Why did the lord appear to Mary Magdalene first?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FloridaCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PetraG said:
We know that his Mother, not surprisingly, was never included in an account of the witnesses. Why not? Well, because no one is going to believe a mother’s testimony concerning her son. It is dismissed as biased, out of hand. It is reasonable that she was not a witness.
Click to expand...
Mothers testify for their sons in courtrooms every day, and many are believed. Most people do not discount their testimony.

What did the interaction between Jesus and Mary Magdalene consist of? He asked her to alert the disciples, etc.

Do you really think if HIS OWN MOTHER, who the disciples knew well and loved, and, I assume trusted, had given them the SAME message, they would have said, “Oh, come on, Mary. It’s just your emotions talking.” Of course not. She would have been believed, incredible as it was to them, probably more than Mary Magdalene was. I’m sure they knew the BV to be a truth-teller. Your post makes her sound like a hysteric, which she cannot have even remotely been, having had the fortitude to stand at the foot of the Cross from beginning to end.

The Bible doesn’t tell us every detail, but on this question (who was first) the Bible does give us an answer. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first. Mark’s gospel tells us that in no uncertain terms, as has been stated by @Dovekin. If Mark can’t be believed about this, his whole gospel becomes suspect as do the authors who relied on Mark, at least in part.

Gospel of Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

You’re not Jewish. Perhaps you don’t know that the women could not have purchased spices to anoint the body on the Sabbath. Personally, I would not have expected a mother to prepare her own son’s body for burial, though doubtless the BV could have handled it, and no doubt did kiss him goodbye (customary) after he was taken from the Cross. I do not find her absence suspect at all. Mary would have been at home, in mourning, receiving the consolation of friends and relatives, as was the custom, for the first seven days. (The immediate family did not leave the house for seven days.) What is the point of placing her where Jewish custom, and the Bible, tells us she would not have been?
 
Last edited:
According to the visions of Blesssed Anne Emmerich, Christ appeared to his mother Mary on Calvary, just before his Resurrection from the tomb.

In the vision of Blessed Anne Emmerich, after Mother Mary had returned to retrace the steps of his Passion, following the Way of the Cross, Christ appeared to her on Calvary and told her that he was about to come alive from the tomb in a glorified body. He told her to wait for him near Calvary on the stone where He had fallen. Then after the Ressurection, Christ appeared to Mother Mary there, before the women (including Mary Magdalene) arrived at the tomb.

The Dolorous Passion does not form part of Sacred Scripture, but many things may have happened that are not part of the canon of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Brendan_64 said:
The Dolorous Passion does not form part of Sacred Scripture, but many things may have happened that are not part of the canon of the Bible.
Click to expand...
That was also “embroidered” by the man to whom it was dictated. While not wholly detracting from its value, it does cast some doubt as to its veracity, because of the embroidery, not because of ACE. And it’s private revelation, which no one but ACE is required to believe since it was given to her. But we don’t know how much was actually given to her and how much was embroidered.

I respect your beliefs, if you do believe this account (you didn’t say), but it doesn’t change the fact that the Bible puts Mary Magdalene first. All four gospel writers place her first.

I appreciate your contribution and information.
 
Last edited:
ConstantLearner said:
I respect your beliefs, if you do believe this account (you didn’t say), but it doesn’t change the fact that the Bible puts Mary Magdalene first. All four gospel writers place her first.
Click to expand...
Yes, Scripture accounts have Mary Magdalene seeing Jesus first at the tomb, that isn’t in question. But an account of Christ appearing to his Mother (next to Calvary) before this does not necessarily contradict Scripture.
 
Last edited:
I believe that Mary Magdalene still had a special place in Jesus’s heart.
 
Dovekin said:
, if it was someone other than Mary Magdalene, was not deemed significant enough to include in the Gospel
Click to expand...
Are you trying to argue that the Trinity and the Canon of sacred scripture are insignificant details because they’re not explicitly stated?
 
Last edited:
JohnR77 said:
Are you trying to argue that the Trinity and the Canon of sacred scripture are insignificant details because they’re not explicitly stated?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I am saying that what is in Scripture is more important then our reconstructed history. The suggestion that Jesus appeared to his mother before Mary Magdalene has raised the question of whether history or the Gospel is more important.

Are the gospels important just because they establish history? If we can establish history better than just by the gospels, does that history take precedence?

