As a consequences of a antecedently published ezine piece - Reflections:-Talking-to-Self-and-to-God-Can-Yield-Some-New-Revelations--the-Feast-of-Women-and-Health - and another writings, I have had respective individuals on Myspace (and separate Cyber Sites) innitiate interaction near me to wrangle my theory that Mary Magdalene WAS the married woman of Jesus.
Hense - this followup article:
From another admired authors - comes the footing of my presumption. Although their references are not published in this piece - due to maximal linguistic unit fundamental measure piece bank's restrictions - one can breakthrough them by inquiring out the originals.Post ads:
2002-03 Upper Deck Honor Roll 112 Dmitri Bykov RC / 2001-02 Pacific Adrenaline 210 Kristian Huselius RC /984 / 2004 Leaf Press Proofs Red 265 Barry Bonds PTT / 2003-04 Upper Deck All-Star Lineup AS1 Marian Gaborik / 2002-03 Titanium Blue 119 P-M Bouchard /450 / 2002-03 SPx Rookie Redemption R199 Antti Miettinen /1500 / 2002-03 Titanium Blue 101 Stanislav Chistov /450 / 2002-03 UD Mask Collection 106 Nikolai Khabibulin/1733 / 1989 Topps Traded Football Complete Mint 132 Card Set in / 2007 Topps Heritage 23 Mark Kotsay SP - Oakland Athletics / 1982 Donruss Golf 28 Peter Oosterhuis RC - PGA Tour (RC - / 2004 Leaf Autographs 35 Omar Infante / 1998 Ultra Rush Hour 17 Brett Favre / 1961 Fleer 106 Art Fletcher - EX-MT / 1996 SPx Gold 35 Shaquille O'Neal / 1987 Donruss 36 GREG MADDUX ROOKIE (PSA 8 NRMT-MT) / 1999 Playoff Contenders SSD Touchdown Tandems T4
PBS "From Jesus To Christ" - This FRONTLINE progression is an analytical and optic conduct to the new and disputed historical witness which challenges well-known assumptions in the region of the duration of Jesus and the heroic rise of Christianity.
"One of the mysteries of the Gospel of John is the individuality of the follower Jesus cherished. Modern exegetes have offered a figure of suggestions as to the personal identity of the tantalizingly unidentified figure: John Mark, John the son of Zebedee, John the Elder, Apollos, Paul, a Paulinist, Benjamin, Judas Iskariot, Philip, Nathanael, Judas Jesus' brother, Matthias, a adherent of the Baptist, Thomas, an Essene monk from Jerusalem, Lazarus, Andrew, or a signal figure, representing the Johannine community, the Hellenistic heap scorn on of the Church or the ideal Christian follower.  The historical data which have been recommended rise and fall widely, but they have one entry in common: they are all men. Only late has other telltale sign been put redirect.
"Ramon K. Jusino, in his article 'Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel?' argues in benignity of the opening that Mary Magdalene could be the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John. In his view, Mary Magdalene, who is named the follower most blue-eyed by Jesus in the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary,  is in the Gospel of John, after archetypical being mentioned by name, wittingly upside-down into the unnamed and phallic Beloved Disciple. In the two instances where Mary Magdalene's term could not be avoided, viz. in John 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, the redactor extra the Beloved Disciple to spawn certain that Mary Magdalene and he would be interpreted as two different nation. Post ads:
2012 Bowman Chrome Propects - SEATTLE MARINERS Team Set / 1987 Fleer 369 Bo Jackson RC / 2011-12 Upper Deck Fleer Retro Basketball 1 Michael / Topps Phoenix Suns Steve Nash 1996-97 Rookie Card / 2006 Upper Deck 204 Chad Greenway (Football Cards) (RC - / 2011 Topps Heritage Minors Affiliates of The PHILADELPHIA / 2004 SP Legendary Cuts Legendary Swatches WM Willie / 2004 SP Legendary Cuts Ultimate Swatches BR Brooks / 2003 MLB Showdown 199 Mike Piazza FOIL / 2001-02 Ultra League Leaders Game Worn 15 Mike Miller Jsy / 2004 SAGE HIT Autographs Silver 10 Romain Sato / 2003-04 UD Top Prospects Signs of Success SSJG Jason / 2002 SP Legendary Cuts Game Jersey JAND Andre Dawson Jsy / 2002-03 UD Glass 95 Tracy McGrady CW / 2002 UD Piece of History Tape Measure Heroes TM19 Albert / 2011 SAGE HIT Autographs 19 Edmond Gates / 2011 SAGE HIT Autographs Silver 2 Delone Carter
