Mary Magdalene

Mohsin

abdu'Allah
Assalamu-alaikum

:salam2:
Salaam,

This is a story relayed in the Christian Bible (sorry I was unclear). The woman in question was caught committing adultery and the village was surrounding her and prepared to stone her to death. When they asked Jesus (pbuh) how her punishment should be metted out he responded with "He who is without sin may cast the first stone." Since none of them were without sin they dropped their stones and left the woman unharmed. Jesus (pbuh) then told the woman to go and sin no more. John 8:1-11

~Sarah
Respected Sister, I remember reading about this story of the adultress in the Gospel of John and you quoting it reminded me of brother Bluegazer's post in this regard and I am copying it here. Please read !

3- The definition of corruption and other matters regarding the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11]




You wrote the following in post #2 on this thread:


Quote:
I am at a loss see how this verse can be construed as being corrupt. Yes it is controversial and I'm not for one minute doubting that.

But that is the beauty of it. Why? Although controversal and open to interpretation, nothing is hidden. It is open there for all and sundry to see.
There is totally honesty about what is or should be there.

Honesty is the antethesis of corruption. It is therefore up to you come to a conclusion.

For my part , I'm not really bothered. I look at issues far, far more important than that insignificant verse you talk of.

There are several points worth mentioning in response to the words you wrote:

a) I don't understand why you're at a loss by my assertion that the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11] is a prime example of the corruption of Biblical verses.

It's really simple. The earliest Greek manuscripts do not contain John 7:53-8:11, and that means that the "divinely" inspired author who wrote the Gospel of John did not write down these specific verses. And this means that this story is an interpolation.


The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines interpolation as follows [I'll colour the definition I mean in red]:


Quote:
Main Entry: in·ter·po·late
Pronunciation: in-'t&r-p&-"lAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin interpolatus, past participle of interpolare to refurbish, alter, interpolate, from inter- + -polare (from polire to polish)
transitive verb
1 a : to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter b : to insert (words) into a text or into a conversation
2 : to insert between other things or parts : INTERCALATE
3 : to estimate values of (data or a function) between two known values
intransitive verb : to make insertions (as of estimated values)
synonym see INTRODUCE
- in·ter·po·la·tion /-"t&r-p&-'lA-sh&n/ noun
- in·ter·po·la·tive /-'t&r-p&-"lA-tiv/ adjective
- in·ter·po·la·tor /-"lA-t&r/ noun

Source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/interpolation


b) This is going to be a long point, so please bear with me.

I'm going to list to you a number of English Bible versions, along with the year they were first published, a link to the wikipedia website that dealt with that version and a link to a website that hosts this version online [taken from a link found under the heading "External Links" in the wikipedia site of that version]. Sometimes, certain English Versions do not have a link -in the wikipedia website- to a website that hosts it online. In this last case, I'll just mention the name of that version, the year of its first publication and a link to the wikipedia website that deals with it:


Wyclif's Bible [from 1380 to 1390]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyclif's_Bible

Text of Wyclif's Bible:
http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/wycle.htm
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/wycliffe/

**********************************************


Tyndale Bible [New Testament in 1526 and the Pentateuch -first five books of the Old Testament- 1530]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible

Text of the Tyndale Bible:
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en...=Matthew&new=1

***********************************************


Coverdale Bible [1535]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverdale_Bible

Text of the Coverdale Bible:
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en...ranslation=mcb

***********************************************


Matthew's Bible [1537]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Bible

***********************************************


The Great Bible [1539]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible

***********************************************


Taverner's Bible [1539]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taverner's_Bible

***********************************************


The Geneva Bible [New Testament in 1557 and the full Bible in 1560]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible

Text of the Geneva Bible:
http://www.thedcl.org/bible/gb/index.html
http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/en.htm

***********************************************


The Bishops' Bible [1568]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops'_Bible

Text of the Bishops' Bible:
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en...esis&new=1/The

