Mary Magdalene

[rtiffany]

thistle:

Laud_God:

I’m just saying, that’s how I was brought up thinking.

Since your looking for a direct statement saying “Mary was a prostitute” you won’t find one.

This is the kind of information I have been looking for - thanks
I am still wondering if Mary is Mary of Magdala, a rich widow

 

[jimmy]

rtiffany:

Many of the ‘holy’ days were created to cover over pagan holidays. This was one ploy used by religions to assimilate other religions (the original borg ). Way too many stories from the pulpit (not just catholic here - primarily christian) do portray the family as being poor - and that is a matter to understand. That has been the food for evangelists and other religions to prey on people for centuries. Again, if these stories from religions are untrue - what else may be untrue that we don’t know about?? That’s really where I am going with much of this search. It is rarely mentioned that Joshua was from the house of David - how poor could he have really been??? The fact that he turned to the poor masses and did not rely on his wealth is a great testimate, but again, that part of his life is rarely mentioned.

To say he was wealthy is completely unfounded in scripture. Just because he was a descendant of David does not mean he was rich. David was 28 generations back from Jesus. Him being Davids descendant does not mean He had a lot of money. Why do you have so much problem with the idea that Christ could have been poor? It is really a matter that is inconsequential. It does not change the gospel, and it is not mentioned in the gospel either way. There is nothing wrong with portraying Him as coming from a humble beginning.

Now, you say that it was used as an evangelization tool. You are going to have to show some saints that used this as their tool to evangelize because I have not read one saint that has. To say that people converted because Jesus was poor is absurd, people converted because He died for their sins and they found it to be true.

Now, for the Holy Days. No, they were not created for the purpose of covering over the pagan holidays. They were celebrated to honor Christ. Easter, or the pasch, has been celebrated as a remembrance of the Passion and ressurection of Christ. Now, they might have chose a final date due to pagan holidays to allow the pagans who were converting to have some sort of celebration around that time to make it easier on them for conversion. It was not for assymilation of their faiths.

 

[rtiffany]

jimmy:

To say he was wealthy is completely unfounded in scripture. Just because he was a descendant of David does not mean he was rich. David was 28 generations back from Jesus. Him being Davids descendant does not mean He had a lot of money. Why do you have so much problem with the idea that Christ could have been poor? It is really a matter that is inconsequential. It does not change the gospel, and it is not mentioned in the gospel either way. There is nothing wrong with portraying Him as coming from a humble beginning.

Now, you say that it was used as an evangelization tool. You are going to have to show some saints that used this as their tool to evangelize because I have not read one saint that has. To say that people converted because Jesus was poor is absurd, people converted because He died for their sins and they found it to be true.

Now, for the Holy Days. No, they were not created for the purpose of covering over the pagan holidays. They were celebrated to honor Christ. Easter, or the pasch, has been celebrated as a remembrance of the Passion and ressurection of Christ. Now, they might have chose a final date due to pagan holidays to allow the pagans who were converting to have some sort of celebration around that time to make it easier on them for conversion. It was not for assymilation of their faiths.

Well, we have very different views as to why the holidays (most of them by the way) land on pagan holidays, but your views would be expected from your faith . My views ar from years of study and reading about the move from the matriarch to the patriarch (some fastinating stuff by the way). Most final dates were chosen to coincide with the pagan holidays so their holidays would not be separate - more distinct - masking over (assymilation). I think it DOES make a difference how Joshua is portrayed because he and his teachings are the pinical points of the religion. Coming from humble beginnings is a strange way to portray the beginning of his life when you add the three wise men story - nothing humble about that. The wedding where his mother asked him to turn water into wine … poor people were not asked to weddings like that. Many things just don’t make sense. To me, Joshua’s teachings are wonderful - nothing new, but wonderful and worth living. What gets my goat are the folks (and religions) that have used/altered this pure story to manipulate. Are religions so afraid of the truth??? 10 years ago, I could go to most any christian minister/priest and they would have told me that the christmas story was true. Now that people have dug out the truth, they can no longer say that. What other un-truths are there??? Why can’t we just know the truth?? For most, the ‘truth’ is their own personal path - but I am so tired of folks trying manipulate others in the name of the bible or in the name of christianity - just tired of it!

I did have a wonderful teacher once tell me that its not whether or not the stories in the bible are true, its whether or not the truth of life comes through those stories - and it does.

I have been following some of these ‘consperacy theories’ for about 30 years and have found some wonderful truths for myself. I can only hope that others do so as well. I will not just take the word of another about something so precious to me - I want to learn it for myself I do thank you for your views and information. Again, it’s really not the outcome, its the journey

 

[kim_wilson]

Well I for one liked her better when she was a former hooker. Makes her conversion all the greater and gives all of us formerly loose females turned orthodox catholics a jolly good patron saint.

 

[dancus]

jimmy:

Yes I meant chapter 11.

