M Magdalena...
- Thread starter Ghaniel
- Start date
Popular topic of discussion of late...Dan's books have reignited the centuries old controversy even more than HBHG did two decades ago...
I personally think there is a whole lot more about Jesus, Paul, James, both Mary's and much in the OT as well....
I personally think there is a whole lot more about Jesus, Paul, James, both Mary's and much in the OT as well....
The Catholic church has "recently" removed Mary Magdeline from the "prostitute" status. Speculation has it that the early "Catholic" church would not have a "woman" in such a position of power, influence, as Mary apparently was in the beginning, due to the patriarchal sensitivities of the times. So they declared her persona non gratta, as far as the faith was concerned.
This mind set is re-inforced by the attempted actions of the Catholic church to remove the Irish Abbesses from positions of authority (as literal priests and head of the churches), during the 6th and 7th centuries AD. They failed miserably, but then the Vikings took care of business through out the land inthe 8th, 9th and 10th centuries, so the church got its wish.
This is a favorite study of mine, and I would enjoy continued dialogue on this issue.
v/r
Q
This mind set is re-inforced by the attempted actions of the Catholic church to remove the Irish Abbesses from positions of authority (as literal priests and head of the churches), during the 6th and 7th centuries AD. They failed miserably, but then the Vikings took care of business through out the land inthe 8th, 9th and 10th centuries, so the church got its wish.
This is a favorite study of mine, and I would enjoy continued dialogue on this issue.
v/r
Q
lunamoth
Episcopalian
The change in Mary M's staus is very interesting. I just finished a book of fiction based upon Mary M, called Mary. Was not great, but the first part was interesting when they fictionalized her possession by seven demons. Could be read in many ways, such as that she was mentally ill.
So...what do people here think about women in the priesthood?
peace,
lunamoth
So...what do people here think about women in the priesthood?
peace,
lunamoth
lunamoth said:The change in Mary M's staus is very interesting. I just finished a book of fiction based upon Mary M, called Mary. Was not great, but the first part was interesting when they fictionalized her possession by seven demons. Could be read in many ways, such as that she was mentally ill.
So...what do people here think about women in the priesthood?
peace,
lunamoth
Being of Irish heritage, I'm used to strong women, with clear cut thoughts on God...
no problem here.v/r
Q
One of the 'arguments' around the story of the Resurrection, from a social history perspective (not my own, I heard this on a radio talk) was that if the story was concocted, or purely mythic, to 'salvage' something from the death of a prophet/leader, it that it would be highly improbable that its authors would have Christ appearing to the Magdalene before the others - it does not 'fit' with the status of women at that time.
(As history goes on to demonstrate.)
It was the Church who gave her the title 'Apostle to the apostles'.
This is an interesting point in the development of doctrine. She holds the title, but as far as I know there is no great theological statement of its meaning. It stems from the fact that it was she who informed the apostles that Christ has risen.
Now, with the likes of Dan Brown and his ilk, all manner of fantasy is being proposed, and accepted, as fact. Hence the marriage of Jesus and Mary ...
(aside ... I remember in the 70's, I think, there was a very strong movement that insisted that Christ was gay, and had a relationship with the apostle John, based on the apostle's epithet of 'the one whom Christ loved' - this clearly shows how in any time people with little or no knowledge in depth, choose to read what they will, according to their own agenda. The argument that Christ was gay is no stronger or weaker than the argument that Christ was married to the Magdalene, and neither is stronger than the evidence that suggests that Christ did not have a wife at all, or if he did, she played no part in his ministry.)
... at some point, I fear, the Church will be obliged to make a statement with regard to her status, founded on Scripture and Tradition, at which point everyone outside the Church will not doubt make noisy complaint.
With regard to priesthood, this is a deeper issue.
My personal view is that the role of 'priest' is a function, and as a function 'in persona Christie' it should and can only properly be represented by a man, because Christ was a man, and because of the metaphysics and symbolism involved. In short the feminine cannot represent the masculine principle - a feminine symbol does not signify a masculine principle, and vice versa.
