> "are you implying that admitting you believe would grant you the authority by which to appeal?" No, I'm implying that trying to label either of us with some

> "are you implying that admitting you believe would grant you the authority by which to appeal?" No, I'm implying that trying to label either of us with some particular belief system would result in pointless argumentation that would take the form of "thus-and-such tradition is wrong" rather than discussing the actual ideas being presented. "Oh, you're a believer and thus have been corrupted" or "oh, you're a gnostic and thus can't be trusted" or whatever. That makes for uninteresting and unenlightening conversation. So I keep redirecting us back to the ideas -- what does the historical/manuscript evidence point to? > "the church intentionally left these other ideas out of their beliefs" This statement presupposes a timeline in which the ideas in Judas/Mary were present simultaneously with the ideas in canonical and orthodox sources -- that these were two competing traditions in the early days after Jesus' life, and that one became stronger and "suppressed" the other. That simply doesn't match with the historical data. The actual records we have from inside and outside of early Christianity are filled with disputes, and with criticisms of "false teachings". Yet no disputes or criticisms of gnostic-style (gospels of Judas/Mary) teachings show up until the late 2nd century -- as if those appeared on the scene as brand new teachings, not that they had been competing alongside Christianity. There are also indications from various external (Jewish and Roman) historians that Christianity was relatively powerless, not in position to be able to oppress or destroy rival belief systems up until much later -- and even at its height, the powerful (Constantine, Rome, etc.) had limited reach relative to the spread of writings related to Christianity. There were lots and lots of disputes in early Christianity, and one particular sect eventually "won". But the disputes weren't about the things gnostic writings talk about; those are a later, separate movement that happened to use names from Jewish/Christian sources. As for your specific questions: > "do you think jesus and mary existed as these texts describe? was jesus a saviour and son of a god?" What I believe is irrelevant. What matters when addressing the various manuscripts is that there's clear indication that early Christians believed Jesus and Mary (Magdalene, presumably) existed as described in the canonical texts, and that Jesus was both the Savior and Divine in some way. And there's a whole lot of evidence that the next 3-4 centuries were filled with argumentation over exactly what that meant. There is little indication that Mary was a particularly significant figure, though plenty of indication that other women (including Jesus' mother Mary) held prominent roles in the early church. > "do you think jesus discussed somethings only with mary" Not in the gnostic sense of giving "secret knowledge" only to Mary, or only to Judas, or only to Thomas. The earliest writings about Jesus show him to be a reasonably public teacher, in a traditional Rabbinic style. They show Jesus to have repeated important teachings to different crowds. I also believe Jesus' teachings would be recognizable (but potentially blasphemous) to first-century Jews -- note that many of the questions Jesus addresses in the canonical gospels are questions of Jewish interest, particularly relating to the Roman occupation and some of the major schools of thought regarding the practice of the Jewish religion. The "secret knowledge" expressed in Mary/Judas is very much grounded in a synthesis of Greek/Egyptian ideas that originated at least a century later and probably closer to two. > "do you think jesus was married to mary? do you think a definitive answer one way or another would, or should, bear consequence for the christian religion?" I don't think there's any legitimate evidence suggesting such a marriage. But the main consequence it would have on the Christian religion if such a thing were established would be regarding the relation of Jesus to "the church" as a groom and bride; it would not shift any significant doctrinal points regarding, for example, the importance of women. (Those who believe it would are, I believe, misled by certain 20th-century arguments within some segments of Christianity, which are mostly a result of the American church being out of touch with history rather than a result of early Christian doctrine placing women in a subordinate role.)