mary magdalene


jdawg
 Share

Recommended Posts

Additionally, Mary Madalene should be regarded as an Apostle. She after all was a disciple of Christ, following Him and his path and hearing the words of Jesus directly. As you point out she was close to Jesus, as in anointing his feet with oil and tickling them with her hair. She was apparently the most concerned about Jesus, going to his tomb to care and mourn for him. Too bad her part was mostly written out of the script afterward.

Moksha, I hope you fully realize the provocativeness of what you are suggesting. You are saying Mary Magdalene by virtue of being an original, ardent and perhaps even intimate follower of Christ should be regarded as an Apostle even without male anatomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Specifically Jewish ones? Apart from priests and Levites who conducted the temple services we don't really know. A good breakdown of the issue is in Lee I Levine's The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years.

So offices like that of Bishop and Deacon sprang from the Catholic tradition, Presidents from ancient Greece, and Stake Presidents from the office of Inquisitor General (as in Tomas de Torquemada) who was theoretically in charge of all burnings at the Stake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So offices like that of Bishop and Deacon sprang from the Catholic tradition, Presidents from ancient Greece, and Stake Presidents from the office of Inquisitor General (as in Tomas de Torquemada) who was theoretically in charge of all burnings at the Stake?

Eh? Let me cut through your snark. We don't really know what the offices of the Jews outside the temple were or when we do have a title just what that position was. Also, there were different offices and titles in Israel and the diaspora and different ones at different periods. There was also no governing body that regulated all the affairs of all the communities. Each community did more or less as they pleased. Check out that book I mentioned, it can be previewed on google books.

Edited by volgadon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought Jesus first appeared to Mary because she was the most faithful, not to mention she just happened to be at the tomb at that time. If Peter was at the tomb at that time, I'm sure Christ would have appeared to him just like he did to Mary.

I cant remember if this is true or not, but I thought Mary and the other women were at the tomb first thing the day after the sabbath. If she was there first thing in the morning, then wouldn't that make her one of the most devoted to him? She even asked the 'gardener' if she knew where the 'thieves' had stolen the body, she didn't give up looking for Christ even when she didn't recognise him.

I'd say Mary was definitely a strong and faithful member, dare I say more than the apostles at that time? Who knows. All we have is an abridgement of Christ's and his apostles' ministry. We have no idea.

I'm not touching the wedding at Cana debate. You guys seem to be doing pretty well at that one :)

Who was Mary? A devout follower of Christ.

Was she a prostitute? According to the talks I've read and sections of Talmage that I could understand without a dictionary, probably not.

Was she married to Christ? Who knows.

Was Christ married? I personally think yes, but who knows. Maybe he was married to some super cool woman that isn't mentioned (like there is no direct mention of Heavenly Mother). Maybe he was married to Mary.

I've always wondered what Christ did outside the temple that Wednesday before He was crucified, maybe he got married then?

Just throwing maybes out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 1: 43 is the last place that mentions a place where Jesus would be.

The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee

So, Jesus was heading to Galilee.

Chapter 2 starts this way, verse 1:

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee

Why does a person have to get married in his home town? We know He spent some time in Galilee.

OK, now you address after the wedding:

Because the wedding was taking the bride into your house. Can you show me one example from around the time of Jesus where the wedding took place in a town which was not the residence of the groom?

Galilee (my native region) is not a tiny place.

In fact, the New Testament says very little, if any, about Jesus for many years of His life. To say Jesus was not married because the New Testament does not explicitly say He was is a bad argument.

I'm arguing that the wedding at Cana was not Christ's. I'm not arguing that Christ was unmarried, in fact, in a reply to mikbone I stated that in my opinion he was. The text though is silent on the issue, nor was it prerequisite for him to have been married.

There were many hundreds of years where the text of the New Testament was in the hands of a corrupt church who did not want Christ to be married. It is very easy to presume many of the words of the text were altered, or removed, that may have been more clear on the matter.

Very easy to presume, very easy to presume a lot of things, but that argument doesn't hold up all too well. P66 which dates to about AD 200 has the account of the wedding almost identical to that of the manuscripts used by the KJV. So you need to show that 170 years after Christ that 'the church' did not want Christ to be married and thus wrote it out.

The fact that Jesus appeared first to Mary, even before the Father, is a clue to me, and tells me I want to look for more evidence. I see evidence in the text of the story at the wedding of Cana, if you do not then we disagree. That's all it is is a disagreement.

Why would they be wed in Cana, where neither of them resided?