However, it is wrong to assume women have no spiritual status in the Church (priest does not signify a spiritual status). There are women saints, and women Doctors, women mystics, and women stigmatics.
The Church herself is referred to in the feminine, as is the individual soul.
In my own life I have met spiritual directors, in fact I have one in mind, whose relationship to those under her tutelage is precisely 'in persona Christie' but in a different sense.
In closing I might add that whilst modernists tend to decry St Paul for his apparent detrimental statements with regard to women, the truth remains that women were accorded a better status in Christianity - a greater degree of emancipation - than in any other social structure of the day, and the spread of Christianity into the upper echelons of society was often through the women.
That Christianity never sparked a 'social revolution' that saw the full equality of women, the emancipation of slaves, and a social programme aimed at caring for the poor, the sick and ther dispossessed, is perhaps a tragedy, but in some sense would have stood the world more on its head than its doctrine of God crucified (and in truth is as far away today as it was then, and we certainly are in no position to criticise).
But let us not forget that the early Christian communities did just this (as in fact did the Jews before them, to some degree). Man and woman, senator, servant and slave prayed side by side and saw themselves as equal in Christ whilst observing social strictures - something that 'slipped away' as time went on.
Thomas
(As history goes on to demonstrate.)
It was the Church who gave her the title 'Apostle to the apostles'.
This is an interesting point in the development of doctrine. She holds the title, but as far as I know there is no great theological statement of its meaning. It stems from the fact that it was she who informed the apostles that Christ has risen.
Now, with the likes of Dan Brown and his ilk, all manner of fantasy is being proposed, and accepted, as fact. Hence the marriage of Jesus and Mary ...
(aside ... I remember in the 70's, I think, there was a very strong movement that insisted that Christ was gay, and had a relationship with the apostle John, based on the apostle's epithet of 'the one whom Christ loved' - this clearly shows how in any time people with little or no knowledge in depth, choose to read what they will, according to their own agenda. The argument that Christ was gay is no stronger or weaker than the argument that Christ was married to the Magdalene, and neither is stronger than the evidence that suggests that Christ did not have a wife at all, or if he did, she played no part in his ministry.)
... at some point, I fear, the Church will be obliged to make a statement with regard to her status, founded on Scripture and Tradition, at which point everyone outside the Church will not doubt make noisy complaint.
With regard to priesthood, this is a deeper issue.
My personal view is that the role of 'priest' is a function, and as a function 'in persona Christie' it should and can only properly be represented by a man, because Christ was a man, and because of the metaphysics and symbolism involved. In short the feminine cannot represent the masculine principle - a feminine symbol does not signify a masculine principle, and vice versa.
However, it is wrong to assume women have no spiritual status in the Church (priest does not signify a spiritual status). There are women saints, and women Doctors, women mystics, and women stigmatics.
The Church herself is referred to in the feminine, as is the individual soul.
In my own life I have met spiritual directors, in fact I have one in mind, whose relationship to those under her tutelage is precisely 'in persona Christie' but in a different sense.
In closing I might add that whilst modernists tend to decry St Paul for his apparent detrimental statements with regard to women, the truth remains that women were accorded a better status in Christianity - a greater degree of emancipation - than in any other social structure of the day, and the spread of Christianity into the upper echelons of society was often through the women.
That Christianity never sparked a 'social revolution' that saw the full equality of women, the emancipation of slaves, and a social programme aimed at caring for the poor, the sick and ther dispossessed, is perhaps a tragedy, but in some sense would have stood the world more on its head than its doctrine of God crucified (and in truth is as far away today as it was then, and we certainly are in no position to criticise).
But let us not forget that the early Christian communities did just this (as in fact did the Jews before them, to some degree). Man and woman, senator, servant and slave prayed side by side and saw themselves as equal in Christ whilst observing social strictures - something that 'slipped away' as time went on.
