Mary Magdalenegreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Who was this woman and does she fit into Christian life?
-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.netjj), May 20, 1999
Jean,It's interesting no one is commenting on this. Mary seems to be an important figure, imho. A few thoughts from an exerpt:
*** Mary Magdalene. Her distinguishing name (meaning Of (Belonging to) Magdala) likely stems from the town of Magdala (see MAGADAN) on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee about halfway between Capernaum and Tiberias. There is no record of Jesus ever visiting this town, though he spent a great deal of time in the surrounding area. Nor is it certain that it was Marys hometown or place of residence. Since Luke refers to her as Mary the so-called Magdalene, some think he implies something special or peculiar.Lu 8:2.
Jesus expelled seven demons from Mary Magdalene, reason enough for her to put faith in him as the Messiah and for her to back up such faith with outstanding works of devotion and service. She is first mentioned in the account of Jesus second year of preaching, when he and his apostles were journeying from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the kingdom of God. Together with Joanna the wife of Herods man in charge, Susanna, and other women, Mary Magdalene continued ministering to the needs of Jesus and his apostles out of her own belongings.Lu 8:1-3.
The most prominent notice of Mary Magdalene is in connection with the death and resurrection of Jesus. When Jesus, as the Lamb of God, was led to the slaughter, she was among the women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to minister to him and were viewing from a distance as Jesus hung on the torture stake. In her company were Jesus mother Mary, Salome, and also the other Mary (No. 4).Mt 27:55, 56, 61; Mr 15:40; Joh 19:25.
After Jesus burial, Mary Magdalene and other women went to prepare spices and perfumed oil before the Sabbath began at sundown. Then following the Sabbath, at the break of dawn, on the first day of the week, Mary and the other women brought the perfumed oil to the tomb. (Mt 28:1; Mr 15:47; 16:1, 2; Lu 23:55, 56; 24:1) When Mary saw the tomb was open and apparently empty, she rushed off to tell the startling news to Peter and John, who ran to the tomb. (Joh 20:1-4) By the time Mary got back to the tomb, Peter and John had left, and it was now that she checked inside and was stunned at seeing two angels in white. Then she turned back and saw Jesus standing. Thinking him to be the gardener, she asked where the body was, that she might care for it. When he replied Mary! his identity was immediately revealed to her and she impulsively embraced him, exclaiming, Rab7bo'ni! But there was no time now for expressions of earthly affection. Jesus would be with them only a short time. Mary must hasten to inform the other disciples of his resurrection and that Jesus was ascending, as he said, to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.Joh 20:11-18. ***
Mary must have been very dear to The Christ since she is mentioned in the accounts of the tomb site. Any other notes would be appreciated.
On a side note of interest to me, Jesus here says to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.
Peace,
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), May 22, 1999.
Thank you Jamey for you win the prize being two yes two coupons redeemable at MacDonalds breakfast menu. Joking of course. You are very correct in summation of Mary Magdelane for she was a whore of great reknown in her city. Sleeping with many of the leaders. A beautiful book in whichshe comes into play is the Lat Temptation of Christ ( Russian Author ). The last tempatation offered is arms of a woman.Magdelene was the one who washed Christ feet with tears then oil and dried themwith her feet. She was always at the side of Mary his mother and of course at the crucifixion. It is always of deep statifaction to me Christ appeared first and was acknowledged by a lamb He saved she having the humility to kneel before Him.
She is one of my favourite people in the bible and I pray two a day to her asking to bring forth another child to Christ's loving forgiveness.
Peace And Well Being.
Jean B.
-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag,netj), May 23, 1999.
very interesting post.trying to find an answer i visited the public library the other day and look what i found in THE OXFORD COMPANION TO THE BIBLE.
"Contrary to subsequent Christian interpretation, reflected in popular belief and recent films , there is no evidence from the Gospels that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute or for the later identification of Mary Magdalene with the women who annoint Jesus' feet (Luke 7,36-50; Matt 26,6-13 par.) or with Mary of Bethany (luke 10,38; John 11,1-2."
ENRIQUE
-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), May 23, 1999.
The Oxford Companion is a re-write of English Protestants. Due to Henry v111's breakaway to marry utilizing the "right of kings ". As is very well known in circles of study teh King James Version is rif with errors.Magdelene was a real person who is acknowledged in the Gospels which is no little thing when women were held in low esteem in those days. Try elsewhere for reading perhaps the mystical writngs of Katherine Emmerich.
Jean B.
-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.iamg.net), May 23, 1999.
jean:your name and family name are french, so you'll have no difficulty in reading the quote i'm giving from LA BIBLE DE JERUSALEM, translated and commented by the best catholic biblical scholars:
footnotes to Luke 8,36 and foll.
"b) Episode propre a Luc, different de l'onction de Bethanie, Mt 26,6-13. c) Selon toute probabilite, ce n'est pas Marie de Magdala,8,2 moins encore Marie, soeur de Marthe."
tes apportations a ce forum sont tres interessants et nous aident a trouver la verite. continue avec le bon travail.
pardonne les erreurs. le francais n'est pas ma langue maternelle, l'anglais non plus.
ENRIQUE
-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), May 24, 1999.