Jusino suggests, on the spring of the widely respected investigation of Raymond E. Brown on the Johannine Community,  that this was finished as sector of a subsequent procedure.  According to him, the female dear adherent is made anonymous and manly to be proper to popular political orientation. Brown argues that the Johannine union in a hugely earlier period of time became bicameral because of a religious doctrine tiff. The more unorthodox believers defended a highly exalted christology, whereas the more monotheism believers wished-for to be sector of the common emerging Church which defended Jesus' corporeality. To those nonexistent to run slice in the rapidly increasing organization Church, Jusino argues, 'the maintain that a feminine adherent of Jesus had been their community's first-year somebody and leader summarily becomes an embarrassment'.  According to him, the other, more than heretical believers of the town held on to their mental object. This is the judgment why Mary Magdalene in different unorthodox writings appears to be the one loved record by Jesus. Jusino supports his heated discussion by display where and how the redaction of the paper was finished. Again, figure on Brown, he shows that specially in 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, where on earth Mary Magdalene and the mannish darling messenger happen together, in attendance are inconsistencies in the text, which unveil the appendage of a redactor.  In my view, however, there are no momentous inconsistencies in these texts.
In this nonfictional prose  I want to argue, similar Jusino, that Mary Magdalene is unknown in the priapic unidentified disciple, but, different Jusino, my squabble does not be a focus for on the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Philip nor on Brown's investigating on the Johannine neighbourhood. My storm is not one of a redactional nature, telling a inhibitory state of affairs from outside, but is to some extent supported on the Gospel of John reasoned as a eloquent state.  In my view, a inhibitory condition next to admiration to women is causal to the Gospel of John as a whole, revealing a repressing situation inside the Johannine community, which corresponds to the one outside. This article, however, does not fictional to present a eventual answer to the major hang-up of the personal identity of the anon. disciple Jesus adored. It is presented as one probability among others and is designed to change to the on-going argument. Taking into narrative the numerous and particularly disparate erudite solutions that have been offered this far, one can single reason that, if, indeed, the Gospel of John wanted the follower Jesus favored to loiter anonymous, at smallest to outsiders, the poet has proved to be deeply no-hit.
1. John 19,25-27
The idea, that Mary Magdalene could maybe be identified as the follower Jesus loved, introductory entered my mind, while I was poring over John 19,25-27. If one considers this pericope as a shrewd unity,  the interpretation, which views 19,25 as a correspondence and suggests that two women are name under the cross, or else of cardinal or three,  seems the record systematic one, poetry 25 introducing what happens in verses 26 and 27. In these last mentioned verses John describes Jesus as seeing two persons: his parent and the messenger he dear. This coincides with the comprehension that John in writing style 25 likewise single resources two people: the parent of Jesus, for the first juncture mentioned here by given name as Mary of Clopas now that she is on the edge of losing her individuality as a mother, and her in-law or niece, Mary Magdalene. There would have been no one other near. The marking out of the two women likewise fits immaculately next to a curious Johannine attribute that William Watty discerned: the Gospel's 'massive physical exertion at precision' once introducing places or persons, not single bighearted traducement as such, but also several connections near else places or folks. 
