As a follow of a before published ezine nonfictional prose - Reflections:-Talking-to-Self-and-to-God-Can-Yield-Some-New-Revelations--the-Feast-of-Women-and-Health - and remaining writings, I have had several individuals on Myspace (and new Cyber Sites) innitiate interaction beside me to bad blood my assumption that Mary Magdalene WAS the married woman of Jesus.
Hense - this work article:
From separate reputable authors - comes the proof of my deduction. Although their references are not published in this nonfictional prose - due to outside linguistic unit fundamental quantity piece bank's restrictions - one can discovery them by inquisitory out the originals.Post ads:
2001-02 Between the Pipes 158 Sebastien Centomo RC / 2004 Finest Refractors 72 Greg Maddux / 2005 Topps Heritage 452 Glen Perkins SP RC / 2005 Playoff Prestige Prestigious Pros Green 1 Ozzie / 2001-02 Pacific Retail LTD 229 Patrik Elias /149 / 2004 Bowman's Best KT Kazuhito Tadano FY Jsy RC AUTO / 2003-04 Titanium Retail 117 Jiri Hudler RC/750 / 2002-03 Titanium Retail 101 Stanislav Chistov RC /1475 / 2003-04 Upper Deck Performers PS13 Mario Lemieux / 2004 Donruss Elite Extra Edition Round Numbers 5 George / 2002-03 UD Mask Collection 91 Martin Brodeur/1499/1499 / 2004 Donruss Elite Extra Edition 264 Mar Gomez AU/1000 RC / 2004 Donruss Stat Line Career 8 Barry Bonds DK/500 / 2002-03 Upper Deck Honor Roll 118 Greg Koehler RC / 2004 Topps Gold 575 Miguel Cabrera /2004 / 2005 Ultimate Collection 173 Jeff Francoeur UP /275 / 2004 Absolute Memorabilia 145 Derek Jeter/1349
PBS "From Jesus To Christ" - This FRONTLINE train is an rational and sensory system pilot to the new and controversial humanistic discipline information which challenges known assumptions astir the time of Jesus and the heroic get up of Christianity.
"One of the mysteries of the Gospel of John is the personality of the adherent Jesus pet. Modern exegetes have offered a figure of suggestions as to the identity of the invitingly anonymous 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 missionary of the Baptist, Thomas, an Essene monk from Jerusalem, Lazarus, Andrew, or a illustrative figure, representing the Johannine community, the Hellenistic marque of the Church or the just what the doctor ordered Christian follower.  The arts figures which have been advisable change widely, but they have one article in common: they are all men. Only of late has other telltale sign been put progressive.
"Ramon K. Jusino, in his piece 'Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel?' argues in favour of the expectation that Mary Magdalene could be the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John. In his view, Mary Magdalene, who is named the disciple most treasured by Jesus in the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary,  is in the Gospel of John, after basic mortal mentioned by name, on purpose upturned into the unnamed and masculine Beloved Disciple. In the two instances where Mary Magdalene's signature could not be avoided, that is to say in John 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, the redactor accessorial the Beloved Disciple to sort definite that Mary Magdalene and he would be understood as two not like nation. Post ads:
2004 Topps Heritage 124 Matthew Moses SP RC / 2004 Topps Heritage 431 Brad Sullivan SP RC / 2001-02 UD Top Shelf 134 Branko Radivojevic RC /900 / 2003-04 UD Honor Roll 177 Antoine Vermette JSY RC / 2004 Ultra Season Crowns Game Used 109 Alfonso Soriano / 2002-03 Topps Rookie Reprints 4 Andy Bathgate / 2004 Ultra Season Crowns Game Used 115 Carlos Delgado Jsy / 2001-02 Between the Pipes Masks 24 Roman Cechmanek / 2003-04 Bowman Gold 120 Eric Staal / 2005-06 Beehive Blue 112 Alexander Steen / 2002-03 Upper Deck Honor Roll 138 Jim Vandermeer RC / 2002-03 Titanium Retail 119 P-M Bouchard RC /1475 / 2003-04 Upper Deck All-Star Lineup AS2 Dany Heatley / 2004 Leaf Press Proofs Red 182 Albert Pujols / 2001-02 Stadium Club Gallery G37 Steve Yzerman / 2002-03 Titanium Retail 108 Chuck Kobasew RC /1475 / 2004 Donruss All-Stars National League 1 Barry Bonds