To me, Mary and the Apostle Paul are two of the best examples of God's unconditional love and redemptive power as well as being an example of how we should respond to God . . . she loved much because she was forgiven much . . .
-- David (David@matt6:33.com), May 24, 1999.
I do not speak or write french being educcated in English schools Ursuline/Franciscan/Basilian. I do agree with David on the redemptive power of Christ with both Magdelene and Paul. Most beautifully expressed.Jean B.
-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 24, 1999.
jean: there must be a translation of LA BIBLE DE JERUSALEM in english, so that you could look up the passage i pointed out.i'll be interested in your comments.
ENRIQUE
-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), May 25, 1999.
Hello all. I stumbled upon this site in search for information on Mary Magdelene. I found what I needed here and a few other sites. You see,I'm about to make my Confirmation and ever since 3rd grade, have had a fascination with this saint. I've done projects and reports on her since being in a Catholic school, it was hard to avoid them. Now, as I am on my way to becoming a young adult, I will make my 4th sacrament in May. I'm a little nervous but I'm sure I will be fine. To get to my point, I need a little bit more of an insight to Mary. If she is to be part of my name I think I should atleast get a bit of a feel of how she worked. If anyone can help me,I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Morgan MarieI understand that this sort of information may not be available, but if any opinions could be submitted,I'd be thankful.
-- Morgan Marie (DreamAngel0207@aol.com), November 18, 2000.
Hey, MMMM (Morgan Marie Mary Magdalen) ... try here.SN
-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), November 18, 2000.
Dear young lady,
I had to wonder why this old message dating back almost a year should now reappear. Then I see your new question pop up, showing your good motivation (coming confirmation) and a loving curiosity about Saint Mary Magdalene.But I also had a shock reading the recommendations of one Jean Bouchard; and they are of absolutely no good to anyone, least of all an impressionable young girl. Try not to give his words any attention at all. They are not healthy nor are they trustworthy in the least.
Mary Magdalene is, in fact scripturally identified with a woman that was an adulterous and fallen woman. It is not necessary nor respectful to use ''whore'' as her description, nor to dwell on the uncleanness of her sins. Our Lord did not do so. The gospel itself doesn't either. She has reached sainthood, and we owe her all the respect and honor given a saint. You, particularly; because she is your patroness.
Do not-- absolutely dont't read the blasphemous novel Last Temptation of Christ. It is condemned as blasphemous and impure by the Catholic Church. It says many things counter to the revealed word of God. No book could be worse than it for learning the truth about Saint Mary Magdalene, and the book is lower yet for blaspheming the Son of God.
I would recommend the scriptures to you; and the books of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, German mystic and stigmatist of the 19th century. She was shown many visions of the life of Our Lord; and in these many things about Magdalene are illustrated in a quite beautiful way. You'll find the story rewarding in every way, especially at confirmation time; when God's grace is given to you in greatest abundance and love. Remember to pray for me, if you have a moment at the reception of this sacrament. I will appreciate that immensely! Ciao!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 20, 2000.
Can one of you Catholics please, please, give the scripture that uses the name magdalene in relation to any mary who was a sinner.Dare you!
Les Cevaliers du le Magdalena Notre Dame
-- Peter Rohr (dupisha@hotmail.com), November 20, 2000.
You are so right, PR.St. Mary Magdalene, one of the greatest of all saints (because of her faithfulness at the foot of the cross), is mentioned in all four gospel accounts. She is mentioned in a neutral or good light in every single passage in which she is named, except (arguably) this one from Mark 16:9 -- "Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons." We have no idea (from scripture) whether or not she was an innocent victim of demonic oppression or if she was at one time an evil person who welcomed the devils to possess her.
But what about what EC stated, to which you object, I believe? -- "Mary Magdalene is, in fact scripturally identified with a woman that was an adulterous and fallen woman." In fact, she is not so "scripturally identified." At best, we could say that she is so "traditionally identified," but definitely not by unanimous tradition. Here is what the CE tells us about this:
"The Greek Fathers, as a whole, distinguish the three [separate] persons:
the "sinner" of Luke 7:36-50; [this woman, who weeps and anoints Christ's feet, is not called a harlot, whore, prostitute, or adulterer]
the sister of Martha and Lazarus [of Bethany], Luke 10:38-42 and John 11 [always portrayed in a good light]; and
Mary Magdalen.
On the other hand most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same.I'm not going to take sides publicly!
SN
-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), November 20, 2000.
The subject of our discussion is a saint. Our opinions are purely subjective, and I for one have nothing but reverence and respect for Saint Mary Magdalene. If my post is in error, let it err in favor of her, and contrary to those who care to soil her name. Just because I didn't quote chapter and verse does not mean she was not the public sinner that the Pharisees reputed her to be in Christ's presence. He did what all of us know; accepted her humility and love, and exonerated her in the face of His enemies. No wonder that afterward she loved Him to complete distraction. And I'm not suggesting an erotic love, but love for her Savior.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 20, 2000.
Thank you all for responding so kindly to my emotive posting.Might i add here a historical observation. At the time of these events, especially in Jewish communities, it was considered a heavy sin for a woman to touch a man or to kiss him in public. Even more so if that man was a Rabbi and a messianic prospect to many who followed him.
The behaviour you observe of Mary cannot be equated to our modern lifestyle. This behaviour would have had her stoned if she wasen't his wife.
