M
MountCarmel
Guest
The risen Jesus first appeared to His Holy Mother.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
On what basis? The Gospel writers say it was Mary Magdalene. They are all in agreement she was first. I’m not saying he didn’t, just that there’s no Scriptural basis for it.The risen Jesus first appeared to His Holy Mother.
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
None of the Gospels say that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus first of everyone, just as Paul doesn’t say that Peter saw Jesus first of everyone. All they say is, “X person saw Jesus.” (And some of the sources say, “X person saw Jesus before Y person saw Jesus.”)
The tradition that the Virgin Mary saw Jesus first, because He came to where she was staying, is very old and comes from the Eastern side of the Church. (Which is exactly what you would expect, since that’s where the Virgin Mary was living.) Seeing as Jesus could walk unseen, walk through doors, and basically act as the Lord of All Space/Time, I don’t see any timeline problems with this. (And really, Jerusalem was tiny. It didn’t take long to get anywhere around town.)
Here in the West, it’s only an extremely long “family tradition,” and not anything that demands belief. But it’s very much in keeping with Jewish expectations of a mother’s bond with her only Son. It’s also got some liturgical standing over in the East, which does suggest that there’s some level of actual doctrine involved – but it’s not being pushed, probably because Mary’s not pushy.
Of course, over on the Eastern side, St. Eusebius of Emesa (who was a pupil of the church historian also named St. Eusebius) said that the Gospels only started to be written down because the Virgin Mary kept bugging the first three evangelists to do it.
(Knowing Jewish moms? I can believe it!)
So it’s very likely that the Gospels only include as much about the Virgin Mary, or Mary Magdalene, or any of the other women, as they thought necessary. (Don’t mess with the church ladies!) Obviously we would like more info, but it wasn’t given to us.
The tradition that the Virgin Mary saw Jesus first, because He came to where she was staying, is very old and comes from the Eastern side of the Church. (Which is exactly what you would expect, since that’s where the Virgin Mary was living.) Seeing as Jesus could walk unseen, walk through doors, and basically act as the Lord of All Space/Time, I don’t see any timeline problems with this. (And really, Jerusalem was tiny. It didn’t take long to get anywhere around town.)
Here in the West, it’s only an extremely long “family tradition,” and not anything that demands belief. But it’s very much in keeping with Jewish expectations of a mother’s bond with her only Son. It’s also got some liturgical standing over in the East, which does suggest that there’s some level of actual doctrine involved – but it’s not being pushed, probably because Mary’s not pushy.
Of course, over on the Eastern side, St. Eusebius of Emesa (who was a pupil of the church historian also named St. Eusebius) said that the Gospels only started to be written down because the Virgin Mary kept bugging the first three evangelists to do it.
(Knowing Jewish moms? I can believe it!)
So it’s very likely that the Gospels only include as much about the Virgin Mary, or Mary Magdalene, or any of the other women, as they thought necessary. (Don’t mess with the church ladies!) Obviously we would like more info, but it wasn’t given to us.
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
I am Jewish, Orthodox, but studied Catholic theology for six years in college. I think such a momentous meeting would have been recorded in the bible. It is for the same reason I never believe the silly stories that pop up now and then that Jesus was married. If he;d been married, such important information would have been recorded. Instead, Mary disappears from the bible entirely.(Knowing Jewish moms? I can believe it!)
I still believe it was Mary Magdalene, He did ask her to alert the disciples. If he’d visited his mother first, she would probably have been the one to tell the disciples. She traveled with Jesus and knew them well.
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
Why would she have to have a meeting?
There was a perfectly good Roman post system, and we know the early churches were always sending letters around to each other. And there’s John, sitting there with the Virgin Mary looking over his shoulder, leaning over and saying, “Don’t forget to tell Matthew to write down some of his stories about my boy, and send them here! Oh, and here’s a story you should send to him – I just thought of it… Maybe we should gather all these stories together sometime, for reference. I’ve got this whole box full of letters now.”
If somebody gently bugs other people to do something, for years and years, it is going to get done. Eventually.
There was a perfectly good Roman post system, and we know the early churches were always sending letters around to each other. And there’s John, sitting there with the Virgin Mary looking over his shoulder, leaning over and saying, “Don’t forget to tell Matthew to write down some of his stories about my boy, and send them here! Oh, and here’s a story you should send to him – I just thought of it… Maybe we should gather all these stories together sometime, for reference. I’ve got this whole box full of letters now.”
If somebody gently bugs other people to do something, for years and years, it is going to get done. Eventually.
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
I mean no offense, but you’re kind of making up your own version of the NT in those posts. By no means do I believe in sola scriptura, but biblical evidence is clearly on the side of Mary Magdalene.
And, while Jesus did entrust Mary to John’s care, and tradition holds she did go to live with him, there is not a hint that she contributed to the writing of the NT.
And, while Jesus did entrust Mary to John’s care, and tradition holds she did go to live with him, there is not a hint that she contributed to the writing of the NT.