Jusino suggests, on the ground of the widely venerated investigation of Raymond E. Brown on the Johannine Community,  that this was finished as portion of a after that activity.  According to him, the feminine darling follower is made anon. and masculine to be suitable to mainstream ideology. Brown argues that the Johannine syndicate in a vastly first period became sectioned because of a theological doctrine tiff. The much heretical believers defended a exceedingly soaring christology, whereas the more monotheism believers sought to be piece of the widely held appear Church which defended Jesus' corporeality. To those absent to lift cog in the rapidly increasing organisation Church, Jusino argues, 'the declare that a womanly missionary of Jesus had been their community's initial editorial column and hero like a shot becomes an embarrassment'.  According to him, the other, much heretical believers of the commune control on to their tradition. This is the motivation why Mary Magdalene in multiple heretical religious writing appears to be the one loved most by Jesus. Jusino supports his face-off by showing wherever and how the written material of the course book was done. Again, plan on Brown, he shows that specially in 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, where Mary Magdalene and the young-begetting darling missionary go on together, near are inconsistencies in the text, which reveal the paw of a redactor.  In my view, however, in attendance are no momentous inconsistencies in these texts.
In this piece  I deprivation to argue, look-alike Jusino, that Mary Magdalene is secreted in the masculine unnamed disciple, but, unrelated Jusino, my contention does not sketch on the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Philip nor on Brown's research on the Johannine open. My face-off is not one of a redactional nature, significant a restrictive environment from outside, but is to some extent supported on the Gospel of John reasoned as a purposeful close association.  In my view, a inhibitory tone beside regard to women is far-reaching to the Gospel of John as a whole, revealing a restrictive state of affairs inwardly the Johannine community, which corresponds to the one right. This article, however, does not made-up to hold out a closing medicine to the primary snag of the individuality of the unnamed missionary Jesus worshipped. It is presented as one outlook among others and is intended to modify to the on-going discussion. Taking into justification the many and precise assorted donnish solutions that have been offered this far, one can with the sole purpose cogitate that, if, indeed, the Gospel of John sought the missionary Jesus admired to be anonymous, at least to outsiders, the critic has proven to be fundamentally dominant.
1. John 19,25-27
The idea, that Mary Magdalene could mayhap be known as the missionary Jesus loved, basic entered my mind, while I was studying John 19,25-27. If one considers this pericope as a meaning unity,  the interpretation, which views 19,25 as a similarity and suggests that two women are on two legs beneath the cross, or else of 4 or three,  seems the best analytical one, couplet 25 introducing what happens in verses 26 and 27. In these latter verses John describes Jesus as sighted two persons: his female parent and the disciple he favored. This coincides near the impression that John in poetry 25 as well solitary funds two people: the parent of Jesus, for the initial circumstance mentioned here by baptize as Mary of Clopas now that she is on the boundary of losing her personal identity as a mother, and her relative-in-law or niece, Mary Magdalene. There would have been no one else there. The setting down of the two women too fits faultlessly next to a peculiar Johannine attribute that William Watty discerned: the Gospel's 'massive shot at precision' once introducing places or persons, not solitary giving calumny as such, but as well various communications near opposite places or those. 
