jesus in Catholic practice, I take to be a theologically-distorted - but nonetheless spiritually very valuable - manifestation of the reality of Heavenly Mother, and the wife of Jesus Christ. 

The fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary is mainly called-upon for aid and comfort in the difficulties of everyday living, fits with my understanding of the role of the divine feminine in general, and Mary Magdalene in her marriage-into the Holy Ghost specifically.   

Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, rediscovered the Christian feminine in God; but the CJCLDS have since neglected and suppressed this aspect of Joseph's revelation - and have chosen not to develop it, while never denying it. 

I am strongly of the view that an explicit inclusion of Heavenly Mother in the fundamental concept of God; and probably too a personal womanly aspect of the Holy Ghost; has (belatedly) become an all-but essential quest or project - for us, here and now. 

This is not something Christians can get off-the-peg or from any external source; but something each needs to work-through for himself - by the usual external and internal means of spiritual guidance. 

*Note added: This is easily (negatively or positively) misinterpreted in terms of divided stereotypical sex roles. I mean much more and almost the opposite; which is that the dyad of a man and woman eternally co-committed in love, can do something that neither can do alone - or, at least, one person can do less, and less well. That is something like a harmony of strategic purposive wisdom with immediate help. By analogy (very approximate) it is a bit like the benefit of being loved and looked-after by two people, a man and a woman, each with distinctive perspectives and capacities, eternally combined in love; who completely share divine purposes and method. This would be better than any conceivable single person, with only a single perspective and vision. That this is two persons creates and sustains a dynamic and growing aspect to the situation - whereas a single person would tend towards inertia and stasis. That this is two persons, rather than more than two, should be seen as an extra gift and potentiality added to the situation of single person - rather than a limitation.   

Mary Magdalene and the role of women in Christianity - mundane and cosmic

The role of women in religion can be examined from the point of view of the extent to which it is mundane - i.e. to do with the conduct of mortal life in this world; or cosmic - i.e. concerned with eternal matters and existence outwith this mortal life. 

A cosmic role for women could be a religion where the creator was a woman, or when one or more of the god's was a woman - and there are also other possibilities. 

My main interest is in Christianity. In historical Christianity we can see a cosmic role for the mother of Jesus in both the Eastern and Western Catholic churches. 

And Mormons regard God the creator as a dyad of man and woman - Heavenly Parents who manifested divine creation and (in some literal sense) procreated Men. 

Other types of Christianity among Protestants have essentially zero cosmic role for women; and this applies to Judaism and Islam.  

As regards a mundane role for women - this is seen in terms of supernatural help with everyday life. This could range from a theologically formal role of female saints and other holy women in helping with various problems of life; to all kinds of unofficial, popular and folk beliefs of the same kind; that shade-off into superstitions and "luck" (and may occur even in what are officially strictly monotheistic religions). 

At a further remove, there is the matter of women's role in the various churches. In some religions women have a essential role in churches, but in historical Christianity this has not been the case. 

Sometimes all essential church roles were restricted to men, but in all instances women were inessential to the work of the church. The religion can be conducted entirely without participation of women. 

Another vital aspect relates to Jesus Christ. 

When it comes to a cosmic role for women in the life and work of Jesus Christ, historical Christianity has either had none; or has focused exclusively on the mother of Jesus whose role is probably only of explicitly cosmic significance relatively late in the history of the Roman Catholic Church - with the doctrine of immaculate conception. 

Even the mundane role of women in the usual versions of the life of the adult Jesus during his ministry is minor to the point of being inessential. 

This is (variously) a consequence of taking either the whole-Bible, or the whole-New-Testament (or Synoptic Gospels, or Pauline Epistles) as the major basis for Christian assumptions, and also of deriving core assumptions of church authority, tradition and a lineage of theology and practice dating back to Church Fathers. 

However, my understanding of Christianity is focused upon the Fourth Gospel, regarded as the earliest and most authoritative source of knowledge. 

As such, I see a potentially cosmic role for Mary Magdalene; who I believe to have been the wife of Jesus, and brother of Lazarus - whom I regard as the author of the Fourth Gospel.

Here - in brief - is what I regard as the description of Mary Magdalene's cosmic role in the work of Jesus Christ - using the Fourth Gospel (see this link for further discussion and more detailed referencing): 

The Marriage at Cana (Chapter 2) is a rather garbled and tampered-with account of Jesus's marriage to Mary Magdalene - and it was the time of his first miracle. 

I assume that Jesus became aware of his divinity at the time of his baptism by John; but he did not perform a miracle until he was married to Mary; which marriage therefore implicitly has a cosmic dimension, far beyond any mundane earthly ceremony. 

Jesus encounters Mary on the way to resurrection of Lazarus (Chapter 11) - his profoundest and greatest miracle - the first resurrection. 