So far my largest remonstrance hostile this theory was that the disciple Jesus worshipped in John is manifestly grammatically masculine.  But if namelessness in the defence of the follower Jesus loved was so all-important to the critic of John, would indeed the use of masculine gender not documentation the obscurity in a improved way than the use of maidenly gender, which would perceptibly release to the readers at most minuscule one cardinal portion of the disciple, that is to say that she is a woman? It as well occurred to me that a female person person referred to as priapic peradventure was not so curious at the time, as it would be to us now. Grace M. Jantzen showed that holding in earlier Christianity leisurely became identified next to manliness.  She gives various examples of the reality that 'women whose spiritualty was beyond quiz were described as unearned males'.  She besides gives examples of cases of cross-dressing. With admiration to Mary Magdalene in attendance is a content which speaks of her masculinity. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus promises Peter that he will head Mary Magdalene in establish to form her male 'so that she too may change state a breathing quintessence resembling you males. For all adult female who will create herself masculine will enter upon the Kingdom of Heaven.'  In the Acts of Philip the Savior praises Mary Magdalene for her doughty persona. Because of this he gives her the odd job of joining the weaker Philip on his ngo traveling. But she is not to combine him as a female person. 'As for you, Mary,' he says, 'change your gear and your outward appearance: disdain everything which from the shell suggests a female.' 
James H. Charlesworth, in his thundering treatise on the follower Jesus loved, leaves stretch out the outlook that this illustration could be a woman, perhaps Mary, Martha, or Mary Magdalene, in malice of the masculine grammar.  For him, the terminal confirmation that the follower essential be male, is not the grammar, but the circumstance that the disciple is named 'son'.  However, John's Jesus does not code the missionary as 'son', and uses no another masculine address, which would have complete the parallelism:
He aforesaid to his mother:
'Woman, behold your son.'
Then he said to the disciple
'behold your female parent.'
By exploit out any mannish address, and by with the sole purpose motto 'Behold your mother', he or else declares the adherent to imply him as a son. This charitable of portrayal does not needfully suggest that the adherent has to be male. That a female may fulfil the control of a son to a mother is indisputable from the tale of Ruth and Naomi. The young-bearing neighbors approbation the way Ruth cared for her mother-in-law, by mentioning her to Naomi as: 'she, who has been more to you than seven sons' (Ruth 4,15).
The remark 'son' oriented to the parent of Jesus designates her own son: the on your deathbed crucified Jesus. The scholar meticulously relates near Mary once sharp-eared Jesus' words towards her: 'Woman, see your son.' It is sole after Jesus' lines to the messenger 'behold your mother' that the student unexpectedly turns to this second causal agency and begins to hold onto that Jesus is tantalising his parent to become conscious the explanation of his departure and to combine his people. Turning to the disciple Jesus loved, and hearing those libretto 'behold your mother' the scholar is reminded of early word of farewell voice communication of Jesus:
I will not leave you desolate; I will come with to you. Yet a shrimpy while, and the worldwide will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you will singing also. In that day you will cognise that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He who has heard my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be precious by my Father, and I will esteem him and patent myself to him. (14,18-21)
The state-of-the-art value of the area in 19,26-27 lies in Jesus' asking to his mother to air distant from her failing son to breakthrough him, alive, in the follower he fair-haired. At the said time Jesus' words are a sedate report to this disciple: he or she may act on Jesus' behalf, as if he or she were Jesus himself. To the reader, who remembers Jesus' prayer to his Father for all those who followed him, and who in their spin will allure new people - '... that the liking with which grand has beloved me, may be in them, and I in them...' (17,26) -, the messenger Jesus favourite is the most primitive of a brobdingnagian digit of those disciples yet to come in.
Both Jesus' mother and the messenger respond to Jesus' voice communication. The follower by winning Jesus' female parent to him (or her) and the parent by acceptive this. Jesus' libretto to his female parent and the disciple he loved, both with their counterattack to them, make up the establishment of the growing 'koinonia' of those who trace Jesus. In this comprehension of 19,26-27 the idiom 'son' in 19,26 does not say anything going on for the grammatical gender of the disciple Jesus darling. The 'son' is the on your deathbed Jesus, who, alive, can be found in the follower he white-haired as the one who may epitomize him. 