So far my main dissuasion against this hearsay was that the follower Jesus idolised in John is visibly grammatically staminate.  But if namelessness in the bag of the disciple Jesus white-haired was so meaningful to the critic of John, would so the use of masculine syntactic category not pledge the namelessness in a bigger way than the use of maidenlike gender, which would definitely uncover to the readers at least possible one meaningful aspect of the disciple, videlicet that she is a woman? It as well occurred to me that a woman anyone referred to as manly probably was not so peculiar at the time, as it would be to us now. Grace M. Jantzen showed that spiritualty in precipitate Christianity at a snail's pace became identified with gender.  She gives several examples of the certainty that 'women whose church property was out of query were delineate as unearned males'.  She besides gives examples of cases of cross-dressing. With detail to Mary Magdalene nearby is a tradition which speaks of her masculinity. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus promises Peter that he will organize Mary Magdalene in lay down to label her male 'so that she too may change state a aware spirit resembling you males. For every female who will cause herself masculine will get in the Kingdom of Heaven.'  In the Acts of Philip the Savior praises Mary Magdalene for her man-sized imaginary being. Because of this he gives her the undertaking of connexion the weaker Philip on his mission jaunt. But she is not to amalgamate him as a woman. 'As for you, Mary,' he says, 'change your clothing and your outward appearance: hold in contempt everything which from the exterior suggests a adult female.' 
James H. Charlesworth, in his astonishing treatise on the follower Jesus loved, leaves enlarge the likelihood that this numeral could be a woman, maybe Mary, Martha, or Mary Magdalene, in maliciousness of the masculine synchronic linguistics.  For him, the crucial impervious that the follower essential be male, is not the grammar, but the status that the messenger is named 'son'.  However, John's Jesus does not code the messenger as 'son', and uses no other mannish address, which would have completed the parallelism:
He aforementioned to his mother:
'Woman, see your son.'
Then he aforementioned to the disciple
'behold your female parent.'
By effort out any masculine address, and by one and only motto 'Behold your mother', he instead declares the missionary to denote him as a son. This good of sketch does not necessarily penny-pinching that the follower has to be phallic. That a female person may execute the work of a son to a mother is decipherable from the content of Ruth and Naomi. The young-bearing neighbors recommendation the way Ruth cared for her mother-in-law, by mentioning her to Naomi as: 'she, who has been more to you than 7 sons' (Ruth 4,15).
The expression 'son' oriented to the mother of Jesus designates her own son: the on your last legs crucified Jesus. The scholar conscientiously relates beside Mary once sharp-eared Jesus' libretto towards her: 'Woman, lay eyes on your son.' It is lonesome after Jesus' language to the messenger 'behold your mother' that the reader quickly turns to this second mortal and begins to embrace that Jesus is tantalising his female parent to understand the characterization of his loss and to team up his masses. Turning to the adherent Jesus loved, and quick-eared those words 'behold your mother' the student is reminded of more rapidly acknowledgement lines of Jesus:
I will not set out you desolate; I will travel to you. Yet a unimportant while, and the global will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know 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 preferred by my Father, and I will esteem him and manifest myself to him. (14,18-21)
The ultimate rush of the country in 19,26-27 lies in Jesus' missive to his female parent to watch distant from her failing son to breakthrough him, alive, in the missionary he precious. At the one and the same juncture Jesus' spoken communication are a serious speech 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' worship to his Father for all those who followed him, and who in their bend will draw new hoi polloi - '... that the friendliness with which thou has loved me, may be in them, and I in them...' (17,26) -, the messenger Jesus cherished is the preliminary of a brobdingnagian figure of those disciples yet to come through.
Both Jesus' mother and the missionary respond to Jesus' words. The follower by fetching Jesus' parent to him (or her) and the female parent by acceptive this. Jesus' speech to his parent and the messenger he loved, unneurotic beside their spontaneous effect to them, represent the foundation of the mushrooming 'koinonia' of those who haunt Jesus. In this impression of 19,26-27 the phrase 'son' in 19,26 does not say thing roughly the sexual characteristics of the missionary Jesus fair-haired. The 'son' is the moribund Jesus, who, alive, can be recovered in the adherent he admired as the one who may indicate him. 
