Granny Maggie

DL,

I don't know enough context to understand your question about verses 18-21.  Were you saying that as this predates the church and Jesus refers to himself as the bridegroom and they aren't fasting--that they're in the midst of a wedding celebration at that moment?

And I find the idea that the veil is removed when a person turns to the Lord very suggestive--would "veil" have the same connotation of being part of a wedding ceremony that we'd have in contemporary society do you know?

I was just reading that account of sexual harassment in Egypt earlier today, and one of the justifications was that the woman's hair was uncovered.  I know that in various religious traditions there is the need to cover the woman's hair or head.  In Orthodox Judaism I think women shave their heads after marriage, and I know nuns cut their hair as well.  I wonder if that connects up with wedding veils.

Ah I gave a link, but here's the context in it's entirety as given by BibleGateway:

Jesus Questioned About Fasting

 18Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, "How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?"

 19Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. 20But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

 21"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins." 

The people that would be identified as "the Church" in this scene (Christ's followers) are described by Jesus to be "the guests of the bridegroom".   So Jesus identifies himself as the bridegroom in his own words, but the  church is a "guest" not the bride.  I just found that interesting.  I am not certain if Jesus somewhere in his own words draws the parallel of the church as the bride... I don't recollect that he did, but I may be mistaken.  Even so - why allow the difference in stories, you know what I'm saying?

That would be very interesting to research the symbolic, historical significance of a veil in a marriage ceremony.   I don't know anything about that just off hand, but what you suggest about that makes sense to me. 

The hair thing... another thing I've not looked into personally.

Just a note for myself coming back here - your linked source above is collectively talking about the interpretation of the collective gospels on this account (regarding fasting and the bridegroom):
Matt 9:14-17
Mark 2:18-22
Luke 5:33-39

I'm not sure I am taking away the same thing that you are even from this reference. When reading these verses I've always equated the wine to be exemplifying the teachings of Jesus, not actually being Jesus himself.
However when you look at the wine as being an embodyment/offering of Jesus to the church I do find an interesting connection to the Lord's Supper.

I've never seen these verses associated to "the holy communion" though specifically.
Here are the texts referencing the Lord's Supper

Matthew 26:26-28-- "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Mark 14:22-24-- "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."

Luke 22:19-20-- "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

John 6:53-58-- "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

Just to briefly go back to the original verses.  The bride is specifically unnamed.  Of course this is the kind of gap that prompts the "marriage supporters" to say that this leaves room that the bride is Magdalene.

Hm, would this mean though that the bride and bridegroom together equate to the "new wine"?  What would that say about the communion?  Hah let's go all Dan Brown and ask - what if the wine was left in to serve a parallel purpose and suggest that there is or will be a bloodline of Christ?

Veeery interesting stuff.

Ah...I thought when the author said "Messiah is Host" the implication was that the Messiah is the feast--the Host--the Communion bread.  Or s/he could have meant just the host of the celebration :-)  Language is such a lovely malleable thing. 

So it was more the bread than the wine that I was thinking about--but then tangenting off from the idea that the Messiah as Host could mean "the Host" I was thinking the fact that new wine was mentioned was a possible connection.

Oh and so there is an interpretation of this as not a metaphor but a literal wedding taking place (in the original verses).  That actually is a cool way to look at the "new wine"--if the wine is the blood of Christ--new wine at the wedding to celebrate a new bloodline.  And that would make all us descendants the wine skins.

I looked up the Wiki entry on veils--

There seem to be two main uses and it's not clear to me exactly how related.  One is a religious use in which sacred spaces are veiled from the eyes of man.  And I think it's in that sense that the passage from Corinthians is perhaps suggesting that with Jesus that shielding is not necessary?  Or that the whole reason for the shielding was that man hardened his heart--so the sacred space being veiled is because man wasn't prepared to accept it--the veil is really a signifier of the shielding of man's heart, not the need to shield the space.

Here's what Wiki quotes about the veil in relation to women and women's hair:

"1 Corinthians 11:4-16, where St. Paul writes: Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering?"

So in one sense the veil is a sign of female subjugation there--in contrast to man who is in direct contact with God, the woman is shielded to show that she is under the authority of the man--she needs an intercessor between her and God?

I wonder if one can tie the two together and say that just as with the unveiling of the sacred space, the woman might be unveiled--in a more equal status with man--through Jesus?  That is, if human beings accept Jesus (love) their hearts are unveiled and in direct contact with the divine.  Does the same thing happen in particular with women?  That is, does Jesus' story change women's status which is established in the story of Adam and Eve?

Yeah--I read the passage but still wasn't quite following it--I didn't know that the people could be identified as "the Church."  Or the significance of the fasting--that they aren't fasting is because the bridegroom is with them.  What I was asking there is does that imply that they are in the midst of a wedding celebration (that you wouldn't fast at a wedding) but will fast later after the bridegroom has left (after the wedding has taken place)?  So who would be the bride there?  

I guess I always thought of the Church as something that came after Jesus' life on earth--after the establishment of Christianity and all.  So I've always assumed that the idea of Jesus being the bridegroom of the Church--if based on biblical passages--could only be based on prefigurations of the Church.  But you're saying there is an idea of the Church as being not an institution but the disciples themselves?

Borrowed from Wiki: "The Greek word ekklesia (ἐκκλησία) or literally "assembly, congregation, council", is the traditional Roman Catholic/Orthodox term referring to the Christian Church. Most Romance languages use derivations of this word. The Latin form ecclesia is used in English to denote either a particular local group, or the whole body of the faithful."

So what later became the word "church" referred to the congregation of people. That extended to the place where the congregation takes place. Then, much later, to the Christian institution.

Re: Oil and Marriage.  Oil in the Bible generally is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, and this oil that Mary had in the alabaster box, I think represents her inward spirit, and the outpouring of it represented her giving her self fully to Jesus, like a joining or union between her spirit and the spirit of Christ. The earthly marriage between a man and woman, I believe is a symbol of this union between God and humanity. I don't believe that when Mary poured the oil out she was thinking of his burial. I don't know if she knew what was going to happen to him. I think by her act she was saying "this is the most valuable and meaningful thing I possess and I want you to have it." I believe she was following the outpouring of love she had for Jesus, as well as, ironically and mysteriouly, fullfilling a sign from God that confirmed to Jesus that he would be dying on the cross, but more importantly, and because of his sacrifice, a sign of his intimate connection with the Human Race.

