Were there 13 apostles of Christ?

[Tsuyu]

Yes I am in a "randomly asking questions"-mood today. Also, I do not intend for this to turn into a religious debate (but lord Satan knows it will anyway). Lets just try to keep it on the track for a few replies at least. Anyway, here goes:

Mary Magdalene (not to be confused with his mother!) was a prostitute that was "cleansed of sin" by and thereafter followed Jesus around, much like the male apostles. So why wasn't she in the famous Last Supper painting? Why are there officially just the twelve all-male apostles?

My theory: She was a woman. Jesus could forgive her for being a "whore", but the writers of the Bible could not because of the anti-women society they (much like Iran and other countries today) lived in, which culminated in her being only a follower despite the fact that recent theories implies that she might have been the Apostle of Apostles or even his wife!

 

[DarkONI]

My theory: They were a conspiracy group which caused Europe to face the worst times and that religion is used as a tool of manipulation and submission. I do agree with spiritual guidance, but not to what religion has become; it started with goodwill, concepts of those people involved back then, but it ended up doing more evil in the world instead of good.

 

[TRA Rotid]

On topic: this is an intriguing question and I actually have a feeling I've heard about the explanation. Though without further research, I'd say your theory is correct.
Also, a quick read on the Internet revealed the translation of Apostle of Apostles could also be translated into Apostle to Apostles.

My theory: They were a conspiracy group which caused Europe to face the worst times and that religion is used as a tool of manipulation and submission. I do agree with spiritual guidance, but not to what religion has become; it started with goodwill, concepts of those people involved back then, but it ended up doing more evil in the world instead of good.

Hahaha... oh Tsuyu, why?

 

[The Annoying Hoverer]

Guys, I know the theory u said may seem like a good enough one , but I know (sort of) first I want to say that even though most of the world is bad just read a book called Run Baby Run, then u will see how god changes people.I think I know the answer to your question, the woman followed Jesus around because like most people Jesus healed or cleaned them from there suffering, but she was so thankful she followed Jesus around by her own decision.The difference between her and the Apostles is that Jesus chose them , but not the woman.^_^

 

[Tsuyu]

See, about that Snowbell, as I mentioned there are a lot of stuff in the Bible about her and Jesus being close. For example, at one point the other Apostles get jealous because Jesus kisses her. Sounds like she was more than a mere follower.

 

[Quistrix]

If we're talking about The Last Supper painting by Da Vinci, isn't there that theory that she was included in the painting?

Some have identified the person to Jesus' right(left of Jesus from the viewer's perspective), not as John the Apostle, but a woman, often purported to be Mary Magdalene. This speculation was the topic of the book: The Templar Revelation(1997) by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, and plays a central role in Dan Brown's fiction novel The Da Vinci Code(2003).

It is possible that Da Vinci painted her in. In the painting, the scene depicted is the moment in which Jesus says "one of you will betray me" - that means Judas is there, and there is 13 people in the painting, including Jesus. So who's missing? It seems unlikely that Da Vinci would not include one of the 12 apostles. Maybe he depicted John as a feminine-looking man.

It's wholly possible that the painting just includes the male apostles, the painting was a commission for the Catholic church after all. I doubt Da Vinci would have even been able to paint something that included a woman as one of the apostles, the prejudice of the church would never allow it. Though it seems a little strange that Da Vinci would paint John as a feminine man. People could easily confuse feminine with homosexual and I doubt the church would ever allow that to sit.

Sounds like she was more than a mere follower.

Heh, well, last night I watched Bloodline, a documentary film that investigated the theory that Mary Magdalene was not only Jesus' follower but also his wife, and mother to his children. It's an incredibly controversial theory, and the film itself seems a little too rehearsed, and a little too ridiculous. But some truly believe the theory to be fact.

People need to remember that the Bible was written centuries after the events featured in it occurred. It's not fact-based history. That along with the prejudice against women at the time, it's highly likely that certain facts and points were removed, or simply lost. Including the idea that Mary Magdalene was an apostle.

 

[Tsuyu]

The plot thickens, eh?

 

[Quistrix]

Meh, I'm skeptical. I don't like theories, I prefer facts. Or atleast theories that provide me with enough proof. Evolution, anyone?

 

[D3m190d]

Something something Templars, blah blah Assassins, such and such Piece of Eden, this and that First Civilization, dooblee doo New World Order. That's what I think of it.