Peter Rohr.
-- Peter Rohr (dupisha@hotmail.com), November 21, 2000.
Dear Peter Rohr, --I'm curious about how you learned this aspect of the story. The gospels are relatively silent in the matter.I'm not a scholar, biblical least of all. But I've read many books on Catholic subjects, and probably the very best Life of Christ. That's my opinion, and I think it's correct. Let me say why.
The French author Henri-Daniel Rops gave us ''Jesus And His Times'' which I've read twice in English translation. As a sign of the immense importance of his work, he was knighted by Pope Pius XII.
In this book is a fine appreciation of the gospel story of Mary Magdalen. The other source I noted here is the account of a visionary, Anne Catherine Emmerich. Many will dismiss it as non-scriptural. But I still recommend it; why shouldn't I? It's a religious work esteemed by most of the last (19th) century's best religious scholars. It happens to be also the work of one of Germany's very greatest poets, Clemens Brentano; who was Emmerich's faithful secretary and amenuensis. To read an account of these visions, with their astounding power of description-- and see Mary Magdalen as Anne Catherine saw her, will convince anyone she was a true saint. Because of her great love for Jesus.
So, if we ourselves love Him, how much more is it to our credit. He said it Himself: ''Blessed are they who seeing, believe. More blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe.''
-- eugene c. Chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 21, 2000.
Mousier Chavez,My previous post was not actually taken from any story, myth or vision. The statement applies to any interpretation of the bible using modern imagery. At thae time of Jesus the world was so different from today. The only place we see this life today is in the extreme rules of Hacedic Jews and islamists. Here we see the strict rules applied by living under the law of Moses.
Any interpretation of biblical text must tke into account the historical facts. Once more i state that the Magdelene was not a woman of sin, she was his wife. other wise she would have been stoned.
Peter Rohr.
-- Peter Rohr (dupisha@hotmail.com), November 22, 2000.
Dear Peter, --I shouldn't wish to argue that point with you. Now and then we get an off-the-wall statement like this, the best answer is : FORGET IT.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 22, 2000.
ECC,You are a good guy. I don't want us to have any conflict. I am just writing again to make sure you understand the point I was making. (My impression is that I did not communicate it well to you.) You replied in part by saying, "Just because I didn't quote chapter and verse does not mean she was not the public sinner that the Pharisees reputed her to be in Christ's presence."
The point I was trying to make (and you can check up on me by going to the Bible) is that the "public sinner" is not given a name in Scripture -- neither during the event with the Pharisees nor in any other passage. Mary Magdalen is never called a "sinner" in the Bible. The equating of Mary Magdalen with the "sinner" (and even sometimes with Mary of Bethany) is done within some unofficial, post-biblical Western Christian traditions and in one or more private revelations. These beliefs/revelations may indeed be accurate, and you are welcome to hold to them! But the unofficial Eastern Christian traditions do NOT equate the two (or three) women, maintaining that they are separate women. Each of us is welcome to hold to the Eastern way instead, because it may be accurate. We just cannot know for sure in this life, unless we personally receive a private revelation.
SN
-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), November 22, 2000.
OK, SN--
As you might guess, I'm familiar with the various versions of Magdalen types. When I take the one *popularly accepted* as the real Magdalen, the woman that washes Jesus' feet with her tears and dries them with her hair, I rely on a stereotype. There's no name given for this woman. The early Fathers and many others thought she could also be identified with that other woman, an adultress which was about to be stoned, until Jesus confronted her tormenters. It is traditional. Whether it is the same Mary who was the sister of Lazarus and Martha is questionable, but some have insisted it is. I have real doubts. Now I see I have to go back and read the accounts once more, and try to make up my mind, if I can.We have no reason to doubt one thing: her love for Our Lord came from the soul. When she stood at the foot of the cross she was to all purposes already a saint; worthy of our emulation and praise.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 22, 2000.
ECC,
amen.
SN
-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), November 23, 2000.
You should check the following page www.belovedisciple.org In this page a very logical and well based explanation is made as to why it is very possible that Mary Magdelene was the author of John the fourth gospel and as such the beloved disciple that was referred to. It is well known that historians say that the fourth gospel was not authored by John. I personnally have always believed that the author was a person very close to Jesus. Its beauty compared to the other gospels stands out. But from what I've read it almost was not included in the Canon for its high content gnostico and also possible female author, it was only accepted with changes.
-- William L. Kramer (kramer_jerez@yahoo.com), April 25, 2001.
In light of the pronouncements by Vatican Council II on scriptural studies, Mary Magdalene, that is from Magdala, or Migdal, a village on the west coast of the Lake of Gennesaret, and out from whom Jesus drove out seven demons, was one of the women who accompanied Jesus to provide for his needs in his ministry(Lk. 8:2). "To drive out seven devils" signified that she suffered some sort of mental illness. But her most significant role, the discovery of the empty tomb is described in detail by John 20:1-18, and all the synoptic gospels, which earned for her the title of : "First Apostle", for when she saw that the stone which had closed the tomb had been rolled away, she ran to announce this to Simon Peter, and to the disciple whom Jesus loved, and all together they went to the tomb to verify it.Mary stayed on at the tomb weeping when a person, whom she mistook for a gardener, addressed her. Whereupon she recognized him and called him "Rabboni", or teacher. Jesus then told her not to cling to him but to announce his resurrection to the brethren. Mary Magdalene is frequently identified but without any reason, with the woman who wept at Jesus' feet in the house of Simon(Lk.7:36-42), with the woman who was a sinner in the city, and even with Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus. There is no mention of her being as such in the Bible, and she should be acknowledged as previously mentioned, the distinct title of "First Apostle", for her important role in the resurrection.