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
Look, it’s well-known that tons of important stuff happened that was not recorded in the Gospels. St. John said so. He said he could fill the whole world with books about what happened, and still not exhaust the story.
It was important to Jesus and Mary; it wasn’t important to Revelation. It wasn’t our business that it happened, although it’s known that it almost certainly did.
That’s why it’s tradition and not Tradition, and that’s why it’s not “de fide.”
Jesus meeting up with St. Mary Magdalene is important to Revelation. It’s a very deep part of the story; and it ties Jesus to Adam, and the cemetery garden to Eden.
It was important to Jesus and Mary; it wasn’t important to Revelation. It wasn’t our business that it happened, although it’s known that it almost certainly did.
That’s why it’s tradition and not Tradition, and that’s why it’s not “de fide.”
Jesus meeting up with St. Mary Magdalene is important to Revelation. It’s a very deep part of the story; and it ties Jesus to Adam, and the cemetery garden to Eden.
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
That doesn’t give someone license to state something happened, though, only to have a personal opinion. And personal opinions should be stated as personal opinions. The fact is that despite biblical evidence weighing heavily on the side of Mary Magdalene, no one really knows who Jesus appeared to first.Look, it’s well-known that tons of important stuff happened that was not recorded in the Gospels.
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
I see you’ve read earlier posts. Another poster discussed this at length yesterday.Jesus meeting up with St. Mary Magdalene is important to Revelation. It’s a very deep part of the story; and it ties Jesus to Adam, and the cemetery garden to Eden.
M
Mintaka
Guest
The Gospels don’t talk about the fate of Pontius Pilate. Are we supposed to ignore other historical information, and decide that he didn’t die because they don’t say he did? Or should we look at Roman historical information, and take that as relatively reliable?
Are we supposed to decide that Pope Linus and the other popes didn’t exist, because the Bible doesn’t say they did? Or should we take the accounts of ecclesiastical historians and Fathers of the Church, and agree that they are relatively reliable?
Oral tradition and “family history” are also valid historical sources. You have to determine their reliability, and you don’t have to believe in them as inspired. But if Bob and Mary Christian from the earliest times have been talking about it, it’s probably true.
Re: all the Gospel post-Resurrection appearances, they are made to people who thought Jesus was gone forever. The Evangelists are pointing out that these witnesses were not expecting to see Jesus, and were deeply shocked (albeit in a good way).
Any Christians who had faith that Jesus would come back (which was a religious possibility, even if only in an Elijah-at-the-end-of-Malachi way) were not mentioned. The testimony of Jesus’ mom, who could be seen as prejudiced, was not going to be mentioned, either.
Are we supposed to decide that Pope Linus and the other popes didn’t exist, because the Bible doesn’t say they did? Or should we take the accounts of ecclesiastical historians and Fathers of the Church, and agree that they are relatively reliable?
Oral tradition and “family history” are also valid historical sources. You have to determine their reliability, and you don’t have to believe in them as inspired. But if Bob and Mary Christian from the earliest times have been talking about it, it’s probably true.
Re: all the Gospel post-Resurrection appearances, they are made to people who thought Jesus was gone forever. The Evangelists are pointing out that these witnesses were not expecting to see Jesus, and were deeply shocked (albeit in a good way).
Any Christians who had faith that Jesus would come back (which was a religious possibility, even if only in an Elijah-at-the-end-of-Malachi way) were not mentioned. The testimony of Jesus’ mom, who could be seen as prejudiced, was not going to be mentioned, either.
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
There’s no historical information about Mary urging John to write his gospel. None. It was just a story you concocted that could lead some astray from the truth.
Tradition states that John wrote at the urging of the other disciples:
This may be harder to determine. Certainly tradition seems credible that John at the urging of some of his disciples wrote his Gospel toward the end of his life (Clement of Alexandria, cited by Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.7).
https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/why-did-john-write-his-gospel/
Tradition states that John wrote at the urging of the other disciples:
This may be harder to determine. Certainly tradition seems credible that John at the urging of some of his disciples wrote his Gospel toward the end of his life (Clement of Alexandria, cited by Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.7).
https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/why-did-john-write-his-gospel/
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
Argh. Fine. I’ve got nothing better to do than transcribe quotes.
Eusebius of Emesa, Homiliae in Evangelia, Homilia in Natale Domini in Aurora (Christmas at Dawn).
“Mary, most wise mother, preserved ‘in her heart’ all the words of Jesus Christ, and kept them for us, and caused them to be written down, in order that, according to her instruction, their recital and dictation should be published and preached throughout the world, and given to us to read.”
This is pretty much just a wider version of what everybody has always said about Luke’s Gospel – that it’s obvious that the Virgin Mary was one of his “eyewitnesses,” because nobody else could have told him all the details about Jesus’ birth and other family matters.
It’s also pretty much exactly what is said in ancient sources about other friends or family of ancient authors, who made sure that documents or stories were preserved.