 Re: The "two" annointings. I think that Simon was the host, and that Martha was serving, and Lazarus was the guest of honor in both cases.  The reason for this is the church leaders and Pharisees were plotting against both Jesus and Lazarus, because Lazarus' ressurection was proof that Jesus was the Messiah and they wanted to get rid of that(him).

Re: The unnamed woman. I find little intrabiblical or extrabiblical information to connect her to the annointing Mary. However:

Connection 1: There is extrabiblical information that says specifically that Simon led Mary into sin. What kind of sin? Extortion? Blackmail? Were they doing meth together? I tend not to think so.

Connection 2: The same church leaders/plotters against Jesus who were at Simon's feast were also present at the stoning. It is pretty obvious that the whole thing was a set-up intended to trap Jesus. It is likely that they used Simon as part of the set-up since he was a Pharisee.

 you seem to like the notion of Mary Magdalene as being married to Jesus at least in some spiritual sense.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  I find that intriguing and I'm curious where that comes from

It's not so much that I like the notion of Mary being married to Jesus in a spiritual sense, as I believe in a union or connection between Jesus and the entire Human Race established by the blood He shed on its behalf. Mary is  part of the Human Race, just as I am therefore my connection with Him is no less significant than hers.

Ok, I can see the validity of the symbolic marriage of Jesus to the human race as represented through the annointment.
 
I think you made a good distinction that from Mary's perception she may not have known about the burial.  It could go either way.
Since Jesus is the one that brought up that particular significance of the act, not Mary, we cannot know whether she knew about the burial or not.
So it's possible that the only significance of the annointment to Mary would be this marriage (in whatever sense of the word including your symbolic "marriage to humankind" interpretation.)

But if the significance of this symbolic marriage connects every member of the human race to Jesus with the same significance, then why does it matter if Mary of Bethany is Mary Magdalene?  It would seem to me that the meaning conferred through the act of the annointing would not mean anything less, Biblically speaking, to only know for sure that Mary of Bethany is only Mary of Bethany. 

So it seems to me that the key here is this extra Biblical source you mention - specifically because it mentions Simon leading Magdalene to sin.
How do you qualify your extra Biblical sources?  What would make your source more valid than the extra Biblical sources that contradict your interpretation (including the ones that suggest Magdalene was married to Christ in both an "earthly" AND a"spiritual" sense)?

I do not know how to prove one source more valid than another, but I see the difference between the extrabiblical sources that I depend upon, and the ones that you mention, is that my extrabiblical sources make definitive statements that are either lies or they are not. "Simon led Mary into sin." That is either true or false. Jesus also made definitive statements as when he referred to himself as the Son of God.  Either he really was the Son of God, or he was a madman, there was no inbetween.

In the sources you mention, there are no such definitive statements saying that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were husband and wife. There are only implications which some have extrapolated, very loosely in my opinion, into a concept of marriage.

The only source I've been discussing is the Bible and I agree that there are only implications and loose extrapolations to be found there about the potential marriage of Jesus and Magdalene.  I haven't mentioned any specific extra Biblical texts. 

If we want to go "extra Biblical" there are many sources who make definitive statements that Jesus and Magdalene were married.  Clearly if you don't believe that assertation, you've determined that these sources are "lying".

What I'm asking is if you weight a text or reference based on whether a source is "lying or not" how do you determine what is true or false? 

I don't know of any extra-biblical sources that make definitive statements about Jesus and Mary being married. Does the Da Vinci code present that Jesus and Mary were married, or does it point out the implications that suggest they are married? ( I have never read DaVinci code).

All the sources I have read reveal implications but no definitive statements. If you have any to share, I would be interested to see them.

And yes, if a definitive statement was made in such a way, I would probably say it was lying.

Curious, why does the concept of the potential marriage of Jesus and Mary seem important for you to uphold?

I'm not sure what the point would be for me to throw out some random source.  I'm sure you could "Google" it just as well as I could.

You've misunderstood something if you feel that I find it important to "uphold the marriage of Jesus and Mary".  I know I've at least mentioned this once here: I'm not even necessarily committed to the notion that Magdalene was married to Jesus.

But let me explain my approach, if that will help.  From a Christian perspective the only authoritative source that can be taken without question is the Bible.  The Bible has implications and loose extrapolations and I find that interesting.  There is no definitive mention that Jesus was married, but there is no definitive mention that Jesus was not married either.  I therefore am willing to consider either option as valid as long as it doesn't contradict some Biblical notion.  I honestly don't see how Christ being married in every sense of the word would be contrary to the Bible.  I'm willing to consider that I'm wrong about that, which is why I listen to opposing views on this issue.

If we start bringing in extra Biblical sources, I'm simply going to test those sources.  That's just what I do, it's nothing personal.  I do not know how you qualify your extra Biblical sources, nor do I know which sources you're referring to so that I can analyze them on my own.  So if you're asking that I accept the assertations made by your extra Biblical source as a valid and accurate, I'd simply need more information about this source from you if you're willing to share it.  The least intrusive question I could ask was if you had a criteria to measure the accuracy/validity/truthfulness of the texts you use.  I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.  Once I know that, I suppose I'd know if I agree or disagree with your logic and am drawn to the same conclusion that you seem to adamantly believe.  But I have criteria of my own that I expect any of my sources to meet.

The only point you made about what makes your source reliable is the fact that it contains definitive statements that you have determined "not to be a lie".  The fact that your source makes a definitive statement does not make it more reliable.  Joe the Plumber could come along and definitively state that Jesus and Mary were definitely married, but there are a lot of reasons that you may not find Joe a reliable source.

This brings me to the question - "How do you determine the source, (or even a person) is lying?"   I do not know you and I have no point of reference.   Is your determination just arbitrary?  Is it based on your emotions?  Do you require that the source be a historical source, and if so is there a time period in which you find a text more valid than another?  Does the particular source have to agree with what you've already determined to be true? 

If the discussion does bring us to the notion that there are some essential lessons foundational to your belief about this source you mention, I'd be interested in understanding those foundations and principals that led you there.  Not because I have some agenda to prove it false, but because I really would like to know if I'm missing something.  I'm interested in the truth.

I don't want to start discussing specific Joe the Plumber/Google source with the assumption that I find these references valid, because I don't necessarily.  I'd probably be asking the marriage supporters questions on their forums to qualify their assertations also, in order to determine the validity of their claims.  It's only circumstance that on this website I've been led to represent the "possibility of marriage" side of things.

No I didn't ask you to compare, actually I asked you to qualify your extra Biblical source.

If you want to compare, I guess we can begin with the one source I've mentioned which is the Bible.  I think we start on par with the notion that the Bible speaks the truth and is the Word of God.

