> I'm not saying she was his wife--only that they were lovers.
But the two gospels you quoted from don't even say that. If they were lover's, Jesus would have told his disciples that they were lovers but he didn't, he said she held "light". That sounds like agape love to me.
> And that this deals a death-blow to the Roman Church's demand
> for priestly celibacy, which is why this text was burned,
> only one surviving, unearthed in Nag Hammadi in 1945.
Well, you know what my views are on the Church. I agree the NT doesn't teach celibacy.
> Nor is there any evidence that Jesus' apostles were told to
> dump their wives, and the apostles are the proto-priests of
> the Catholic Church.
Agreed! You see, we can find areas for agreement.
> "Companion" is a bit more respectable than "consort,"...it
> all depends on the translater, but to the puritans it's all
> bad anyway because after all, it's sex.
Again, Jesus, in the Gnostic gospel, was refering to the "light" that Mary had, not here sexual appeal and there is still a question mark over the original Greek word for companion/consort.