[UPDATE - Changed the wording a bit to go with finding the Latin, will look for the original Greek and correct if needed.]
Eusebius of Emesa, Homiliae in Evangelia, Homilia in Natale Domini in Aurora (Christmas at Dawn).
“Mary, most wise mother, preserved ‘in her heart’ all the words of Jesus Christ, and kept them for us, and caused them to be written down, in order that, according to her instruction, their recital and dictation should be published and preached throughout the world, and given to us to read.”
This is pretty much just a wider version of what everybody has always said about Luke’s Gospel – that it’s obvious that the Virgin Mary was one of his “eyewitnesses,” because nobody else could have told him all the details about Jesus’ birth and other family matters.
It’s also pretty much exactly what is said in ancient sources about other friends or family of ancient authors, who made sure that documents or stories were preserved.
[UPDATE - Changed the wording a bit to go with finding the Latin, will look for the original Greek and correct if needed.]
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
Yes, he wrote that, but we’re discussing biblical sources here. And I don’t think Eusebius knows, either.
We disagree: you say Mary, I say Mary Magdalene or “we don’t know.”
And it’s fine to disagree.
In my religion, we have a saying, “Ask two Jews, and you’ll get three opinions.”
We disagree: you say Mary, I say Mary Magdalene or “we don’t know.”
And it’s fine to disagree.
In my religion, we have a saying, “Ask two Jews, and you’ll get three opinions.”
Last edited:
M
Masihi
Guest
Because Mary Magdalene was the most loved of his disciples.
M
Mintaka
Guest
St. Eusebius of Emesa was born about AD 300, and his teacher was born about AD 260. They were from Roman Palestine, and they were knee-deep in all the documentary and oral history that we don’t have. And there are older sources than them, and which we do have.
It’s all very shadowy, but it’s not much more shadowy than other ancient history.
Re: Mary Magdalene – St. John was one of Jesus’ cousins, was one of the big three who get constantly mentioned, and has generally been considered “the beloved disciple.” Although obviously St. Mary Magdalene was also a big cheese and prominent church lady.
It’s all very shadowy, but it’s not much more shadowy than other ancient history.
Re: Mary Magdalene – St. John was one of Jesus’ cousins, was one of the big three who get constantly mentioned, and has generally been considered “the beloved disciple.” Although obviously St. Mary Magdalene was also a big cheese and prominent church lady.
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
Traditional, mainstream Catholic theologians teach that John was the most loved of Jesus’s disciples. That certainly seems to be true since he entrusted the care of his mother to John.Because Mary Magdalene was the most loved of his disciples.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
The risen Jesus first appeared to His Holy Mother.
It has been a popular tradition that Mary the mother of Jesus was first, but that Mary Magdalene was mentioned as the first given the charge to be a witness. Either one is possible; the question is not a matter of dogma.On what basis? The Gospel writers say it was Mary Magdalene. They are all in agreement she was first. I’m not saying he didn’t, just that there’s no Scriptural basis for it.
The Holy Scripture do not explicitly say “the first one He appeared to was,” correct? The accounts just tell the story by mentioning someone first. It could be that the writers of the Gospels were not concerned about making a big deal of who was first. What they did make clear, however, is that the first reports were not believed. The Emmaus story in Luke particularly drives home the point that the first reporters were women (plural). The point is driven home in the case of Thomas, who wouldn’t even believe based on the testimony of the others present at the Last Supper. The point of the stories is that even though skepticism is natural, a Christian’s belief in the Resurrection must be based on testimony of eye-witnesses and the contention that this was explained by the Lord himself as a fulfillment of Scriptures, even though some who were very close to Jesus resisted reports that this had happened and those who were most conversant in the content of the Scriptures did not accept this as having happened.
Last edited:
M
Masihi
Guest
I remember a verse where Jesus disciples asked him why he loved Mary Magdalene the most. I can’t remember it though. We can assume she was highly favored among his disciples.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
The verse you remember is from the Gospel of Thomas iirc. Or Dialogue of the Savior or another apocryphal text. It is not something everyone accepts, but it is a reason why Magdalene would have been mentioned first.I remember a verse where Jesus disciples asked him why he loved Mary Magdalene the most. I can’t remember it though. We can assume she was highly favored among his disciples.
Thanks for answering the question!
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
As I have said before, Mk 16:9 says “When he had risen, early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.” It can be understood in different ways.The Holy Scripture do not explicitly say “the first one He appeared to was,” correct?
The issue raised here was “WHY did the Lord appear to Mary Magdalene first?”
If you believe he appeared to his Mother first, please offer a reason WHY he would have done that.
Or offer a reason why he would have appeared to Mary Magdalene first.
Or offer a reason why the evangelists mentioned Mary Magdalene and not his mother.
Or a reason why it matters who he appeared to.
Mary Magdalene’s story has often been obscured by arguments over where she fits in some historical time line, instead of why she fits there.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.