-- Cristina G.Santos (gingsantos@yahoo.com), June 28, 2001.
JmjHello, Cristina.
I liked your post very much. There was only one thing you mentioned with which I would disagree. You stated:
"'To drive out seven devils' signified that she suffered some sort of mental illness."I don't believe that the Bible tells us this, and I don't believe that the Catholic Magisterium (teaching authority of pope and bishops) tells us this. Rather, I believe that it is an extremely recent opinion of some theologians -- possibly men and women who are reluctant to believe that there is such a thing as a "devil" and/or who want to "modernize" the gospel accounts of diabolical possession and exorcism to fit with today's psychoanalysis.
Traditionally, the reference to Mary Magdalene's seven demons has been interpreted as referring to either:
(1) seven actual demonic (evil) spirits who inhabited her body, or
(2) her thorough self-dedication to a life of sin.
The former interpretation is based on the literal words, while the latter interpretation is based on the symbolism of the number seven -- which indicated "fullness" or "thoroughness."God bless you.
John
-- (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), July 04, 2001.
Jean, With regard to your original question about Mary Magdelene, have you ever read the book "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by Laurence Gardner?You may not agree with the findings, but you may find it to be of answer to your query.
Peter
-- Peter (purplesky@hotmail.com), August 09, 2001.
Mary Magdelene?Isn't that Joe Magdelenes young one?
-- Lamb (double98@mail.com), February 12, 2002.
The reality is something you mainstream Christians can't seem to connect with. Magdalene is crucial in demonstrating Christ's humanity, showing him to be so much more than the people around him. Sacrafice is so much more meaningful when you actually have something to relinquish, right? Or is that idea beyond you all? Gutting all the humanity from the Temptation and the Passion seems to me to be more of a Sin. Denial of the World around you can give it just that much more power over you.
-- Troy (vklaatu1@yahoo.com), November 20, 2002.
Dear Troy:
This is an old, old thread. You came back on it for some better purpose than just to camp on ''mainstream Christians'', I would think. Make a point; what has Mary Magdalene to do with your defiant posturing?
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 20, 2002.
Recently I read a book about this very thing. Although it was fictional in the baseline story, it had very real and factual accounts of Mary Magdeline, and her relationship to Christ. I find it interesting the many interpretations of scripture are an endless wonder, and continue to ravage our thoughts and beliefs today, as in the days of King James and other noteworthy editors. I would encourage all to read this book, The Da Vinci Code, to gain insight of truths shared by all sects, religions, and societies.
-- seeker (wrcritch@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.
Hi Seeker.This discussion: Dismantling the Da Vinci Code may prove interesting or, at least, give you another view of that book.
rod..
..
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2003.
Has anyone heard of the Gospel of Mary (Magdelene)? There was a document found which has been described as such. Further,it seems that there is evidence now that Mary was more than just "a woman" who followed Christ. Some writings describe Christ as having Kissed her on the mouth. While I'll not say this was for sexual intent or pleasure, if true it would indicate that she certainly was more than just a follower. Some believe that she was at least equal to Peter in position among the followers. Evidence suggests that she has met all of the "requirements" of those who were considered apostles. As for being "Saint Mary", I'm not sure. I'm guessing some human someplace has given her that title. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with stepping into the divine position of placing dead people into deity status.
-- Dennis (Dennis05701@yahoo.com), October 02, 2003.
The so-called "Gospel of Mary" is one of about two dozen assorted "gospels" which were rejected, along with over a hundred epistles, from inclusion in the Canon of Scripture. Since none of these apocryphal works carry any mark of authority, it really doesn't matter what kinds of fanciful accounts they may contain about Mary Magdalene, Joseph, the childhood of Jesus, or any other subject. You seem unable to distinguish between "evidence" and the mere mention of an idea by some unknown writer. Nothing that is presented in any of these works can stand as "evidence" of anything. The scriptures make it clear that no-one was equal to Peter in status. Peter alone held the keys to the kingdom. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that Mary Magdalene had any official status in the early Church at all. The canonization of saints does not elevate them beyond human status. It simply indicates where a particular human now resides.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 02, 2003.
hi seeker what a coincidence, i have just finished The Da Vinci Code and find its content intresting and very plausable though i suspect some people would dismiss such theories out of hand. jude
-- J FRANK (jude62@hotmail.com), October 11, 2003.
If you didn't dismiss the theories, you have a terminal case of dashed brain. Get medical attention immediately. Don't be too alarmed; nothing any worse can happen to you now. It's over for you. Ha ha!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 11, 2003.