I am actually a proponent of understanding each of the gospels for what they say in context, rather than trying to construct a “gospel harmony” that blends them into a single coherent history. I would rather learn that Mark wrote shortly after the massacre at Magdala or that John portrays Mary Magdalene as a new Eve.
Brendan_64 said:
Christ appeared to his mother Mary on Calvary, just before his Resurrection from the tomb.
Click to expand...
Yet another option. Christ appeared to his mother after his death, but before his Resurrection! I have no idea what that says about anything.
Masihi said:
I believe that Mary Magdalene still had a special place in Jesus’s heart.
Click to expand...
She has a special place in my heart too. His mother is special to me as well, but Mary Magdalene does not take anything away from her.
 
Well…as a Catholic who prays the Rosary every day…I do agree with you…what does it have to do with anything if Mary Magdalene saw Jesus first…whether it was Mary his Mother…or Mary Magdalene…it has nothing to do with his resurrection…all this back and forth on who saw Jesus first just takes away the importance of what really took place…the Resurrection of Jesus Christ…I’ll stick to the Biblical account that it was Mary Magdalene…i don’t know why but it’s like some Catholics seem to think that if everything about our Savior doesn’t revolve around our Blessed Mother then it somehow detracts from her role as the Mother of God…it doesn’t.
 
Dovekin said:
Yet another option. Christ appeared to his mother after his death, but before his Resurrection! I have no idea what that says about anything.
Click to expand...
In the account of the visions of Blessed Anne Emmerich, Christ appeared to his mother Mary before his Ressurection, after He had returned from Limbo. His appearance is recorded as being beautiful, but not that of a living body. He then asked her to wait for him at a spot near Calvary where He would appear risen in his glorified body.

I do however think the who did Jesus appear to first debate doesn’t really matter that much. Does it make sense for Jesus to appear to his mother Mary first? It does to me and I would probably tend to go with that, but its not a major issue.

There shouldn’t be some sort of ranking of ‘worthiness’ or ‘favour’ based on who Jesus appeared to first. Regardless of who Jesus appeared to first, His mother Mary is Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and is placed above all other saints.
 
Last edited:
So, I am not really sure what you are asking. ?? I am not reconstructing history at all. Wouldn’t want to take a chance on doing that. 🙂

All I am saying is that traditionally the Church has held that Jesus "first’ appeared to His mother. It was spoken of by saints in the past and previous popes, Saint Pope JPII.

Also, my point was that all the gospels portray Mary Magdelene at the tomb, and describe Jesus appearing to her first, but only Mark uses the words, “He appeared first to Mary Magdalene”
Dovekin said:
Jesus must have appeared first to Caiaphas. Or that he appeared to someone in Central America. But what would be the point? Any reconstructed history might be revealing, but it would not be the Gospel.
Click to expand...
You’re right, what is the point here? Sorry, I don’t get it.

I am not reconstructing history. I am reading the gospel accounts but also listening to what early Catholic saints have said. I think there is more being made out of my answer than what is there.

 
Last edited:
Brendan_64 said:
In the account of the visions of Blessed Anne Emmerich, Christ appeared to his mother Mary before his Ressurection, after He had returned from Limbo. His appearance is recorded as being beautiful, but not that of a living body. He then asked her to wait for him at a spot near Calvary where He would appear risen in his glorified body.

I do however think the who did Jesus appear to first debate doesn’t really matter that much. Does it make sense for Jesus to appear to his mother Mary first? It does to me and I would probably tend to go with that, but its not a major issue.

There shouldn’t be some sort of ranking of ‘worthiness’ or ‘favour’ based on who Jesus appeared to first. Regardless of who Jesus appeared to first, His mother Mary is Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and it is placed above all other saints.
Click to expand...
That is so well put. I like that vision of Blessed Anne Emmerich. It shows how a loving Son would honor His Mother and relieve her sorrow.
 
Dovekin said:
And your response is insults? And attempts to intimidate by citing JP2’s authority as your own? Indignation?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand me if you think any of the above is true. Sorry if I was not more clear.

By the way, I noticed that you did not engage in the intellectual arguments I offered above and at my web site. You only ignored them.

Peace,
John
 
Last edited:
"Peebo said:
…I’ll stick to the Biblical account that it was Mary Magdalene…
Click to expand...
.

If there is a “Biblical account” that said Jesus saw Mary Magdalene before the Blessed Virgin Mary, then there is a passage which clearly states that.