***********************************************


Douay-Rheims Bible [New Testament in 1582 and the Old Textament in 1609-1610]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible

Text of the Douay-Rheims Bible:
http://www.drbo.org/

***********************************************


The Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible [1749-1752]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-R...loner_Revision

Text of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible:
http://www.ccel.org/c/challoner/douayrheims/dr.html

************************************************


The Authorized Version -better known as the King James Version- [1611]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Ja...n_of_the_Bible

Text of the Authorized Version:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...PagePosition=1
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions...o&vid=9&lang=2
http://www.ebible.org/bible/kjv/

*************************************************


Thomson's Translation [1808]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson's_Translation

************************************************


The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible [after 1844]
Note: Joseph Smith was the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [commonly known as the Mormons]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...n_of_the_Bible

Text of The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible [ first according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and then according to the Community of Christ -formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints-:
http://scriptures.lds.org/gs/j/38
http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/default.htm

*********************************************


Webster's Revision [1833]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster's_Revision

Text of Webster's Revision:
http://bible.christiansunite.com/webindex.shtml
http://www.biblesway.com/versions/webster_bible/

*********************************************


Young's Literal Translation [1862]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%2...al_Translation

Text of the Third Edition [Revised Edition] -1898- of Young's Literal Translation:
http://www.ccel.org/bible/ylt/ylt.htm
http://www.biblesway.com/versions/yo...l_translation/
http://www.believersresource.com/content.aspx?id=9

*********************************************


Julia E. Smith Parker Translation [1876]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_E...er_Translation

*********************************************


Now, I admit that there are versions which are not hosted on the Internet [using a link found on the wikipedia website of these particular versions]. These versions are as follows:

Matthew's Bible [1537]
The Great Bible [1539]
Taverner's Bible [1539]
Thomson's Translation [1808]
Julia E. Smith Parker Translation [1876]


There's a private collection in the United States that has copies of the original Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, Taverner's Bible. It's called the Dr. Gene Scott Bible Collection, and the following are the websites that give a description of Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible and Taverner's Bible respectively:

http://www.drgenescott.com/stn17.htm
http://www.drgenescott.com/stn18.htm
http://www.drgenescott.com/stn44.htm


This collection is located in the Los Angeles University Cathedral in Los Angeles, California [U.S.A.]. Perhaps you could write to the people in charge of that collection and ask them if there are any footnotes on the above versions to John 7:53-8:11.


I have also found that St. John's College in the University of Cambridge in England has a copies of Matthew's Bible [Classmark: T.3.17], the Great Bible [Classmark: Bb.8.30] and Taverner's Bible [Classmark for first copy: T.4.23. Classmark for second copy T.4.24] You could ask the people in charge in St. John's Library if these copies had any notes about the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11.

The following is the website of the St. John's College Library:

http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/


And then I finally came to the first record -according to my knowledge, and I'd appreciate it if you could correct me if I'm wrong- of any doubt concerning the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11]. It was in the year 1881 when the New Testament of the English Revised Version [also known as the Revised Version] was first published. Please click on the following wikipedia website to read more about this version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version


On that website, you'll find a link under the heading "External Links" to a "Digital Facsimile from The DCL". When you click it, you'll be taken to the following website:

http://www.thedcl.org/bible/erv/index.html


Then click on "John", which will enable you to download a PDF file of 1.75 MB containing the pages of the Gospel of John. There, you'll see that the text of John 7:53-8:11 -found on pages 75 and 76 of the original -corresponding to pages 8 and 9 of the PDF file- was put between brackets [ ], and you'll find the following footnote no. 6 on the margin:


Quote:
6 Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53 - viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other.
Source: http://www.thedcl.org/bible/erv/erv-john.pdf


Then came the Darby Bible [1890]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darby_Bible

Text of the Darby Bible:
http://www.biblesway.com/versions/darby_bible/
http://www.gospelhall.org/bible/bibl...Gen+1&ver1=dby