If you still assert that your source makes a definitive statement, (whereas the Bible does not)  that still doesn't address the truthfulness of your source's claims.  How do you know your source is not lying?  Can you prove it or at least provide a reason that you believe it?  I'm guessing the Bible doesn't mention your extra Biblical source as a reference.  Therefore there has to be some other reasoning for you to put it on par with the Word of God. 

Regardless of how you come to accept that source, one question I would ask you to resolve for me personally would be to answer - How do you know that just adding more detail to the Biblical story is not contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Biblical story being told?

In RE Connections you wrote: 

What would make your source more valid than the extra Biblical sources that contradict your interpretation (including the ones that suggest Magdalene was married to Christ in both an "earthly" AND a"spiritual" sense)?

That's asking me to make a comparison.

I already qualified my sources: definitive statements.

Your asking me to prove my sources are valid, when I can no more prove that they are valid, than I prove that Jesus is the Son of God, or that Creation triumphs over Evolution. I can provide evidence, but it will ultimately come down to a matter of faith. Just because you can't prove something, doesn't make it invalid.

I am not compelled to defend my sources, when you won't even provide yours.

I'm hoping you both don't mind my jumping into the conversation.  If either of you do mind--feel free to ignore the intrusion.

I thought it might help if a third party summarized where disagreements or a misunderstanding was happening.  So these are the main points of agreement/disagreement that I see--and again jump in and correct me if I'm misrepresenting.

I think both of you agree that the Bible is the word of God and is a source of truth.

Both of you agree that the Bible alone cannot decide the question of whether or not Jesus was married. 

Anon finds that there are definitive extrabiblical statements that support the idea that Jesus was not married.  Anon does not find that the extrabiblical sources that suggest Jesus was married are definitive.   Anon stated this as the main difference between the two.

This is where I see one confusion:  Anon stated the main difference as being definitive vs. not definitive.  But that difference doesn't address whether the definitive statements are more true or false than the non-definitive.  As Anon rightly points out--the definitive statement is either going to be true or false.  The non-definitive is not making a true/false statement.  So there can't be a comparison of those two sets of statements on the basis of trying to decide which is closer to the truth or not.

So I think what DL was suggesting when asking "What would make your source more valid than the extra Biblical sources that contradict your interpretation (including the ones that suggest Magdalene was married to Christ in both an "earthly" AND a"spiritual" sense)?"

Might be rephrased like this--instead of comparing the definitive to the non-definitive--imagine comparing equally definitive statements.  On what basis do you believe your extrabiblical sources to be true, if you compare them to equally definitive statements that contradict them?

I don't think DL is referring to a specific set of sources that DL is relying on to prove that Jesus was married, but rather asking Anon what the criteria is for judging a source to be true or valid outside of the Bible.

The main criteria would be that it does not contradict anything in the Bible.

(That is not to say that anything that does not contradict the Bible is valid.)

Another criteria would be that the source has information that is important for salvation or preparation for the Second Coming that is not found elsewhere in other outside sources.

I am curious to know why it is important for salvation to know whether Jesus was married or not. What implications for the believer does this knowledge have?

Interesting thing to me is the name of this website is a definitive statement, yet the content appears to be non-definitive. Why does emphasis appear to be placed on an unknown? I feel as though I am asked to defend my position because I am actually taking one, yet no defense is presented on the other side because there is no committment to any concept. Again another reason I don't feel compelled to deeply defend my beliefs when there no stand is taken on the other side. The other can just hide behind ambiguity and apparent deception.

I think you and I have a similar perspective on validating our sources.  But I think you've hit at the heart of where we differ and it's not really about which source we are currently evaluating.
It seems as if you equate a tested and validated definitive statement to be more truthful than an ambiguous position.
In other words, ambiguity is more likely to be a sign that a person or source is being deceptive.  This would suggest that the main reason to hide a definitive fact would be to obfuscate or mislead one from the truth.

But in my experience, a lie can effectively be contained in either a definitive statement or an ambiguity.  (To be clear I'm speaking in generalities and am not addressing your source in particular.)  It's sometimes even more effective to lie in a definitive and forceful way.
I think that notion in some ways goes against conventional reasoning, but that would only be a surface analysis of the way this works in my opinion.  Modern advertisement would be something I would point to as a poignant example of the effectiveness of this.  Statistically (and monetarily) it's very effective to create a truth and promote it as a fact.

Conversely, there are valid reasons to present a definitive truth in an ambiguous way.  One example may be when you're teaching your children about sex education.  At first you're not going to give them all of the details, because they may not understand.  You may present it first in an ambiguous way "the birds and the bees" then fill in more detail as the child shows intellectual progress and maturity to handle the information presented.  It is not so unclear as to be a lie.  But it hides the definitive letter of the truth in order to present the spirit of the truth that the child may grow up with the right attitude about it.  Another example would be when people were hiding Jews from the Nazis or helping blacks with the Underground railroad.  The ambiguity is the truth expressed in such a way that those looking to find the information for Truth in the proper spirit will find it.  Blacks knew the safe houses where they could go (or the Jews)... but these same safe houses were not posting this information where the antagonists and persons who meant harm to the cause could obtain this for their destructive means.

So I lean away from judging truthfulness as determined by definitive or ambiguous.  I have more/different critera for a source than what we've defined (that it not contradict the Bible and that the information be important to salvation or the message of God and what it means for us as humans) in order to make up for the lack of a shortcut analysis.  I'll have to go into my perspective there a little bit later as I'm somewhat pressed for time at the moment. 

My impression is that the most basic difference between where you are coming from in your approach to reading the Bible and where I am coming from--not having to do with any of the particular questions, like was Jesus married, or the identification of the adulterous woman with Mary Magdalene--is that you see language as a transparent medium of revealed truth which once found is absolute, and I see it as a human framework with the problems of subjectivity that all human frames have, but also a tool in an ongoing process of exploring truth as best we can.

And engaging in a discussion/debate/conversation--the purpose of that for me isn't about determining who's right, or who possesses the truth.  So conversely from my perspective I'm not asking that you defend your beliefs against a charge that they are wrong.  We'll throw our various positions out there and maybe I'll learn something new from hearing what you have to say, but I also may continue to disagree with you.  In other words, disagreeing or questioning each other---to me it isn't about a process that leads to a proof and by the end we determine who was right and who was wrong, but more about an exploration.

Here are a couple of the things I have found most appealing as ideas in this conversation:

The idea that Jesus appeared to Mary as a witness when women were not allowed to bear witness in court at the time.  I like that idea because it contrasts the approach of the law with the spirit.  The law (and to me this continues my problem with "definitive" statements) defined women as non-beings.  Jesus's appearance to Mary suggests that this definition is a human limitation of prejudice rooted in human culture and history.

