A
adstrinity
Guest
Are you comfortable with and can you accept that the first person Jesus appeared to after he rose from the dead on Easter morning was His Mother?
- Status
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
The gospels tell us it was Mary Magdelene, no?
V
VARC
Guest
I believe that Scripture records that Mary Magdalene was the first person to whom our resurrected Lord manifested Himself. So why would I feel “comfortable” otherwise?
A
adstrinity
Guest
Yes, the Gospels all say that it was Mary Magdeline, but, Catholics and Orthodox believe, and it makes sense to believe, that Jesus would appear to the Woman who chose to say Yes to God, to the Woman who raised Him, and to the Woman who gave Him life and watch Him die.
This belief (Jesus going first to His Mother) is not found in the Bible, but, it is widely believed. I ask for this reason: because it makes sense and is believed – That He went to Her to tell Her, ‘I’m Okay…Dad sends His Love…’, OR, can you not accept this because it’s not recorded in the Bible?
V
VARC
Guest
Is it common for you to say “the Gospels all say but…”. Cmon. It makes more sense to believe the inerrant Word of God rather than something that sounds nice. Where does that reasoning lead?
A
adstrinity
Guest
Well, the Gospels all say that Mary Magdaline was there; not all say she was alone.
Where does this contradictory statements of this reasoning lead?
If you can believe that it didn’t happen because it’s not in the Bible the Catholics composed, that’s fine. It was only a question that my brain wanted answered.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I’m not sure where this belief comes from, although I suspect that some Catholics have just confused Mary Magdalene with Mary the mother of Jesus.
Mary the mother of Jesus already knew that He had risen from the dead; she didn’t need a demonstration. He had told her years before, when He was 12 years old, that if she could not find him, then she must know that He was about His Father’s work.
*“And how is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my father’s business?” *
She did not seek Him out at the tomb with the other women, because she already knew where He was, and what He was doing.
Mary the mother of Jesus already knew that He had risen from the dead; she didn’t need a demonstration. He had told her years before, when He was 12 years old, that if she could not find him, then she must know that He was about His Father’s work.
*“And how is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my father’s business?” *
She did not seek Him out at the tomb with the other women, because she already knew where He was, and what He was doing.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I do not believe that the gospels per se say that Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus after His resurrection with no possible chance that anybody else had seen Him before. The gospel of Matthew says that three women–Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome–came to the tomb to annoint Jesus, and found the stone rolled back. THEN later it says that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene who then told the others. So Jesus could certainly have appeared (privately) to His mother, and then, appeared ‘first’ to one of the three women who came–Mary Magdalene–before appearing to the OTHER two (and then the disciples of Emmaeus, and the other disciples, etc.)
P
Pokedaughter
Guest
I guess since no other person was mentioned to have visited Jesus’ tomb prior to Mary Magdalene then maybe it was not important to note it in scripture. I believe that if Mary, the mother of Christ, came to visit the tomb first, that would have definitely been mentioned.
It might be helpful to research Traditional Jewish customs of that time to see what the mourning period of the family entailed and also how the Passover affected these customs.
It might be helpful to research Traditional Jewish customs of that time to see what the mourning period of the family entailed and also how the Passover affected these customs.
B
BlestOne
Guest
Catholic here… just polled my family… all of us answered Mary Magdalene not Mary, mother of Jesus…
Just letting you know that this is not a “Catholic” belief that is was the mother of Jesus…
Just letting you know that this is not a “Catholic” belief that is was the mother of Jesus…
S
SIA
Guest
no I’m not.
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
I’ve been a Catholic for 58 years and have always been taught that Mary Magdalene was the first. What I find interesting is how the angels set Peter apart from the disciples.
Mark 16:6-7 “And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.”
Mark 16:6-7 “And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.”
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
But hey, what do the Evangelists know ? They only wrote the things.
If “later is truer”, Luther was even later, so may be right after all
It would make even better sense if He had raised Adam & Eve to life & appeared to them: therefore, He “must have”.