2. The disciple Jesus beloved and John 20,1-18
One can tell between any 5 passages astir the disciple Jesus admired (13,23-26; 19,26-27; 20,2-10; 21,7.20-24), or six (plus 18,15-16) or seven (plus 1,37-42). The end two passages are almost 'another disciple' who, on the ground of 20,2 (interpreted in an instructive way: 'the remaining disciple, the one whom Jesus loved'), is known as the disciple Jesus favorite. 
It is all important to note, that in John not singular one unknown missionary is mentioned as beingness precious by Jesus. Jesus also loved, for instance, Lazarus, Martha and Mary (11,5). He preferred all his disciples, line of work them 'his own' (15,9-17; 13,1.34; cf. 17,6-12), even gentle those disciples who are yet to locomote (10,16; 14,21; 17,20-26). Jesus compares 'his own' with bovid who sanction his voice, once he calls them by name, and who are radio-controlled by him to hope upright pastures (10,1-10). That Mary Magdalene is one of 'his own' emerges from John's legend in the region of her in which she recognizes Jesus' voice once he calls her by name, and listens to his language (20,16-18).  In addition, she calls him 'Rabbouni', which means 'my teacher'(20,16). Moreover, in 20,2 she does not transport Peter and 'the missionary whom Jesus loved', but John vastly truly describes the messenger mortal with Peter as 'the other missionary Jesus loved'.  This suggests that any Mary Magdalene or Peter could be the follower Jesus loved, who is mentioned in advance in 19,25-27. However, in maximum of the pericopes where John uses the expression, 'the adherent Jesus loved' is in the company of Peter.  This agency that Peter cannot be the one and leaves Mary Magdalene as a intellectual substitute.
When Mary Magdalene discovers that Jesus' place is useless and she fetches Peter and the 'other follower Jesus loved', these two run together, the remaining messenger outrunning Peter. Then Peter looks into the place and sees the cloth cloth, but the separate missionary not solitary sees, but too believes. After that, they each reappear to their own marital (20,2-10). After the resurrection the disciples merge Simon Peter who went sportfishing. They are Thomas titled the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, those of Zebedee and 'two others of his disciples' (21,2). The follower Jesus favourite recognizes Jesus on the beach and tells Peter roughly it (21,7). When Jesus next asks Peter to follow him, Peter, turning, sees that the follower Jesus beloved indeed follows (21,20-23). John emphasises that this adherent is the same one who was at Jesus' thorax at the end Supper (21,20). In my view, John here clarifies the display 'the messenger Jesus loved' as the one who was at Jesus' chest, because the mention to the some other adherent Jesus wanted in 20,2 is in the region of another human being. Continuing this procession of face-off it would be significantly verisimilar that 'the missionary Jesus loved' in 21,7.20-23 in cooperation beside the 'other disciple Jesus loved' in 20,2 are the two unknown 'others' of his disciples in 21,2. 
3. Why this garment of anonymity?
Still, here are another unknown disciples in John. In 1,37-42 two disciples of John the Baptist agree on to travel Jesus: Andrew and different who is leftmost unknown. In 18,15-16 not singular Peter (as in Mark, Matthew and Luke) but besides 'another disciple' follows Jesus after he has been arrested. This disciple, who is better-known to the postgraduate priest, enters the court, and, after mumbling to the house servant who keeps the door, the self nameless missionary brings Peter in. It seems unreal that, thereupon, individual Peter is asked if he belongs to Jesus' disciples (18,17.25.26). Why do those endowment not charge the new adherent as well? Does this show that the separate missionary is not easily to be accredited as disciple? 
Why does John claim on anonymity ? Why this veil of mystery? John does not depict this, but at the end of the Gospel it is suggested that in that is a 'we'- an surrounded by alignment who understands and who knows of the follower Jesus loved, the one who was at Jesus' chest, since the journalist says:
This is the missionary who is pose bystander to these things, and who has written these things; and we cognise that his evidence is right. (21,24)
Why is the honestness of the testimony emphasized? Why would within be any doubt something like the cogency of the witness, if he is the mortal whom scholars up until now have recommended is the follower Jesus loved? Why would the Gospel not only approach Andrew, Lazarus, or Thomas, or John Mark, John son of Zebedee or any of the others? We will never cognise. No reasons are fixed.  However, in attendance could have been one thoroughly good enough reason, at smallest possible at the time, to query the authority of the witness of the missionary Jesus darling and to hoard the disciple's identity: if this disciple was a woman. I would even put forward that the other than anonymous disciples are maybe left-hand nameless for the identical reason: because they are women.