And after that came the Ferrar Fenton Bible [complete volume published in 1903].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrar_Fenton_Bible

Text of the Ferrar Fenton Bible:
http://ferrarfenton.com/


When you click on "John" in the above website, you'll download a PDF file of the Gospel of John. In this version, the verses of John 7:53 - 8:11 were completely dropped from the text, and the following note was written -on page 1027 of the original Bible and on page 17 of the PDF file- as footnote no. 2:


Quote:
2 The narrative of the sinful woman (chap. vii. 53 to chap. viii. 11) is rejected by the most competent authorities as a spurious interpolation. The question will be found fully discussed in the introduction to the larger edition of Westcott's and Hort's Greek New Testament (page 299, section 388); and it is given as their opinion that this particular passage "has no right to a place in the Text of the Four Gospels." The language of the MSS. containing the passage varies considerably; but the generally accepted reading I have added at the end of this Gospel, where it is placed as an appendix for reference, but not in any way as a part of the Sacred Text.
Source: http://www.ferrarfenton.com/pdf/john.pdf


Now, I must be honest and repeat what I have stated above that I have not been able to read the texts of Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Thomson's Translation and the Julia E. Smith Parker translation. But I'm making an educated guess that the first three Bibles [printed in the 1500s] do not contain any footnote about the dubious authenticity of John 7:53-8:11, and the other two Bibles were printed in the 1800s.

With all the other versions of the Bible, there was no mention whatsoever of even the possibility that John 7:53 - 8:11 is an interpolation. And the possible earliest mention of any warning about the Story of the Adulteress [according to what I posted above] is found in the English Revised Version of 1885.


Do you know what this means?


It means that the common English speakers of Christendom actually and totally believed the Story of the Adulteress was a true story, that it did happen, that they should learn lessons from it and that Jesus Christ said phrases like "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." [John 8:7] and "Neither do I condemn you." [John 8:11]


For around 500 years it was taken to be a fact among the English speaking Christians that this story occurred. And that is the clearest example of falsification and corruption. It's putting words into the mouth of Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] which he had not uttered. It is lying and falsifying the words of one of God Almighty's greatest Messengers and Prophets, and that is a very serious and major sin.


And that's just from the viewpoint of English speaking Christians. If we look even further back in time, you'll find that this story is found in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible [which was done by Jerome around the year 425]


Please read the following in a certain website that hosts the Jerome Latin Vulgate:


Quote:
What's Inside
The complete Latin Vulgate as written by St. Jeromes
The Douay-Rheims English translation in parallel w/ original commentary
The entire King James Version in parallel for an alternative semantic translation
Source: http://www.latinvulgate.com/


And you'll find the following Latin text of John 7:53-8:11:


Quote:
et reversi sunt unusquisque in domum suam Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti et diluculo iterum venit in templum et omnis populus venit ad eum et sedens docebat eos adducunt autem scribae et Pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam et statuerunt eam in medio et dixerunt ei magister haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio in lege autem Moses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare tu ergo quid dicis haec autem dicebant temptantes eum ut possent accusare eum Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum digito scribebat in terra cum autem perseverarent interrogantes eum erexit se et dixit eis qui sine peccato est vestrum primus in illam lapidem mittat et iterum se inclinans scribebat in terra audientes autem unus post unum exiebant incipientes a senioribus et remansit solus et mulier in medio stans erigens autem se Iesus dixit ei mulier ubi sunt nemo te condemnavit quae dixit nemo Domine dixit autem Iesus nec ego te condemnabo vade et amplius iam noli peccare
Source of John 7:53: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=4&c=7
Source of John 8:11: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=4&c=8


You can also find this story found in another website that hosts the Latin Vulgate version:



Quote:
et reversi sunt unusquisque in domum suam Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti et diluculo iterum venit in templum et omnis populus venit ad eum et sedens docebat eos adducunt autem scribae et Pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam et statuerunt eam in medio et dixerunt ei magister haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio in lege autem Moses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare tu ergo quid dicis haec autem dicebant temptantes eum ut possent accusare eum Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum digito scribebat in terra cum autem perseverarent interrogantes eum erexit se et dixit eis qui sine peccato est vestrum primus in illam lapidem mittat et iterum se inclinans scribebat in terra audientes autem unus post unum exiebant incipientes a senioribus et remansit solus et mulier in medio stans erigens autem se Iesus dixit ei mulier ubi sunt nemo te condemnavit quae dixit nemo Domine dixit autem Iesus nec ego te condemnabo vade et amplius iam noli peccare
Source: John 7:53: http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en...%A0&ng=8&ncc=8
Source: John 8:1-11: http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en...%3A&ng=8&ncc=7


Again, there's no mention in the Latin Vulgate of any doubt about the authenticity of the Story of the Adulteress.


Which means that all Christians from around the year 425 had no idea whatsoever about the fabrication of John 7:53-8:11.


All this information must surely make you reconsider your statement mentioned above, which I will post again:


Quote:
I am at a loss see how this verse can be construed as being corrupt. Yes it is controversial and I'm not for one minute doubting that.

But that is the beauty of it. Why? Although controversal and open to interpretation, nothing is hidden. It is open there for all and sundry to see.
There is totally honesty about what is or should be there.

Honesty is the antethesis of corruption. It is therefore up to you come to a conclusion.

For my part , I'm not really bothered. I look at issues far, far more important than that insignificant verse you talk of.

It's now very clear that your assertion that "nothing is hidden", "is open there for all and sundry to see" and that "There is total honesty about what is or should be there" is just plain wrong. There's more -but not total- honesty nowadays, I'll give you that, but for the greater part of the history of the Bible that honesty was totally lacking.


And I disagree with you about you not being bothered about this. In my opinion, you should be bothered. If a whole story could be fabricated and inserted into the Bible and then passed on to the masses of the believers as authentic Words of God Almighty, what else in the Bible is really authentic, and how can you trust it?


c) You described the Story of the Adulteress as an "insignificant verse". I disagree with you for two reasons:

Firstly, I have found in my limited debates with Christians that one of the most beloved sayings that Christians [and not Muslims] believe that Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] uttered are the words "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." [John 8:7] and "Neither do I condemn you." [John 8:11]. So, being one of the most beloved (supposed) sayings means that it has an important impact on Christians' lives. This important impact should be the reserve of the true Word of God Almighty, not some fabricated words attributed falsely to Holy Scriptures.


Secondly, you yourself have quoted the meaning of these supposed sayings of Jesus Christ several times in the thread "ISRAEL is the biggest terrorist organization in the world". To remind you, you wrote the following:


Quote:
As Yeshua said " Let him who is without sin, cast the 1st stone"
[in post #41]



Quote:
Where did you source that from. Its not in the scriptures.Nor is it in the Koran. When Yeshua said Let him (meaning everybody noy just the Jews) who is without sin (again not only the Jews), cast the first stone. This applies to all of us
[in post #47]



Quote:
With due respect to you, its you that is going round and round in circles and not willing to find the point.
Surely you can understand what YESHUA is alluding to. No one is perfect and we are not in a position to judge each other - we're all sinful. YESHUA ain't. He is the only person in a position to throw stones. Not us.
[in post #54]


So, you quoting the supposed saying of Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] three times means that it had a profound effect on you, to the extent that you do not want certain people to point out the mistakes of other people because -as you put it- "we are not in a position to judge each other - we're all sinful. YESHUA ain't. He is the only person in a position to throw stones. Not us."


d) I have to quote you again when you wrote, "But that is the beauty of it. Why? Although controversal and open to interpretation, nothing is hidden. It is open there for all and sundry to see. There is totally honesty about what is or should be there. Honesty is the antethesis of corruption. It is therefore up to you come to a conclusion.", because there's an important point you missed.


