A quote from the Vatican.

, yet I don't recall anywhere where Jesus talks about sex equality, maybe if he was all about sex equality he would have had a female in the 12 apostles.

Maybe Mary Magdalene was an apostlette?

After Mary had said these things, she was silent, since it was up to this point that the Savior had spoken to her.
Andrew responded, addressing the brothers and sisters, "Say what you will about the things she has said, but I do not believe that the S[a]vior said these things, f[or] indeed these teachings are strange ideas."
Peter responded, bringing up similar concerns. He questioned them about the Savior: "Did he, then, speak with a woman in private without our knowing about it? Are we to turn around and listen to her? Did he choose her over us?"
Then [M]ary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what are you imagining? Do you think that I have thought up these things by myself in my heart or that I am telling lies about the Savior?"
Levi answered, speaking to Peter, "Peter, you have always been a wrathful person. Now I see you contending against the woman like the Adversaries. For if the Savior made her worthy, who are you then for your part to reject her? Assuredly the Savior's knowledge of her is completely reliable. That is why he loved her more than us.
"Rather we should be ashamed. We should clothe ourselves with the perfect Human, acquire it for ourselves as he commanded us, and announce the good news, not laying down any other rule or law that differs from what the Savior said."

None of the gospels where written at the time of christ.There is no historical reference for jesus..The RC church decided what was relevant or factual and dismissed the rest.It was faith built from myths and stories, with no historical evidence.

We are not criticising the teachings of Christ but the RC church, there is a distinct difference..

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar. What is canon and non-canon scripture (this dummy thought there was only one!)? Do you mean revisions of the ancient scripture?

I saw a documentary once on the missing gospels. Apparently there are more in existence, including a gospel according to Mary Magdalene. I've just googled it and while there is reference to its existence in many sites, they are all religious sites so I can't pin down an unbiased reference to it. I'll keep looking. Anyway, the angle of the documentary was that Mary was an apostle, and indeed the most loved by Jesus.

None of the gospels where written at the time of christ.There is no historical reference for jesus..The RC church decided what was relevant or factual and dismissed the rest.It was faith built from myths and stories, with no historical evidence.

It is possible that Mary Magdalen was an apostle: but the whole thing is speculation. We really just do not know with any degree of certainty. Personally, the question is moot: if her Gospel speaks to you, read it and treasure it. If not, then the matter is not worth worrying over.

There is no historic evidence of Jesus.The story of Christ was written 70 years after his death , secondhand myths woven into a story of a man who taught love and peace..His death on a cross is part of that myth.The gospels are not written by those who are supposed to have written them ,they where all dead by the time they were written.The RC church are still demanding their interpretations are from god and anyone else's are heresy..They helped create the myth and still maintain it.The gospel that claims jesus had brothers and sisters was erased, why was that?

Whether or not Jesus lived simply isn't relevant to me; nor is it for many of the theists I've known. His having "really existed" can just as easily be used to downplay as emphasize his import.

How can Jesus Christ as a historical figure downplay his teachings? (Correct me if I misunderstood you)

No, you got me right.

I've heard a number of arguments where the 'historical' (read: really-lived) was used to dispute many traditional teachings; seeming contradictions in the 'real' with what many myths hold him to have been. This is primarily concerned with those sanitized, vainglorious views that don't quite jive with flesh-and-blood.

Thanks

Interesting. I've never heard of such arguments. If anything, I thought it would embrace/support his teachings rather than downplay. I'm going to do some research on this, thanks for the insight.

Yea, well what comes to mind most immediately, was an account I recently read that suggested the christian uprising had more to do with roman rebellion; insurgency and counterinsurgency, than the passive love-ness that was imbued by later writings. I believe I know the book, but would also need to do some digging.

Mythras was the roman foot soldiers god.Those who had admired the jesus story seem to have amalgamated the myth with the man to encourage the pagans to adopt christianity.The Roman soldiers had much influence and power in the Roman empire, get them on your side and you had a good chance of success. There may well have been a man called jesus ,a teacher, but there is no historical evidence pertinent to his time alive.

<Has not an ounce of doubt about the existence of the man called Jesus. Proof? Don't have any. Don't need any. Arguments to the contrary? I simply don't care.

Why is that ? we all need a certain certanity surely..

I would like to know more about Mary Magdalen. I also would like to know why , if there are things written by or about her, was it not included in the canon of scripture.

The gospel attributed to Mary Magdalen is one of many apocryphal (not included in the canon) gospels. A number of factors were at play when canon was set; it's an interesting history, and I really do not know enough about Mary Magdalen's gospel to say exactly why it was excluded. Probably has something to do with questionable origin, the fact that it is attributed to a woman who is typically considered a prostitute, and theological stances that contradict some of the other more popular gospels of the time.