Then again at the episode of the mysterious episode of the anointing of Jesus's feet by Mary (Chapter 12) - when he realized and announced that his death was imminent.  

Mary Magdalene was present (with Jesus's mother, other women, and Lazarus) at Jesus's death on the cross (Chapter 19); and was then the first to meet him two days later when resurrected (Chapter 20). 

I take these descriptions - bracketing Jesus's death and resurrection - to imply that Mary had some cosmic role in these unprecedented and eternally significant events. 

The last we hear of Mary and Jesus is when he tells her: I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. 

Which I regard as an anticipation of the continuation of their eternal, cosmic marriage in Heaven, after Jesus's ascension and Mary's resurrection. 

Including "the divine feminine" within Christianity? - This may, at last, be possible

I personally find the near exclusive masculinity of traditional Christian theology, and of church organization, obviously inadequate in a spiritual sense. 

What comes across to me is (to a very variable but ineradicable extent) some element of cold and dead partiality of spirit; head without warmth of heart; form without motivation.

The near deletion of the feminine from traditional Christianity (of all denominations) strikes me also as a distortion of reality; therefore necessarily wrong. 

Having recognized the problem and need; with divine help, I assume that we can do better. 

Yet, attempts at including the divine feminine within Christianity have been (to my judgment) unsatisfactory in one way or another. 

The most successful, over many centuries, has clearly been the inclusion of Mary the Mother of Jesus within both Eastern and Western Catholicism. This brings, to some extent, a balance of spirituality which is lacking from the Protestant and other churches. 

The Catholic conceptualization of the feminine is (again, I speak personally) inadequate; partly by its emphasis on literal virginity, and partly by its theology of intercession - which makes no sense to me, and emphasizes what I regard as a mistakenly un-Christian view of God as somewhat hostile: requiring pleading and propitiation.

Most other attempts to introduce the feminine - especially to church organization - have been (whether covertly, or implicitly) been a part of the agenda of secularization - and assimilation to totalitarian leftism - of Christian churches; with predictably destructive consequences. 

Are we then doomed to a partial and one-sided Christianity? 

Well, I don't have a recipe to solve this ancient problem of the exclusion of the feminine, but the prospect is very different in a world where the basis of Christianity has moved from of the (by now deeply corrupted and increasingly malign) churches; to become rooted in personal choices and responsibility. 

There are at least a couple of aspects to be considered. The first and most important is theological. I have found myself first attracted and then convinced by the Mormon conceptualization of God the Creator as a Heavenly Parents, man and woman, celestial and eternal husband and wife.

But what of Jesus? When I immersed myself in the Fourth Gospel ("John") with the assumption that it was the primary and most-authoritative source concerning Jesus; I found that the answer had always been there; which is that Mary Magdalene was (and this, I think, pretty explicitly) described as the wife of Jesus. 

Furthermore, as would be expected if Jesus's wife was an important aspect of Christianity; the five episodes in which Mary features all occur at points of exceptional importance - turning-point of the narrative (e.g. see this text of the Fourth Gospel for further explanation - using word-search to locate the relevant passages). 

1. The marriage at Cana, which I regard as the marriage of Jesus and Mary (attended by Mary's brother Lazarus, who is the author of the Fourth Gospel), is the first miracle of Jesus; his assumption of divine power following his baptism by John. 

(Mary is not named at Cana, but the other four episodes can be found by a "Mary" word-search of the linked Bible text.) 

2. Mary then interacts with Jesus just prior to Jesus's greatest and most significant miracle: the resurrection of Lazarus (her brother). 

3. The episode at Bethany of the spikenard ointment precedes and prophecies the turn towards the events of Jesus's trial and sentencing. 

4. Then Mary is present at the foot of the cross to participate in Jesus's death. 

5. And her last appearance is as first witness to the resurrection of Jesus.  

From this, I think it can be inferred (starting from the assumptions which I have made) that Mary had some kind of role - a complementary role - in the major events of Jesus's time on earth; but what exactly, I am not sure. 

Maybe it is not necessary to know more. But if it is necessary for me, then insight will be forthcoming so long as my motivations for seeking knowledge are good. 

My conclusion is that because Christianity is now a personal matter, a personal responsibility; we do not any longer need to be concerned about the institutionally destructive effects of 'feminism'. We need to satisfy our-selves in accordance with our best intentions and deepest intuitions. 

If we personally feel that traditional Christianity has been - to a significant extent - an incomplete and maimed thing; then we can simply get on with the spiritual work of discovery and creation to remedy this defect. 

Since we are satisfying ourselves, our deepest needs and individual understanding, our need for a strong and lasting personal motivation to follow Jesus; we need not share this with anyone else. 