I don't know if this is correct or not....but I've been searching all night to verify it and still can't. If anyone knows of a site or something else that will help verify let me know. I have heard that Pope John Paul II has officially announced that Mary Magdelene was not a prostitute and that it was a mistake made in 4 or 500 AD by a bishop. He marked her on a list of sinful women "accidentally". I apologize for spelling errors....I am very tired. Please verify this someone, since this has a big impact on this discussion. -T
-- Thomas Rodriguez (molecule2000@yahoo.com), October 11, 2003.
Hey seeker and JFRANK, I too just read The DaVinci Code and, quite honestly, am fascinated at the prospects of learning ... oh, THE TRUTH! I realize that in this life, chances are we will never find that out and debates will always abound. However, this book has prompted my interest and is the reason I am researching Mary Magdelene (as well as Leonardo DaVinci). I see everyone here trying to quote the exact words from scripture to determine what is fact. Personally, I think one has to do more research, such as the times they lived in and the traditions and customs of the period to help make certain determinations. Scripture was written hundreds of years after the fact, was it not? To paraphrase a memorable line from The DaVinci Code - "The Scriptures weren't faxed down from heaven - they were written by (wo)men."
-- mjt (michael@larsentrucks.com), October 13, 2003.
I've never contributed anything religious before and I'm quite unfamiliar with the Bible because I'm Jewish and also agnostic, however, I too have just finished "The Da Vinci Code" which I thought was an unbelievable book and offers substantial evidence that Mary Magdalene was neither a prostitute nor simply the housemaid to Jesus and his 12 Apostles. Her presence in the portrait of "The Last Supper" by Da Vinci suggests that she was in fact married to Jesus. (Buy a poster or click the link below and look very closely to the left of Jesus, clearly a woman). Also her portrayal as a prostitute is completely false considering her high ranking within the House of Benjamin which gives her royal status. It also remains unlikely that Jesus would remain a bachelor since Jesus was a Jew. Bachelorhood and celibacy where highly discouraged within the Jewish faith at that time. The Church had no choice but to tarnish Mary Magdalene's character as a sinner in the Bible because her marriage to Jesus would have undermined their claim to Jesus' holy divinity. She also threatened the church since it was Jesus' intention to bequeath the teachings of Christ to Mary Magdalene rather than to his apostles. Magdalene was then banished from the Holy Land and took refuge within a Jewish community in France where her Royal status was highly recognized. She did NOT live in a cave! It was also rumored that upon the Crucifixion of Jesus she was pregnant with his child. When she arrived in France with family and close friends she was accompanied with a small child, Sara the Egyptian, likely the daughter of Mary and Jesus. Their is very powerful evidence that suggests that their still remains a royal bloodline traced back to Jesus and Mary Magdalene since royal blood is well documented. I highly suggest picking up this book, I found it absolutely fascinating. I understand my entry will likely upset most Bible fundamentalists, but it cannot be ignored that Church has rewritten history to support its position as being the only window threw which to reach Holy divinity. I am sorry to say but the Bible is no different than any other text written throughout time and you shouldn't always believe everything your read!"The Last Supper" (Click the Image Viewer) http://www.artchive.com/artchive/L/leonardo/lastsupp.jpg.html
-- MM (maxmulcahy@yahoo.com), October 13, 2003.
Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene MM? I don't know.Only a Gospel from before the 3rd century not in the Bible mentions that Jesus used to kiss her a lot in the mouth.
What I do know is that my family on my gradfather's side , the father of my mother, originated from Lyons, France, a region close to Marseille, the place where mary Magdalene is said to have lived after living the holy Land. It is rumoured my ancestors were Jews who joined the Waldensian Church around the 12th century. The Church was uprooted by the famous "saint" Domingo Guzman(Saint Dominic) who led a crusade not only against the Waldensians but the Cathars.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 13, 2003.
Hi MM.I know of a book that says Jesus was the Messiah and is scheduled for a second visit.
Fundamentalists get bent out of shape when you pin them down and count to three. Throw historical facts and tradition, fundamentalists go into fits and tantrums. Say that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, Christians get fire-y and stuff. Catholics (Christians) will more than likely set you straight.
Elpidio-
I once asked a question in a Jewish forum; I got kicked-out before I could press the 'return' key on my question. The question dealt with the name Rodriguez in relation to any Jewish family tree. That particular forum was very closed to any non-Jewish person(s). As far as I can tell, my family tree is deeply planted in Catholicism.
rod..
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 13, 2003.
Rodriguez comes from the word Rodrigo. This was the name of the last Visogoth King of Spain who was overthrown by the muslim invasion from Northafrica, the famous Moros.Rodrigo's people , the Visogoths,were Christian Arrians(their first Christian faith) from 360 AD to about 640 AD. Recaredo, one of his ancestors chose to convert to Catholicism. So Rodrigo was born a Catholic.
-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 13, 2003.
Over the last months I've become fond of Rod. Because he's a friend to us, not offended easily, and seems to love God.We need to do a lot more work together, Rod. It's going to be worth it for you, Jesus has loved you, I'm certain.
My good wife is a Rodriguez. Her parents are from Chihuahua; up in the mountains. They lived there up until the Revolucion. Then they came to Tucson Arizona, later San Diego, CA. More devout Catholics never lived than these.
