Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Magdalene Mystery.

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by 00777
 




There is the tradition of wilderness hermetic Saints being depicted with skulls, this is because their cave dwelling was associated with the tomb and within they are are considered to have contemplated upon mortality.


You won't find in any of them however the same emotional attatchment to the skull that is seen in the Mary Magdalene paintings, the tomb and skull symbolism there have particular relevance because this was the woman seen to have first entered the tomb at Gethsemene, and her withdrawl is contemplation upon the particular mysteries of that tomb...

The painting you linked to of her skull is based on her reliquiry.







posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


D&D player?


I dabble.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00777
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.


As you may know the confusion around Mary and the harlot have to with some assuming that Mary was the same woman that anointed Christ with oil, the same woman said to have been a harlot. There are other confusions here as well.

Whatever the case, the story of the woman and the oil shows even further proof that the writers were not trying to keep women out of the picture. Mainly because the act of perparation for His death was done after the manner of certain sacrifices done only by the priests. This woman looks as though she is taking it upon herself to carry out a function done only by the priests with oil on the head, hands and feet. As it was the priest would never have prepared Christ in this fashion, Christ the healer of leporcy, the taker of the leporcy had to be prepared per the law as both High Priest and sacrifice in one. This was important to Christ as one writer made a note that Christ told two lepors to go show themeselves to the priest and make offering according to the law about this. This would not have been included had there been an effort to keep women in a certain cultural frame of mind whenever included.


15“Then the priest will pour some of the olive oil into the palm of his own left hand. 16He will dip his right finger into the oil in his palm and sprinkle some of it with his finger seven times before the LORD. 17The priest will then apply some of the oil in his palm over the blood from the guilt offering that is on the lobe of the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the big toe of the right foot of the person being purified. 18The priest will apply the oil remaining in his hand to the head of the person being purified. Through this process, the priest will purify the person before the LORD. Leviticus 14


Most of the attention on this area of scripture goes to Judas and his comments about selling the oil and giving the money to the poor. As it so happens the area of Leviticus were this is taken has to do with poor people being able to bring a price for the purifiction. The comments of Judas have not been seen in this light i.e. that he in fact missed the whole picture and only a note about Judas being greedy is made. Christ went on to say that they should remember what this women did here were ever you preach the gosple. Why would the writer record this if he were trying to keep women in thier historical context? As it is this area of scripture is used to extract large sums form the faithfull and yet like Judas missing the point here.

I would go on to say that this Magdalene thing is a case of rising Isis, the sacred feminine, disjointed beyond measure. The poor thing pleading for sympathies as she languishes for her dead lover, a necromancer pining away and central figure of her cult of the dead.



edit on 30-3-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I feel Mary was heartbroken, lost and scared without Jesus. The skull represents her constant struggle with death and her loss of her beloved. I am not so confident that she actually had the skull of Jesus, it was symbolic to her nature, she became obsessed with death, and what a better symbol then the skull. To what degree of relationship she had with Jesus is where I waver, it is very possible for someone to love the father on that deep of a spiritual level that they feel "widowed" so to speak. When you think of the dynamic of Jesus and his teachings all the profound wisdom that comes with it and the fact that in the flesh she was able to communicate with him, and then one day he is gone, but her desire to learn from him and her passion to find the answers for the questions she never asked him in person is very much alive, so she removes herself from society and draws within to be nearer to the one she loves, in silence where she finds him.
PLPL



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kantzveldt
 


Mooning over a physical piece of jesus would have gone against everything she was taught by him. The body is nothing but dust, he on the other hand would be alive and well and that person she would have held onto not items.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by Kantzveldt
 


Having the skull of Jesus would "prove" that she was his wife, because who else would have legit claim to the skull!



Did Jesus have a sister perhaps?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
What I find interesting, and what puts these symbols into context, is the oil. Anointing used to be done as a symbol of marriage. The bride would cover the groom in oil as a means of saying that god was involved metaphysically in the relationship.