Similarly, I like the idea of Jesus being married--for two reasons: because a relationship with another human being that is as intimate as this kind of bond is so much a part of human experience, and because of the way it overturns the kind of hierarchy that's often part of the interpretation of Genesis--with women's sexuality held to be responsible for the fall of mankind.

So if it isn't pretty clear already :-) I don't read looking for absolute definitive statements because my sense of them is that they lead to hierarchies in which one group of people has the "truth."  And I wouldn't assert that the things I like above are things I "know" and that therefore you're wrong or have to prove what you're believing over and against my beliefs.  Actually I think you said something similar about not being able to prove whether Jesus was the Son of God or not.  So possibly my sense of the differences in our approach might not be wholly accurate either.

If you're interested some of the things that have most recently influenced the way I'm thinking about reading the Bible in particular are:

1) Rushkoff (who I know you've mentioned liking as a media critic)--for instance, one of his core concepts is that Judaism is an "open-source" religion because it's based in a communal reading process which is always on-going.  

Here's kind of a cool quotation from his website:

"Judaism is a process of interaction, deliberation, and ethical action. It's the process by which we make the world a better place. This was a radically original and revolutionary idea a couple of thousand years ago. It was illegal to presume that human beings can actually alter the story of the world. But that's what the escape from Mitzrayim (Egypt) was all about.

This is the original open source idea: to learn the underlying codes of the world in which we live, and rewrite them together to serve us all better. To participate."

2) The book "Spiritual Evolution."

3) Similarly this TED talk by Jill Bolte Taylor--similar because of the emphasis on a different part of the brain as a filter for faith rather than the one on the left brain language side.

4) This interview with Mary Doria Russell because of her emphasis on the connection of human story-telling and faith, and the way she talks about the limits of human experience (like the very short life spans we have and why then it's important to try to encompass larger, more historical perspectives).

So that's some of where my beliefs are coming from :-)

Another thing that I believe by faith that validates my sources is that the author of my sources claimed to have visions and dreams and some direct communications from angels, Jesus, and God himself. I doubt that any of the sources here mentioned would make that claim.

Anon, when you refer to "any of the sources here mentioned" I'm not sure what sources you mean.  You're responding to a post in which I listed some sources influencing the way I'm thinking right now.  In those sources I would say:

Rushkoff--doesn't really mention visions

"Spiritual Evolution"-the author, George Vaillant, speaks of visions/dreams as something undervalued in our culture which tends to look for truth only in the empirical.

Jill Bolte Taylor describes having a stroke and through it, becoming more aware of right brain activity, as having a direct experience of the life force in the universe.  To me that seems like a visionary experience.

Can't say about Mary Doria Russell--only heard that one interview.

Generally I'm still left with the question about validity though as many people claim to speak to God, but some of them are con-artists (at least in my experience).  

DL and Jaz,

When I refer to sources, I am referring to sources that uphold the concept that Jesus and Mary may have been married. All the sources I have read on the subject appear quite flimsy to me, in fact I find so little to support the concept, that I do not understand why someone would go to the trouble of placing any emphasis on it at all. There must be a reason for that, but for the life of me, I cannot tell what it is.

Honestly, I am still exploring why I believe in what I do, and how to express and validate the belief. Which raises the question: does faith require validation? I mean it does to some extent, you have to support what you believe with reason.

I feel pretty secure in what I believe, and don't imagine me shifting from it. For me it comes down to a matter of faith, it is something I choose to believe. Are you asking me to prove my faith, or simply validate, and what is the difference?

I will never be able to prove that my faith is the correct one to follow. If I could then it wouldn't be a faith. I can provide reasons for what I believe, but that is all.

At first glance it appears that one has to sort out why one way of looking at things is better than another, not as a personal competition, but because it seems one must be able to provide reasons for why their perspective is better than another, or else adopt the other viewpoint. And yet, that is not always true, because both viewpoints could be false.

Reasons for why I have faith in the Spirit of Prophecy:

1) the bible states in Revelation that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy

2) the author claims to be divinely inspired + that divine inspiration does not appear to be in disalignment with Scripture

3) information contained in spirit of prophecy appears to be special and vital in regards to salvation and preparation for the Second Coming, in particular for the people who will be on Earth during the time that it takes place

4) it appears that disregarding spirit of prophecy could potentially take one down a less copesthetic path

5) prophecies in spirit of prophecy appear to be true, in the past as well as currently

 I'm still thinking of what my other reasons are...

In reference to #2) above, I think it is easier to defend a definitive statement as true, than it is an ambiguous one. With a definitive statement it is either true or false. True, by faith, until proven false. With an ambiguous statement there is nothing to place faith in.

The question remains for me: why is it so important to place emphasis on something that may or may not be true: i.e. marriage between Jesus and Mary.  I could start a website called "Jesus Chewed Egyptian Gum" and write that Jesus was a carpenter, so he probably worked around alot of wood, some of which may have been from Egypt, and gum trees come from that area, so we think that the possibility exists that Jesus chewed Egyptian gum. Now what?

 It sounds like a Monty Python skit "If she... weighs the same... as a duck, ..she's made of wood..."  " and therefore......!"

Why? I understand the implications regarding the status of women and all that, but it's just speculation, and not really based on much at all. Why the heavy emphasis?

I have a background in business and have a marketing degree, so I thought I'd lend you my perspective on this website in general.
If I had to guess, I believe that the direct statement made by the title of this website has more to do with a marketing/audience tactic, than it has to do with asserting as a fact that Jesus was married.  I say that based on the tongue in cheek references given in the FAQ (and elsewhere) and that beyond that title the GC does not seem to be heavy handed in trying to prove this claim.

I can try to backwards construct using what I know of marketing along with some things the GC has said in the forums here to try and make sense of it.

What the title of the website suggests to me simply by mentioning the name "Jesus" that the intended target market in some sense should be spiritually minded.  Jesus was a religious figure, whether you believe he was the Son of God or not.  So that is clearly a main focal point.

