Why did the lord appear to Mary Magdalene first?

[ConstantLearner]

To a Jewish person, this book explains how Christianity could have taken root and spread, even if false, when other messianic cults failed:

https://www.amazon.com/Not-Impossib...id=1537428008&sr=8-7&keywords=richard+carrier

I realize it might be offensive to a Christian, but it does give one a lot of insight into the culture of the first centuries CE in the MIddle East, Greece, etc. I am not an atheist like Carrier, who was once Christian, but I do not accept Jesus as the messiah, of course. However, I definitely believe in G-d.

 

[ConstantLearner]

It was St. Paul who said that faith in Christ is based on the resurrection. Paul states that there were witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, not only by His disciples but by more than 500 people. Thus not only were Jesus miracles witnessed by thousands, his very authority over life and death was witnessed by thousands.

I think you have just misspoken here and probably realize it yourself. There were no witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, if indeed it did take place. Zero. Paul says there were witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. Very different! But Paul is not the best authority on this matter since he never met Jesus during Jesus’s earthly life. Even Christians concede that.

 

[PickyPicky]

. You must make your choice. Either this man
was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse

Or something else. Once again Lewis’s Trilemma is quoted as though it were convincing. But actually it doesn’t hold water: it poses three possibilities as though they were the only three options, when they are not.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Peter Kreeft expanded that to “Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend,” and others have said there are many more possibilities.

Apologists use the phrase; theologians have abandoned it because they see its uselessness.

None of this has to do with MM. That, I think, was settled when Patty posted that women were reliable witnesses in cases not involving Torah.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I’m certain that she kept many things and pondered them in her heart, not only His infancy!

 

[PetraG]

The thing is the concept of a person rising from the dead was an unheard of concept in Judaism. Hence why even his disciples didn’t understand at first.

The concept was not unheard of. Some of the Jews of the time believed in a resurrection of the righteous during the Messianic Age. Besides, obviously Elijah raised someone from the dead (1 Kings 17:17–24) as did Elisha (2 Kings 4:8–16). This explains why some people would have concluded Elijah had come back when news spread of Jesus doing such things.
There were also Jews who did not believe that the immortal soul was ever going to get another body, yes, but that doesn’t mean no one had ever even heard of the concept.

 

[PetraG]

Or something else. Once again Lewis’s Trilemma is quoted as though it were convincing. But actually it doesn’t hold water: it poses three possibilities as though they were the only three options, when they are not.

Well, of course, human beings can interpret the same facts in any of a number of ways. I still hold that it is not reasonable to hold Jesus in respect as a “great teacher” when all you know about him comes from people who say he considered himself to be God. What is the basis for coming to such a conclusion? No one is stopping you from doing it, but Lewis and I would both say you’re avoiding the most reasonable conclusions without a foundation.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Well, of course, human beings can interpret the same facts in any of a number of ways. I still hold that it is not reasonable to hold Jesus in respect as a “great teacher” when all you know about him comes from people who say he considered himself to be God. What is the basis for coming to such a conclusion? No one is stopping you from doing it, but Lewis and I would both say you’re avoiding the most reasonable conclusions without a foundation.

The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus, if he existed, and I think he did, was not resurrected from the dead. The laws of probability tell us that.when something seemingly out of the norm happens, the most probable conclusion is the one that most closely follows natural law. People do not rise from the dead. The near death, now, but not the dead. Therefore, it is most reasonable, and probable, to conclude that Jesus did not.

 

[Hodos]

The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus, if he existed, and I think he did, was not resurrected from the dead. The laws of probability tell us that.when something seemingly out of the norm happens, the most probable conclusion is the one that most closely follows natural law. People do not rise from the dead. The near death, now, but not the dead. Therefore, it is most reasonable, and probable, to conclude that Jesus did not.

Dead is dead. It is certainly a common saying among some communities.

 

[Peebo]

Why wouldn’t Jesus have appeared to Mary Magdalene first…I don’t suspect that when the gospels were written there was any real understanding of the role Mary (our Lords mother) would have in church history…was there any devotion to Our Blessed Mother at that time??..wasn’t her role defined centuries later by the church…now a days it just doesn’t seem relevant who Jesus appeared to first

 

[midori]

Paul totally agrees with y’all.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

So, take a moment to feel sorry for us, and then get on with your day.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Dead is dead. It is certainly a common saying among some communities.

That’s true. Near death is “only” near death; the person never died, but dead is dead.

I do believe we will all be resurrected when the Messiah comes, though, provided we’re dead.

 

[Hodos]

I do believe we will all be resurrected when the Messiah comes, though, provided we’re dead.

I am glad that you at least believe in the possibility of bodily resurrection. What would that look like should you be bodily resurrected? What kinds of things would you do?

 

[PickyPicky]

Lewis and I would both say you’re avoiding the most reasonable conclusions without a foundation.

You might say that, but Lewis didn’t. He said there were only three possibilities, and of course that isn’t so.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Jewish theology embraces an afterlife of the spirit and the bodily resurrection of the dead after the coming of the Messiah.

Jewish theology, however, is more concerned with how we live in this life than in the afterlife. We are concerned with how we honor God and how we honor and love our fellow humans.

 

[JohnR77]

Why wouldn’t Jesus have appeared to Mary Magdalene first

If you want to learn the answer to your question then please read the argument from Justice

Mary was the first to see our Resurrected Lord

 

[Hodos]

Jewish theology embraces an afterlife of the spirit and the bodily resurrection of the dead after the coming of the Messiah.

Jewish theology, however, is more concerned with how we live in this life than in the afterlife. We are concerned with how we honor God and how we honor and love our fellow humans.

We are equally concerned with both aspects as our scriptures affirm. My question remains, if you were to be resurrected bodily, what would you do? What would that look like?

 

[ConstantLearner]

A Jewish belief in the afterlife developed during the time the Hebrew bible was written:

Daniel 12:2 “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence” — implies that resurrection will be followed by a day of judgment. Those judged favorably will live forever and those judged to be wicked will be punished.

Judaism has never claimed to know every detail as some faiths do.

 

[Hodos]

Okay. Fair enough. I think you missed the point of my question, but I won’t push further.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The thing is the concept of a person rising from the dead was an unheard of concept in Judaism. Hence why even his disciples didn’t understand at first.

Judaism had a great belief in resurrection in some of its sects. Either the sadducees or Pharisees believed in resurrection. I cant remember which atm. Judaism thought this would happen at the end times, which they believed was very close.

The surprise was 1 person rising alone, instead of all together. And the apocalypse was still just around the corner