My ancestors are Spanish settlers along the Rio Grande valley, circa 1609! Now we see why the Catholic strain lives? I know Rod shares in that heritage. Gonsalez needs the pull from above to bring him back to the Church of his fathers. They weren't fools. They didn't buy a pig in a poke. Nobody but the faithful can explain it. We have the real goods! Elpidio was carried there; lost his way; comes back there as his gas runs out? Sure! He has a lot of answers at this time. In a while he'll start asking questions. Then God will give Elpidio the straight scoop. Never too late.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 13, 2003.
Hi Eugene and Elpidio.Thanks for your replies. I've always believed that the first Thanksgiving Day in our continent was celebrated by the Spaniards: priest, conquistadores, and natives of the Rio Grande area. Yes, my email address is a play on the "Rodrigo" meaning. It has changed to mean "God is with me". I am fortunate to be involved with true believers.
Now, if I can get myself re-rooted in my Catholic Church, I would have it made. That would be a "dream", Elpidio.
rod
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.
MM I too just read this book, and I found it intriguing until he had the character make the statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls did not support the gospel story. That would be hard to do since they were written before the events occurred. So, strictly speaking, they didn't support the story, but the implication was most misleading. I found it hard to swallow the rest of it, especially since I, relatively uneducated about most of what was in the book, knew enough to spot the error. I don't find it hard to believe that there's lots that occurred in Jesus' life that we know nothing about, but I can see (from reading at sites that have the translated "Gospel of Mary") the gnostic teachings, which run counter to my belief about the divinity of Jesus. It doesn't matter to me if he was married or had children...that would not change who he was...though I don't see how he would have had time to do so, and it does seem bizarre. My concern is that if this book is all you read, you will have a skewed picture of Jesus' life and work. And the power of fiction is not to be denied. Diane
-- Diane Sekeres (dsekeres@earthlink.net), October 16, 2003.
Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, and you won't find anywhere in the bible that she was.
-- Maiyah (ayamonhu@yahoo.com), November 02, 2003.
mairaygaha,dont be ignorant, the Bible is NOT the only source of historical information.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 02, 2003.
If the legends of the bloodline of the "sang raal" are true, then we must ask if there is any evidence of a child born of Jesus and Mary. What child of the union of Mary Magdalene and Jesus might have survived in Western Europe to be the eventual ancestress of the Frankish kings. Where is there a child mentioned in the legends of Mary Magdalen? And this quest brings us back to the adolescent girl on the boat, whose name Sarah means "Princess" in Hebrew. Might she not have been the forgotten child of the "sang raal"--the blood royal of Israel's kings? Her age is right. In 42 A.D. she was described as "adolescent"--between 9 and 12 years old. But her face is dark in legend and tradition. She is called "Sarah the Egyptian." How can she be the daughter of Mary Magdalene?My own (I admit highly speculative!) view is that this child was born after the Crucifixion of Jesus, probably in Egypt where the friend of Jesus would have taken Mary Magdalene to ensure her safety and that of her child in the aftermath of the turmoil in Jerusalem following the news of the resurrection of the crucified King. Possibly they returned briefly to Jerusalem in the interim years and were reunited with Lazarus and Martha, the brother and sister of Mary, and with other close family and friends. Then, according to the legend, faced with severe prosecutions, probably those of Saul/Paul, they boarded a small boat and fled across the sea to the relative safety of Gaul.
So the child called "Sarah" might very well have been the "little lost princess" of western fairytale, who is eventually found and united with the handsome prince. In the book of Lamentations (4:8) we encounter an interesting passage that describes the plight of the royal princes of the house of Judah, the lineage of the Davidic kings: "their faces, once white as milk, are now black as soot. They are not recognized in the streets." Might this passage be reflected in the dark visage of the saint called "Sarah the Egyptian." I believe her darkness is a symbolic reference to her royal bloodline, the "sangraal," the decendents of Christ and MM.
-- Harry R. (pksharry@yahoo.com), December 05, 2003.
Hi, ElipidoOn Oct/13 in this thread, you said"...that Jesus used to kiss her [a lot] in the mouth.."
How can you talk of God like this? You talk of God like He is just some swinger in Canada.
You do understand that Jesus is your God don't you sir? What does "a lot" mean?
-- - (David@excite.com), December 05, 2003.
Dear Harry R,
You admit all you're saying is highly speculative.That means none of this is revealed. We believe only those things God revealed to the world in His divine Son. No speculation or ''bzz bzzz'' is allowed about the Holy One of God. ''Sang raal'' is a myth. Let us warn you, this intention to ''believe her darkness is reference to her royal bloodline the sangraal, the decendents of Christ and MM.'' --You are in abject and heretical error, and have nothing whatever to do with Jesus Christ or even with God Almighty. You actually leave yourself liable to eternal damnation. I suggest you repent of these evil thoughts.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 05, 2003.
An am a student beginning a study of Christianity. I have heard much about Mary Magdalene and yet have not been given the places to read about her being the whore that many have discussed. Would anyone be so kind to point out the passage(s) that spell this out explicitly.Regards, Abe
-- Abraxas (420_vi@excite.com), January 31, 2004.
Abe,
Today most Roman Catholic biblical scholars do not identify her with the prostitute. It was a belief held in the Latin Church from about the 6th century to our own. For the arguement for her being the prostitute in scriptures, look here. Again, most Catholic biblical scholars today do not identify her with the prostitute mentioned in scriptures.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.
