| Aug 2 @ 5:59 PM |
Mary Magdalene
|
|
LaughTillYaPuke
Posts: 1,822
|
What are your views and/or beliefs on this biblical figure.
I think this could be a very interesting topic for discussion.
|
|
  |
|
| Aug 2 @ 6:13 PM |
Mary Magdalene |
|
asnet
Posts: 29
|
..hot stuff!!!
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 6:39 PM |
Mary Magdalene
|
|
uncrazy
Posts: 1,489
|
Essene monastic, moving later to anti-Rome Magian Zealote position.
Created the hieros gamos drama with Jesus.
And much more, derided by the church, redeemed in the 60's even though the bible says Jesus forgave her sins 2000 years ago.
[Edited on 8/2/2008 6:51 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 7:04 PM |
Mary Magdalene |
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 8,496
|
The interesting thing about Mary Magdalene is her closeness to Jesus and how christians try to minimize her influence on his life.
Mary was a leader of a Gnostic sect and there are theories that Mary was the disciple that Jesus loved and the author of the Gospel of John.
She was also the first person that Jesus revealed himself to after his resurrection. Obviously Mary was special to Jesus.
Here are two links to information about Mary Magdalene:
Mary Magdalene and the Disciple Jesus Loved
Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel?
Mary was even a major character in the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Da Vinci Code". Both books provide interesting information about Jesus and Mary's relationship.
Peace
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 7:31 PM |
Mary Magdalene
|
|
LaughTillYaPuke
Posts: 1,822
|
I have read the Da Vinci code and find her a facinating topic. It is one of those things that I have not studied but would be interested in getting other peoples information and opinions.
Thanks for the links! 
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 7:56 PM |
Mary Magdalene |
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 8,496
|
Puke,
If you found MM to be facinating in the "Da Vinci Code", you should read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".
The "Da Vinci Code" is a novel based on the findings reported in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which is a nonfiction book. I found "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" to be a much better book.
Peace
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 10:07 PM |
Mary Magdalene
|
|
j_goose
Posts: 1,951
|
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
There are hints in the New Testament that Jesus had a very close loving relationship with Mary Magdalene which might have included sexually activity. Some theologians believe that the two were married.
John 20:1 states that she was the first person who, alone, visited the cave where Jesus' body was laid. That would have typically been the role of a wife in that society.
John 20:2-10 describes how other followers came to the tomb and left to return home. But Mary stayed. Again this would have been the behavior of a wife.
In John 20:17 Jesus instructed Mary to "Touch me not." Apparently Mary was about to touch his body or at least there was some possibility that she might do so. Again it would have been inconceivable for an man and woman to touch in 1st century Judea, unless they were a married or engaged couple.
I find this all interesting that is all came from John. Sail told me earlier today that the gnostic belief is that John was actually written by Mary. Of which I was unaware.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 11:20 PM |
Mary Magdalene |
|
Angel54214
Posts: 13,933
|
You forgot to include these verses goose...
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
A "wife" would know her "husband". How could she mistake him for a gardner?
Jesus called her woman and not "wife"
A "wife" did not call her husband Rabboni/Master
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 11:22 PM |
Mary Magdalene
|
|
j_goose
Posts: 1,951
|
It's my understanding that the term "wife" was not used back then.
Husbands were also masters. Women couldn't leave their houses without their husband's or master's permission.
"Ba'ali" was what a "wife" called her "husband". It is also what a slave called his master.
In the Orthodox Ketubah, the wife is considered a chattel.
The bride becomes a chattel (possession) after marriage.
So calling Jesus "Master" would be pretty accurate.
[Edited on 8/2/2008 11:33 PM]
[Edited on 8/2/2008 11:33 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 11:31 PM |
Mary Magdalene |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 4,528
|
You guys need to read Moore's "Lamb"...
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 11:41 PM |
Mary Magdalene
|
|
j_goose
Posts: 1,951
|
Literl tranlation of "Rabboni" is "great one".