 

[Angel]

I think: It's a painting. Wut?

 

[The Annoying Hoverer]

Yh, I agree u don't really need to know more than that.^_^

 

[Tsuyu]

That's kinda of a sad attitude. Ignorance may be bliss, but the pursuit of knowledge is one of the nobler goals there is and personally I'm more of a "I need to know"-person. I can't settle with "I don't need to know more".

Just imagine how it would shake Catholicism, which forbids women to serve as clergy, to the core if it turns out to be true?

 

[queenofdisco]

Ancient myths always have many variations, but anyway I agree with it she was a woman and a prostitute so yeah they left her out probably because jebus wouldn't share her.

Alot like Richard Gere wont share julia roberts with his friend in pretty woman. A fitting analogy, yes?

 

[Hermit]

HEI GUS LETTLE NOEWN FAKT, I ACSHULTY HAD FIRTEEN APOHSTLRES BUT DEN I AETE ON LOL!!!!!!!
NO IM JK LOL!!! FUULED U!!! LOL!!!
BUT NEWAI, I HAD FIRTDEEN APOSDLES N DA FIRTEDEEN ONE WS ASLO MY WIVE BUT NO VIRGIN MRY CUZ SEH WS A SUPR KLINGY LADI!!! LOL!!! STLKER STATUS!!! LOL!!!!!!!11!!1111.11!!!! U NO WAT IM SAYAN???? ROFLOL

Meh, I'm skeptical. I don't like theories, I prefer facts. Or atleast theories that provide me with enough proof. Evolution, anyone?

OMD NO, LOL! EVOLUSHUN WUS A PLAN BY TEH REPTILIANS (SEKRET ALEINS WOH R TRIYIN 2 TAEK OVR TEH EARTFH) TO KONTROL AL TEH H00MANES AN LEAD U ASTRAY FRUM MY TEECHINS LOL!!!! LMAO!!! DON BE F00LD OK!?!?! CUZ IM JOSOS ND I LOV ALL U PPLS OK?? ROFLMAO!! BT NOT LIEK TEH BAND ROFLMAO CUZ DEY R TEH SUX ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[D3m190d]

HEI GUS LETTLE NOEWN FAKT, I ACSHULTY HAD FIRTEEN APOHSTLRES BUT DEN I AETE ON LOL!!!!!!!
NO IM JK LOL!!! FUULED U!!! LOL!!!
BUT NEWAI, I HAD FIRTDEEN APOSDLES N DA FIRTEDEEN ONE WS ASLO MY WIVE BUT NO VIRGIN MRY CUZ SEH WS A SUPR KLINGY LADI!!! LOL!!! STLKER STATUS!!! LOL!!!!!!!11!!1111.11!!!! U NO WAT IM SAYAN???? ROFLOL




OMD NO, LOL! EVOLUSHUN WUS A PLAN BY TEH REPTILIANS (SEKRET ALEINS WOH R TRIYIN 2 TAEK OVR TEH EARTFH) TO KONTROL AL TEH H00MANES AN LEAD U ASTRAY FRUM MY TEECHINS LOL!!!! LMAO!!! DON BE F00LD OK!?!?! CUZ IM JOSOS ND I LOV ALL U PPLS OK?? ROFLMAO!! BT NOT LIEK TEH BAND ROFLMAO CUZ DEY R TEH SUX ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you taken your medicine?

 

[Angel]

That's kinda of a sad attitude. Ignorance may be bliss, but the pursuit of knowledge is one of the nobler goals there is and personally I'm more of a "I need to know"-person. I can't settle with "I don't need to know more".

Then that's you. When the need serves, I will pursue knowledge but when, to me, it's just an artistic interpretation of something, I'm not really overwhelmed by the need to know if there were 12 apostles, 20 apostles or three buckets of fried chicken and a tow truck.

The Last Supper has "errors" in it as it is such as the clothing; the fact that this group of rather disreputable, mostly uneducated and very poor middle-eastern men look rather distinguished, Roman and white; they are sitting up at a table when they would be most likely reclining to eat...there's a lot there that is more in fitting with the trend at the time of painting rather than trying to stay true to the historical side of it. Which is why I don't put too much thought into it - it simply has no bearing on me whatsoever.

