The Magdalene Mystery.

Originally posted by Minori
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

This would contradict the Gnostic Gospels, of Thomas and Philip, as well as the fragmentary Gospel of Mary which clearly indicate that Mary was the most atuned to the teaching of Jesus. After Jesus's death, it was Mary that the Apostles turned to, including Peter, for direction and it was her who told them to pull themselves together and get on with the work in hand. Hardly the heartbroken damsel pining for her departed lover. Besides the metaphysics and cosmology of Christ would indicate that the link established between Mary the pupil, and Jesus the master, transcended death, she had nothing to pine for, their link was constant and unbreakable via the Imaginal realm.

It stands to reason though that she should journey to France, like all the other Apostles, she had a defined mission and work to do, and that would involve, as it did the others, travelling to conduct her ministry as a 'healer'. While Ephesus was a nexus and she no doubt spent time there, it was already well ministered, she does not come across as a woman who would simply sit on her laurels while there was work to be done. The skull to me, represents in this case, not a clinging to the death of loved one, but an acceptance of the irreality and transcience of life. Central to the teaching of Jesus is Kenosis, the skull, stripped of life and flesh, is purely symbolic of that state which leads to abundance and ultimately, the singleness that Thomas describes as the point at which we 'come to know the One, in the presence before you. And everything hidden from you will be revealed'.

Excellent thread OP

Originally posted by resoe26
eeek feminists....

Lets not forget that Mary Magdalene was a harlot to begin with.
I wonder how much harlots cost back in those days......?

The accusations made against Mary in 591 by Pope Gregory the Great upon which that myth are based, were admitted to be false by the Roman Church in 1969.

For further information:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Logarock


"The Prince of Peace embraced the gloom, And walked the night alone."

...............!

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


The church has always had it in for women, just reading what they say about women is wrong and has been used against women for 100's of years.
My question is why is it they demonized women for so long?

reply to post by JesuitGarlic




Historical accuracy is questionable in all areas, paintings aren't photographic evidence, all one can say is they give insight into how events were interpreted.


There are two earlier traditions that are sourced with regards to Mary Magdalene in the Garden of Gethsemene and her meeting with the Risen Lord, were she mistakes him for the gardener


The first dates back to Sumeria and is the tale of Ishtar and the gardener of Anu, Ishullanu

You loved Ishullanu, your father's date gardener,
who continually brought you baskets of dates,
and brightened your table daily.
You raised your eyes to him, and you went to him:
'Oh my Ishullanu, let us taste of your strength,
stretch out your hand to me, and touch our vulva.
Ishullanu said to you:
'Me! What is it you want from me!
Has my mother not baked, and have I not eaten
that I should now eat food under contempt and curses
and that alfalfa grass should be my only cover against
the cold?
As you listened to these his words
you struck him, turning him into a frog
and made him live in the middle of his (garden of) labors,
where the mihhu do not go up, nor the bucket of dates (?) down.

In this myth, the price of rejecting the physical advances of Ishtar was to be turned into a frog, which due to it's amphibious nature symbolized an intermediate state between the physical and spiritual realms, and could not be touched, as in 'Noli me Tangere'.

This aspect gave rise to the tales of the Frog Prince of course.


Another aspect is from the Sidonian mysteries, There was an acclamation used in the Sidonian rebirth mysteries wherein the Priestess would cry 'iz'y'Baal' meaning 'were is my Prince' to which the response would be 'ith'y'Baal' meaning 'here is the Prince'...now the phrase 'iz'y'baal' became the name of a notorious Sidonian Princess commonly known as Jezebel, though the Hebrew scribes had changed her name to mean 'where is dung?/'iz'y'bul' in Hebrew...from Prince to dung in one fell swoop of the scribal pen, and indeed in the story Jezebul falls from on high to be eaten by dogs.


Thus in this aspect Mary Magdalene is adopting the role of the Sidonian Priestess in raising the question 'where have they laid my Lord'.


The suggestion of an intermediate state of course gives a third way insight into whether the resurrection was physical or spiritual, and suggests both.

Originally posted by aethertek

Originally posted by resoe26

eeek feminists....

Lets not forget that Mary Magdalene was a harlot to begin with.
I wonder how much harlots cost back in those days......?

eeew misogynists.....