So what's the point of making that particular definitive claim "Jesus is my Grandpappy"?  From a business perspective, probably because it is controversial.  And I do not think randomly so.  A random controversial claim is not going to be an effective/memorable attention getter unless you consider your target market.  Black telephones cause cancer - buy our coffee!  LOL

I think that particular claim may have been chosen because of its relative popularity with things like the Da Vinci Code.  This would be an effective way to reach a broad audience without having to have a huge advertising budget.  But because the marketing tactic/tool chosen is to bring up a controversy suggests that perhaps the target market isn't limited necessarily to the stereotypical "church going" crowd (though they would be included in the target audience). 
Fundamentally the GC mentions below that a large reason this particular controversy was selected because of its appeal to the gender issues involved.  This suggests that the subject is not just religion, but politics and human nature.  The forums topic sections on this site support that notion and I think are key to where the GC would like the conversation with his audience to go.

I say "conversation" because the site itself is set up as predominantly a forum.  Beyond the FAQ there are a number of religious, political and social topics being discussed; it appears that the goal is to attract people with different religious perspectives in order to talk about matters that affect one's spirituality.  The audience is able to add their own content and are not simply beholden to the "gospel of the GC".  Because of this, in the end I don't really see this as a site where the GC is pleaing that everybody believe in his claims or even in him as "the GC".

Both sides of this controversy attract a wide variety of people;  Christians, humanists, feminists, historians - with varying levels of motivation to discuss the topic in general from their own perspective. Some may just be curious enough to read it once and leave, but it's all exposure which is good for business statistics which means that it will show up in even more internet searches and it might attract enough people who are interested in sticking around.

Because it makes no definitive stance about the main controversy presented, this sets the atmosphere of the website up as a safe place where people can investigate controversy together and share opinions. 

So the claim itself "Jesus is my Grandpappy" does not appear to be the purpose of this site.  It seems to me that the conversation is.
That's my take on it anyway.

Hah!  That was funny about "Jesus Chewed Egyptian Gum" (and walked on water at the same time!) 

Well the question about why the website is called "Jesus is my Grandpappy"--or why it's important the website is called that--that's really a GC question I would think.  So can't answer that one.

As I said a couple posts up--I like the idea for the reasons I stated.  But if it wasn't true the things I like--how it fits with Jesus' experience of being human or overcoming the narrow legalistic definitions of women as not being fully human, or overcoming the reading of Genesis which sees female sexuality as the 'cause of humanity's suffering--none of those things would fall through.  They don't rest on the fact of Jesus being married being true.

So to me it isn't that big a deal one way or the other.  My sense is that it is important to you that it not be true.  And you've cited sources outside the Bible as part of the reasoning behind the belief.  Now I haven't read anything either supporting or opposing the idea that Jesus was married.  Suppose I (as an inquiring mind type person :-) go out looking at what's said--I guess my question to you would be--what would make one source (supposing them both to be stating things definitively) more credible than the other?  Not in order to either get you to validate or prove your position, but more for my benefit here--in trying to figure out this balance between faith and reason.

As far as Revelations--this is how much of a novice I am on this subject--does Revelations speak to the issue of whether Jesus was married or not?  Or were you talking about that in light of the question of deciding whether a vision or someone claiming to speak to God is telling the truth or not?  And how would the Spirit of Prophecy in Revelations help decide that?  This is a question I often have--for instance--supposing one is Abraham hearing God ask you to sacrifice your child?

Oh and the Monty Python skit :-)

The funny thing about that skit to me is how close to real Medieaval reasoning it is.  Like--eating walnuts makes you smarter 'cause they look like brains!  But when I read something like that, even though it might seem silly to someone in a contemporary period--it always makes me think about what someone 500 years from now (being optimistic about our still being here) is going to be laughing at about our assumptions about the way the world works.

Are you asking me to prove my faith, or simply validate, and what is the difference?
Just again to clarify where I am coming from, though you've reasoned through this well enough on your own, I am not asking you to prove your faith.
When I asked for validation, I was only asking for the reasons you believe the things that you do about this source you've mentioned.  I believe the difference between proving your faith or simply having to validate goes to the foundation of why you'd ask such a question. 
To me asking for proof of faith would suggest that the person asking the question wishes to definitively "prove" which faith is right or wrong, not to themselves, but collectively.  I do not have the presumption/assumption that we will agree about our respective faiths.  My purpose in having this conversation is not to ask you to prove your faith, but to investigate my own.
I can see that asking for validation of a particular source might be asked within the context of a proof of faith arguement in order to systematically elimate sources as viable/believable.  All I can tell you is that this is not my intent.  You brought up a source which I am unfamiliar with, and that simply has made the conversation a bit more complicated than simply exploring the Bible... and that's fine, it's just that without knowing anything about this source you mention I'm not sure where to put the information it contains in regard to my own faith and beliefs.  Without being able to read and/or qualify the source for myself personally it limits where I can take a conversation that puts forth the notion that this source should be held equal to the Bible.  Personally I'm willing to continue the investigation simply on your word that it's true, but what that means is that I will test what you claim as fact the way I would test any other of my sources.  If that's too personal, I don't want to press the issue.  I can attempt to continue whatever conversation we've been having around the other points that have been made.

The things I ask when I qualify a source (I reconcile all of these things to my faith and beliefs):
1)  Who is the author?  In this I consider things such as the author's reputation, life experience, and credentials.
 If an author is well known and spoken about in both positive and negative ways, then I will listen to both the accolades and the critiques to pick  out any valid points the opposing sides make so that I can reconcile the issue with myself personally.
2)  Who is the audience of the message?  Can this message apply to me, and if so in what way?  This would lead to a number of other questions...
3)  What is the content of the  message?  Is the message intended to be fact, fiction or analogy?  (Again how does it apply to me?)
4)  If intended to be fact - What kind of fact, statistical, historical, personal? 
5)  If the message is intended to be historical fact I ask - What is the historical context or the background of the society in which it was written and intended to be read?  It's possible some of these things can't be determined, but I do my best effort to investigate.
Can the measurable claims within the text be corroborated with other historical texts?  Can the cultural frame for the message be defined?  How to I reconcile this frame to my personal cultural frame?

I hope you get the picture - the questions continue until I can make sense of the claims being made. 
If I think I know the truth about something, I know my rationale for it and so if it is challenged I'll know when something core to that belief has been disproved.  If that can be done, then I do change my mind.  But to be clear it has to be a really good and convincing reason.

In relation to your particular source

I'll start by letting you know that I have no problem with believing in the Spirit of Prophecy.  I apply all of the same qualifications that I do for any other source and more because of the gravity of such a claim. If this person claims to be speaking for the Biblical God then I test their words against the Bible... so on and so forth.  So your point #1 I have no problem with at all.  I believe that to be fact.