But, you have to admit that with one small assumption, the text can be easily led that way, even if, as you say, it's not explicit.

It's been a fun conversation. I hope it didn't get you too riled up.

No basis for making that assumption. I'm not riled by poor arguments or having my points dodged, but am merely disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me go through it one last time.

Or, alternatively, you could bother addressing most of my points instead of disregarding them. At least address the one about Mary and Jesus both being guests.

Mary: Tells the servants to do as Jesus asks.

His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

You have failed to provide a cogent, logical explanation as to why the author would take up space with such a completely obvious and inane command, or indeed, why Mary would make such a comment. Is he trying to make her look like a fool of a nag?

Jesus: Tells the servants to fill the pots with water.

Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water.

Servants: (fill water pots with water)

And they filled them up to the brim.

Jesus: Tells the servants to bare the wine to the governor of the feast.

And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.

Servants: (fills a cup and delivers it to the ruler of the feast)

And they bare it.

Governor: (Tasted the wine but did not know where it came from)

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was

Servants: (knew where the wine came from because they were told by the person who provided it to deliver it to the governor)

(but the servants which drew the water knew)

OK. Summary at this point:

The same servants who witnessed the water turn into wine were told by Jesus to deliver the wine to the governor of the feast. Those same servants delivered the wine to the governor. The governor did not know where the wine came from.

Here is the only assumption you have to make.

No, you make a lot more assumptions than just one. See below.

Here is the governor of the feast, who just tasted the wine and is curious about where the wine came from. His later statement says his curiosity is spawned because the wine was better than the wine they have drank up to that point, which was usually not the practice.

You assume that he is curious. The text does not say that he was curious. The text merely states his ignorance on the provenance of the wine. You have to read curiosity into it.

So, the servants who brought the wine are right there, what's the best, most logical way for the governor to find out where the wine came from? Ask who brought it.

You are assuming that he was trying to find out where the wine came from.

This added text inserted at this location, which states a previously known fact, suggests that he asked the servants:

(but the servants which drew the water knew)

It serves to contrast the two and to understand the governor's (mistaken) course of action.

Now, watch the result very closely.

The next verse is not a result. The preceding verse is an editorial comment.

The governor wanted to know where the wine came from so he could ask them a question.

We are not told that he wanted to know where the wine came from.

The text says the governor called the bridegroom.

the governor of the feast called the bridegroom

Notice that the governor is no longer curious about where the wine came from.

You need to show that he ever was.

The text implies he no longer desires to know where it came from. This supports the idea that he asked the servants who knew where the wine came from.

Repetition is the mother of learning, so I'll risk it and repeat again that the text does not imply that he did desire to know where it came from. Not in the narration, not in the governor's own words.

The governor does not ask the bridegroom where the wine came from.

The governor approaches the bridegroom as if he knows the bridegroom is the individual who provided the wine.

Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Because there does not appear to ever have been a question in his mind as to where the wine came from. The text indicates his ignorance and that he acts accordingly. Also, isn't it an extremely peculiar reaction to learning of an astounding miracle to chide the miracle worker for hiding the good wine until now. Indeed, how does one hide something which did not yet exist. If he did ask the servants, they would have told him that the wine ran out hence the need for a miracle. So why then chide the host?

Now, you may not be willing to assume the governor asked the servants where the wine came from, but you have to see how easy it is based on the text, to assume he did.

Only by misreading it.

I'm still amazed you won't at least admit there's an implication or assumption in the text that the Jesus is the bridegroom. You are welcome to explicitly disagree with the assumption, but to continue to say there's not the slightest leaning toward it in the text is just being difficult, in my opinion.

Frankly, I'm amazed that you persist in thinking that there is such an implication. You have failed to produce even one that stands up to scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You have failed to produce even one that stands up to scrutiny. "

Ha! You mean, following the text? Yes, the text does not stand up to scrutiny at all. thats right, lets ignore the text ..........

If you could explain your side that does not go against what is written in holy scripture, then I would be happy to consider it. Do you have another point as opposed to the wedding of Cana? Jesus appearing to Mary is one - but you have not even touched on that one. Saturnfulcrum brings up a good point on it.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You have failed to produce even one that stands up to scrutiny. "

Ha! You mean, following the text? Yes, the text does not stand up to scrutiny at all. thats right, lets ignore the text ..........

No, I mean his misreading of the text does not stand up to scrutiny.

If you could explain your side that does not go against what is written in holy scripture, then I would be happy to consider it.

Spare me the self-righteous indignation, I'm not going against holy scripture, I'm going against Justice's interpretation of it.