We can and will, of course (like all of the churches through history) err in our understanding, and be misled by wrong impulses and our propensity for sin. yet, if our intent is sincere and we continue to seek truth; all such errors that have spiritually lethal consequences will be (with the direct help of the Holy Ghost) be detected, repented and corrected - and we do not need to convince other people (or an organization) before doing this vital work. 

What Gnosticism is Not...

This is a slightly-edited version of a comment at the Orthosphere, written in response to a post by Kristor. This, in turn, was based on my comment to a recent post by Francis Berger.

@ Kristor - Am I correct in assuming that you - and those you implicitly address in this post - are deriving your understanding of (what you term) "Gnosticism" from the US political philosopher Eric Voegelin? 

(Whether influenced directly - or via those who were, in turn, strongly-influenced by V. - such as Lawrence Auster.)

That, in other words, Voegelin's conceptualization came first, and set the template within-which your understanding of historical Gnosticism has developed?

If so; this may account for this "Gnosticism"'s bizarre irrelevance to actual historical Gnosticism! 

What you call Gnosticism here (and other Orthosphere authors, in other posts) is so different from what I derived from reading about the ancient Gnostics, that I find it impossible to get from one to the other.

Clearly there must be an unmentioned third factor at work, behind the scenes - which I guess to be Voegelin.

If your concept of Gnosticism derived from Voegelin, it is important to clarify that Voegelin was not a Christian, was not engaged in any kind of Christian discourse or project; and he was indeed one of those who (mistakenly!) regarded leftism as a Christian 'heresy'.

Most importantly; Voegelin cannot have known much about real-life historical Gnosticism, because the relevant Gnostic texts (Nag Hammadi library especially) had not been translated when he was writing.

So - Why should Voegelin's ideas of Gnosticism have any validity At All?

Some modern *individuals* have become fascinated by historical Gnosticism - especially through the 1960s as the texts were first made available in translation (e.g. Philip K Dick via his friend Bishop James Pike, who was involved in the translations) - but the most basic Gnostic idea that earth was created by 'the devil' and that all matter is evil - is not a part of any modern Christian *church* that I've ever come across.

The nearest equivalent would be the "perennial philosophers" (usually operating within New Age discourse nowadays) who have adopted the basic assumptions and methods of "Eastern Religions" and absorb into this bits of Christianity in an eclectic fashion.

These have retained the ultimate ideal of escaping the material altogether, and ascending into a realm of pure spirit (ie. rejecting bodily resurrection). And such people are often very interested by the actual Gnostic writings - especially the Gospel of Thomas (very Neo-Platonic), and of that of Mary Magdalene (for feminist reasons). But not many such people claim to be "Christians".

In sum... Surely it is Not legitimate to equate Voegelin's modern socio-political terminology with an actual ancient religion/s - especially an ancient religion that seems to have left no institutional descendent?

I find this kind of "Gnostic" discourse so vague and slippery that it seems like no more than shadow-boxing - generative of neither heat nor light - with a bit of passive-aggressive name-calling thrown in!

**

Note: I personally find near-zero appeal in the actual ancient Gnostics - who I regard (in a nutshell) as the result of maintaining the metaphysics and social structures of pagan, Neo-Platonic secret cults; and absorbing into these groups some of the Christian terminology and history.

I therefore find the Gnostics to be (merely) a more extreme version (more pagan/ Platonic, less Christian) of the same process that led to the mainstream orthodox Christian church (which I regard as a product of exactly the same errors and processes).

The actual historical Gnostic metaphysical assumptions are mostly in direct opposition to (and incompatible with) my own most important assumptions concerning reality.

I would also add that modern individualism/alienation of thinking was Not an aspect of Gnosticism - was indeed all-but impossible to Men of that era. The Gnostics were, it seems, a variety of groups - individual judgment was immersed in a secret and disciplined cult with graded initiations (and no doubt punishments for transgression).

A secret initiatory group-cult is pretty-much the opposite of that explicitly individual discernment and taking of personal responsibility for one's Christianity, which is meant by "Romantic" Christianity.

Why was the Marriage at Cana the situation for Jesus's first miracle?

The Fourth Gospel tells us that the Marriage at Cana, changing water into wine, was the first miracle of Jesus; which raises the question of - why then?

By my understanding; Jesus's miracles should primarily be understood as evidence of his primary creative power; that Jesus was divine and shared in God's creative power. 

I also understood Jesus's baptism by John to be the moment when the Holy Spirit descended onto him and stayed; so that Jesus 'knew who he was' and also became divine (i.e. fully and permanently aligned with  God's will)... 

But if that was the whole story, then the question arises: why the 'gap' between the baptism and the first miracle? 

The answer - I now believe - is that it was Jesus's marriage to Mary (Magdalene) at Cana which made possible the miracles. 

The background to this can be found in my theological writings over the past years - and in particular my mini-online-book about the Fourth Gospel. 