2. The adherent Jesus favored and John 20,1-18
One can tell any 5 passages just about the follower Jesus adored (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 later two passages are give or take a few 'another disciple' who, on the ground of 20,2 (interpreted in an explanatory way: 'the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved'), is identified as the missionary Jesus loved. 
It is earth-shattering to note, that in John not only one nameless missionary is mentioned as mortal loved by Jesus. Jesus as well loved, for instance, Lazarus, Martha and Mary (11,5). He favored all his disciples, business them 'his own' (15,9-17; 13,1.34; cf. 17,6-12), even affectionate those disciples who are yet to go (10,16; 14,21; 17,20-26). Jesus compares 'his own' beside sheep who accept his voice, once he calls them by name, and who are guided by him to motion pious pastures (10,1-10). That Mary Magdalene is one of 'his own' emerges from John's fiction in the region of her in which she recognizes Jesus' voice once he calls her by name, and listens to his speech communication (20,16-18).  In addition, she calls him 'Rabbouni', which mechanism 'my teacher'(20,16). Moreover, in 20,2 she does not convey Peter and 'the follower whom Jesus loved', but John highly correctly describes the follower being near Peter as 'the separate follower Jesus loved'.  This suggests that any Mary Magdalene or Peter could be the disciple Jesus loved, who is mentioned faster in 19,25-27. However, in utmost of the pericopes where on earth John uses the expression, 'the adherent Jesus loved' is in the firm of Peter.  This ability that Peter cannot be the one and leaves Mary Magdalene as a weighty way out.
When Mary Magdalene discovers that Jesus' place is empty and she fetches Peter and the 'other follower Jesus loved', these two run together, the remaining follower outrunning Peter. Then Peter looks into the grave and sees the textile cloth, but the other than missionary not sole sees, but as well believes. After that, they all legal instrument to their own marital (20,2-10). After the resurrection of christ the disciples tie together Simon Peter who went field sport. 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 fair-haired recognizes Jesus on the shore and tells Peter almost it (21,7). When Jesus next asks Peter to trail him, Peter, turning, sees that the disciple Jesus fair-haired indeed follows (21,20-23). John emphasises that this missionary is the same one who was at Jesus' body part at the final Supper (21,20). In my view, John here clarifies the aspect 'the adherent Jesus loved' as the one who was at Jesus' chest, because the comment to the another follower Jesus loved in 20,2 is roughly speaking another party. Continuing this flash of disputation it would be significantly likely that 'the missionary Jesus loved' in 21,7.20-23 equally beside the 'other follower Jesus loved' in 20,2 are the two unknown 'others' of his disciples in 21,2. 
3. Why this garment of anonymity?
Still, nearby are other unidentified disciples in John. In 1,37-42 two disciples of John the Baptist want to travel Jesus: Andrew and other who is vanished anon.. In 18,15-16 not solitary Peter (as in Mark, Matthew and Luke) but too 'another disciple' follows Jesus after he has been in remission. This disciple, who is legendary to the advanced priest, enters the court, and, after speaking to the amah who keeps the door, the same anonymous follower brings Peter in. It seems rum that, thereupon, with the sole purpose Peter is asked if he belongs to Jesus' disciples (18,17.25.26). Why do those contribution not onset the new disciple as well? Does this parsimonious that the opposite adherent is not efficiently to be conventional as disciple? 
Why does John claim on obscurity ? Why this veil of mystery? John does not go over this, but at the end of the Gospel it is suggested that there is a 'we'- an on the inside drove who understands and who knows of the follower Jesus loved, the one who was at Jesus' chest, since the writer says:
This is the missionary who is attitude talker to these things, and who has documented these things; and we cognize that his evidence is echt. (21,24)
Why is the honesty of the testimony emphasized? Why would near be any doubt something like the acceptability of the witness, if he is the somebody whom scholars up until now have advisable is the disciple Jesus loved? Why would the Gospel not only bring up Andrew, Lazarus, or Thomas, or John Mark, John son of Zebedee or any of the others? We will never cognize. No reasons are given.  However, in attendance could have been one terrifically apt reason, at lowest possible at the time, to questioning the acceptability of the utterer of the follower Jesus beloved and to covering the disciple's identity: if this disciple was a woman. I would even put forward that the else anon. disciples are maybe gone anon. for the selfsame reason: because they are women.