Do you have another point as opposed to the wedding of Cana?

Seeing as I'm arguing against the wedding at Cana being Christ's, what other points should I bring up?

Jesus appearing to Mary is one - but you have not even touched on that one.

Weak evidence at best. Like I said I'm personally of the opinion that Christ was married, but scripture does not really say, the evidences in it are weak, there are just as many pointing towards his not being married, nor as I have shown do the historical evidences demand it.

Saturnfulcrum brings up a good point on it.......

Who was it that wrote a great post on why Christ appearing to Mary does not mean that she was his wife?

And why don't you try tackling the substance of my arguments, rather than throwing out accusations of me attacking holy scripture?

Edited by volgadon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not attacking you. Nor am I saying that you are attacking holy scripture. I am just saying that there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence - and I do not believe it is a coincidence. Niether does holy writ. Jesus had to be baptized, he had to be married, he had to fulfil the law of the land and jewish custom as a teacher, he had to be exalted, etc. There is just so much there that points towards this. Yes, it is not explicitly written, but deep doctrine never is. That is why I feel (just my feeling/opinion) that your argument of him never being married does not stand up. There is just so much against it. its like the parables of the savior. ye who have eyes let him see, ears that can hear..... his parables were never explicit either, but they taught great things to those who paid attention to the details and circumstance. I feel this is one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what mainstream Christianity makes of the Marriage at Cana:

The Marriage at Cana or Wedding at Cana is one of the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels and the first miracle in the Gospel of John.

John 2:1-11 reports that while Jesus was attending a wedding in Cana with his disciples the hosts ran out of wine. Jesus' mother (unnamed in John's Gospel) told Jesus, "They have no more wine," and Jesus replied, "Dear woman, why do you involve me? My time has not yet come." Jesus' mother then said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you" (John 2:3-5). Jesus ordered the servants to fill the empty containers with water (see Jars of Cana) and to draw out some and take it to the chief waiter. After tasting the water that had become wine, and not knowing what Jesus had done, he remarked to the bridegroom that he had departed from the custom of serving the best wine first by serving it last (John 2:6-10). John concludes his account by saying: "This was the first miracle of Jesus and it was performed to reveal his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him ,(John 2:11)".

The incident occurs immediately after Jesus has told Nathanael at John 1:50 that he would "see greater things". It is the first of the seven miraculous signs by which John attests Jesus's divine status, around which he structures his Gospel, and the word used by John is the Greek semeion meaning "sign", or ergon meaning "work", instead of the term for miracle which the synoptics normally use: dynamis - meaning "act of power".

This miracle of Jesus is not mentioned by any of the Synoptic Gospels, but does parallel their parable of New Wine into Old Wineskins, which may have formed its origin. It may also be based on supposed prophecies in the Old Testament, such as Amos 9:13-14 and Genesis 49:10-11 about the abundance of wine that there will be in the time of the messiah, and especially on the messianic wedding festivals mentioned in Isaiah 62:4-5.

Is is not interesting that Biblical scholars throughout the Christian era have not really hit upon this marriage being Jesus own? I am wondering if any insistence that Jesus was married in Cana, is a lingering remnant of polygamy theology.

Marriage at Cana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not attacking you. Nor am I saying that you are attacking holy scripture. I am just saying that there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence - and I do not believe it is a coincidence.

Then please provide this circumstantial evidence.

Niether does holy writ.

Holy writ is silent on this issue.

Jesus had to be baptized,

Agreed.

he had to be married,

But did it have to be during his mortal ministry?

he had to fulfil the law of the land and jewish custom as a teacher,

Where does it say that he had to fulfil the law of the land and Jewish custom?

he had to be exalted, etc. There is just so much there that points towards this.

Towards what?

Yes, it is not explicitly written, but deep doctrine never is.

Never? Somebody must have forgot to excise all references to having one's calling and election made sure.

That is why I feel (just my feeling/opinion) that your argument of him never being married does not stand up.

Where have I argued that? Are you deliberately ignoring my multiple statements that in my opinion he was married?

There is just so much against it.

Such as?

its like the parables of the savior. ye who have eyes let him see, ears that can hear..... his parables were never explicit either, but they taught great things to those who paid attention to the details and circumstance. I feel this is one of them.

I've shown that the DETAILS and CIRCUMSTANCES of the account of the marriage feast at Cana do not indicate that it was Christ's own. You can ignore them, of course, but I would liken the verses you just quoted to yourself. Also, Jacob's statement of looking beyond the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where have I argued that? Are you deliberately ignoring my multiple statements that in my opinion he was married?

