posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:43 AM
Let me point out to people that THE GOLDEN LEGEND is the same book that made fanciful stories about other saints which were written by one man, and
include the story of St.George killing a dragon. Now who knows, possible dragons did exist etc as the book says so, but historically St.George does
exist and has his remains in the hanging church in Egypt, but he, I am sure, didn't kill a dragon, but did help the crusaders and was originally a
Muslim who converted, if that is correct.
In anycase, the symbolism in the paintings is not of Mary Magdalen holding Jesus' skull, and so doens't dismiss the resurrection, and no the Church
did not 'cover-up' any relationship between Jesus and Mary, or him dying and not ressurecting....
For some logic, let me first say that if the story of Jesus ressurecting, was a fabrication, as some suggest may ahve been added as a fabrication to
the Bible, and that the church tried to discredit Mary as a harlot in order to discredit her telling the truth, etc, then let me just point out a few
If the church really was covering things up, then they wouldn't allow all these paintings to have remained in full view, or in holy places, and would
have burned them and the painters would have been punished for heresy. They were not, because the skull in the paintings is nothing to do with Jesus
or 'his skull' as has been wrongly suggested. i will elaborate on the symbolism later.
The other point is also that if the church wanted to fabricate the ressurection adding this in the Bible, and tried to discredit Mary Magdalen, then
why didn't they delete the passages in the Bible, New testament, which say she was the first to witness Jesus ressurected from the grave. It seems
preposterous that people suggest the ressurction accounts were maybe added later, and Mary discredited, yet at the same time Mary Magdalen being the
very witness who saw Jesus first ! If the ressurection was a fabrication, and Mary was erased from the Bible as some suggest, and discredited to
discredit her 'Jesus skull holding' theory, then it seems madness on the part of the alleged fabricators to give her the credit of witnessing the
ressurected Jesus, first !
If indeed the fabrictors/disceditors really were doing such a thing, they would have written that St.John or another Apostle would have witnessed
Jesus' resurrected self, instead.
One other thing, in those days and culture, women were not considered credible worthy witnesses, but more than one man was considered as credible. So
knowing this, if the Biblical accounts of Jesus' ressurrection were fabricated and added to later by the 'conspiritors', then wouldn't you think
they'd have made their story a very credible one by having several male witnesses, like possibly some Roman centurion, or several male apostles?
For them to have chosen a single woman as a witness (deemed uncredible in those times) who had been possessed of 7 evil spirits, would have been
madness, unless it was the truth. Added to this, the business of people in the faith believing Mary Magdalen was possibly a harlot too, makes it even
worse as a credible witness, so if there was such a big church conspiracy, they'd have certainly not had her as a witness, out of the women they
could have chosen, and well, as I said, no women was a credible witness by law or in any matter back then.
One other thing....though some church fathers and even painters themselves have made the error of assuming Mary Magdalen may have been a harlot who
repented, shows that if painters can make such mistakes, then this business about a skull in the painting, could by the same logic be a mistake,
because painters, paint, and are not theologians. If they heard the same false hearsay about Mary being a 'harlot' then they would also have heard
such tales about skulls and so on....but I will get to that later..
In anycase, as for accusations of possible fabrications about the ressurrection, well, if this was true, then don't you think that the same alleged
church conspirators would also fabricate accounts of Mary being a harlot in the Bible too, to bolster up their views ? Well i already debunked this
nonsense about possible fabrications, as such conspirators wouldn't have used Mary as a witness, as I explained, but also if they had fabricated
things to discredit Mary, they'd have added that she was a harlot, in the Bible aswell. But instead the Bible does not say she was a harlot. Just a
woman who had evil spirits and came to Jesus to be freed. Now it has been assumed that she may have been sexually immoral, and could have been, if
having such evil spirits, but we have no evidence, and it is not in the Bible, but we can understand why such assumptions were made, but not to
discredit her or play her role in the Bible down. As I said, what bigger role could be played down than that of her being an example of being freed by
Jesus, and the first to witness his ressurrection, a great responsibility, and she is a Saint too.