Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

[gnostic]

No, there is no confusion of whose hourse in Bethany the anointing occurred. If it was a different place from Mary's, Martha would not be serving tables but behaving as guest.

Have you read the gospels of Matthews and Mark of the same scene in Bethany? It say it is in the house of Simon, not the Pharisee, but the guy with skin disease.

It is another person's house, instead of that Lazarus, Martha and Mary's. Only in John's gospel does it mentioned those 3 siblings. And only John's say that Mary washed Jesus' feet, while the gospels of Matthews and Mark say that the (unnamed) woman washed Jesus' head.

Mark's and Matthew's completely contradict John's.

 

[gnostic]

And do you still think the NT inspires credibility? I didn't think so.

No. Because there are contradictions, like the scene in Bethany, before Jesus' arrest.

 

[Ben Masada]

Have you read the gospels of Matthews and Mark of the same scene in Bethany? It say it is in the house of Simon, not the Pharisee, but the guy with skin disease.

It is another person's house, instead of that Lazarus, Martha and Mary's. Only in John's gospel does it mentioned those 3 siblings. And only John's say that Mary washed Jesus' feet, while the gospels of Matthews and Mark say that the (unnamed) woman washed Jesus' head.

Mark's and Matthew's completely contradict John's.

It's amazing! But let's assume that John was told only about the feet being anointed, while Matthew and Mark were told about the head. But regarding Simon the Leper, I think he was Lazarus, who was a leper. This would explain
John 11:44 about the linen strips wrapped around Lazarus when he came out the tomb. At that time lepers would be buried all warapped in bandages. Then, a nickname would easily stick to any person almost for any reason. Lazarus, the Leper because of the disease. Mary Magdalene because of her business in Magdala, etc.

Ben:

Ben

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, but Jesus was also covered in linen as well, after they took him down when he died.

I am not Jewish, but is it not Jewish custom to cover the body?

 

[Ben Masada]

Sorry, but Jesus was also covered in linen as well, after they took him down when he died.

I am not Jewish, but is it not Jewish custom to cover the body?

Covered is one thing. Wrapped tightly around is something else. The practice was used with lepers to prevent the flesh from collapsing. Jesus was only covered with linen by Joseph of Arimathea, who had a mind to return within an hour or two to remove him. But this is another subject altogether. I am Jewish and I have explained to you what was the Jewish custom.

Ben:

 

[Ben Masada]

Have you read the gospels of Matthews and Mark of the same scene in Bethany? It say it is in the house of Simon, not the Pharisee, but the guy with skin disease.

It is another person's house, instead of that Lazarus, Martha and Mary's. Only in John's gospel does it mentioned those 3 siblings. And only John's say that Mary washed Jesus' feet, while the gospels of Matthews and Mark say that the (unnamed) woman washed Jesus' head.

Mark's and Matthew's completely contradict John's.

And what do you say about these contradictions of the NT? That's what is important to me. About the contradictions of the NT, I am already well aware of. What's your opinion?

Ben:

 

[existentialangst]

A lot of things have been written about what Jesus would have done since he was an Orthodox Jew, i.e he would have been married if he was a rabbi, he wouldnt have allowed Mary to place perfume on him if they werent married(sorry that's not exactly what was said but it was implied)... Jesus did many things an Orthodox Jew would never have done, the worst being coming into contact with a leper. If Jesus was a rabbi (and by that i hope you mean a teacher since rabbinical judaism didnt evolve until many years later) then he did not have to be married. Many jews who considered themselves Orthodox practiced celibacy in the first century bce and ce. The community that authored the Dead Sea Scrolls were a group of religious jews that were practicing celibacy at that time. Read their "Damascus Document"and "Charter for a Jewish Sectarian Association" to see a perhaps Unorthodox group that believed they were "rabbis"(teachers) and considered themselves Ultra-orthodox.
Arguing about whether there were one Mary or two is always going to be speculation until we find a text or other archeological facts that give us a factual historical picture of the actual Jesus. yeah, hold your breath for that one. Until then all we have is opinion and conjecture. Reading the New Testament or the Old as a historical narrative is a bad way to figure out literal truths. Both testaments borrow their peculiar style of story telling from a time when there was no sense of history. Things had just been this way forever and there was no education to the contrary. so of course it's going to look like the Bible holds many contradictions if you do not consider where the authors were coming from. One Mary or two? I dont think the writers of the gospels knew the answer to that themselves.

 

[sojourner]

I believe we have proved that Jesus was married to the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

No we haven't. All we've proved is that we can make assumptions based upon a cursory reading of the text.

 

[Ben Masada]

No we haven't. All we've proved is that we can make assumptions based upon a cursory reading of the text.

Can you prove that he was NOT married? No, you cannot. Therefore, your denial is based purely on assumptions. Then, if he was not married, he was not a religious Jew. Therefore, Christianity needs to review its tenets.

 

[Ben Masada]

A lot of things have been written about what Jesus would have done since he was an Orthodox Jew, i.e he would have been married if he was a rabbi, he wouldnt have allowed Mary to place perfume on him if they werent married(sorry that's not exactly what was said but it was implied)...

Jesus did many things an Orthodox Jew would never have done, the worst being coming into contact with a leper.