There can be found the arguments as to why this is the primary source on Jesus's life and teachings (qualitatively superior to any other source - whether Old testament, Gospel, Epistle, Revelation or otherwise). 

Once this is acknowledged, it may readily be seen that we are clearly being told by the Fourth Gospel that Jesus married Mary at Cana; that 'this Mary' was the same as Lazarus's sister (Mary of Bethany) and Mary Magdalene; and that the resurrected Lazarus was author of the Fourth Gospel - Chapters 1-20 of which were written shortly after the ascension of Jesus (and, presumably, Mary his wife). 

The other necessary understanding is of the nature of God and creation. I understand 'God' to be the dyad of Heavenly Parents - of the prime, divine man and woman; and creation to be the manifestation of their Love. 

Taken together, this implies (although it does not entail) that the divine creativity of Jesus, as shown by his miracles, also required to be completed by a dyadic love between a man and a woman; which was made possible by the eternal/ celestial/ divine marriage of Jesus with Mary.

Until that point - Jesus could not perform miracles of divine creation; and this is why Lazarus took care to inform us in his Gospel that Cana was Jesus's first miracle. 

The Chosen - a life of Jesus (2019-20)

Just a notice of The Chosen - a series of (so far - more to come) eight 50-minute (independently/ crowd-funded) TV-movies about the ministry of Jesus (structured around the last three years of his life) from the perspective of those around him. 

This is an outstanding achievement, which I recommend highly.  

The series builds slowly; by establishing the society and (essentially fictional) characters of people such as Mary Magdalene, Nicodemus, Simon and Andrew, and Matthew - and Jesus is introduced slowly (he hardly appears in the first couple of episodes). 

There is a (successful) attempt to portray the fine texture of daily life. The interesting decision was made that everyone speaks with a 'Middle Eastern accent', and to use a few untranslated Hebrew words - which results in an enhancement of the strangeness and differentness of the world. 

Production values are very high; and the quality of acting very good - indeed Nicodemus and Matthew, in particular, are superb performances. 

As the series progresses, it becomes much more scriptural in content, with episodes built around particular events (usually, specific miracles or encounters), and gets better and better - deepened by the developing interpersonal relationships and crises caused by Jesus's emergence. 

I found it extremely moving at times - spiritually moving; there were parts when I was streaming with tears! 

Anyway - The Chosen can be found free on YouTube and Vimeo. 

Resurrection firsts

As far as I can understand from reading the Fourth Gospel; three 'resurrection firsts' are described:

1. Lazarus (Jesus's brother in law) was the first person to be resurrected to divine immortality - by Jesus; and Lazarus was resurrected into this world. It also sounds like he was resurrected into the space formerly occupied by his mortal body. His subsequent fate included looking after Jesus's mother.

2. Jesus himself was the second person to be resurrected. He also seems to have been resurrected into the space of his mortal body, and into this mortal world; after which Jesus was the first resurrected Man to ascend to Heaven.

3. Mary Magdalene was Jesus's wife. From the conversation after she discovered the resurrected Jesus in the tomb, it seems to me likely that she was expecting to join Jesus in Heaven as soon as he ascended; there to become his divine spouse. If so, Mary was the first Man to die on earth and be resurrected into Heaven, in the way that subsequently became 'normal' for Christians.

Each of these three resurrections is different in form, and both Lazarus and Jesus has features that were likely unique.

It was probably Mary Magdalene who was the first person actually to follow that path to Heavenly life eternal which Jesus incarnated to make possible.

Jesus before he was born

At this time of year, it is natural for me to think about the birth of Jesus; and that leads back to Jesus before he was born, in his pre-mortal spirit life.

As I understand things; Jesus was the only pre-mortal Man who was wholly-aligned with the will of God. Why this should be, I don't know - and it may not have an explanation. The idea is that Jesus was (in some sense, presumably including - but not confined to - the literal) the first-born of the children of God; but that in itself does not tell us why he was unique.

What is it that makes a person's will aligned with that of God? The answer is love - so we can infer that Jesus loved God such that there was an absolute harmony between them - and that no other pre-mortal Man did so; and no other could be Saviour.


Hence Jesus, and only Jesus, was co-creator of this world (as described in the early verses of the Fourth Gospel). Co-creation is only possible when love ensures a harmony; only in that way may two or many parties may contribute to a single (harmonious) creation - genuine independence of self-creation is made compatible with the coherence of all that which is created.

(Sin is lack of love, lack of alignment; such that this harmony is prevented; sin is also the state of labile mortality - and full co-creation is only possible between immortal persons, whose love is everlasting - not mortal.)

The Messiah was both co-creator, and future Saviour - by 'saviour' was meant that he was the only means by which other Men could attain to resurrected everlasting life; and full divinity.