Remember, you can't support someone's conclusion unless you agree with all their proposed evidence. Point out that oranges do not prove the earth is round and you become a believer in a flat earth.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volgadon,

Let me try to explain. If you read my whole post, and try to get my general idea across to you (after multiple postings included) the majority of your "piece by peice" questions have already been answered. In regards to circumstancial evidence, logic, doctrine, GA statements, etc. I have tried to already touch upon that. If that has been lost, then I must not be writing efficiently enough, and I will blame myself.

Explicit and implicit. Two different words and two different meanings. Both are present in doctrine, parables, and teachings. That is all today.

Have a good week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Volgadon,

Let me try to explain. If you read my whole post, and try to get my general idea across to you (after multiple postings included) the majority of your "piece by peice" questions have already been answered.

None have been answered. If they have, show me where. assertions aplenty, but none backed up. The opinion of former GAs notwithstanding. I prefer to deal with the text, the historical background, and modern revelation, rather that opinion.

In regards to circumstancial evidence, logic, doctrine, GA statements, etc. I have tried to already touch upon that. If that has been lost, then I must not be writing efficiently enough, and I will blame myself.

Ok, no circumstantial evidence relating to 2nd temple Judaism has been provided, the logic is faulty and not supported by the text, doctrine does not state that the wedding at Cana had to be Christ's, and GA statements have all been opinion, not even shared by all the GAs.

Explicit and implicit. Two different words and two different meanings. Both are present in doctrine, parables, and teachings. That is all today.

Vague pronouncements is all I get?

Anyway, neither explicitly or implicitly is there any indication that the wedding in Cana was Christ's very own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So can someone explain who mary magdalene is. I know she is the first one that Christ appeared to after his resurrection but I get confused cuz ya hear rumors that she may have been Christs wife. Also i've heard that she was the prostitute brought before Jesus when he said he who has not sinned let him cast the first stone... I'm just not grasping the links and would like an explanation. Thanks

One of my own unique daughters asked the same question and was given an answer. Her prominent faith revealed something even greater, being shown what she looked like. Even I had a curiosity to gather up past portrait in the church and those of other religious art work of Mary’s image. I had her sit down with me and gone through several artworks to discover what was the closes portrait. To my own puzzlement on why I never received an answer, my faith in such was not ubiquitous enough. Now, I wish I had a faith of a child like her when seeking an answer to those personal imminent questions.

Now, with the case of Mary, she was processed by the devils and when cleansed by the Master, all of her sins were washed away. Anything that was done under the guise of the devils was not her doing.

Getting back what she told me, and may help you, “…your answer is starring you in the face.” ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mary Magdalene

(Written for and at the request of the Newspaper Enterprise Association, San Francisco)

By Elder James E. Talmage of the Council of the Twelve

There is but a step between fanciful tradition and false history. A cleverly coined lie circulates readily, and soon comes to be accepted at its face inscription as a sterling medal struck in the mint of truth. This applies both to events and persons of historic prominence.

Consider the case of a certain woman, whose reputation has been increasingly blackened through the centuries, and that by professed teachers and preachers of the Christ, without a vestige of justifying fact.

Mary Magdalene was one of our Lord's adoring followers during His ministry in the flesh; and she stands forever distinguished among women and preeminent amidst humankind in being the first mortal to look upon the face of the Risen Lord, and to hear the voice of a Resurrected Soul.

Yet we are told that Mary of Magdala, for such is the accepted signification of her surname, was a reformed courtesan; and her privileged association with the Lord Jesus has been made much of in text and homily to show that a sinner, even such as she is said to have been, could be pardoned and received into special and particular companionship with the Son of God.

That man cannot measure the bounds of Divine mercy and forgiveness is granted without discussion. But that the Scriptures warrant the foul aspersions cast upon the character of Mary Magdalene is unreservedly denied. She is a victim of misrepresentation, and stands as one of the most pitilessly maligned women of history.

To our shame be it said that her name has been made common as the appellation of women who sin as only women can, and who later profess penitence. Look in your dictionaries; what find you there under "Magdalene?" This: "A reformed prostitute; a repentant harlot". Even our adjective "maudlin" is a corrupted spelling of Magdalen or Magdalene, and has reference to the tearful state in which conventional art has represented the figure of this blessed and highly favored woman.