Lets not forget that all men are born of woman to begin with.
I wonder why men still fear the feminine as they did back in those days.....?

K~

edit on 29-3-2013 by aethertek because: Puncuation

Fear of what?
what the muck are you talking about?

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Minori
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

This would contradict the Gnostic Gospels, of Thomas and Philip, as well as the fragmentary Gospel of Mary which clearly indicate that Mary was the most atuned to the teaching of Jesus. After Jesus's death, it was Mary that the Apostles turned to, including Peter, for direction and it was her who told them to pull themselves together and get on with the work in hand. Hardly the heartbroken damsel pining for her departed lover.

Nothing against Mary....really. But this is a load of bull. Its a very egregious expansion on what really happened. But alas some need to twist the thing around to fit a modern political flow.

The symbolic nature of the skull, is probably imperative in any interpretation of it's usage in association in any historical context.

The skull as a symbol of the mortality of humanity, the transcendent nature of higher knowledge, rebirth and immortality has been used for a very long time.


some examples

transcendence of temporal existence
the inclusion of the skull makes explicit the essential
finiteness of man and the limitation of human knowledge.
a metaphor for understanding, to that of GOD.
(human vision and knowledge is necessarily limited by
time and place, while GOD can see and know all things
at all times). in hans holbein’s painting ‘the ambassadors’
the anamorphic skull can be connected to the contrast
between discursive reason and intellectual vision as
different stages of human knowledge.
the stable, balanced, serene coposition is interrupted
only by a long gray shape that rises diagonally from the
floor. when viewed from the proper angle, this shape
is recognized as a skull in reflecting holbein's interest
in symbolism and radical perspectives.
the skull disrupts our trust in the cartesian perspective
center in the same way, our trust in our own reality
(belief systems) becomes distabilised.
it is thought that this might have been holbein's favorite
painting, because it is the only one he signed with
his full name.

the death-resurrection cycle
the skull and crossbone symbol is also used in initiation
rituals as a symbol of rebirth. it may also symbolize the
‘sephirah daath’ on the kabbalistic tree of life, the gateway
to the higher realms of understanding only achievable
through spiritual death and rebirth. a skull did not inspire
horror, on the contrary, it symbolised the promise of a new life.

christianity
the skull as an emblem occurs frequently in christianity,
inspired by golgotha, the place of the skull, where christ was crucified.
it was the burial place where adam's skull lay directly under the
cross so the blood of jesus could drip on it, thus washing away
the original sin (there was no mention of eve -
official theology was always vague about whether jesus' death
had really washed away original sin or not).
the christian concept of christ there dying on the cross would
explain the crossed bones (?).
skulls are associated with such penitent saints as st francis of
assisi, st jerome and st mary magdalene. when included in
depictions of them the skull may have a cross placed nearby.

www.sacred-texts.com...

56. He, the Most Holy Ancient One, is hidden and concealed, and in that Skull is the Supernal Wisdom concealed, who is found and who is not found.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I am unclear as to what type of relationship Mary and Jesus shared.
I understand that there was a bond there that even in his death was unbreakable.
But I also think it is important to remember that she was a human, with human emotions.
It is very possible that this relationship was completely spiritual, and that she understood his message and what he was trying to say better then the others, or on a more deeper level.
Either way the absence of him in the physical sense would still take a toll on those who knew him in body.
When you love someone or something and you no longer have it to touch, smell or hear and you rely on your faith alone to be near, it can become a lonely existence.
This is a great topic and something I have mulled over for a while now.

PLPL

Originally posted by Minori
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

I am unclear as to what type of relationship Mary and Jesus shared.

Well, the most credible evidence of Christ's life is the Bible and, less so, other texts written in the same timeframe (within 75 years of his death, so credibly either written, or testified to, by eyewitnesses,) and there is no indication that it was anymore than a casual relationship. She was probably a devotee, but the cultural norms of the time would preclude her from being an Apostle -- if she was, there would be quite a bit of that in the Bible, since it would have been so controversial.