Yet, although co-creator, the pre-mortal Jesus was nonetheless in a vital sense incomplete because immature - he lacked that final development which was provided by his incarnation, death and resurrection; and only after this completion could Jesus ascend to Heaven and take up full divinity.

When Jesus was born, this was his history. At birth and for (apparently) thirty years, Jesus was unique in his love of God, but otherwise an ordinary Man - except for his covert destiny. It was only after the baptism by John that the incarnated Jesus assumed divine power - fully divine in power but a mortal Man.

At this point, I think Jesus had done his work of salvation for Men - as evidenced by the resurrection of Lazarus. And the completion of Jesus's development - to immortality and full divinity - was attained via his own death and resurrection.

Thus Jesus became as his Father; a full creator, capable of making worlds and procreating spirit children.


Note: For simplicity, above I have left-out the role of celestial marriage and the dyadic love between man and woman which was the basis of the creation by our Heavenly Parents (i.e. God); and that the resurrected Jesus would likewise marry an eternal resurrected woman in order to attain full creative divinity - the first stage being enacted during his mortality, with Mary Magdalene (of Bethany) as described in the Fourth Gospel.

What relation does the resurrection body have to the mortal body?

My understanding is that an eternal and indestructible resurrected body has no physical relation to the mortal body; but is 'regenerated' from the soul: regenerated from that which survives death.

This is confirmed for me by the possibility of reincarnation, which seems to have been the 'normal' thing for souls in many parts of the world throughout history - including the ancient Hebrews and first Christians - since the possibility or prophecy of prophets being reborn is mentioned several times in the Old and New Testaments (including the Fourth Gospel Chapter 1, when discussing the identity of John the Baptist).

If a person is to be reincarnated, especially when widely separated by time, then this must presumably be with different bodies - showing that the principle is established whereby a soul may be housed in different bodies - including, potentially, the resurrection body.


On the other side; the indications that resurrection involves re-animating the mortal body can be taken to be implied by two episodes in the Fourth Gospel ('John'): the raising of Lazarus (assuming, like me, you regard this as a resurrection) and by the episode in the 20th chapter where the resurrected Jesus twice shows the wounds in his sides and hands to the disciples.

Some would assume that Lazarus is brought to life in the same physical body that has died, presumably after it had been miraculously repaired; and that the continued presence of wounds in Jesus's hands and side means that we all should expect to be resurrected in the same physical bodies in which we died - or at least one that looks the same.

Instead, my assumption is that these particular public demonstrations of  resurrection are not intended to be a pattern for all possible ones. In these; I assume that the resurrected body formed in more-or-less the same physical space as the dead mortal body; as a proof of continued identity for bystanders. But this is not necessary - nor indeed usual.

Unless resurrection was intended to be restricted only to those who had died without serious damage to their bodies, the process of resurrection (whatever it is) cannot depend on the survival intact of the physical body. There is no indication anywhere in the Fourth Gospel that resurrection is so restricted.


Furthermore, I personally do not hang too much on the 'showing of the wounds' episode, since it may well be a later addition to the Gospel by another hand and is unconfirmed by other parts of the Gospel. For example, when Mary Magdalene first met the risen Jesus at the tomb, she seems not to have seen any wounds - or else she would (surely?) immediately have recognised him.

(It is characteristic of the Fourth Gospel that all key points are repeated in different sections; I suppose so that they are emphasised, and also in order to better explain them using different 'metaphors' and contexts.) 

Therefore, lacking confirmation, I would not want to depend on the showing of the wounds as decisive evidence; especially as I am sure that the immediately adjacent and interpolated passage in Chapter 20 - about the coming of the Holy Ghost - is a later and false insertion.

It may be that most of Chapter 20 is not from the beloved disciple (whom I recognise as Lazarus); and instead based on later hearsay and the not-from-Jesus hence alien, 'imminent second coming' agenda.


But either way, I think that the fact of resurrection being the provision of a 'new' body (eternal and incorruptible) by a 'process' that does Not require any contribution from the mortal body, was something known and assumed at the time the Fourth Gospel was written.

Martha's perspective: Mary Magdalene and the death of Lazarus in the Fourth Gospel

I have been reading Chapter 11 of the Fourth Gospel (the 'raising of Lazarus' episode) to understand the role of Mary and Martha, sister of Lazarus.

I am reading this with the conviction that Mary of Bethany is the same person later referred to as Mary Magdalene, and that she was the wife of Jesus (they married at the water-into-wine feast in Cana, described earlier in the Gospel). I also assume that Lazarus was the 'beloved disicple', and author of the Fourth Gospel. All this is covered in my mini-book on the Fourth Gospel.

This means that - at the time of the events described in John: 11, Lazarus was still dead - and therefore he must have been writing on the basis of some other person's account. Therefore, this section is one of the few parts of the Fourth Gospel where the author is not an eye-witness.