A partial explanation of such gross villification of a noble woman's character—one cannot reasonably speak of an excuse therefor—is found in the unsupported assumption that Mary Magdalene was that once sinful but thoroughly repentant woman who entered the house of Simon the Pharisee, while Jesus was a guest at table there, and who in her contrite grief let her upwelling tears fall upon the Master's feet, which she then dried with her untressed hair, and anointed with ointment from an alabaster box.

That woman, whose repentance drew forth from the Teacher one of His most incisive lessons, and who heard from the lips of the Lord the benign assurance "Thy sins are forgiven" and "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace", is not named in the narrative (Luke 7:36-50). She is nowhere else referred to with identifying certainty in the Gospel pages. To assume that she and Mary Magdalene are one is to substitute fancy for recorded fact.

Equally unwarranted is the inference that the woman last referred to, she who anointed the feet of Christ in the house of Simon the Pharisee in Galilee, was Mary the sister of Lazarus who, shortly before our Lord's betrayal, anointed with costly spikenard His head and feet in the house of Simon the leper, at Bethany in Judea (John 12:1-8). The two anointings are distinct in circumstance of time and place.

The effect of these gratuitous assumptions persists in spite of disavowals by able commentators and discriminating scholars. Unfortunately the chapter captions of our English Bible, as also marginal references and appendices to the Holy Scriptures, class Mary Magdalene and the woman "which was a sinner" as the same person; but this is an error based on the mistaken opinions of men, and is in no sense scriptural. The confused identity of Mary Magdalene and that other woman has been perpetuated by tradition in the Western or Roman Church, particularly since the fifth century, though it is discountenanced by the Greek Church of the East.

The first mention of Mary Magdalene by name presents her in association with other honorable women, among whom was the wife of the royal steward. They accompanied Jesus and the Twelve and "ministered unto Him of their substance". (Luke 8:1-3).

These women of station were beneficiaries of the Lord's healing power, for each of them had been cured of infirmities, and specifically had been relieved of the combined physical and mental ailments incident to possession by evil spirits. Mary Magdalene, as we read, had been delivered from the affliction of seven devils; but the fact of even such grievous plague is without warrant for the imputation of unchastity.

Mary Magdalene became one of the closest friends Christ had among women. Her devotion to Him as her Healer, and the One whom she adored as the Messiah, was as deep, as genuine, and as pure as her own soul. She stood by the cross while other women looked on from afar in the hour of His mortal agony. She was among the earliest at the tomb in the resurrection dawn. She conversed with angels, and was the first mortal to behold the resurrected Savior—the Lord whom she had loved with all the fervor of spiritual adoration. To say that this woman was once a fallen creature, her soul seared with the heat of unhallowed lust, is to perpetuate an infamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...That is why I feel (just my feeling/opinion) that your argument of him never being married does not stand up.

After reading through the debate regarding the wedding in Cana, I must agree with volgadon. It's obvious by this quote above that you have not read or understood what volgadon is saying.

There is just so much against it. its like the parables of the savior. ye who have eyes let him see, ears that can hear..... his parables were never explicit either, but they taught great things to those who paid attention to the details and circumstance. I feel this is one of them.

It is comically ironic that you would say this Adomini22.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Its nice to hear from you again Maureen.

A.

I did some snooping and it appears you've been away from the forums for a couple years. Probably lurking but not posting till this month. I guess I should really say, nice to finally hear from you Adomini. :)

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize .... "never being married in Cana"

Once again, my mistake. I know Volgadon shares the same belief generally that I do. Whether we agree it was during his mortal ministry or otherwise, is a different item.

Its nice to hear from you again Maureen. A.

The problem for the Master, it had to be done in this mortal state. He could not inherit His glory and be resurrected without it. There is clause here...most would gloss over for the fear of making room for the Savior to be sealed on this earth. It is by example our Master has brought forth this gospel into this world.

It is not needful for the masses to know who and where. What is needful, are we following the Master's footprints left in the 'rock.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is evidence that Christ was married in the scriptures, he provided the wine at the wedding, that was the job of the groom, there are other evidences including Mary being the first to see him. Christ has to follow his own laws or those laws are worthless. Christ was married and I believe to Mary M.

I also think that as Heavenly Father Protects Heavenly Mother, Christ wants to do the same with his wife and family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Jesus being married -- again we don't have scripture that identifies him as being married.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

You people don't know your scriptures worth a crap!

Isaiah 53:3 clearly states that He was "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief."

If that isn't proof positive that the Savior was married, I don't know what is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

You people don't know your scriptures worth a crap!

Isaiah 53:3 clearly states that He was "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief."

If that isn't proof positive that the Savior was married, I don't know what is.

Thanks I got a chuckle out of that one....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share