The texts that claim or imply that there was more to their relationship than is otherwise presented are dated long after he died, and are part of theologies that felt it important to elevate the position of Mary, so their authenticity is extremely suspect, even to non-Christian scholars who don't really care one way or the other.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

The church has always had it in for women, just reading what they say about women is wrong and has been used against women for 100's of years.
My question is why is it they demonized women for so long?

It is because the Roman Catholic Church was invented by homosexuals. They are intent on creating a male-based same-sex, and socialist future world order.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Minori
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

I am unclear as to what type of relationship Mary and Jesus shared.

Well, the most credible evidence of Christ's life is the Bible and, less so, other texts written in the same timeframe (within 75 years of his death, so credibly either written, or testified to, by eyewitnesses,) and there is no indication that it was anymore than a casual relationship. She was probably a devotee, but the cultural norms of the time would preclude her from being an Apostle -- if she was, there would be quite a bit of that in the Bible, since it would have been so controversial.

The texts that claim or imply that there was more to their relationship than is otherwise presented are dated long after he died, and are part of theologies that felt it important to elevate the position of Mary, so their authenticity is extremely suspect, even to non-Christian scholars who don't really care one way or the other.

Would you have a problem with Jesus having sex with women? Of course, the Roman Catholic Church has always had a problem with Jesus fancying women because the RCC was invented by homosexuals.

Originally posted by Trafalgar1805

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Minori
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

I am unclear as to what type of relationship Mary and Jesus shared.

Well, the most credible evidence of Christ's life is the Bible and, less so, other texts written in the same timeframe (within 75 years of his death, so credibly either written, or testified to, by eyewitnesses,) and there is no indication that it was anymore than a casual relationship. She was probably a devotee, but the cultural norms of the time would preclude her from being an Apostle -- if she was, there would be quite a bit of that in the Bible, since it would have been so controversial.

The texts that claim or imply that there was more to their relationship than is otherwise presented are dated long after he died, and are part of theologies that felt it important to elevate the position of Mary, so their authenticity is extremely suspect, even to non-Christian scholars who don't really care one way or the other.

Would you have a problem with Jesus having sex with women?

Not if he was married, which he was not. The Bible clearly states that having sex with a non-spouse is a sin, and that Jesus was sinless, so we can conclude that he did not have sex.

Of course, the Roman Catholic Church has always had a problem with Jesus fancying women because the RCC was invented by homosexuals.

Yes, I'm sure that's why they are so in favour of gay rights.

reply to post by adjensen


I wouldn't be sure that he wasn't married - the Catholic Church has a same-sex agenda, so fabricating stories that Jesus wasn't interested in women is central to the RCC and is something they will never give up - and I wouldn't say sex outside marriage was a sin anyway.

As for their public stance on homosexual rights - they are a Trojan horse. One day, after they have acquired as much wealth and power as they think they can achieve through deception, I expect the RCC to openly imply and lie that Jesus was homosexual, and that was the plan all along.

Originally posted by Trafalgar1805
reply to post by adjensen

 

I wouldn't be sure that he wasn't married - the Catholic Church has a same-sex agenda, so fabricating stories that Jesus wasn't interested in women is central to the RCC and is something they will never give up - and I wouldn't say sex outside marriage was a sin anyway.

Well, unfortunately, you're not the determiner of morality, God is, and he's said that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Apart from obviously fabricated texts, written to further an agenda, there are no known documents, even from non-Christian sources, that claim that Christ was married or had sexual relations with anyone.

As for their public stance on homosexual rights - they are a Trojan horse. One day, after they have acquired as much wealth and power as they think they can achieve through deception, I expect the RCC to openly imply and lie that Jesus was homosexual, and that was the plan all along.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Trafalgar1805
reply to post by adjensen

 

I wouldn't be sure that he wasn't married - the Catholic Church has a same-sex agenda, so fabricating stories that Jesus wasn't interested in women is central to the RCC and is something they will never give up - and I wouldn't say sex outside marriage was a sin anyway.

Well, unfortunately, you're not the determiner of morality, God is, and he's said that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Apart from obviously fabricated texts, written to further an agenda, there are no known documents, even from non-Christian sources, that claim that Christ was married or had sexual relations with anyone.

As for their public stance on homosexual rights - they are a Trojan horse. One day, after they have acquired as much wealth and power as they think they can achieve through deception, I expect the RCC to openly imply and lie that Jesus was homosexual, and that was the plan all along.