4. The lawfulness of a woman's authority
The messenger Jesus preferred apparently was fundamentally strategic to those who wrote the Gospel. But, if so this adherent was a woman, her dominance as the organism losing the verbal creation of John could have been seen as unacceptable, since it was a component of give-and-take if women were allowed to have clout all over men.
In individual canonical most primitive century post wives are pleased to be submissive to their husbands, spell the husbands are told to be keen on their wives (Ephesians 5,21-33; Colossians 3,18-19; 1 Peter 3,1-7). Paul, once demanding that women impairment veils once praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11,1-16), argues that the point for this is that the guide of every man is Christ, the guide of a woman is her hubby and the caput of Christ is God. However, future in the face-off he changes from wives to woman in general, referring to the creation: »For man was not made from woman, but female from man. Neither was man created for woman, but female for man." (1 Corinthians 11,8-9) In addition, spell 1 Peter 3,1-7 refers to the obedience of Sarah to Abraham, in 1 Timothy 2,1-11 the activity analogy is nearly new again: »For Adam was formed first, then Eve," continuing frankincense »and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a offender." The essayist concludes that a woman has to cram near all submissiveness: »I permit no female person to teach or to have control terminated men: she is to hang on to taciturn." This course book and the maybe non-Pauline textual matter in 1 Corinthians 14,34-36 going on for women who are to living taciturn in the assemblies  were quoted over again and once more in the centuries that followed to stress that women are not allowed to have rule complete men.
Schüssler Fiorenza refers to the 4th time period Dialogue Between a Montanist and an Orthodox which, finished vehicle of a talk involving a montanist and an monotheism Christian, shows their individual viewpoints.  The orthodox stance may point a impressively untimely stand, since it corresponds to the arguments in the original century letters, which assertion that female is to be submissive to man.
The later notation from the Dialogue observations on women's authority, engaged on those women who wrote books, resembling the ordinal period of time Montanist prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla:
Orthodox: We do not disdain the prophecies of women. Blessed Mary prophesied once she said: »Henceforth all generations shall telephony me favored." And as you yourself say, Philip had daughters who prophesied and Mary, the sister of Aaron, prophesied. But we do not receipt women to talk in the assemblies, nor to have influence completed men, to the barb of words books in their own name: since, specified is, indeed, the association for them of praying next to uncovered come first (...) Wasn't Mary, the Mother of God, competent to keep up a correspondence books in her own name? To obviate dishonoring her commander by introduction herself preceding men, she did not do so.
Montanist: Did you say that to commune or to predict with denuded boss implies not to compose books?
Montanist: When Blessed Mary says: »Henceforth all generations shall ring me blessed," does she or doesn't she verbalise freely and openly?
Orthodox: Since the Gospel is not backhand in her name, she has a head covering in the Evangelist.
Would a Gospel then, mostly based on the rule of Mary Magdalene be acceptable?
Montanist: Is it because they have engrossed books that you do not acquire Prisca and Maximilla?
We can surmisal - my male person readers - that the proto minster leadership anti women state predictable as equivalent to men.
Yet today - the Catholic Church does not permit a female to go in the priesthood.
Some opposite popular denominations have come in circa - seen a minor "The Light"!
Yet not even they spot "The Gospel Of Mary" or "The Gospel Of Thomas" because of the structure implications that these pious texts would have. None can ask the legitimacy of any Gospel.
I may latter-day more than of my research and understandings in resulting articles.
* "GOD IS LOVE."
For Me the issues are settled. Mary Magdalene was the spouse of Jesus. AND - Women ARE equals of Men.