Couple that with the cross that puts the skull into context, and I think we have our answer as to who the skull was.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 00777
 





St.Jerome paintings: www.nationalgalleries.org... www.handgemalt24.de... www.flickr.com...@N06/8261225210/lightbox/


Thank you, that does throws a whole new light on it.

we do have to remember these were only artists after all, not necessarily people with inside knowledge.

edit on 30-3-2013 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Minori
 



it was symbolic to her nature, she became obsessed with death, and what a better symbol then the skull.


If this were true it would mean she did not believe a word of what he was teaching, to her he was not dead according to the bible.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
reply to post by adjensen
 



Yes Mark had the tradition of the resurrection in terms of the empty tomb before the added verses, and the need to include such carried through into the other Gospels.

Read Mark again -- it's more than just an empty tomb, the angel tells the women that Christ has been resurrected and will meet the disciples in Galilee. And, like I said, it ends there rather abruptly, and someone, after being pestered enough with questions of "well, what happened in Galilee?" added the bit about that, likely borrowing from Matthew.

As for what Gospel was written when, and who relies on who, well, that's a question for another thread.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
jesus did have a bloodline and he wasnt the son of god , i live in ireland where some of his bloodline live , they wanted to go public with this but the church of rome wasnt interested in it , they dont want the lie to continue but dont realy know how to stop it , religion is big and the way they see it is "why lie to people ? how can we stop this ? why should we be the ones to have to deal with the fall out?" i understand this part , why take away the hopes and derams of an afterlife of millions of people who all need comfort in their lives at one point or another ..



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 





Jesus didnt seem to be concerned with fitting into any traditional ideas. And no he never wanted and couldnt experience everything first hand. Just stay tunned to the fact that jesus died and did suffer death and dont get to worked up about if he may or may not have had sex with a woman. Plus think about him having children. They would have been immortal seeing he had no sin nature to pass death along by way of a biological gateway. Nope, like so many other things Jesus didnt and could not do.....and no he didnt do everything, he didnt have kids or have a wife.


You have missed the point, or avoided it. Unless his wife was a goddess, she was mortal and had original sin and since she is half a coupling, then their children could not have been immortal unless he, being a god, imbued them with immortality post fact.

I'm not uptight with Jesus possibly having children or sex, but a 33 year old male in those days not having either, I sincerely doubt it. Well maybe not children but only if the wife was barren.

So tell us, what things "Jesus didn't and could not do."? There were no Biblical pronouncements prior to his birth saying he couldn't marry or couldn't have offspring, or ...?

Logic says you are wrong.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Kantzveldt
 


3 Marys = 3 Faces of the Goddess.

the mother

Mary (BvM) the church stripped her of her womanhood by making her a weak and pathetic thing...I assure you....SHE AINT!

the wife

Mary Magdalen. the church made her a whore regardless that she was a priestess.

the midwife

Mary Salome. They pretty much just hid her lol.

All Goddess' are One Goddess.

Its no real surprise. Peter and Paul were misogynists as were most romans at that time.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by Kantzveldt
 


Having the skull of Jesus would "prove" that she was his wife, because who else would have legit claim to the skull!



Did Jesus have a sister perhaps?


sister? dunno. brother? yep.

Thomas Didymus (the Twin). Otherwise known as Doubting Thomas.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benchkey
reply to post by Logarock
 





Jesus didnt seem to be concerned with fitting into any traditional ideas. And no he never wanted and couldnt experience everything first hand. Just stay tunned to the fact that jesus died and did suffer death and dont get to worked up about if he may or may not have had sex with a woman. Plus think about him having children. They would have been immortal seeing he had no sin nature to pass death along by way of a biological gateway. Nope, like so many other things Jesus didnt and could not do.....and no he didnt do everything, he didnt have kids or have a wife.


You have missed the point, or avoided it. Unless his wife was a goddess, she was mortal and had original sin and since she is half a coupling, then their children could not have been immortal unless he, being a god, imbued them with immortality post fact.

Well then logic would tell us that Jesus would have had original sin seeing half his coupling was through the mortal woman Mary. But we know that He had no original sin nor would His children had he had any. Thus they would have been immortal.