However, I don't agree that in reference to your #2 that a definitive statement is easier to defend as "true or false".  Let's take your "Jesus chewed Egyptian gum" example.  That's a definitive statement.  How would you "prove" that either way, unless you could support that somehow with historical or archeological evidence?  You can't. I might have faith that Jesus chewed Egyptian gum, it may be statistically probable that Jesus chewed Egyptian gum, but it's not a definitive truth until it can be proven.  Indeed if it is true, without the direct evidence of this truth is is an ambiguous truth.  If I claim that this fact must be accepted as truth is when this becomes not an discussion about true and false, but "right and wrong" with no logical way to proceed.   Whether or not your Monty Python example works to disqualify this claim for the collective is debatable.  All you are suggesting is that the basis for the claims, the connections and reasoning to apply these random facts together, cannot be substantiated.  It doesn't make sense to you.  That's fair, but it's also a fact that only applies to your understanding of the issue.  If it makes sense to someone else, I can't fault them for that either and I would have no way to prove which one of you is right or wrong unless further evidence was provided.  In the end for a topic as trivial as gum, I'm not sure I'd invest too much energy. 

I do think it's the topic of the claim made by your point #2 that makes it more important to ask further questions about a source that makes this kind of statement.  To pull out a random example - Neale Donald Walsch claims to have direct conversations with God.  As far as I know his revelations do not seem to be in disalignment with Scripture.

From there I see your point #3 & 4 as an answer to "how does this claim apply to me?".  That's a question I would also ask in investigating this source.  But that answer is about how much personal energy you're willing to invest in the topic or investigation of the source.  And that's fair enough, but I'll note everyone else may not have the same qualifications as you do.  Even if they do, the qualifications you put forth in these 2 points also are somewhat relative and difficult to measure as you are making a judgement about the actual content of the source itself.  Since you are not quoting the text or allowing this source to prove its own reliability in this area, the only point to the discussion of such things would be for someone else to learn something about you personally.  It really doesn't say anything about your source at all.  So the only points that could be made about this, without further disclosure, would be about what you personally feel.  And the only appropriate response I have to that would be.  Ok, I can see that is what you believe to be true.  I do not have any desire to "prove you wrong".  But I also do not have an answer about whether your claim is true or false beyond how you apply it to yourself.  If you're asking my opinion I couldn't tell you whether I personally think it's true or false because I do not have enough information.   Your #5 actually addresses the issue of substantiation of claims, so I can infer that you feel you've done this for your source.
 
But by not having this information, I am not able to apply your point #5 for myself.  Respectfully (and not to imply anything about you or your intent), I do not idlely place my faith in what other people claim to be right only because they believe it to be true.  Though I have respect for your beliefs I have no more reason to believe your claims about the validity of this source any more than I have reason to believe or have faith that Neale Donald Walsch is actually conversing with God or that Jesus chewed Egyptian gum.

The only reason I continue to discuss your source is that I feel as if you've been asking the forum to collectively accept as fact claims that this source has made in relation to the annointment story as described in the gospels.  You may assert that your source is "right".  I'm willing to consider that statement is true, but I'm going to ask you to provide information that would allow me to substantiate this claim for myself personally.  If you don't care about my opinion of this source, then I'm left with what I've already evaluated on my own... and that's ok too.  We can agree to disagree.  Even with that issue set aside there seems to be topics to discuss.  I'm still wondering whether the discussion of this particular unnamed source is a tangent or if we will finally be able to pull it around to the bigger issue being discussed.  I guess that remains to be seen.

The last topic/question seems to be in relation to the purpose and claims of this website and exploring why you believe in what you do, and how to express and validate the belief.  Specifically:

I am curious to know why it is important for salvation to know whether Jesus was married or not. What implications for the believer does this knowledge have?

I think that's the bigger issue, and why we're all here talking about this on this site really.  I wouldn't mind sharing my opinion on that topic - starting from the bigger picture down and then working on the smaller details later perhaps.  Again, I'm pressed for time, but I do intend to give this topic my due diligence and attention.

(As I was writing this response the GC seems to have posted something that might help out with some of the questions specifically about the way this site is presented.)

apologies, time is limited for me at the moment, but if you are interested we can address #5 at a later time. I appreciate your honesty and critical way of looking at things.

Re: Neale Walsch. If he doesn't conflict with scripture, then I would probably tend to believe that God did talk to him, since I believe God has talked to me directly a couple of times. Who am I to say? i would recommend you spend more time listening to someone like him, rather than GC. ha ha that was a joke. i think. lol

It would certainly be fine to address # 5 at some other time.  I'm resisting the urge to make a really bad joke about Short Circuit here...

LOL  Re: Neale Walsch ... all joking aside, for clarity's sake I will put my quid pro quos and addendums here.  I've not really invested much time in investigating the veracity of Neale's claim, because in my reflection on the topic it seemed to me that the conversations he was having were so personal as to have limited application to my life in particular.  I have not thoroughly read his work and do not know for certain if he claims anything about salvation or the second coming, nor can I unequivocally say with absolute certainty that he never contradicts the Bible.  "To the best of my knowledge", does not go very far on this topic of this author's text(s)...  I mean...  if I don't care if Jesus chewed bubblegum, I don't really care if Mr. Walsch does either.  

Since it doesn't seem to me that DL or jaz are putting emphasis on the marriage of Jesus in Mary... they are merely questioning why some people so strenuously object to the notion (not necessarily you)... I'll take your question as one addressed to me since it is I, after all, who am making such a big deal out of the alleged marriage.

First of all, let me acknowledge those (like yourself) who don't seem to abhor the idea per se, but who also don't feel compelled to believe something when there's no evidence to believe it.  Sure, the Bible doesn't say Jesus wasn't married, but a lack of negative evidence is really not as compelling as a lack of positive evidence.  In this way, your position is actually a bit more sensible, at least so long as we don't take extra-Biblical sources into account.  The burden of proof isn't upon you to show Jesus wasn't married.  The burden is on your opposition to prove He was.  And it's true that no such proof exists.

ALL OF THAT SAID, though, it is, in fact, quite telling the way certain people respond to the notion that Mary and Jesus were married.  (Again, I'm not referring to your response here... I'm just speaking about how critics respond generally.)  Nearly every objection suggests something problematic about sex or women or the human body or the material realm in general.  So maybe people attracted to the idea that Mary and Jesus were married simply appreciate how the implications of that union would elevate sex and women and the human body and the material realm in general.  Keep in mind we're talking about the theological status of sex and women and the human body and the material realm in general.  They are theological points as worthy of debate as any others, I think.

Also, some people feel as though they can relate to Christ better knowing He had a wife and family.  It enhances the quality of His humanity, which, in their minds, enhances the quality of His sacrifice.  For such people, the question of whether or not Jesus was married isn't trivial at all.  To them, His marriage is as meaningful and moving as His humble human birth.