Where does this idea come from that Mary was from a noble family. I have never heard this. Can you give me an early church document that shows this?

So are you saying that, even though John mentions that Mary of bethany annointed the feet of Jesus, he does not go on to tell the story, but goes on to tell the story of some other woman, whose name also happens to be Mary, who annoints His feet? I find that highly unlikely.

Noble family? I see nothing in my post to indicate I would even think that. I said rich or at least well off.

Your basing an entire argument on John. Lets put him to bed for a little and consider the other Synoptic Writers. Luke 7 36:39 is the only annointing in that Book. Luke 8 1:3, I won’t quote verbatum. At the end of verse 3, notice the women provided for them out of their resources. Except for Joanna no husband is mentioned. Ergo, these women had to have some money. The fact they could leave and follow Jesus would also seem to indicate they were unencumbered at home. I have to call it a day now, enjoy your questions. Dan

 

[rtiffany]

kim wilson:

Well I for one liked her better when she was a former hooker. Makes her conversion all the greater and gives all of us formerly loose females turned orthodox catholics a jolly good patron saint.

You ROCK Kim I just want to know more about her - she was a very important piece in Joshua BinDavid’s life and I would just like to know who she REALLY was.

 

[kim_wilson]

Thanx Tiff!

 

[rtiffany]

kim wilson:

Thanx Tiff!

My pleasure! I just don’t see what all the fuss is about and why folks just don’t tell the real story of one of the greatest women in history? I know someone knows

 

[vluvski]

Of all places, TIME Magazine had a piece on the origins of our understanding of Mary Magdalene. It was done during all the DaVinci Code hype. The article was titled, “Women of the Bible” or something to that effect.
A good read, but obviously not a Catholic perspective.

 

[rtiffany]

vluvski:

Of all places, TIME Magazine had a piece on the origins of our understanding of Mary Magdalene. It was done during all the DaVinci Code hype. The article was titled, “Women of the Bible” or something to that effect.
A good read, but obviously not a Catholic perspective.

thank you thank you thank you - i will find that one

 

[dancus]

mercygate:

Mary of Bethany (Martha’s sister) is not Mary of Magdala.

Scripture is completely silent on whether Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

Careful! As I said else I also don’t accept the two Marys as the same person. However, if I wished to take the role of Devils Advocate, I could make an excellent case for it being a fact.

Now as the prostitute bit, that supposedly came from a homily by Gregory I, aka Gregory the Great. Although I have never found evidence of that fact other then someones statement in a blog.
Dan

 

[vluvski]

dancus:

Careful! As I said else I also don’t accept the two Marys as the same person. However, if I wished to take the role of Devils Advocate, I could make an excellent case for it being a fact.

Now as the prostitute bit, that supposedly came from a homily by Gregory I, aka Gregory the Great. Although I have never found evidence of that fact other then someones statement in a blog.
Dan

This is in the TIME article somewhere. Don’t know whether sources are well-documented or not.

 

[dancus]

kim wilson:

Many Gypsies venerate an unofficial Saint Sara who was supposedly Mary Magdalene’s daughter. Anybody know anything about her?

Sara may be a mis-spelling of Sera. Sera, according to an old and obscure legend, was Mary of Magdalas maid. From what I saw on the History Channel, a segment Beyond the DV Code. The author twisted that around, saying Sera was her daughter. He must have done some research to unearth that old legend. Perhaps he combined two legends, Gypsy and the one I spoke of. Dan

 

[jimmy]

rtiffany:

Well, we have very different views as to why the holidays (most of them by the way) land on pagan holidays, but your views would be expected from your faith . My views ar from years of study and reading about the move from the matriarch to the patriarch (some fastinating stuff by the way). Most final dates were chosen to coincide with the pagan holidays so their holidays would not be separate - more distinct - masking over (assymilation). I think it DOES make a difference how Joshua is portrayed because he and his teachings are the pinical points of the religion. Coming from humble beginnings is a strange way to portray the beginning of his life when you add the three wise men story - nothing humble about that.

The three wise men weren’t honoring Him because He had money, they were honoring Him because He was the king that was prophecied. His kingdom is not of this world.

The wedding where his mother asked him to turn water into wine … poor people were not asked to weddings like that. Many things just don’t make sense.

This is a baseless assumption. There is no proof for it. All the apostles were invited, would you assume that they were all rich? I could say Christ was born in a stable, rich people weren’t born in stables, therefore Christ was poor.

To me, Joshua’s teachings are wonderful - nothing new, but wonderful and worth living. What gets my goat are the folks (and religions) that have used/altered this pure story to manipulate. Are religions so afraid of the truth??? 10 years ago, I could go to most any christian minister/priest and they would have told me that the christmas story was true.

People haven’t dug out any truth that wasn’t there already. The Christmas story is straight from the scriptures. There is no aspect of it that is not from scripture. To say Christ was rich is not from scripture anymore than to say He was poor.

