C
ConstantLearner
Guest
That is true, but a different writer and a different group of people don’t mean one should change basic facts, truths. The fact is: the resurrection stories differ.
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
You are assuming the Gospels are written to tell facts. They are not.
They are written to tell faith, and God among us.
There are no essential contradictions in the resurrection accounts; the writer was not trying to tell, in each Gospel, exactly who showed up when. If Mary Magdalene showed up at the break of dawn (and to get to the tomb at dawn, she had to leave wherever she had been in the dark), what difference in your faith does it make if no one else was with her (which it doesn’t say - only names her) or if others accompanied her? How does that change your faith? Whether there was only Mary, or Mary and several other women is not a faith issue.
They are written to tell faith, and God among us.
There are no essential contradictions in the resurrection accounts; the writer was not trying to tell, in each Gospel, exactly who showed up when. If Mary Magdalene showed up at the break of dawn (and to get to the tomb at dawn, she had to leave wherever she had been in the dark), what difference in your faith does it make if no one else was with her (which it doesn’t say - only names her) or if others accompanied her? How does that change your faith? Whether there was only Mary, or Mary and several other women is not a faith issue.
Last edited:
P
PrisonerOfChrist
Guest
Mary Magdalene was one of the women at the foot of the cross. First come, first serve 
R
runningdude
Guest
The Angel told Mary her son would be offering himself for humanity; thus is an essential part of the church’s constant tradition. Mary’s magnificat is her acceptance of that fate.
This is further reinforced by the Prophet Simeon, who tells Mary her heart will be pierced when she and Joseph present Jesus at the Temple.
This is further reinforced by the Prophet Simeon, who tells Mary her heart will be pierced when she and Joseph present Jesus at the Temple.
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t assuming they are written as history. However, if they don’t state facts, in matters of faith, they are reduced to stories of fiction or myth. How they state those facts does not have to be historically true, though.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
All four of the gospels have St Mary Magdalene at the tomb, discovering the fact of the Resurrection. Presumably this is important to each of the groups who will hear the Gospel, though it is not clear why.
The only real competition is from St Paul, who says the Christ appeard first to St Peter:
I think St Mark did this because the people of Magdala were massacred in 67, just before he was writing. It was the end of Vespasian’s bloody march through Galilee that made him a candidate for Emperor. In 69, when he became Emperor, he issued a coin with his face on one side and a seated woman labeled “captive Judea” on the other. The woman from Magdala gave a dramatic emphasis to the bloody Roman crucifixion he described, and to the hope of resurrection.
The only real competition is from St Paul, who says the Christ appeard first to St Peter:
This seems to me to influence the presentation of Mary Magdalene in Mark, who mentions her when Christ dies(1), when he is buried(2) and on the third day(3). MM sees each of these, a contrast to the 4th step of Christ appearing.
I think St Mark did this because the people of Magdala were massacred in 67, just before he was writing. It was the end of Vespasian’s bloody march through Galilee that made him a candidate for Emperor. In 69, when he became Emperor, he issued a coin with his face on one side and a seated woman labeled “captive Judea” on the other. The woman from Magdala gave a dramatic emphasis to the bloody Roman crucifixion he described, and to the hope of resurrection.
B
Benadam
Guest
Here’s a hint. It does have to do with being a bride of Christ. Mary Magdalene was a sign of Jerusalem as Babylon. The harlot/virgin undercurrent in the OT pops out into the daylight in the Christ event. Seven demons, the seven headed dragon. In Mary of Magdalene that seven headed beast is conquered and she is made spotless. Her story with Jesus is mostly hidden. A hidden life is like a pearl at the bottom of the sea.
Another harlot/virgin is the woman at the well. This pattern is in her story in a profound way… Her husbands, five have already passed one is here now but is not her husband. If you consider Jesus as her real husband He would be the seventh but can only stay a short while because He is going to His destruction. He is the eighth and also one of the seven. Who else did Jesus ever say so casually to " yeah I am the one you are waiting for, the messiah, ". The well is now considered a place of conversion. Jesus mother also lived out the adultress/virgin theme. I have a feeling that a mystical way these women who are that harlot are united to Our Blessed Mother in a special way and like her are united to truth in a special way… Mary Magdalene I believe was the closest among these Holy women who were not what they looked like on the outside. Jesus appeared to her first because her life, like the Woman at the well was a pattern of the whole journey and they didn’t really need taught the Gospel, their life provided truth, they just needed to meet Jesus. I think the way Jesus spoke to the Woman at the well is typical of how He spoke to Mary Magdalene. The Apostles didn’t get that kind of intimacy with Jesus. Maybe John the Beloved.