Other than the fact that the first mention of any doubt about the authenticity of the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11] was in 1881 by the English Revised Version, there were other very real obstacles for the Bible being "open for all and sundry to see".


Firstly, you have to keep in mind that literacy in England when the first English Bible appeared [in the period between 1380 and 1390] was very low, and it would be erroneous to believe that the common Englishman of that period was able to read and write [as the common Englishman is now able to do]. In a wikipedia article, you find the following paragraph under the heading "Literacy throughout history":


Quote:
The history of literacy goes back several thousand years, but before the industrial revolution finally made cheap paper and cheap books available to all classes in industrialized countries in the mid-nineteenth century, only a small percentage of the population in these countries were literate. Up until that point, materials associated with literacy were prohibitively expensive for people other than wealthy individuals and institutions. For example, in England in 1841, 33% of men and 44% of women signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to write. Only in 1870 was government-financed public education made available in England.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy


This meant that the only classes who were literate were the nobility and the clergy, and these were a small minority.


And remember that I was talking about the ability to read the English translations of the Bible. Prior to the period of 1380-1390, the only version of the Bible available even for the clergy and the nobility was the Latin version. If only a small portion of the population had the ability to read an English translation of the Bible, then surely an even smaller portion of the population had the ability to read a Latin translation.


Another important factor mentioned in the wikipedia paragraph quoted above was the fact that one had to be wealthy to own books. And with regard to the Bible, ordinary people had no access to a copy of the Bible and had to depend on what the clergy told them about what's contained in the scriptures. That was until the reign of King Henry VIII of England, when -in 1539- the Great Bible was made available for the public to read in Churches throughout England.


Please read the following excerpt from Sir Frederic G. Kenyon's article in Dictionary of the Bible [1909]:


Quote:
The first edition of the Great Bible appeared in April 1539, and an injunction was issued by Cromwell that a copy of it should be set up in every parish church. It was consequently the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use; and contemporary evidence proves that it was welcomed and read with avidity. No doubt, as at an earlier day (Philippians 2:15), some read the gospel "of envy and stife, and some also of good will"; but in one way or another, for edification or for controversy, the reading of the Bible took a firm hold on the people of England, a hold which has never since been relaxed,.........
Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/greatbible1.html


And you also have the following excerpts from an article about the Great Bible written by the people in charge of the Dr. Gene Scott Bible Collection:


Quote:
The "high water mark" of Henry VIII's reign, as far as the English Bible is concerned, was his express approval of the "Great" Bible of 1539 and his declaration appointing it to be set up for public use and read in all churches.
Quote:
For all this, the "Great" Bible was still the version that, however reluctantly, the King and his Bishops had set out for the instruction of the common people, and it was heavily used by shepherds, merchants and laborers alike (provided they had the gift of literacy).
Source: http://www.drgenescott.com/stn18.htm


So, in 1539 -for the first time in the history of the English speaking world- the Bible was made readily available for anyone to read, even the poor. And even then, one had to be literate in order to take full advantage of this new circumstance.


It's very clear that there were excellent conditions in place to facilitate the corruption of the Bible. Among these conditions were the facts that the only version available for hundreds of years [even for the clergy and nobility] was in Latin, that the great majority of the population could not read or write and that for a long period of time they had no access to the text of the Bible.


To finish up this particular point and to emphasize what I had mentioned above, I'd like to quote from page 153 of Alison Plowden's book The House of Tudor [published by Sutton Publishing Limited in England, ISBN 0750932406] -with certain parts coloured red by myself-. It's about certain events in the reign of King Henry VIII of England:


Quote:
It was not, of course, as simple as it sounded. The King may not have meant to start a revolution when he rejected the Pope and all his works but that, in effect, was what he had done. There was a long tradition of anti-clerical feeling and smouldering religious radicalism in England and Henry's personal quarrel with Rome had provided the spark which set a quantity of tinder-dry undergrowth alight. The subsequent conflagration proved, not surprisingly, difficult to control - especially when the Great Bible, based on Tyndale's and Coverdale's translation, was made available to the general public. The average concerned and educated layman was now, for the first time, in a position to study and interpret the word of God for himself and, in the 1530s and 1540s, this was the very stuff of revolution. It led naturally to the spread of revolutionary ideas; to the realization that it was possible for an individual to hold direct communion with God, that the ordinary layman (or woman) was no longer totally dependent on the priest to act as his intermediary, and the sense of excitement and emotional release this brought to many people cannot be emphasized too strongly

And on page 154 of the same book you'll find the following:


Quote:
By Christmas it was clear that the King himself was getting worried about the increasing dissension between the rival factions, and in a speech delivered to Parliament on Christmas Eve, he reproved the nation via its elected representatives for speaking slanderously of priests and for having the temerity to follow its own 'fantastical opinions and vain expositions' in high matters of religious doctrine. Henry reminded his audience that licence to read Holy Scripture in their mother tongue had been granted them only to inform their consciences and so that they might instruct their children and families. It was emphatically not a licence for every Tom, Dick and Harry 'to make Scripture a railing and a taunting stock against priests and teachers'. The King was very sorry, he went on, 'to hear and know how unreverently that most precious jewel, the word of God, is disputed, rhymed, sung and jangled in every alehouse and tavern, contrary to the true meaning and doctrine of the same'.

Unfortunately, this royal scolding had little effect on that section of the population which had discovered the heady delights of theological and, by implication, political debate........
To read all his posts in this regard please CLICK HERE and scroll down.
 

Mohsin

abdu'Allah
More info

:salam2:

Brother Bluegazer posted more about this issue in another thread and that too is worth reading since there he gave references from the official website of Vatican. Here is how it reads,

17 [ 7:53- 8:11] The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after John 7:36 or at the end of this gospel, or after Luke 21:38, or at the end of that gospel. There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage. The style and motifs are similar to those of Luke, and it fits better with the general situation at the end of Luke 21:but it was probably inserted here because of the allusion to Jeremiah 17:13 (cf the note on John John 8:6) and the statement, "I do not judge anyone," in John 8:15. The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture.
Source - Scroll down and read the footnote #17
 

ShyHijabi

Junior Member
oh someone had asked where are the scriptures in the bible that talked about killing someone who comitted adultery

Salaam,

Oh I see, actually they were wondering if there was story in the Christian bible about an adulteress to be stoned and it being during Jesus (pbuh) time. Deuteronomy was actually written a coupld of thousand years before he was born. But I can see where the confusion came in. :)

Wasalaam

~Sarah
 

daanya80

New Member
in the christian tradition. it was a woman that was involved in adultery that was about to be stoned that Jesus witnessed to.

Maria magdalene was protrayed in the bible are prostitute.Jesus save her while men on the temple was stoning her. And after that she became the follower of jesus.

I was a christian before and we are doing this passion of the christ during holy week.

BUt in the movie:Da Vinci code, the writer wanted to put in the mind of the reader that there might be possibility that Mary Magdalene became wife of Jesus..as shown on the paintings of Da vinci.

I was the deep reader on the books of Dan brown. But its not what he intented to do, he really want the reader to question the roman catholic church as the roots of paganism..
 

nobbyv

Abu Maryam
Salaam sister Diane,

The quran teaches that Jesus (pbuh) was not married while on this earth but will when he returns. So frolm a Quranic POV there was no Mary Magdelene or her role was so minor that it was not recorded.

Wasalaam

~Sarah

Dear sister,
Assalamualaikum...

Could you highlight the verse in the Quran which teaches that Jesus (pbuh) was not married??

If I am right, the Quran never makes such a claim - The Quran neither claims that Jesus (pbuh) was married nor unmarried!! Please correct me if I am wrong...

Walaikum Assalam...

 
Top