4. The legitimacy of a woman's authority
The follower Jesus dear supposedly was terrifically historic to those who wrote the Gospel. But, if indeed this adherent was a woman, her muscle as the soul at the rear the words of John could have been seen as unacceptable, since it was a element of argument if women were allowed to have dominance ended men.
In individual canonic most basic century correspondence wives are driven to be compliant to their husbands, while the husbands are told to friendliness their wives (Ephesians 5,21-33; Colossians 3,18-19; 1 Peter 3,1-7). Paul, once exigent that women wear veils once praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11,1-16), argues that the pretext for this is that the boss of every man is Christ, the team leader of a woman is her mate and the commander of Christ is God. However, subsequent in the controversy he changes from wives to female in general, referring to the creation: »For man was not ready-made from woman, but female person from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11,8-9) In addition, piece 1 Peter 3,1-7 refers to the submissiveness of Sarah to Abraham, in 1 Timothy 2,1-11 the construction illation is used again: »For Adam was definite first, consequently Eve," continuing thus »and Adam was not deceived, but the female was deceived and became a offender." The essayist concludes that a woman has to swot near all submissiveness: »I permission no woman to drill or to have muscle done men: she is to preserve tight-lipped." This text and the maybe non-Pauline certificate in 1 Corinthians 14,34-36 in the order of women who are to bread and butter speechless in the assemblies  were quoted again and once more in the centuries that followed to bring out that women are not allowed to have influence over and done with men.
Schüssler Fiorenza refers to the quaternary period Dialogue Between a Montanist and an Orthodox which, through with finances of a meeting linking a montanist and an orthodox Christian, shows their respective viewpoints.  The orthodox position may copy a outstandingly matutinal stand, since it corresponds to the arguments in the front period of time letters, which contend that female is to be wormy to man.
The succeeding annotation from the Dialogue annotations on women's authority, fixed on those women who wrote books, approaching the 2d period of time Montanist prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla:
Orthodox: We do not scorn the prophecies of women. Blessed Mary prophesied once she said: »Henceforth all generations shall bid me glorious." And as you yourself say, Philip had daughters who prophesied and Mary, the sis of Aaron, prophesied. But we do not receipt women to speak up in the assemblies, nor to have dominance complete men, to the element of dedication books in their own name: since, specified is, indeed, the deduction for them of praying beside uncovered lead (...) Wasn't Mary, the Mother of God, able to compose books in her own name? To go around dishonoring her come first by introduction herself above men, she did not do so.
Montanist: Did you say that to commune or to promise with uncovered pave the way implies not to keep in touch books?
Montanist: When Blessed Mary says: »Henceforth all generations shall christen me blessed," does she or doesn't she utter of your own accord and openly?
Orthodox: Since the Gospel is not longhand in her name, she has a head covering in the Evangelist.
Would a Gospel then, first and foremost based on the command of Mary Magdalene be acceptable?
Montanist: Is it because they have longhand books that you do not have Prisca and Maximilla?
We can guess - my male person readers - that the archeozoic place of worship leadership anti women beingness accepted as the same as to men.
Yet today - the Catholic Church does not let a female person to enter the community.
Some other widely held denominations have come through circa - seen a tiny "The Light"!
Yet not even they accept "The Gospel Of Mary" or "The Gospel Of Thomas" because of the monumental implications that these revered texts would have. None can query the cogency of any Gospel.
I may bequest much of my investigation and understandings in resultant articles.
* "GOD IS LOVE."
For Me the issues are settled. Mary Magdalene was the adult female of Jesus. AND - Women ARE equals of Men.