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 11:48 PM |
Mary Magdalene |
|
uncrazy
Posts: 1,489
|
j_goose,
The touch me not verse can relate to the husband not being able to touch his wife once she is pregnant...and a double "unclean" act if the husband had returned to celibacy as a rabbi.
On who wrote John, for me the primary clue is the discussion between Mary an Jesus is two people alone in a garden...who was to hear the conversation but the two participants.
Thus, we have two possible authors, one being Mary, the other Jesus. If we say Jesus was out of the picture because of the Ascension into heaven, we needn't think of him as the author.
If the ascension was a going up to the next stage in the Therapeute sect monastery to become the Zadokite priest as is hinted at in Hebrews, he could be the author. A special dispensation was required in Pauls words of the story.
Just to consider that a man or men could survive a crucifixion 2000 years ago is pretty remarkable...the death to resurrection is a more fantastic tale. But here we are talking about a foundation of faith...the idea cannot be considered except to call it a heresy.
|
| |
|
| Aug 2 @ 11:55 PM |
Mary Magdalene
|
|
uncrazy
Posts: 1,489
|
Angel54,
A "wife" did not call her husband Rabboni/Master
She would call him Rabboni, if he had returned to his role at a priest who could not touch a woman, as it would make him unclean, and wouldn't be able to serve in the temple for that day.
As a David, Jesus would serve in the number three spot in the temple, under the positions of high priest and the levite.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 3 @ 12:01 AM |
Mary Magdalene |
|
j_goose
Posts: 1,951
|
Just to consider that a man or men could survive a crucifixion 2000 years ago is pretty remarkable...the death to resurrection is a more fantastic tale. But here we are talking about a foundation of faith...the idea cannot be considered except to call it a heresy.
People in the Phillipines are crucified often. And survive.
And they go all out.. Nails, cross, the whole thing -- and they always survive.
Obviously, crucifixion does not guarantee death. The way to ensure death in a crucifixion is to break the victim's legs, that way, they hang from their arms only and have no support from below. Gradually, breathing becomes impossible, because of the body weight pulling on the chest, and the victim dies of asphyxation.
Now, note some facts about the crucifixion as reported in the Bible:
Jesus was crucified on a Friday. There would have been a desire to get him off the cross before sunset, when the Jewish Sabbath starts (a crucifixion on the Sabbath would not be a good idea). In order to make sure the victims died in time, the soldiers broke the legs of the other two guys who were crucified with Jesus (John 19:31-32), but they didn't break Jesus' legs, because they assumed he was already dead (John 19:33-34).
Pilate was told that Jeus was already dead, and he was surprised, because the length of time he had been on the cross was not as long as it would normally take a person to die (Mark 15:42-44).
So, Jesus was not on the cross for very long, and his legs were not broken. The soldiers thought he was dead because he did not respond when he was pierced in the side, but that is not really proof of death.
As far as the Soldier cutting Jesus' side....
A person who is already dead, they will not bleed much, because the heart is not pumping, but when they pierced Jesus's side, there was a sudden flow of blood and water (the "water" is most likely pericardial fluid, which is a symptom of shock, not death), which means that the heart was pumping at the time.
Based on what the Bible says, Jesus did not die on the cross. He had a painful few hours, lost consciousness, was taken off the cross, regained consciousness later in the tomb, and was nursed back to health.
|
| |
|
| Aug 3 @ 12:21 AM |
Mary Magdalene
|
|
uncrazy
Posts: 1,489
|
j_goose,
Good points...notice also that the thieves weren't on crosses long enough to be dead either, even with broken legs. The bodies were tied to the beam across the chest to hold up the body for an extended period. The lengthy time for death was critical to the extended effect it was to have on the populace.
We are more looking at a burial alive scenario, orchestrated by James, the acting Joseph to Jesus until Jesus had an heir. My guess, two lived, one died.