Believers in the marriage of Mary and Jesus can understand why others might not believe in it as well.  But the typical response isn't just a, "Well, that belief is fine for you, but I just don't buy it."  No, the typical response is to scandalize the notion without any good reason.  And that's really where the debate starts.

As for me... I think the theological points raised by the idea that Mary and Jesus were married are very relevant to our time.  Unhealthy notions about gender and sex cripple American culture.  It seems to me that the suggestion of a union between Mary and Jesus brings some of those issues to the surface where they can be addressed in a healthy, constructive, and progressive way.

But then again... perhaps I'm just a rabble rouser.

In this way, your position is actually a bit more sensible, at least so long as we don't take extra-Biblical sources into account. 

What do you mean by "if we don't take extra-Biblical sources into account"? What extra-Biblical sources are you talking about?

So maybe people attracted to the idea that Mary and Jesus were married simply appreciate how the implications of that union would elevate sex and women and the human body and the material realm in general.

Well to me that doesn't make any sense, because Jesus came to elevate all of humanity, not just a select few, or just one. God is no respector of persons.

To them, His marriage is as meaningful and moving as His humble human birth.

When you say "them" are you also referring to yourself?

I'm not talking about any extra-Biblical sources in particular.  But on either side of the debate people can bring in extra-Biblical sources to support their positions, and that takes the discussion to an entirely different level.  If we're going to keep just with the Bible, though, the side in favor of Jesus being married does have to admit, I think, that they don't have any solid evidence, and that is a particular problem for them since the burden of proof is upon them.

As for Jesus elevating all of humanity not just a select few... that's precisely my point.  Actually, that's part of my point.  I would also assert that Jesus elevated many aspects of being human, not just a select few.  Couldn't one argue that Jesus elevated "a select few" by coming as a man and not as a woman? Couldn't one argue that Jesus elevated "a select few" by leading a celibate life rather than participating in the human practice of procreation? Those who are attracted to the notion that Jesus was married think that it demonstrates just the principle you're asserting... that Jesus visited here for the benefit of everyone.

And it's true that no such proof exists.

The Scriptures are repleat with such proof. Opposing sources are desolate of such proof.

If you are going to place an admittedly huge emphasis on the marriage concept, while duplicitously trying to appear that you are remaining ambiguous about your stance while at the same time maintaining a definitive statement about the subject, then the burden is on you to provide reason for why such emphasis should be placed upon it.

I don't mind at all, thank you for trying to help out Jaz.

Regarding sources and validity your explanation accurately reflects my position and what I was trying to ask. 

And actually, we don't really even need to address any extra Biblical sources at all.  It's ok if Anon doesn't want to discuss their personal position.  I thought it was a tangent that was going somewhere, but apparently I was mistaken.

The core issue really is - What do you do when the Bible itself is not a definitive source?

You are also correct in that I am not referring to a specific source or set of sources on the topic of the potential marriage of Jesus.  The marriage of Jesus and Mary (or the lack thereof) again, was actually tangential to the discussion of the annointment story for me. 

Hey thanks.  It is really difficult for me to deciper tone in a written medium and I appreciate your feedback.  On my end of things,  I don't want to do anything that would get in the way of what you need to do to process whatever topics you're pondering either. 

I'm interested in friendly, cooperative communication because I think it's helpful in a number of ways.  If the conversation ceases to be friendly or cooperative for anyone else involved, my function in that type of interaction is of limited use.  I just don't want to push things beyond someone else's level of comfortability unless they want to go there for their own reasons. 

Since I know I'm not really good at reading textual emotive cues, I try my best to reach an understanding by focusing on making my own message clear - and so I try not to read too much into what you've been saying.  This limits some of the intuitive cues that makes a conversation flow when in person, I'm sure.  Anyway, I hope that helps you to understand my tone in this written medium.  It's a difficult balance though, to be sure.  I do appreciate your continued effort to maintain the conversation and keep things friendly despite our differences in opinion.

From a New Testament standpoint very little is said definitively about Mary Magdalene.

Though Pope Gregory identified all 3 women (Mary of Bethany, Magdalene and "the woman who was a sinner") as the same Mary, it's actually still a matter of Biblical debate whether Magdalene is to be identified with the "sinful woman" who annointed Jesus' feet.

In fact (to quote an interesting referenced wiki article here)
The Eastern Orthodox Church maintains that Mary Magdalene, distinguished from Mary of Bethany, and further distinguished from the "sinful woman", had been a virtuous woman all her life. This view finds expression both in her written life (βίος or vita) and in the liturgical service in her honor that is included in the Menaion and performed on her annual feast-day. There is a tradition that Mary Magdalene led so chaste a life that the devil thought she might be the one who was to bear Christ into the world, and for that reason he sent the seven demons to trouble her.

Of the Eastern Orthodox tradition I found the note about Mary being a witness to the resurrection very interesting "due to the fact women at that time could not be witnesses in legal proceedings".  I'd never really thought about that angle, actually.  To be clear, I'm not a subscriber to tradition, but by investigating traditions from a historical viewpoint I believe we can get a deeper understanding of the truth.

I find this interesting because, whether or not she was married to Christ - the controversies around Magdelene's character are mainly due to her gender and how that fits (or does not fit) into the politics at the time.  At a time when the culture saw and treated women like property Mary's title of saint in Eastern Orthodox tradition likens her to "Equal of the Apostles".  (The Eastern Orthodox title of saint directly implies that - I'm not quite certain if the tradition of speaking the phrase out loud in reference to a specific saint is unique to her situation or not.)

How many presumptions were made about her nature simply because she was a woman?

What kind of difficulties did this create for her history written through the lens of this culture?

Well, I think that the fact that Simon the Pharisee protested at her show of genuine and heartfelt repentance is at least evidence that it truly was Mary Magdalene, since he was the one, though a professed man of God, who led her into sin.

I think, in that situation, he was forced psychologically into one of two positions. In seeing her face her reality, that being her own sinfulness, her own honest introspection, and thus being driven to the side of Jesus, he had to either do the very same with himself, and admit his guilt (which his pride would not allow him to do), or to deny it and degrade the act that she was accomplishing. Poor Simon. :)

Though I can see how that position may be emotionally compelling in a number of ways, I hesitate to concede that this is "evidence" to prove the case for that particular perspective.  I can logically see how that might be implied by the allegory you suggest, but on the same hand I can see logical "evidence" of the same sort to support the notion that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus... and I would also hesitate to state definitively that this is the undeniable truth. 