Another harlot/virgin is the woman at the well. This pattern is in her story in a profound way… Her husbands, five have already passed one is here now but is not her husband. If you consider Jesus as her real husband He would be the seventh but can only stay a short while because He is going to His destruction. He is the eighth and also one of the seven. Who else did Jesus ever say so casually to " yeah I am the one you are waiting for, the messiah, ". The well is now considered a place of conversion. Jesus mother also lived out the adultress/virgin theme. I have a feeling that a mystical way these women who are that harlot are united to Our Blessed Mother in a special way and like her are united to truth in a special way… Mary Magdalene I believe was the closest among these Holy women who were not what they looked like on the outside. Jesus appeared to her first because her life, like the Woman at the well was a pattern of the whole journey and they didn’t really need taught the Gospel, their life provided truth, they just needed to meet Jesus. I think the way Jesus spoke to the Woman at the well is typical of how He spoke to Mary Magdalene. The Apostles didn’t get that kind of intimacy with Jesus. Maybe John the Beloved.
O
Onthisrock84
Guest
Let’s point out what scripture does do here.
By having a woman find the empty tomb is evidence that there is no way the gospel writers lied. And shows how strong their faith was. In first century Palestine, womans testimony wasn’t even accepted in a court of law. Her word meant nothing.
If the gospel writers were trying to sway an audience, even if women first witnessed the tomb, they more than likely would have skipped over this fact and focused on the mens witness.
However their faith was so strong in knowing it was truth that they still just wrote it how it was.
By having a woman find the empty tomb is evidence that there is no way the gospel writers lied. And shows how strong their faith was. In first century Palestine, womans testimony wasn’t even accepted in a court of law. Her word meant nothing.
If the gospel writers were trying to sway an audience, even if women first witnessed the tomb, they more than likely would have skipped over this fact and focused on the mens witness.
However their faith was so strong in knowing it was truth that they still just wrote it how it was.
B
bsy
Guest
Mary’s confusion:
Mary Magdalene did not fully understand when the angel told the women, “He has been raised; he is not here.” Mark16.6
JOHN 20
(First, to Peter) Mary told Peter, “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they put him.” v.2
(Second, to the angels) Again, she told the angels, “They have taken my Lord, and I don’t know where they laid him.” v.13
(Third, to Jesus) When she turned around, she saw Jesus but did not recognized him. She thought that he was the gardener and said, “Sir, if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him.” v.15
Confusion into clarity
Finally, Jesus revealed Himself to Mary – that He has resurrected.
Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni,”* which means Teacher. v.16
Mary as witness for the Lord
Jesus said to her, “Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and what he told her. v 17, 18
Mary Magdalene did not fully understand when the angel told the women, “He has been raised; he is not here.” Mark16.6
JOHN 20
(First, to Peter) Mary told Peter, “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they put him.” v.2
(Second, to the angels) Again, she told the angels, “They have taken my Lord, and I don’t know where they laid him.” v.13
(Third, to Jesus) When she turned around, she saw Jesus but did not recognized him. She thought that he was the gardener and said, “Sir, if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him.” v.15
Confusion into clarity
Finally, Jesus revealed Himself to Mary – that He has resurrected.
Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni,”* which means Teacher. v.16
Mary as witness for the Lord
Jesus said to her, “Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and what he told her. v 17, 18
Last edited:
G
Gab123
Guest
The Bible doesn’t specify that He exclusively and specifically appeared to Mary Magdalen first. It only records how the apostles first got word of the resurrection via Mary Magdalen who saw Him before the apostles did. Interestingly in the private revelation writings of the mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich, she wrote that Jesus appeared to Mary His mother:
"It was towards eleven o’clock at night when the Blessed Virgin, incited by irrepressible feelings of love, arose, wrapped a gray cloak around her, and left the house quite alone. . . . I saw her go first to the house of Caiphas, and then to the palace of Pilate, which was at a great distance off; I watched her through the whole of her solitary journey along that part which had been trodden by her Son, loaded with his heavy Cross; she stopped at every place where our Saviour had suffered particularly, or had received any fresh outrage from his barbarous enemies. Her appearance, as she walked slowly along, was that of a person seeking something; she often bent down to the ground, touched the stones with her hands, and then inundated them with kisses, if the precious blood of her beloved Son was upon them. God granted her at this time particular lights and graces, and she was able without the slightest degree of difficulty to distinguish every place sanctified by his sufferings. . . Mary then went to Calvary . . .