The internal evidence of Chapter 11 suggests that the eye-witness the resurrected consulted was Lazarus's sister Martha, since she is the central character.

Mary was not, I assume, available to be consulted; since the Gospel was written some time after Jesus's ascension; and Mary, as the wife of Jesus, had presumably died-resurrected-ascended with her husband (as seems to be indicated when Mary met Jesus as the tomb and he made the 'touch me not' series of comments indicating they will both ascend to Heaven to be together. In other words, at the time of the Fourth Gospel was written, Mary was 'dead'.

So, we get the events of the raising of Lazarus from Martha's perspective. This is why her conversation is reported in detail, but not the conversation between Jesus and Mary (since Martha was not present (Mary is made merely to repeat a part of what Martha had said).

A striking aspect of this passage, is contextual: the suggestions that Mary was important and had some kind of following - as would be expected for the wife of Jesus.

Apparently Mary was 'in the house', with a group of The Jews, who then followed her when she came to Jesus (supposedly thinking she was going to weep at the grave). And in verse 45 there is a reference to The Jews who came to Mary.

It seems likely that Mary - wife of Jesus and sister of the recently-deceased disciple of Jesus - was a person of some importance, and the focus of public interest or concern, but Martha was not.


John.11 [1] Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. [2] (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) [3] Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. [4] When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. [5] Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. [6] When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was. [7] Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again. [8] His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again? [9] Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. [10] But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him. [11] These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. [12] Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. [13] Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. [14] Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. [15] And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him. [16] Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him. [17] Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already. [18] Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: [19] And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. [20] Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house. [21] Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. [22] But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. [23] Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. [24] Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. [25] Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: [26] And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? [27] She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. [28] And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. [29] As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him. [30] Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him. [31] The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there. [32] Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. [33] When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, [34] And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. [35] Jesus wept. [36] Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him! [37] And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died? [38] Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. [39] Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. [40] Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? [41] Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. [42] And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. [43] And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. [44] And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. [45] Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. [46] But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

How can we best help the salvation of others?

It is potentially a major worry for Christians that those whom we love may not choose to be saved.

And given that each person can only make this decision for himself; and given that many people nowadays seem immune to even the most serious and sustained efforts at evangelism - one can sometimes feel helpless against the corrupting influence of The World.

As if those we love are being swept irresistibly away while we can only look on helplessly.

But I do not believe the situation is as bad as that.


My understanding is that we are bound to Jesus, and to the Father, by networks of human love Jesus describes how this works in relation to the disciples in John 15:

[9] As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. .. [12] This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. [13] Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [14] Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. [15] Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

My understanding is that Jesus is describing how networks of love link Men, and link Men to himself and to the Father - indeed in the Fourth Gospel Jesus puts great emphasis on this kind of loving network.


I think these networks have implications that enhance the scope of salvation. Any individual who chooses to accept the gift of Jesus will serve as a direct link to the reality of that gift for all those with whom he has a loving relation. This applies during mortal life - but more importantly afterwards.

So that a soul who has not yet chosen Jesus, and perhaps disbelieves in God the Father; will nonetheless know directly the reality of salvation via the bonds of love with a Christian.

He may then choose to believe-on Jesus, have faith, desire the gift of life everlasting in a loving state in Heaven... which choice might not otherwise have happened, if his knowledge of such matters had remained merely indirect and theoretical.


This is my interpretation of what Jesus was doing by creating this network of love between himself and his Father the Creator on one side; and the other side the world of Men - beginning with the disciples and the other followers who loved Jesus - his family (Mother, Brothers...), Lazarus, Martha, Mary Magdalene of Bethany --- and on out, and extending-into the rest of Mankind.

For a Christian; Love is, I think, is the most powerful 'method' of evangelism - because it transcends the limitations of communication; and moves into the realm of direct knowledge.

We simply love Jesus - and through him the Creator; and we love our 'neighbours'; some of our fellow Men.

...Not an abstract and universal 'love of humanity' kind of thing; but the objective and solid, rare and most-powerful love we should have for some family and for real-friends.

Rehearsing the primacy of the Fourth Gospel

To recapitulate, in brief, why I have settled on the Fourth Gospel as the primary source of communicated-knowledge (i.e. not direct knowledge) about Jesus and his mission:

1. When I read the Fourth Gospel (at the times of my best reading) I get a strong intuitive endorsement of its coherent overall truth (excepting a few verses).

I do not get this coherent witness from any other section of the Bible; but instead variable amounts of partial endorsement balanced by variable amounts of intuitive rejection.

(This feeling about the special quality of the Fourth Gospel goes back about forty years, to long before I was a Christian but tried reading the Bible to discover what it said.)

2. This means that I take the Fourth Gospel as true; and read it as such; and this makes clear that the original Gospel was written to be read by people who knew the author, and knew the author's identity and history.