If you're going solely on the Biblical text without speculation - we simply do not know for sure if the 3 Marys are the same person.  In some ways it is because this is unknown, that it can be a much more powerful story indeed.  It means that every time you read it you can approach it from another perspective and find something new, something different at every stage of your spiritual growth.  Because for every happening there were many witnesses to the events, and many different points of view about exactly what was going on at the time.  As long as the meaning taken away is consistent with the underlying principles of the text itself and true to the facts that are established within that text, I do not see a problem with "not knowing" which specific viewpoint is actually being represented.  There is no "right" answer that usurps another. 

I actually have the notion the texts were written that way on purpose.  But of course, that's only a feeling I have that stems from my belief that the Bible is not an accident. 

So in fairness you could say either the person writing the texts had some assumption that everyone would know which Mary they were talking about, consequently leaving the modern audience with the arduous task of recreating the facts in retrospect ... or that the author intentionally gave detail where detail was needed and left the rest up to the reader to apply to their own personal situation, wherever they may be in their walk with God.  In other words, the "facts/details" left out were unnecessary to the Truth and Purpose of the story.

I hope that's not too simplistic of a summary.  Do you follow what I'm saying?

Perhaps I am a bit stubborn in maintaining my simplistic view of interpreting the Scriptures rather than raising up issues of why this might not be, or that may not exactly be true. I feel my interpretation carries meaning that is useful and spiritually beneficial. In other words I view the text as like a river bank, and the water is the meaning that is carried by it. In my view, if no meaning is drawn from the text in a way that is helpful and spiritually beneficial, then the interpretation, or dissection of the text must be faulty (as I don't really see any interpretation going on here). 

For me it is not helpful to cast doubt on this and that. I take it as it is and derive practical meaning that I can apply to my life directly.

 The meaning derived from my interpretation of the above text (Luke 7:39 and on..) for me is that Mary recognized her own sinfulness and dealt with it, and responded by casting her whole heart, her whole self on Jesus, true, unbridled worship. I feel that our young women of this age do not understand the importance of where you place your affections. It is so important.. so much heartache could be avoided if young women understood, not only their own value, but the value of placing their deepest affections on Jesus alone. The ointment as we all probably know, was special to women of that time. It was something they saved all their lives, meant only for the one whom they would marry. Mary broke it upon Jesus and the scent was so strong that it was still there when the nails were being driven through him. To me it doesn't signify that she and Jesus were married in an earthly sense but in a spiritual sense. Her whole heart, life, and everything she was belonged to Him and him alone. Because she belonged to him, she was in right relationship with the Savior, which was such a contrast to the prideful arrogant Simon who at least at that time, was unable to see his great need. He should have also been at the feet of Jesus, pouring something of worth out to Him, but he would have appeared "weak". Mary though appearing weak, was actually the strong one because of Whom she relied upon.

Anyway, I guess I like to *drink* the water, rather than chop it all up, I guess. :)

I'm actually not seeing how your perspective on the reading of the text contradicts anything that I've said.  I'm not casting doubt on your perception of that passage, actually I'm saying it is valid because it speaks to you personally. 

If it wasn't clear I believe "the author intentionally gave detail where detail was needed and left the rest up to the reader to apply to their own personal situation, wherever they may be in their walk with God."

You mention: "I take it as it is and derive practical meaning that I can apply to my life directly."  That's six of one half dozen of another, from my understanding.

Now, it seems by your suggestion that approaching this from a logical standpoint is "chopping up the water" vs. your taking an emotional stand (presented as a more natural "drinking of it" and all the Biblical implications that phrase has on its own) - that you're attempting to differentiate our approaches and indirectly tell me your way is "better or more valid than mine".

So the bottom line is that if there is a bone of contention it would be with the specific "practical meaning" you or I choose to focus on. I believe there are many valid interpretations of that passage, which would mean that your answer (or my answer) could not be definitively established as "the right one" or "the more Biblical one" for absolutely everybody who reads that passage,for all time.  I'm willing to consider that this unnamed woman in Luke 7:39 and on was possibly Mary Magdelene and the emotional implications of such a speculation.  I've even mistakenly referred to "the 3 Marys" when factually the Bible only names 2 Marys in the passages referenced.  But I'm also open to the other possibilities that logically fit as well.  You choose to be "stubborn" about your interpretation.  Well that's your prerogative, and your choice quite obviously.  I'm going to presume you have your reasons.  I don't judge you for that.

I on the other hand, believe that logic and emotion should balance each other out.  Both are equally valid, and at any given time one or the other can be equally wrong.  They're both just tools with the potential to be influenced by our human limited perspectives and consequent fallability.  So I use them to check one another.  It's helped me to avoid getting swept away by irrational emotions in situations where my preferred emotional point of view is attacked or challenged. 

In fact I think that was the very thing that Simon struggled with.  Pride to me is emotion unchecked - conviction untested... a lack of balance. It is a focus on yourself without consideration to another.  I've had to note to myself on more than one occasion that my point of view is not more important than any other individual's point of view, but it is also not less important either.  Without that kind of framing and ultimately forgiveness for the unique path of another individual I would be lost to pride, constantly fighting my own emotions in the guize of judging others by some standard that is not as infallable as I might like to believe.  I consciously choose to not let fear keep me from investigating and testing the standards I invest my faith in.  That's even difficult to do using only the Bible as a tool.  So when people go "extra-Biblical" I'm even moreso going to be comfortable with agreeing to disagree.

No can't say that my way of looking at it is any better than yours or vice versa.  My only point was that, for me, questions like well it might not be Mary Magdalene, have no meaning. Ok, it might not be.. now what. Just for me, it doesn't enhance my understanding of the Bible. I can't speak for someone else.

I like your point about keeping emotional balance in interpreting scripture, I think that is important as well. But I don't think that I am clinging sentimentally to an antiquated way of looking at it as some might say. It is my opinion that if you say it is not Mary Magdalene, that would undermine what I perceive to be a valuable an important meaning of the passage, that being that she was someone who was looking for True Love all her life, but failing miserably because she was looking for it in man, when God was the only one who could fullfill the desire. When she found it, she completely devoted herself to it. When we love something we do something to signify it. So by pouring out the highly expensive spikenard she was saying here, this is what I have be longing for all along, justice mercy compassion; it's perfectly understandable. And since she was completely devoted to God, then her relationships with other people were most likely in line as well.

I'm just saying, for me, that if you say it is not Mary Magdalene, the passage then loses what I perceive to be a great deal of important meaning and impact.