# Jesus and Mary Magdeline **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 19, 2001, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-mary-magdeline/50787 "2001-01-19T01:03:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2001, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-mary-magdeline/50787/41 "2001-01-23T18:55:48Z")
Gigi: Sexual fantasies are not sinful under Catholic rules if you are married to the person you are fantasising about. Yes, fornication is wrong, but sex inside of marriage is not wrong. If Jesus had married MM, then his sexual desire for her would not have been sinful. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2001, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-mary-magdeline/50787/42 "2001-01-23T21:35:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > \*\*Gigi: Sexual fantasies are not sinful under Catholic rules if you are married to the person you are fantasising about. Yes, fornication is wrong, but sex inside of marriage is not wrong. If Jesus had married MM, then his sexual desire for her would not have been sinful. \*\* Correct. I am responding to the lyrics of the song discussed above, which implies that they spent the nights together, but not that they were married. ---
**Author:** ![Alonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@Alonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alonist)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-mary-magdeline/50787/43 "2001-01-24T11:22:47Z")
One of the books of Robert Anton Wilson’s “Historical Illuminati” series (_Nature’s God_, I think) has a Gospel of Mary Magdalene in the appendix. Probably written by RAW, but interesting nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![BunnyGirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@BunnyGirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BunnyGirl)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-mary-magdeline/50787/44 "2001-01-24T13:51:20Z")
> [@](#): > > OT - Bunny… > > ``` > quote: > > Sorry for the King James, it's all I've got in my purse. > > Know what? I'm seriously thinking of making this my sig. It has a little *je ne sais quoi*... > > ``` Cool! ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-mary-magdeline/50787/45 "2001-01-24T15:39:47Z")
There is a widespread tradition in the South of France which claims that Mary Magdalene was one of the first Christian missionaries to settle there. This was promoted in the Middle Ages with the active support of the Catholic Church in the area. Many of the major local pilgrimage sites relate to it. There is also an entirely separate heretical tradition, which has no particular association with the South of France, that she and Jesus were married. It is probably true to say that more people believe this today than ever did so in the past. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln conflated the two traditions. Neither however stands up to any real scrutiny. Both amount to hearsay and rather late hearsay at that. Frankly, I would put both traditions on a par with the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary. The rest of the speculation spun by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln is just as flimsy. Most of their ‘evidence’ was clearly invented at some point no earlier than the 1950s. This was obvious even before one of the culprits confessed. Underlying the original fraud there was what would seem to have been a rather nasty, far-Right political agenda. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-and-mary-magdeline/50787.md?page=2)