However, I have proven above that Mark 16 use of the phrase “appeared first” does not necessarily, and in fact it does not do so at all, prove that this phrase was being used to modify the first thing Jesus did after the resurrection. Rather, It only is commenting on the series of events that Mark decided to include.

See my link above and represented again here at

Mark 16:9-10 “he appeared first to Mary Magdalene” - Meaning explained

Therefore, there is NO Biblical Account as you have misrepresented.

IF you had misrepresented the truth before my explanation, I would over look that. But, now since you have decided to misrepresent the truth and promote what has been clearly proven false, I know to never again read anything you ever post in an attempt to learn anything.
.
"Dovekin said:
You claimed there was no specific and exclusive statement in Scripture that Jesus appeared first to MM. i provided a counter example. Oddly, The link that claims to explain the verse says “the word first indicates not an absolute priority, but only a relative priority specifically and exclusively to the events Mark decides to include.” We could discuss whether it asserts an absolute or relative priority, but we should be able to agree it is a specific and exclusive statement from Scripture that asserts Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene.
Click to expand...
.
.
No .

Mark 16 does not claim what you are saying.

And I have proved that the passage you provided was vague at best. It is not clear on the point in this debate.
.
 
.
"Peebo said:
…all this back and forth on who saw Jesus first just takes away the importance of what really took place…t
Click to expand...
.
"Brendan_64 said:
I do however think the who did Jesus appear to first debate doesn’t really matter that much.
Click to expand...
.
.

Well, it does matter because to deny the Blessed Virgin was the first is an insult to the glory and grace of Jesus Christ. Sin is never good.

On my web page above, I had offered , further down on the page, a Proof that the Blessed Virgin Mary was the first person to see Our Resurrected Lord

My previous explanation was probably to hard to understand.

Because of your encouragement I decided to clarify the wording using simpler language. See the new link at


The Proof :

An insult to the glory and grace of Jesus Christ must be wrong.

Eadmer, see above, is alluding to the principles of typology. He is not only stating that Jesus first appeared to the BVM (Blessed Virgin Mary,)

he is also providing us with a proof that Jesus did so.

We need only to understand two principles.

First typology and second how Mary is the most perfected of all creatures.

Let us consider two different hypothetical individuals. The first person is very open to the grace that Jesus provides. The second person is less so. It would be an insult to the glory and grace of Jesus Christ if the second person who was less close to Jesus and who had refused some of his grace also participated to a greater extent in the heavenly glories than the first person, who was closer to Jesus Christ and His grace.

Also see

Aren’t you Catholics placing Mary to high ?

But now in the example on Mary she is the greatest of God’s creatures because she has the fullest co-operation and participation with God’s grace. She can point to no creature greater than herself because no creature co-operated with Jesus more than she did. If there was a greater participation by someone other than BVM in the Glories of Heaven such as Jesus’ resurrection by someone who was not as close to Jesus as was BVM that would be an insult to Jesus Christ because He is the sole source of all grace.

Therefore, Mary had to be the first to participate in the heavenly glory of Jesus’ resurrection.

I hope this helps everyone.
[I am referring to those seeking the truth, not the trolls.]

John
 
JohnR77 said:
See Biblical, Logical, and Historical reasons For believing that the blessed Virgin Mary was the 1st person visited by resurrected Lord.

https://www.defendingthebride.com/pp/tomb/
Click to expand...
Awesome. Thanks for the link. It is very insightful. I think this makes the most sense that Jesus appeared first to His Mother. Perhaps, maybe the word “first” in Mark 16 is similar to the word “until” in Matthew 1.
I think Jesus as a good Son would definitely honor His Mother by relieving Her sorrow as soon as possible, especially with their hearts being so united.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
I think Jesus as a good Son would definitely honor His Mother by relieving Her sorrow as soon as possible, especially with their hearts being so united.
Click to expand...
Yes. Great point.
I would want to help my mother. And it is obvious that Jesus loved His mother more than I do mine.
John
 
JohnR77 said:
I would want to help my mother. And it is obvious that Jesus loved His mother more than I do mine.
Click to expand...
You’re basing your conclusion on what you would want, not what the Bible suggests.

No, it does not definitively state that Mary Magdalene was the very first person Jesus appeared to. He could have appeared in China or Peru prior to near the grave. However, nowhere in the Bible does it even suggest he appeared to his mother prior to Mary Magdalene. Given her importance in Christian theology, I believe the Gospel writers would have written it down had he appeared to her prior to Mary Magdalene.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top