The first readers were pretty much 'handed' a copy of the Gospel by its author (or a scribe who took it from dictation - or whatever).

The Fourth Gospel (Chapters 1-20) makes it clear that it was written soon after Jesus's ascension - when such events were fresh in the author's mind. Except where otherwise indicated, the Fourth Gospel is either an eye-witness account or came directly from Jesus.

(Chapter 21 was added considerably later, after the death of Peter; and after the church had moved in a different direction from that envisaged by Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, under Peter's direction.)

3. From the internal evidence of the Gospel, the author of the Fourth was Lazarus; and he had, by the end, a very special relationship to Jesus:

• Best friend to Jesus - whom Jesus loved from before he commenced his ministry; Lazarus initially a disciple of John (the Baptist)
• Disciple of Jesus, in the inner group; his most-loved disciple
• Brother in Law to Jesus (who married his sister Mary 'Magdalene' of Bethany)
• Adopted brother of Jesus (via the instruction given Lazarus from Jesus on the cross, to take Jesus's mother as his own)
• The first Man to be resurrected*; then an immortal prophet in his own right
• The first and only eye-witness chronicler of Jesus's ministry, death, resurrection, ascension

These, in summary, are some of the strong reasons why I believe that authority ought to be accorded to the Fourth Gospel above all other sources;including  above any of the other parts of the Bible.

(Each of the above 'evidences' also needs to be tested by intuitive prayer and meditation; to ensure they have been understood and until stable clarity is attained.) 

The Fourth Gospel is our only Primary Source about Jesus; no other Bible sources even claims to be primary.

I further believe that, because of this primacy, the Fourth Gospel has (by divine intervention) been preserved adequately and almost completely down to our time (in the English Authorised/ King James version) - and this miraculous translation and preservation can be seen by its almost absolute coherence (such that the added or changed parts stand out from the whole); and also by its unique beauty and profundity.

If this primacy of the Fourth Gospel is accepted; it should make a significant difference to our core understanding of Christianity as compared with the usual ways of understanding that have arisen since the Fourth Gospel; and which have come down to us via the various churches that arose after the Gospel was first written.


 *Note added: The author of the Fourth Gospel goes out of his way to state that Jesus loved Lazarus - just after Lazarus is first name (11:1) saying (11:5) Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister [Mary], and Lazarus. In 11:35-6 we get "Jesus wept. Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!" It strikes me now that this love for Lazarus is linked to him being the first resurrected Man; since in this Gospel, love is mutual; and it is those who love Jesus who are resurrected to life eternal. Perhaps, then, Lazarus was the first and only person who loved Jesus to die, after Jesus became divine and commenced his ministry and before Jesus himself died. Lazarus was, therefore, the only person 'eligible' for resurrection during the period when Jesus was divine and dwelling upon earth. This would explain why Lazarus was resurrected, and why no other people were resurrected, during those three years of Jesus's mortal life.
  

The Matrix movie (1999)

A convincing prophet meets The Saviour - offers cookies...

(NOTE: Many spoilers below.) 

I have just rewatched The Matrix movie (1999) and I thought it was even better second time around. I had a memory that there was a flaw in that the martial arts scenes were over-extended - but (with the exception of the gunfight rescue of Morpheus) this is not really the case: there is something being told us with almost all of the phases of the various battles.

My impression this time around is that The Matrix is a really outstanding 5 Star movie; in which nothing goes for nothing - and where there is a very satisfying quality to the whole thing. I found it genuinely wise - in those parts where wisdom was aimed-at. The acting (and direction) of the principal actors is outstanding.

I was more aware of the spiritual dimension of the piece, too; there is an Old Testament like prominence given to prophecy (and the importance of prophets - ie. The Oracle). For Christians, there are several strong symbolic aspects (not necessarily deliberate - the authors aren't Christian), if we want to notice them: Morpheus as John the Baptist; Neo as Saviour who dies and is resurrected; Trinity (more loosely) as Mary Magdalene etc. But these I noticed afterwards, on reflection, rather than during. The end is not perfect - more than a touch of the inexplicit 'walking into the sunset' about it - but good enough to make the movie 'work'.

I think one of the aspects that helped me enjoy The Matrix more the second time, was that I set-aside the central nonsensical plot implausibility, which was apparently externally imposed on the film makers; of having the Matrix consist of human 'batteries' - their bodies providing energy to the Machines. Instead; I mentally-substituted the original conception that the machines were exploiting human minds and their computing power, and that an interconnected human neural network constituted most of the Matrix.

Having started watching the second Matrix movie; the sudden gap in quality and aspiration is very obvious. It's not that the sequels are bad - as movies they are fine - but that they are utterly different and at a much lower level of ambition (and therefore attainment). They also create the plot swerve and raggedness that makes it turn-out that Agent Smith is actually The One; whereas in the first movie it is unambiguously Neo - and this swerve destroys some of the coherent, satisfying, underlying, symbolism of the The Matrix.