Don't understand why people take bible writings literally.Subjective interpretation by "scholars" is exactly that,an interpretation.Those who write foreign texts into thier own language are subject to great disparities,especially texts in languages that wer lost in time or were altered through the centuries.All of these fallibilites don't take in account the prejudices and omissions and imagination of the authors of past writings.
-- eugene bukowski (kniman50@aol.com), February 19, 2004.
Most of the responses to MM are from the head, not the heart. Open your heart, not your mind. I hope Jesus said that because it sounded real good in a movie I saw.
-- Edmond with an 'o' (islesvaroo@aol.com), March 02, 2004.
Jesus did not say 'Open your heart, not your mind'. Catholic teaching is to open your heart and your mind. Finding God takes a full commitment. Opening your heart only can lead you astray very easily. That is how cults entrap their converts.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 02, 2004.
I saw a quote the other day:"All saints have a past. All sinners have a future."
I think this quote is interesting in view of this topic..Mary Magdalene. Jesus forgave her and told her to go and sin no more and she didn't.
Also, The DaVinci Code is fiction. The Bible is God-inspired.
Was Martha her sister? I didn't realize that. The name Mary was a common name at that time and I get a little confused with this.
The
-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), March 02, 2004.
All saints have a wonderful future as well as a past!We know next to nothing about Mary Magdalene, but that doesn't stop people from speculating
.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 02, 2004.
Yes, yes, the heart on a solo mission is dangerous to the true believer.I feel an inquisition coming on, soon.
-- Edmond with an 'o' (islesvaroo@aol.com), March 04, 2004.
I stumbled across this site looking for a little more info about a possible account of the gospel according to Mary Magdeline. With the exception of a very few responses that I read here. I believe that there should be some self-evaluations of whether or not there really is a Heaven and Hell and which one you may be heading for. If you really beleive that you are going to heaven, it can only be through the blood of Jesus. Jesus himself said that He is the only way to the Father. Check this out, (St.John 1:1 says In the begining was The word and the word was with God and the word was God. Then verse 14 says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. So That would make "The Word" and "Jesus" One in the same. Which makes the Word "Divine Truth". O.K. 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture was given by inpiration of the Holy Spirit". Do you really think it not possible for God, who created the Heavens and the earth with one word, Is not capable Of putting the bible together by the Holy Spitit exactly the way He wanted it ( Not to mention, for it to be Kept together the way He wanted it). Now, In the New Testiment (or oterwise in the Word) you don't read anything about Jesus being married or having children. If you are Really SAVED you would Know that you are a part of the "Bride" of Christ. Revelation 22:17In Jesus Christ Dana
-- dkw (dwbeautiful@cafes.net), March 09, 2004.
"I believe that there should be some self-evaluations of whether or not there really is a Heaven and Hell"A: Self-evaluations? The Word of God isn't sufficient evidence?
"If you really beleive that you are going to heaven, it can only be through the blood of Jesus. Jesus himself said that He is the only way to the Father"
A: No kidding! You only know this because you read it in a Catholic book.
"Do you really think it not possible for God, who created the Heavens and the earth with one word, Is not capable Of putting the bible together by the Holy Spitit exactly the way He wanted it"
A: Dana, Catholics are fully assured that God, working through a Council of Catholic bishops at the end of the 4th century, did indeed put together the Bible EXACTLY as He wanted it. Why then did the founder of your tradition remove 7 of those inspired books, try to remove 3 others, and add words to the part of the text he didn't throw out?
"In the New Testiment (or oterwise in the Word) you don't read anything about Jesus being married or having children."
A: That certainly is true! ... and?? ....
"If you are Really SAVED you would Know that you are a part of the "Bride" of Christ"
A: The Holy Catholic Church, the one Church founded by Christ for all mankind, is indeed His Bride. His only Bride. If you read and understood the Bible you would know that no-one still breathing is already "saved", since salvation happens only after we are faithful to the END. (Matthew 24:13; Mark 13:13).
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 09, 2004.
i believe that the name mary (is possibly a hebrew adaption of the name mari from the egyptian name) i also believe that this name has a meaning other than just the traditional name. it features many times in the full-length names of pharoes wives/ egyptian royal geneology and throughout the old and new testaments. i think the name has in some way a connection to meaning 'the carrier of the heir' - ie the one who is the mother of the heir. therfeore if she was a 'mary', she was the mother of the heir. if this is the case, this means she was possibly married to jesus (it was and still is natural for a rabbi to marry) could she have been pregnant with his son? if so, then she was rightfully considered to be the mary and this brings her importance in this story to totally new level. however, the mary was obviously hated by peter. apparently he was appalled to see jesus kissing her on the lips. was peter perhaps gay? as we know, he said he loved jesus too. after jesus' death, he saw his opportunity to write her out of the story and i am sure if he had his way, she would never have even been mentioned in this saga at all, but with her being so important to this royal story, he couldnt do this so easily. she was too well known. so he did the next best thing, he dirtied her image by claiming she was a prostitute.
-- mark reeder (markreederflesh@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.