. . . I then saw the glorified body of our Lord rise up, and it passed through the hard rock as easily as if the latter had been formed of some ductile substance. The earth shook, and an angel in the garb of a warrior descended from Heaven with the speed of lightning, entered the tomb, lifted the stone, placed it on the right side, and seated himself upon it. At this tremendous sight the soldiers fell to the ground, and remained there apparently lifeless. . .
At the very moment in which the angel entered the sepulchre and the earth quaked, I saw our Lord appear to his holy Mother on Calvary. His body was beautiful and lightsome, and its beauty was that of a celestial being. He was clothed in a large mantle, which at one moment looked dazzlingly white, as it floated through the air, waving to and fro with every breath of wind, and the next reflected a thousand brilliant colours as the sunbeams passed over it. His large open wounds shone brightly, and could be seen from a great distance: the wounds in his hands were so large that a finger might be put into them without difficulty; and rays of light proceeded from them, diverging in the direction of his fingers. The souls of the patriarchs bowed down before the Mother of our Saviour, and Jesus spoke to her concerning his Resurrection, telling her many things which I have forgotten. He showed her his wounds; and Mary prostrated to kiss his sacred feet; but he took her hand, raised her, and disappeared.
"It was towards eleven o’clock at night when the Blessed Virgin, incited by irrepressible feelings of love, arose, wrapped a gray cloak around her, and left the house quite alone. . . . I saw her go first to the house of Caiphas, and then to the palace of Pilate, which was at a great distance off; I watched her through the whole of her solitary journey along that part which had been trodden by her Son, loaded with his heavy Cross; she stopped at every place where our Saviour had suffered particularly, or had received any fresh outrage from his barbarous enemies. Her appearance, as she walked slowly along, was that of a person seeking something; she often bent down to the ground, touched the stones with her hands, and then inundated them with kisses, if the precious blood of her beloved Son was upon them. God granted her at this time particular lights and graces, and she was able without the slightest degree of difficulty to distinguish every place sanctified by his sufferings. . . Mary then went to Calvary . . .
. . . I then saw the glorified body of our Lord rise up, and it passed through the hard rock as easily as if the latter had been formed of some ductile substance. The earth shook, and an angel in the garb of a warrior descended from Heaven with the speed of lightning, entered the tomb, lifted the stone, placed it on the right side, and seated himself upon it. At this tremendous sight the soldiers fell to the ground, and remained there apparently lifeless. . .
At the very moment in which the angel entered the sepulchre and the earth quaked, I saw our Lord appear to his holy Mother on Calvary. His body was beautiful and lightsome, and its beauty was that of a celestial being. He was clothed in a large mantle, which at one moment looked dazzlingly white, as it floated through the air, waving to and fro with every breath of wind, and the next reflected a thousand brilliant colours as the sunbeams passed over it. His large open wounds shone brightly, and could be seen from a great distance: the wounds in his hands were so large that a finger might be put into them without difficulty; and rays of light proceeded from them, diverging in the direction of his fingers. The souls of the patriarchs bowed down before the Mother of our Saviour, and Jesus spoke to her concerning his Resurrection, telling her many things which I have forgotten. He showed her his wounds; and Mary prostrated to kiss his sacred feet; but he took her hand, raised her, and disappeared.
F
FloridaCatholic
Guest
She’s not a harlot
B
Benadam
Guest
Neither was Our Lady. Who could believe a virgin with child? No one, so Mary in the eyes of the world would have been a woman of ill repute without Joseph.
O
Onthisrock84
Guest
Are you seriously quoting from " Poem of the Man God " on here? A work condemned as heretical ?
D
Dovekin
Guest
Seems pretty exclusive and specific, though many do not consider it part of the bible. Trent included it.
J
JohnR77
Guest
Last edited:
G
Gab123
Guest
No. Do your homework. Read what I said. It’s the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich, the same book used by Mel Gibson for the movie The Passion of the Christ.
M
midori
Guest
Be nice, Hodos.
I’ll add an Agreda to Gab’s point.
I’ll add an Agreda to Gab’s point.
H
Hodos
Guest
Already deleted. Although it was a completely fair critique, this is your epistemology to argue over, not mine.
Last edited:
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Mary Magdalene is perfectly logical. God has this sneaky habit of using the least likely of us to do His work. Just look at the saints throughout history.
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
It is true that the testimony of a woman meant nothing, but obviously not all the Gospel writers are historically correct because they differ. And, each does have the Risen Christ being seen by credible males. I don’t see it as irrefutable evidence that the writers didn’t lie. I’m not saying they did lie, just that MM being the first to encounter Christ in all four accounts, which differ considerably in other, more important respects, is not evidence of truth.
Last edited:
- Status