Aside; I always regard it as a pity when a totalitarian dystopia is established by a 'fascistic' war and imposed by violence; whereas in this real world the analogous society is being incrementally and bureaucratically-implemented without significant resistance by the global ruling class; with the active support and cooperation of the linked bureaucracies and mass media. The real-world Matrix is actually-existing socialism; meanwhile the real-world rebels are characterised as Right Wing Reactionaries and enemies of individual 'freedom' (especially extra-marital-transgressive sexual freedoms).

Of course, such a truthful movie could never emanate from Hollywood, nor - specifically - from the makers of The Matrix. We have to make such adjustments ourselves, by our personal interpretative work.

The woman who poured expensive ointment on Jesus's feet and wiped them with her hair

The importance of coming to a decision concerning the relative authority of parts of the Bible, parts of the New Testament, and between the Gospels; can be seen by comparing the accounts of (apparently) the same event in the Fourth Gospel ('John') and Luke. (These are quoted in full at the end of this post*.)


Now, although these accounts apparently refer to the same incident, they differ in many details - in particular they differ in terms of the identity of the woman - for 'John' the woman is someone well known and loved by Jesus, sister of his beloved friend Lazarus; for Luke she is just identified as an anonymous woman and someone regarded as leading a publicly-ungodly life ('a sinner').

Most importantly, the 'moral' of the story is different in each - For 'John' it references, I believe, some 'lost' ceremonies of a spiritual wedding of Jesus with Mary (who is, presumably, the woman he married in Cana - in an ordinary Jewish wedding) and a foreshadowing of the deal of the incarnate Jesus, and his burial - and linked with Mary (Magdalene) being the first to speak with the resurrected Jesus. And/ or the moral is about the eternal versus the worldly.

(Since 'John' was writing shortly after the ascension of Jesus, all such contextual details will have been well known to his intended audience.)


But for Luke the story is 'about' the infinite forgiveness or atonement of Jesus, and how this means the most for those with 'the most' sin, those whose lives are built-upon the denial of God - emphasising that Jesus (unlike the Pharisees, and those who regarded adherence to The Law as the only path to salvation) came to save sinners (which is everybody, but particularly those who were furthest from The Law and - up to that point - the most vehemently atheist, selfish, self-indulgent etc).


So, how can we makes sense of these apparent discrepancies? So far as I can tell, we need to assume one of four basic possibilities:
1. 'John' is more authoritative, or
2. Luke is more authoritative; or
3. Both are equally authoritative, and are authoritative (both being valid alternative descriptions of the same event and meaning); or that  
4. Neither are correct: neither is authentic, both equally wrong (and therefore nothing of this kind ever actually-happened).

If we regard 'John' as authoritative and the account of a recent eyewitness, then we make sense of Luke in terms of him later collecting scattered accounts of Jesus's life and teachings and - under divine inspiration - making the best sense of him that he could. In this account Luke has done something like conflating several stories into one. This Luke's account of the essential teachings and meanings of Jesus's life is correct (because divinely-inspired); but the historical details are sometimes mixed-up. This is - pretty much - what I believe is correct.

If Luke is authoritative, then 'John' - writing much later, and from a faulty memory, or via an unreliable scribe, or a representative of his division of the early church - has made a mistake based on a partial memory, and perhaps the conflation of various Marys with perhaps unnamed others.

The mainstream view is probably a mixture of giving Luke priority, and also using all available scriptural material pretty-equally, trying to triangulate upon the truth. Perhaps the two accounts are partly complementary, and partly selective. This also goes along with ideas of Biblical inerrancy, or 'literalism' or 'fundamentalism' - which generally assumes that the whole Bible, or, at least, the whole New Testament - or at least the Gospels and Paul's Epistles; are equally valid.

(Indeed, in practice - especially among traditionalist creedal Protestants, Paul's Epistles, rather than any of the Gospels, may be given Primary Authority - and the Gospels are interpreted in their light.)

Rejecting both 'John' and Luke in favour of some unknown, perhaps lost, primary text, variously garbled through several independent lines of transmission, is another possibility, in principle.


My point is that each approach represents different assumptions, and leads to different answers.

We therefore need to be clear about our assumptions - and, I would argue, to trace these assumptions back to our primary intuitions - which may be related to larger units of meaning.

For example many mainstream church-going Christians have a intuition of the validity and authority of a particular Christian denomination or church - and they accepts their detailed evaluations from that particular source of authority.

Others, like myself, try to discover more specific intuitions derived from scripture, church teachng and practice, theology... or whatever - including the prime intuition that these specific intuitions are ultimately valid.... 



*References:

John 12: 1: Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. 

Luke 7:36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.