Thomas
Just to add on the Mary-Jesus relationship - I'm a little rusty, but I seem to recall a scene where Mary annoints Jesus with oil - and that there's a reference to King Saul, where basically his kingship is decreed by annointing with oil - but also a suggestion that there's a similar parallel in the Song of Solomon as a wedding ceremony.
Sorry, no Strong's near me to check up the references, so I thought to throw this post in just case it helps the discussion.
Sorry, no Strong's near me to check up the references, so I thought to throw this post in just case it helps the discussion.
Thomas said:
It's not fantasy, it's a misuse of the extra-canonical writings like the Gospel of Mary from Nag Hammadi, where Peter says to Mary, "Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women." There's another one that says something like "Jesus loved Mary and used to kiss her on the [gap in document]" Of course, a lot of people got excited about Jesus kissing Mary on the gap. But scholars unanimously date these writings later than the New Testament gospels, and believe there is no valid historical information in them.
This, I think, was based more on the Secret Gospel of Mark, discovered by Morton Smith in the 1960's, in which a naked young man spends the night with Jesus, getting indoctrinated into the "mysteries". Some scholars think this may actually have been in the original gospel of Mark, but others think the whole thing is a forgery by Smith.
The whole prostitute reputation was a stretch of a biblical interpretation to begin with...
Other readings about the subject are 'The woman with the alabastar jar' referencing that anointing and 'Goddess of the Gospels' both written by Margeret Starbird both of which also predate the DaVinci code(a book which I've yet to read). She actually was incensed when she read HBHG and set out to discredit it...
Many books reference that it would be out of the ordinary for Jesus not to have a have a family, as it would be normal for a teacher/rabbi...and the lack of a mention in the bible IMPLIES marriage.
Others question the turning water into wine...whose wedding would his mother be so concerned to ask him to perform such a task, if not that of his, her own son?
Other readings about the subject are 'The woman with the alabastar jar' referencing that anointing and 'Goddess of the Gospels' both written by Margeret Starbird both of which also predate the DaVinci code(a book which I've yet to read). She actually was incensed when she read HBHG and set out to discredit it...
Many books reference that it would be out of the ordinary for Jesus not to have a have a family, as it would be normal for a teacher/rabbi...and the lack of a mention in the bible IMPLIES marriage.
Others question the turning water into wine...whose wedding would his mother be so concerned to ask him to perform such a task, if not that of his, her own son?
Margaret Starbird's association with Dan Brown can only be to her detriment. Does anyone take The DaVinci Code seriously still? I ask in all seriousness because the book has been comprehensively dismantled as a work of truth here in the UK.
Whether Christ was married or not remains unanswered, and a question without sufficient answer. It would appear that some of the apostles were married, but that evidence itself is from St Paul (or Luke in Acts), who makes no mention of a wife of his own.
"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?"
(NAB, 1 Corinthians 9:5)
Notably, Psul does not argue that the Lord himself took a wife, which surely he would have done if Christ was married?
Then again, the 'brothers of the Lord' raise the family debate, but in his own words Christ said: "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."
Mark 3:35
It would appear that Christ was aware of his mission from his childhood, in which case I would suggest he would resist any invitation of marriage as something that would detract him from his purpose.
Then, if we cloud the issue even more by suggesting that Christ was a member of the Essene Brotherhood, he would not have a wife, as the higher oder members were strictly celebate.
As for Cana, leaving all symbolism aside, surely the responsibility for supplying wine would be down to the father of the groom, or the bride(?), or the 'best man', or a close family member, but surely not the groom himself? I don't know, I'm not sure of the social custom of the day.
Thomas
Whether Christ was married or not remains unanswered, and a question without sufficient answer. It would appear that some of the apostles were married, but that evidence itself is from St Paul (or Luke in Acts), who makes no mention of a wife of his own.
"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?"
(NAB, 1 Corinthians 9:5)
Notably, Psul does not argue that the Lord himself took a wife, which surely he would have done if Christ was married?
Then again, the 'brothers of the Lord' raise the family debate, but in his own words Christ said: "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."