God the Father is **not **a pensioner in a rest home - but the Holy God by Whom all things were made.That is a bizarre suggestion, for the NT says Mary Magdalene saw Him first, & she is simply not the same person as the BVM. If we can falsify the NT to make it say what we would like, then we might as well re-write the whole thing. Or treat the Magisterium as giving us a revelation to replace all that NT stuff.
The only basis for an appearance to the BVM is wishful thinking - if that were a good basis for doctrine, we could believe in the Incarnation of the Holy Spirit as the BVM, or the eating of the Body of the BVM in the Sacrament. Why not ? The Bible denies neither of these - so they must be true.
The Bible is canonical - it is a yardstick for what is true doctrine. That suggestion is the sort of thing that brings the CC into contempt among Christians
M
mattkubes
Guest
Cradle Catholic - never heard of that to be honest 
I’ve always just thought it was Mary Magdalene as well…I’m sure this is a pious tradition (small ‘t’), but it’s nothing that we’re obligated to believe!
I’ve always just thought it was Mary Magdalene as well…I’m sure this is a pious tradition (small ‘t’), but it’s nothing that we’re obligated to believe!
P
Psalter
Guest
I’m a traditionalist Catholic and I have always heard that it was Mary Magdalene who first saw Jesus, not His Mother. That might be a nice and pious opinion, but don’t we have bigger fish to fry?
P
Psalter
Guest
LOL, this is utter nonsense!! I cannot imagine Our Lord saying to His Mother, “I’m OK, Dad sends His love.” It sounds like the sort of drivel one would hear from one of those fake psychic TV show hosts who “connect with” people’s dead loved ones. I have heard a lot of pious traditions with little support in Scripture or Sacred Tradition, and I embrace some of them but this one is so far-fetched and irrelevant.
Just curious, Adstrinity, but are you a devotee of the false Medjugorie “apparition”, or are you part of charismatic movement? For some reason I get those vibes from you by the tone of your post…
A
adstrinity
Guest
I am not confusing the 2 Mary’s. The Bible states Mary Magdaline was at least one of the first recorded to see the risen Jesus. I am talking about the tradition that Jesus went to His Mother first. Everybody else who saw Him went to see Him; Jesus went to see His Mom–she didn’t go to see Him. The quote I included was single quoted not double, e.g. not a direct quote. I think I first learned about this at CAF. I don’t think this has ANYTHING to do with ANY apparition, can’t believe it’s meeting resistance.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I do not usually hold to that line of thought, but if I wanted to reconcile the Gosple with the pious tradition, i would say that when he appeared to Mary Magdaline, he gave her a job connected to the Gosple, making her the apostle to the Apostles, where any appearance to his Mother would be private and not needed for salvation.
In other words, it was none of our business.
In other words, it was none of our business.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The only time I have ever encountered this idea before now is from a Filipina lady whose knowledge of the Gospel comes from street theatre that took place in her little village when she was growing up, and she sincerely thought that the Mary on Easter Sunday was Mary the mother of Jesus - but when she went back to her village as an adult, later, she found out that it was actually supposed to be Mary Magdalene - but it just wasn’t very well explained to the audience, and there were/are quite a few of them who are under the impression that it’s Mary the mother of Jesus.
Other than that, this is the first time I’ve ever encountered this idea.
A
adstrinity
Guest
I KNEW I didn’t make this up. I KNEW I wasn’t halucinating. I KNOW I am not apostate:
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm51.htm
^^From Pope John Paul II. I encourage and pray all the Catholics to read it, and I re-submit this question to the Protestants on the forum.
Are you comfortable with this idea?
Thank you for all answers.
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm51.htm
^^From Pope John Paul II. I encourage and pray all the Catholics to read it, and I re-submit this question to the Protestants on the forum.
Are you comfortable with this idea?
Thank you for all answers.
- Status