If Mary is not in the painting, what of it? Culturally, women would not have been there anyway. It could have been that she wasn't there that evening. She might have been the one helping prepare the meal. She may have been on holiday in the Bahamas. Who knows? If she is in the painting (as some theorists would conclude), again - what of it? Maybe if I was Catholic this would have more of an impact on me? There are a lot of religious paintings, as you know, and the vast majority of them are full of a great deal of artistic licence mixed with what the church would permit at the time. Which is probably why Jesus is white in nearly everything with blonde or very light hair, perfect skin, rich clothing and eating only the finest foods.

Having looked at the original painting I can see at least three people who look fairly feminine to me as it is - not including Jesus - and they are (from left to right) 2nd, 6th and then fourth in from the right of the painting. Which in itself is interesting because it is unlikely from a cultural point of view that any of the men in attendance would be clean shaven.

What interests me most, if anything, is why this painting in particular has caused such a wealth of theories? Of all the religious paintings in the world across history, why this specific one? Is it because of the possible implications if there were anything deeper to it other than "it's a pretty picture"?

 

[D3m190d]

On the subject of there being a lot of paintings about the contents of the bible: This is my artistic interpretation of Jesus' life. It also proofs creation.

 

[Angel]

And there we have it! Proof the earth is only 2000 years old!

But in all seriousness, there has been a lot of genuine investigation into the whole Mary Magdalene thing and actually there are many glaring errors in the modern interpretation of her relationship with Christ, not least the nonsense spewed forth by Dan Brown in a fictional book which, for some insane reason, is being classed as historically accurate and wholly factual. The Gnostic gospel dealing with the issues of Jesus kissing Mary were not written in Aramaic but in an ancient Egyptian text for which the translation was very different to how it would have been were it in Aramaic. The word companion in Aramaic means spouse but in Coptic (the Egyptian text), it does not mean the same thing. The word was borrowed from Greek and is an umbrella term at best - there are other Greek words that could have been used which would have been very specific about the relationship in question.

In the New Testament (that is, without the Gnostic Gospels), Jesus' family are mentioned - mother, brothers, sisters etc. So why would something like marriage be left out? It's not a sin to be married and it would not have been a sin for Jesus to marry and have kids - that said, the gospel of Mary and the gospel of Philip (both most cited as "proof" of Jesus and Mary's sexual relationship) were written far later than the other books of the New Testament (as much as 200 years later). The 4 gospels were written as early as just 50 years (in the case of Matthew and John specifically) after Jesus ascended following his resurrection. Surely there is more margin for error in writing something 200 years after it happened? But that's not the real point - there are words missing or simply not included in the Gnostic Gospels such as where Jesus allegedly kissed Mary (Dan Brown inserted his own words for the sake of his story rather than looking at the original texts as would be the proper way to research such a volatile subject), what kind of kiss it was (are we talking tongues or sisterly?), no mention whatsoever of anything sexual occurring - which you would think is of the utmost importance considering the Gnostic Gospels were presumably not intended to detract from the bible or to defame it in any way.

It is spoken of many times in the bible as to how much he loved various people - men and women included. The words used for love in all these cases were not romantic but brotherly or familial. Throughout the New Testament, men and women greeted one another with kisses - called holy kisses, to define them. When people mention Mary being a favourite or much-loved disciple, one has to consider that during one of the gospels (John) in the bible, Mary even has a conversation with Peter and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" - so it cannot have been her unless she was talking to herself.

Furthermore, Mary was an insanely popular name in the bible. There is actually nothing to indicate Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and there is little to connect her to such a thing aside from the juxtaposition of her name within the text to another woman who was unnamed. And if that's all it takes then there are many other women mentioned in the same verses as Mary who could have been considered candidates.

 

[queenofdisco]

And there we have it! Proof the earth is only 2000 years old!

Amen sister! May his noodly appendage bless & guide you onwards to more facts.

 

[HobbeBrain]

My theory: She was a woman. Jesus could forgive her for being a "whore", but the writers of the Bible could not because of the anti-women society they (much like Iran and other countries today) lived in, which culminated in her being only a follower despite the fact that recent theories implies that she might have been the Apostle of Apostles or even his wife!

This. I mean, woman weren't even allowed to speak in church, so, yeah. Although she is teeechnically an apostle, and fulfills all the criteria, the society at the time would have rejected the idea due the penis (or lack thereof) about her person.