Mark 3:35
It would appear that Christ was aware of his mission from his childhood, in which case I would suggest he would resist any invitation of marriage as something that would detract him from his purpose.
Then, if we cloud the issue even more by suggesting that Christ was a member of the Essene Brotherhood, he would not have a wife, as the higher oder members were strictly celebate.
As for Cana, leaving all symbolism aside, surely the responsibility for supplying wine would be down to the father of the groom, or the bride(?), or the 'best man', or a close family member, but surely not the groom himself? I don't know, I'm not sure of the social custom of the day.
Thomas
Hi Thomas
Your quote:
It would appear that Christ was aware of his mission from his childhood, in which case I would suggest he would resist any invitation of marriage as something that would detract him from his purpose.
Very true. I think that the theme of the whole scriptures make it clear about Jesus and his mission, that he was not to marry, and did not marry.
He had a mission. His mission had a main objective, to die to save us all, as a pay back price for the perfection that we had lost through Adam...perfect man for perfect man... The ransom sacrifice, and at the same time Jesus illustrated then, what will happen come his second presence, plus he had to face the challenges from the Devil and man, those that attempted to thwart him from the path of the will of God during his mission....More specific purposes to think about.... Jesus knew that he was to die, to pay the ransom back. Marriage would not have been any part of this mission. To know that he was to die, but to deliberately leave a wife, and even possibly children behind in sorrow, does not fit in with the vastly loving and caring nature of Jesus. He was not to become a part of society looking at a long future life of happiness, It was to be limited in time, a mission with purposes set out by God himself.
Your quote:
"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?"
(NAB, 1 Corinthians 9:5)
Notably, Paul does not argue that the Lord himself took a wife, which surely he would have done if Christ was married?
That is a good scripture indicating that Jesus was possibly not married, I've never seen that one before. I'd like to add a few more that give an indication that Jesus was not married. We only have to look at the truth of the gospel accounts:
John 19:25: "By the torture stake of Jesus, however, there were standing his mother and the sister of his mother; Mary the wife of Clo´pas, and Mary Mag´da·lene."
In the verse it states " Mary the wife of Clophas", but it doesn't say that the other Mary present was "Mary Magadalene"..... the wife of Jesus, which by then, you'd think John would have stressed this, as he did with the first Mary.
Mark puts it this way.....
Mark 15:40 "There were also women viewing from a distance, among them Mary Mag´da·lene as well as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Jo´ses, and Sa·lo´me.
Three gospel accounts...John, Mark, and similarly Matthew at Mt 27:56 are describing all of the people present, who they are by how they are related, Mother of, wife of, and sister, but they do not give any implication that Mary had any relations. More than likely because she wasn't married.
Finally, more evidential indication that Mary Magdalene was not the wife of Jesus can be seen at the point when she came to the tomb of Jesus...........
Just after Mary thought that the ressurrected Jesus was the gardener, and their first meeting after the death of Jesus. At John 26:16,17 it reads......
John 16: Jesus said to her: "Mary!" Upon turning around, she said to him, in Hebrew: "Rab·bo´ni!" (which means "Teacher!") 17: Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father.
If back then, your husband (or wife) had just died and then you see them the next day after being ressurrected, are you going to turn to them in suprise like Mary Magdalene did and call them by the name of their final voluntary occupation that they had..."Secretary ! Aid worker ! Preacher ! Teacher !"
If it was your 'other half ', you'd use the more personal descriptive word, and possibly cry out "husband ! (or wife!)" Mary Magdalene did not cry out husband ! but she cried out Rabboni !....teacher. Neither did Jesus cry out... "wife !" If they had been personal man and wife, you'd expect a more personal name to have been used by Mary Magdalene.
Your quote:
It would appear that Christ was aware of his mission from his childhood, in which case I would suggest he would resist any invitation of marriage as something that would detract him from his purpose.
Very true. I think that the theme of the whole scriptures make it clear about Jesus and his mission, that he was not to marry, and did not marry.