That makes absolutely no sense.

I hope that when the RCC publically warms to the fabricated texts (that secret Mark gospel is it called?) that lies that Jesus was homosexual, which has been the plan all along, you will dismiss them, or will you only dismiss the texts that state he was heterosexual and had sex with women?

Originally posted by Trafalgar1805
I hope that when the RCC publically warms to the fabricated texts (that secret Mark gospel is it called?) that lies that Jesus was homosexual, which has been the plan all along, you will dismiss them, or will you only dismiss the texts that state he was heterosexual and had sex with women?

I have made something of a career of studying non-canonical texts, and I dismiss the majority of them, written by non-orthodox authors. Yes, it is The Secret Gospel of Mark which implies that Christ was homosexual, but that is a known forgery, almost certainly conjured up by its discoverer, Morton Smith.

There is zero chance that the Roman Catholic Church will "warm up" to non-canonical texts -- they officially closed the canon centuries ago.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
The church has always had it in for women, just reading what they say about women is wrong and has been used against women for 100's of years.
My question is why is it they demonized women for so long?

I don't think that the Church can be entirely blamed for that demonization, it began as an off-shoot of statehood, and while it was certainly reinforced by the Church during the Middle-Ages, largely due to the Church being a solely male domain where women were 'alien' to holiness, it was enforced because of wider social contexts. In the first century of Christianity many women were drawn to the faith because it gave them spiritual freedom, but so were many men. The tombs and grave markers from that time in the Roman Empire indicate that Christianity at that time was primarily made up of slaves and the lower classes. It offered them something that Judiasm, and the elitist Roman Paganism, did not. Once Christianity became the 'authorised' religion, and was embraced by the elite, the rules changed somewhat, and the Church reflected the wider social hierarchy, and the role of women in the Church was reflective of that social system. As was the role of lower class men.

The Roman social system at that time was largely the result of the Hellenisation of Rome, women were to stay indoors, not to mix with men, take part in civic life, not to own property etc, etc. This was all the result of Hellenisation, and did not, it is worth noting, pass into being without protest, women campaigned against the Pater Familias laws, but to little avail, since they were already barred from the discussions. Either way, with civilisation comes the need to protect that civilisation, that requires soldiers, which requires reproduction and laws and incentives to ensure that every man and woman do their bit to replenish to garrisons. Additionally, the passing of heriditary rights from male to male, requires confirmed paternity, which leads to restrictions of female sexuality. And, as played out from this period, and throughout the middle ages, it requires the prevention of the dissemination of knowledge and medicinals that aid in contraception and abortion, hence ya witch-hunts.

In short, the Church is merely an apparatus of the state and it is the needs of the state that lead to the demonisation of women...but the Church did embrace that vilification with some gusto.

Originally posted by Logarock
Nothing against Mary....really. But this is a load of bull. Its a very egregious expansion on what really happened. But alas some need to twist the thing around to fit a modern political flow.

To an extent, but however you view it in relation to the other gospels in terms of what 'really happened', or indeed whether any of them offer a true picture, The Gospel of Mary certainly does record such an exchange...

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.

6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.

7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.

8) And she began to speak to them these words: I, she said, I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision. He answered and said to me,

9) Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.

10) I said to Him, Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it, through the soul or through the spirit?

11) The Savior answered and said, He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind that is between the two that is what sees the vision and it is [...]

1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.

gnosis.org...

Obviously, the fragments that exist are dated to the 5th century, so it is a little bit more modern than the oldest fragments of the canonical gospels, but still...I like it and if we accept the interpretations of a number of theologians, that the woman at Jacob's Well, and the sister who gave up her work to sit at Jesus's feet and listen, are one and the same with Mary Magdalene, then this woman had something about her. The Pistis Sophia too provides strong support that she was able to converse with her teacher with confidence, and that he listened when she spoke, responding favourably to her answers. But, as I have already stated, it depends largely what texts you consider as indicative of what 'really happened' and which you don't, personally, it is not so much the messenger, as the message that counts.

Sometimes I really wish orthodox fundamentalists would take their apologetics to another forum. I am so sick of their tired old predictable tripe that everyone has already heard a million times.