Now that people have dug out the truth, they can no longer say that. What other un-truths are there??? Why can’t we just know the truth?? For most, the ‘truth’ is their own personal path - but I am so tired of folks trying manipulate others in the name of the bible or in the name of christianity - just tired of it!

You are concerned about inconsequential things. The date that Christmas is celebrated is not a very serious issue. But the reason that it is chosen for that day is specifically to allow an easy conversion for the pagans. This is mentioned in several church fathers. I think Augustine mentions it in his confessions.

I have been following some of these ‘consperacy theories’ for about 30 years and have found some wonderful truths for myself. I can only hope that others do so as well. I will not just take the word of another about something so precious to me - I want to learn it for myself I do thank you for your views and information. Again, it’s really not the outcome, its the journey

The outcome is everything and the journey means nothing if the outcome is not good.

 

[rtiffany]

vluvski:

This is in the TIME article somewhere. Don’t know whether sources are well-documented or not.

What TIME article - i have searched for it and found nothing?

Thanks

 

[rtiffany]

jimmy:

The three wise men weren’t honoring Him because He had money, they were honoring Him because He was the king that was prophecied. His kingdom is not of this world.

This is a baseless assumption. There is no proof for it. All the apostles were invited, would you assume that they were all rich? I could say Christ was born in a stable, rich people weren’t born in stables, therefore Christ was poor.

People haven’t dug out any truth that wasn’t there already. The Christmas story is straight from the scriptures. There is no aspect of it that is not from scripture. To say Christ was rich is not from scripture anymore than to say He was poor.

You are concerned about inconsequential things. The date that Christmas is celebrated is not a very serious issue. But the reason that it is chosen for that day is specifically to allow an easy conversion for the pagans. This is mentioned in several church fathers. I think Augustine mentions it in his confessions.

The outcome is everything and the journey means nothing if the outcome is not good.

There are those who are outcome oriented - I am not one of those - for me, the process is everything. If the outcome is not good and I learned from the process, it is all good. If I do not learn, then it is bound to come back to me until I do.

You are missing my point about the “inconsequential things”. If the little things have been tainted/mis represented, what about the big things??? It’s like the teen telling their parents that it was just a ‘white/little’ lie - a lie is a lie

I do not think the wise men story means that they came because he was rich - but they did bring him many riches. As for the “easy conversion for the pagans”, tell that to the pagans thad did not want to convert but were forced to because there religions were outlawed by the same loving church that was HELPING them convert and prosecuting/murdering them if they did not. That is history my friend, pure and simple. It does not mean it is happening now, but it did happen and to think it did not is putting your head in the sand - the Spanish Inquisition is a prime example

As for digging out the truth, there are many truths that have been revieled over the past 30/40 years that major players in the christian religions have known and have not wanted to bring to light. Yes, the truths have been there, but they have been hidden in dogma, Vatican vaults, misrepresented scripture readings (i love the ministers that take one line of scripture and make a whole speach out of it that is totally out of context). Again, thinking this is not happening or that is has not happened is a great denial. Joshua’s birthday, the whole christmas story, many of the used-to-be facts about Mary Magdalene … the list goes on. My point is not to religion bash or christian bash, my point to to find these truths for myself.

 

[vluvski]

rtiffany:

What TIME article - i have searched for it and found nothing?

Thanks

Perhaps it was not TIME then. I know I read the article. I was almost certain the cover had that distinctive red border… that is TIME, isn’t it? It was a cover story even! It had an icon-looking image of a woman, probably a depiction of Mary Magdalene.

 

[vluvski]

danbrown.com/media/morenews/time.html

Here is full text of a TIME article about MM. This must be the one I was thinking of… not sure why I remembered a different cover. I wonder if it is still in the office I saw it in back at school. I only skimmed a paragraph or two when I first read it. It is not very complimentary of the Catholic Church, but it does at least supply some factual information.

 

[rtiffany]

danbrown.com/media/morenews/time.html

Here is full text of a TIME article about MM. This must be the one I was thinking of… not sure why I remembered a different cover. I wonder if it is still in the office I saw it in back at school. I only skimmed a paragraph or two when I first read it. It is not very complimentary of the Catholic Church, but it does at least supply some factual information.

Thanks so much!! Great stuff. This is the type of info I am looking for.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

thistle:

I have always understood that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute but I recently heard this is not the case. I read through the gospels over the past few days and I can’t see any reference to her being described as a prostitute. Can anyone tell where where in the gospels this is mentioned?

The first person to identify her with​

1. The woman in Luke 7.36-50
   and
2. the woman “out of whom Jesus drove seven unclean spirits”

and (IIRC)

1. Mary the sister of Martha & Lazarus

was Gregory the Great.

It’s one of those ideas one simply assumes is stated in the Bible because it is an old and common idea, but is actually not in the Bible at all. ##