He had a mission. His mission had a main objective, to die to save us all, as a pay back price for the perfection that we had lost through Adam...perfect man for perfect man... The ransom sacrifice, and at the same time Jesus illustrated then, what will happen come his second presence, plus he had to face the challenges from the Devil and man, those that attempted to thwart him from the path of the will of God during his mission....More specific purposes to think about.... Jesus knew that he was to die, to pay the ransom back. Marriage would not have been any part of this mission. To know that he was to die, but to deliberately leave a wife, and even possibly children behind in sorrow, does not fit in with the vastly loving and caring nature of Jesus. He was not to become a part of society looking at a long future life of happiness, It was to be limited in time, a mission with purposes set out by God himself.
Your quote:
"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?"
(NAB, 1 Corinthians 9:5)
Notably, Paul does not argue that the Lord himself took a wife, which surely he would have done if Christ was married?
That is a good scripture indicating that Jesus was possibly not married, I've never seen that one before. I'd like to add a few more that give an indication that Jesus was not married. We only have to look at the truth of the gospel accounts:
John 19:25: "By the torture stake of Jesus, however, there were standing his mother and the sister of his mother; Mary the wife of Clo´pas, and Mary Mag´da·lene."
In the verse it states " Mary the wife of Clophas", but it doesn't say that the other Mary present was "Mary Magadalene"..... the wife of Jesus, which by then, you'd think John would have stressed this, as he did with the first Mary.
Mark puts it this way.....
Mark 15:40 "There were also women viewing from a distance, among them Mary Mag´da·lene as well as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Jo´ses, and Sa·lo´me.
Three gospel accounts...John, Mark, and similarly Matthew at Mt 27:56 are describing all of the people present, who they are by how they are related, Mother of, wife of, and sister, but they do not give any implication that Mary had any relations. More than likely because she wasn't married.
Finally, more evidential indication that Mary Magdalene was not the wife of Jesus can be seen at the point when she came to the tomb of Jesus...........
Just after Mary thought that the ressurrected Jesus was the gardener, and their first meeting after the death of Jesus. At John 26:16,17 it reads......
John 16: Jesus said to her: "Mary!" Upon turning around, she said to him, in Hebrew: "Rab·bo´ni!" (which means "Teacher!") 17: Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father.
If back then, your husband (or wife) had just died and then you see them the next day after being ressurrected, are you going to turn to them in suprise like Mary Magdalene did and call them by the name of their final voluntary occupation that they had..."Secretary ! Aid worker ! Preacher ! Teacher !"
If it was your 'other half ', you'd use the more personal descriptive word, and possibly cry out "husband ! (or wife!)" Mary Magdalene did not cry out husband ! but she cried out Rabboni !....teacher. Neither did Jesus cry out... "wife !" If they had been personal man and wife, you'd expect a more personal name to have been used by Mary Magdalene.
Thomas said:
Yeah, I take it as seriously good fiction! What if, type stuff...you know, alternate reality? The problem is that for a person secure in their faith, this would be another "Orson Scott" type novel. But there are many unsecure/insecure people (Christians), who find themselves teetering on faith due to this writ. Why? Why are they questioning their faith due to this book?
Oh and you are correct, the Groom of a wedding would have absolutely nothing to do with the reception provisions (back in the time in question). But the best man might...so would the "defacto" father of the bride. Considering the issue that Jesus may have had half brothers and sisters, and this may have been the wedding of one of them...then yes, Mary the mother, would have been in her rights to approach her eldest son and insist that he take care of business. (note she never said "do a miracle", nor did she imply Jesus would do one. She simply said, "Listen to him, and do as he says".
She could have meant, (he'll direct you to the nearest wine maker for purchase of more). Which would imply that that Jesus was at the wedding of a female of His family. He obviously was in charge of the reception. Mary would not have tasked Him otherwise (not in Jewish custom). The only (ONLY), notice we have of something otherworldly about to happen, and Mary being aware of this (as all mothers are wise to), was Jesus' reply to His mother's request..."It is not yet my time".