Mark, You have quite an imagination. If you want to know the history read: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.
i believe that the name mary (is possibly a hebrew adaption of the name mari from the egyptian name){Miriam is a Hebrew name, and doesnt stem form any Egyprian source, we anglicanise it to Mary.}-Zarove
i also believe that this name has a meaning other than just the traditional name. it features many times in the full-length names of pharoes wives/ egyptian royal geneology and throughout the old and new testaments.
{Not relaly... see above.}-Zarove
i think the name has in some way a connection to meaning 'the carrier of the heir' - ie the one who is the mother of the heir.
{Not accordign to my dictionaty. Mary means Bitter, or rbellion. It also means wished for. }-Zarove
therfeore if she was a 'mary', she was the mother of the heir.
{See above.}-Zarove
if this is the case, this means she was possibly married to jesus (it was and still is natural for a rabbi to marry) could she have been pregnant with his son?
{Could have, but realy no proof. You amke no real attemtp at providing a reason for beleivign this. I can just as easily surmise Jesus was married to a girl named Susanna.}-Zarove
if so, then she was rightfully considered to be the mary and this brings her importance in this story to totally new level.
{Not realy, as all it owiudl mean was that he and she where arried.}- Zarove
however, the mary was obviously hated by peter.
{How so? I se no referene in the scriptures for this "Obvious" hatred.}-Zarove
apparently he was appalled to see jesus kissing her on the lips.
{At leats accordin to the Gospel of Philip, which is a Gnostic forgery designed to support their teahcigns written not by Philip, but two centiries after hsi death.}-Zarove
was peter perhaps gay?
{Probabely not. }-Zarove
as we know, he said he loved jesus too.
{Ah, Love=Sex. Srry, you have lived too long in his souless society. Love to us may be purely sexual, but lvoe to the firts century was nto so exclusive.}-Zarove
after jesus' death, he saw his opportunity to write her out of the story and i am sure if he had his way, she would never have even been mentioned in this saga at all, but with her being so important to this royal story, he couldnt do this so easily. she was too well known. so he did the next best thing, he dirtied her image by claiming she was a prostitute.
{When? Peter didn't write any of the Gospels, Mathew, Maerk, Luke, and John did.On neither of the epistles Peter write did he claim she was a protsitute.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.
clarifications for Mark and Zarove:1) Mary does not mean mother of the heir. Nor is there a son of the Son of God. If mary magdalene was too important to leave out, dont you think Jesus' children would be in it too?
2) Rabbis do, and did get married. you are correct. however, rabbinic judaism did not exist in Jesus' time, so it is impossible that Jesus was a rabbi. Instead the priestly and pharisee traditions existed. Jesus would have been more like a prophet of the jewish faith, except for the fact that He was God.
3) Peter did not write the gospels. Nor did Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John. In fact, the gospels were written between 20 and 70 years after Jesus died. Also, Mark and Luke worked with the apostle paul, and never met Jesus in person. All four of the names were psuedonyms. Peter, never having written the gospels, would NOT have had the ability to write mary magdalene out.
I suggest people put the copies of da vinci code down. in the trash would be preferable.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 13, 2004.
Can one of you Catholics please, please, give the scripture that uses the name magdalene in relation to any mary who was a sinner. (copied from above).Would one of you protestants please, please, remember that we Catholics make use of Sacred Tradition also. There is a great book about Mary Magdalene, but I can't remember the author. It details tradition of her life in France. By the way, it is not "The DaVinci Code". When I find the name I'll pass it along.
-- Mark Advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), April 13, 2004.
Mark,
Again, read the Catholic Encyclopedia reference. You will see there is no biblical referece that calls her by name and says she was a sinner. On the other hand, tradition holds her to be the "sinner" of Luke 7:36-50.-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.
Mark and Luke both identify Mary Magdalene as the one from whom Jesus had expelled seven demons. Presumably one under the control or influence of seven demons is not living a particularly holy or moral life.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 13, 2004.
Clarification on my own. I never said That mary M was married ot Jesus, only that if she where it woudl only eman they where married and not much else. I never said Mary meant Mother of the heir or whatever, I said it meant Bitter, or rebellion, or wished for. I acknpwledged Peter was not the author of the Gosples. ------------------------------------------------------------------- clarifications for Mark and Zarove: 1) Mary does not mean mother of the heir. Nor is there a son of the Son of God. If mary magdalene was too important to leave out, dont you think Jesus' children would be in it too?2) Rabbis do, and did get married. you are correct. however, rabbinic judaism did not exist in Jesus' time, so it is impossible that Jesus was a rabbi. Instead the priestly and pharisee traditions existed. Jesus would have been more like a prophet of the jewish faith, except for the fact that He was God.
3) Peter did not write the gospels. Nor did Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John. In fact, the gospels were written between 20 and 70 years after Jesus died. Also, Mark and Luke worked with the apostle paul, and never met Jesus in person. All four of the names were psuedonyms. Peter, never having written the gospels, would NOT have had the ability to write mary magdalene out.
I suggest people put the copies of da vinci code down. in the trash would be preferable.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.
Again, read the Catholic Encyclopedia reference. You will see there is no biblical referece that calls her by name and says she was a sinner. On the other hand, tradition holds her to be the "sinner" of Luke 7:36-50. -billHi Bill- Maybe I misunderstood the question, assuming it was from a "sola scriptura" point of view. Respectfully, Mark
-- Mark Advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), April 13, 2004.