What we would end up with then is another line of humans that were born immortal.....after the flesh anyway. This wasnt to be. As we see Christ is called the "branch" in His bloodline after the flesh. A close look at this word in the original shows that its more like a twig or a sprout.....meaning that it was small in that regard and the line ended with Him. There was no royal bloodline coming out of Christ in regards to His fleash and blood offspring. Christ was a rightious sprout that became a living bud from dead wood....see Arons staff. Christ line is after the spirit. Had it been after the flesh then only His flesh and blood offspring would have found immortality and the blessings granted to Christ would have passed on to bloodlines. His bound with all men then is death as He spent His Royalties, not on a new bloodline of man, but spent it as he shead it upon the earth like Able, was buried amoung the wicked, had His lot cast in with the rejected at the potters field and became King of the resurected. At that point were all rights of power and authority granted to Him.....over things on the earth, under the earth and in Heaven. He did not spend Himself to establish a new line of immortal flesh.....had he, at that point His work would have been done, no point in saving the fallen line of Adam form the dark regions of death or restoring the lost inheritance of man. Which He was bound to do under the law. Which law He did not shy away from but as the man wrote "The Prince of Peace embraced the gloom, And walked the night alone."



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
reply to post by 00777
 




There is the tradition of wilderness hermetic Saints being depicted with skulls, this is because their cave dwelling was associated with the tomb and within they are are considered to have contemplated upon mortality.


You won't find in any of them however the same emotional attatchment to the skull that is seen in the Mary Magdalene paintings, the tomb and skull symbolism there have particular relevance because this was the woman seen to have first entered the tomb at Gethsemene, and her withdrawl is contemplation upon the particular mysteries of that tomb...

The painting you linked to of her skull is based on her reliquiry.








yes but did you read what i wrote, that St.Jerome, another penitent who became a saint, also holds the skull and cross, and yes, in all his paintings has this same regard with it as Mary Magdalene. The skull in art symbolism, means penitent, and has to do with our mortal natures. Nothing to do with Jesus or being 'his skull'. Please read both posts I wrote, as it debunks all this and explains much. In ancyase if the church really was trying to cover anything up, they'd have burnt all the paintings and taken the painters to task....but instead are left in important places as the church knows the skull means penitence....



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by 00777
 



I don't agree that the same emotional attachment can be seen in any paintings of Saint Jerome with regards to the skull, you'd need to demonstrate this.


Within a Christian context then obviously his contemplative life inside the wilderness cave is with regards to the Christian mysteries of the burial tomb of Jesus and his overcoming of mortality, transendance from the confines of the skull, as it were...



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Kantzveldt
 



Everything you're saying is based on an assumption that the skull represents Jesus. Why ? What convinces you ? The Bible does say that Jesus cast several demons out of her. Who's to say that after the resurrection she wasn't possessed by another demon(s), and went a little fruity ? That sounds much more likely of someone who spent her last days out in a cave, for crying out loud !



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Okeyd57
Who's to say that after the resurrection she wasn't possessed by another demon(s), and went a little fruity ? That sounds much more likely of someone who spent her last days out in a cave, for crying out loud !


Actually, it's the opposite.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Kantzveldt
 



Mary's possesion of the actual skull of Jesus does of course contradict the resurrection passage, thought to be a later addition, and the doctrine of the re-constitution of the physical body and Heavenly ascent


The actual skull? SO Mary defeated a Roman guard at the tomb site, stolen his body, the disciples knew about this yet preached on the Resurrection of Jesus right away in the very city that His death and re-appearances occurred in, yet the Jewish authorities and Roman authorities were unable to counter their preaching because they could not produce a body and could not explain His resurrection. And the disciples all recanted their religion as a fraud as they faced death as martyrs revealing it was all just a big lie. Um, no

Maybe try and think ahead of the logical implications and inconsistencies that arise when you say she had the actual skull...to a historian your assertions make no sense.

This cult of Mary is BS in terms of historical basis


it would suggest a rebirth in spiritual form of more importance, after Gnostic doctrine.

The small fact no enemy of Christianity was able to counter its rise by merely dragging out the body that the suggestion of merit to a Gnostic style spiritual form rebirth lacks complete credibility
edit on 31-3-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join