Why Mary approached Jesus on this issue? Because, like any man, they get their start by a loving woman. Jesus, the man was no different than you or me. He was hesitant to begin, but mom knew best, and prodded Him...then the ball began to roll...Mary turned to the wine captain and simply said "Do as he (Jesus) instructs you."
Once Jesus began, that was it. The rest is History...
v/r
Q
One thing is clear to me and that is that... Jesus did not live on Earth to get married and live a normal human life. He was a man, yes, and with human body functions... He ate, slept, walked, talked... But he was and is Christ, the Messiah. God sent Him to Earth for a very special reason and for no other reason that that: He was here to save Mankind! And the Bride of Christ cannot be one single woman, but all who believe in Him. Christians are together the Bride of Christ. So why would he be married?
Secondly, isn't a woman(Mary M) allowed to follow Jesus(like MM did) without being suspected of being his wife? Oh, people attack what they can attack, don't they...
But what do we really know about Mary?
And the Bride of Christ cannot be one single woman, but all who believe in Him. Christians are together the Bride of Christ. So why would he be married? Secondly, isn't a woman(Mary M) allowed to follow Jesus(like MM did) without being suspected of being his wife?
Oh, people attack what they can attack, don't they...But what do we really know about Mary?
Ghaniel said:One thing is clear to me and that is that... Jesus did not live on Earth to get married and live a normal human life. He was a man, yes, and with human body functions... He ate, slept, walked, talked... But he was and is Christ, the Messiah. God sent Him to Earth for a very special reason and for no other reason that that: He was here to save Mankind!
Secondly, isn't a woman(Mary M) allowed to follow Jesus(like MM did) without being suspected of being his wife?
But what do we really know about Mary?
Easy, this is merely a thought excersise, not Gospel...And no, you can't say Christians can't think about weird stuff. It isn't your right, nor you authority. People can think as they wish. Learn from it, is what I would say...
v/r
Q
B
Bandit
Guest
lunamoth said:So...what do people here think about women in the priesthood?
peace,
lunamoth
are you going to be a preacher Luna? i could start your biography for you.
Bishop Luna Moth, Founder of the First Chapel of Jesus.........
B
Bandit
Guest
above: Sister Luna Moth &
the bible, preaching
her first sermon .
(teasing)
B
Bandit
Guest
Ghaniel said:
not a whole lot & not a lot i have not heard, but i am waiting to hear something new
Quahom1 said:
Calm down you.
So long as no one spreads false things people can say what they want. I wasn't asking for your 'not your right'-wisdom. It is my "right" to say what I want, just like people can theorise about MM.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Bandit said:
above: Sister Luna Moth &
the bible, preaching
her first sermon .
(teasing)
Oh my gosh Bandit I nearly spit coffee all over my keyboard!
(I guess I should post a picture of myself to try to redeem your image of me--or not...
).cheers,
Sister luna
pohaikawahine
Elder Member
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
U.S. News and World Report just came out with an issue on "women in the bible" and has some interesting articles and here are a few excerpts that may relate to this discussion ....
from the article "a long miscast outcast" ....
"few characters in the New Testament have been so sorely miscast as Mary Magdalene, whose reputation as a fallen woman originated not in the Bible but in a sixth-centure sermon by Pope Gregory the Great"
"But arguments over whether Mary Magdalene was Jesus's wife, a reformed harlot, or the adulterous woman Jesus saved from stoning pale in comparision with the most rancorously disputed aspect of her legacy -- what exactly she witnessed at Jesus's Resurrection. In a new biography of Mary Magdalene, theologian Bruce Chilton contents that Mary witnessed not the resurrection of a flesh-and-blood Jesus but a spiritual visitation." .... "Mary has a vision in which Jesus tells her she witnessed his reborn image with her 'mind.' (from a fragmentary eight-page papyrus text in Coptic acquired by a German scholar in 1896 .... a second century gospel of mary) ....Mary Magdalene's nonphysical interpretation of resurrection was ultimately suppressed, says Chilton, because it came uncomfortabley close to the view of the Gnostics, a heretical sect of Christianity that flourished in the second and third centures."