What could explain the unconscious Jesus...vinegar with gall, gall being snake venom. How might it be handled...one Essene sect were Thearpeuts, healers and physicians, experienced in cures, herbs, poisons. What were the the 100 weight of aloes for...drink it and try not to throw up...even the sunburn treatment aloe says "do not swallow". Simon Magus was a Therapeute.
[Edited on 8/3/2008 12:29 AM]
[Edited on 8/3/2008 12:30 AM]
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 3 @ 12:30 AM |
Mary Magdalene |
|
j_goose
Posts: 1,951
|
I think that the conversation in the garden between MM and Jesus could have been the consumating of a marraige, resulting in an heir.
Still fable in my eyes, but a valid assumption IMO.
And the Wedding in Caana (sp?) could have been their actual wedding. The groom was expected to provide the wine at such an event. Perhaps Jesus' turning water into wine was rewritten to hide the fact that he was providing it at his own reception.
|
| |
|
| Aug 3 @ 12:37 AM |
Mary Magdalene
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 13,933
|
In the Orthodox Ketubah, the wife is considered a chattel.
The bride becomes a chattel (possession) after marriage.
A ketubah is a Jewish prenuptial agreement. It is considered an integral part of a traditional Jewish marriage. It states that the husband commits to provide food, clothing and marital relations to his wife, and that he will pay a specified sum of money if he divorces her. If he dies, leaving her a widow, the ketubah amount is the first charge on his estate.
The rabbis in ancient times insisted on the marriage couple entering into the ketubah as a protection for the wife. It acted as a replacement of the biblical dower or bride price, which was payable at the time of the marriage by the groom to the bride or her parents. The ketubah became a mechanism whereby the amount due to the wife (the dower) came to be paid in the event of the cessation of marriage, either by the death of the husband or divorce.
So where do you get "chattel" as a bride being a posession from the Ketubah??
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 3 @ 12:39 AM |
Mary Magdalene |
|
uncrazy
Posts: 1,489
|
J_goose,
The conception of an heir resulted in a 2nd betrothal. After the pregnancy was confirmed by three month of remaining clean,(menstration ceased), the male would return to his celibate state and temple duties.
As I mentioned earlier, Jesus as the David, served in the 3rd position in the temple.
Priests were defrocked when living with a wife...a reference to a priest struck dumb related to his being unable to say prayer in the temple while an active husband in the flesh or of the world.
While it is not given much attention, Jesus and Magdalene are involved in a marriage ritual, that comes out of the Song of Solomon. Psalms were written to be used in rituals.
|
| |
|
| Aug 3 @ 12:58 AM |
Mary Magdalene
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 13,933
|
And the Wedding in Caana (sp?) could have been their actual wedding. The groom was expected to provide the wine at such an event. Perhaps Jesus' turning water into wine was rewritten to hide the fact that he was providing it at his own reception.
And why would Jesus and his disciples get invited if it was his own wedding...  MM wasn't even there!
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 3 @ 1:00 AM |
Mary Magdalene |
|
j_goose
Posts: 1,951
|
Angel, I know that too you a while to google, but I said the Orthodox Ketubah.
Read an origional translation. One fromthe time period in question. NOT a modern Ketubah.
Here' a good one included in a book....
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3210105
Try to remember also that beating of one's wife was accepted in jewish culture "If she deserved it."
THAT was the mentallity at the time of the origional Ketubah. Women PROPERTY.
And the Wedding in Caana (sp?) could have been their actual wedding. The groom was expected to provide the wine at such an event. Perhaps Jesus' turning water into wine was rewritten to hide the fact that he was providing it at his own reception.
And why would Jesus and his disciples get invited if it was his own wedding... MM wasn't even there!
Can you read? We're talking about a bok that has been corrupted since its beginnings.
You laugh out of frustration......
[Edited on 8/3/2008 1:07 AM]
[Edited on 8/3/2008 1:13 AM]
|
| |
|
|
|
|