and last but not least, "church teaching now maintains that the foundation for Mariology wasn't Mary's motherhood but her agreeing to carry the christ child...thus, the church says, she is to be honored as 'the perfect disciple.' "
aside from the possibility that the stories are all parables and have deeper meanings .... the idea of carrying the "christ seed" can be applied to each and everyone of us, both male and female .... the gnostics would, in my view, liken this to the concept of reaching that stage of visions and revelations and becoming whole or balanced in a spiritual sense .... the resurrection then becomes the concept of "being born again" .... we die to our old ways and are reborn to the new .... from other perspectives this is the "second coming" .... it is something that will happen within us and not outside, the blooming of the christ seed within each of us is one way to describe it ....
I think it depends on whether one reads these works literally or symbolically .... there are many roads to the mountaintop and we all walk different spiritual paths .... but basically we are looking for the same things .... Mary Magdalene was and is a powerful symbol .... personally I don't think it matters whether she was married or not or if she even existed .... as Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe she is the religious symbol for the poor and downtrodden .... her apparitions have been reported thousands of times and "Pope John Paul II credited her with saving his life when he was wounded in an assasination attempt on May 13, 1981 - the same day and hour Mary reported appeared to the three children at Fatima in Portugal 64 years earlier"
what a woman !!!!
he hawai'i au, pohaikawahine
from the article "a long miscast outcast" ....
"few characters in the New Testament have been so sorely miscast as Mary Magdalene, whose reputation as a fallen woman originated not in the Bible but in a sixth-centure sermon by Pope Gregory the Great"
"But arguments over whether Mary Magdalene was Jesus's wife, a reformed harlot, or the adulterous woman Jesus saved from stoning pale in comparision with the most rancorously disputed aspect of her legacy -- what exactly she witnessed at Jesus's Resurrection. In a new biography of Mary Magdalene, theologian Bruce Chilton contents that Mary witnessed not the resurrection of a flesh-and-blood Jesus but a spiritual visitation." .... "Mary has a vision in which Jesus tells her she witnessed his reborn image with her 'mind.' (from a fragmentary eight-page papyrus text in Coptic acquired by a German scholar in 1896 .... a second century gospel of mary) ....Mary Magdalene's nonphysical interpretation of resurrection was ultimately suppressed, says Chilton, because it came uncomfortabley close to the view of the Gnostics, a heretical sect of Christianity that flourished in the second and third centures."
and last but not least, "church teaching now maintains that the foundation for Mariology wasn't Mary's motherhood but her agreeing to carry the christ child...thus, the church says, she is to be honored as 'the perfect disciple.' "
aside from the possibility that the stories are all parables and have deeper meanings .... the idea of carrying the "christ seed" can be applied to each and everyone of us, both male and female .... the gnostics would, in my view, liken this to the concept of reaching that stage of visions and revelations and becoming whole or balanced in a spiritual sense .... the resurrection then becomes the concept of "being born again" .... we die to our old ways and are reborn to the new .... from other perspectives this is the "second coming" .... it is something that will happen within us and not outside, the blooming of the christ seed within each of us is one way to describe it ....
I think it depends on whether one reads these works literally or symbolically .... there are many roads to the mountaintop and we all walk different spiritual paths .... but basically we are looking for the same things .... Mary Magdalene was and is a powerful symbol .... personally I don't think it matters whether she was married or not or if she even existed .... as Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe she is the religious symbol for the poor and downtrodden .... her apparitions have been reported thousands of times and "Pope John Paul II credited her with saving his life when he was wounded in an assasination attempt on May 13, 1981 - the same day and hour Mary reported appeared to the three children at Fatima in Portugal 64 years earlier"
what a woman !!!!
he hawai'i au, pohaikawahine