I am not sure you are being accurate by referring to touching a leper as the worst thing an Orthodox Jew would keep himself from. Even a Priest, who is at a higher level of Orthodoxy would touch a leper to check the development of the disease or if it had receded. Besides, there is the provision of "Pichuach Nephesh," when the demands of a commandment are suspended, as the demands of another require more urgency.

If Jesus was a rabbi (and by that i hope you mean a teacher since rabbinical judaism didnt evolve until many years later) then he did not have to be married.

Remember what you said above: That Jesus was an Orthodox Jew. If you believe that he was anointed and kissed by a woman, she had to be his wife, or he was not an Orthodox Jew. Perhaps even not a Jew at all. And that smells trouble for the Church.

Many jews who considered themselves Orthodox practiced celibacy in the first century bce and ce. The community that authored the Dead Sea Scrolls were a group of religious jews that were practicing celibacy at that time. Read their "Damascus Document"and "Charter for a Jewish Sectarian Association" to see a perhaps Unorthodox group that believed they were "rabbis"(teachers) and considered themselves Ultra-orthodox.

Only a very small group among the Essenes; the very fringe of the society chose to adopt celibacy. Hence, they would seclude themselves into monastery-like quarters. Most Essenes would marry. Would you say that Catholics don't get married because nuns and priest don't? Obvious not. In Judaism the opposite is true in terms that the more a religious Jew approaches to ultra Orthodoxy, the commandment to marry and produce children is considered rather more seriously.

Arguing about whether there were one Mary or two is always going to be speculation until we find a text or other archeological facts that give us a factual historical picture of the actual Jesus. yeah, hold your breath for that one.

One does not have to hold his breath for that one. We are talking about Jewish culture and customs. Jesus was an Orthodox Jew, and to be approached by a woman to anoint and kiss him, she had to be his wife. There is no way you are going to bake your cake and eat it too.

Until then all we have is opinion and conjecture. Reading the New Testament or the Old as a historical narrative is a bad way to figure out literal truths. Both testaments borrow their peculiar style of story telling from a time when there was no sense of history. Things had just been this way forever and there was no education to the contrary. so of course it's going to look like the Bible holds many contradictions if you do not consider where the authors were coming from.

I don't agree with you because you want to understand the culture of a people by using the pattern of another. I mean, Judaism cannot be focused through the lenses of Christianity.

One Mary or two? I dont think the writers of the gospels knew the answer to that themselves.

Now, you can say that again. They did not know the answer not only about that but also about a whole lot more.

 

[gnostic]

Why is "Magdalene" never explicitlymentioned with "Lazarus" and "Martha"?

Why is "Magdalene" never explicitly mentioned with "Bethany"?

And why does the anointing of Jesus' feet or head with perfume never explicitly connect directly with "Magdalene"?

Because "Mary Magdalene" is a completely different person to "Mary of Bethany".

As to the marriage of (whichever) Mary to Jesus, there's no real connection, and the revelation that the relationship between the 2 is more than platonic is found in the Gnostic texts - Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Philip. And whether they were married or not, really matter except for the curious.

The rest is just assumption and open interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

Can you prove that he was NOT married? No, you cannot. Therefore, your denial is based purely on assumptions. Then, if he was not married, he was not a religious Jew. Therefore, Christianity needs to review its tenets.

That's not the issue here. This is the issue:

I believe we have proved that Jesus was married to the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

You haven't proved that any more than I can prove that Jesus was not married. Frankly, I don't care whether Jesus was married. I wouldn't care if Jesus had married Sammy Sosa. It wouldn't matter one iota to my faith. Apparently, only you are concerned with whether Jesus was married, and that wasn't even the point of your thread.
My point is that you have certainly not proved that "Jesus was married to the sister of Martha and Lazarus." it's a mildly interesting theory, but has no bearing on who Mary Magdalene "really was."

 

[smitten508]

It keeps being said that Jesus being a religious Jew had everything to do with him being married since he allowed Mary M. To annoint him. We must remember that Jesus did quite a few things orthodox Jews wouldn't. Such as allow work on the Sabbath, the eating of unclean beasts and eating without the ritual washing required by orthodoxy of the time... To say he was Jew as a reason to "marry" him is useless when considering he turned Judaism on its ear at his coming and teaching... Never in scripture or tradition does it say that Jesus followed all the laws of the Jews, only that what he did was righteous. Jews today may not believe in demons, but the ancient Hebrews certainly did. They attributed illness and mishaps to demonic entities.

 

[sojourner]

It keeps being said that Jesus being a religious Jew had everything to do with him being married since he allowed Mary M. To annoint him. We must remember that Jesus did quite a few things orthodox Jews wouldn't. Such as allow work on the Sabbath, the eating of unclean beasts and eating without the ritual washing required by orthodoxy of the time... To say he was Jew as a reason to "marry" him is useless when considering he turned Judaism on its ear at his coming and teaching... Never in scripture or tradition does it say that Jesus followed all the laws of the Jews, only that what he did was righteous. Jews today may not believe in demons, but the ancient Hebrews certainly did. They attributed illness and mishaps to demonic entities.

Apparently, the story of workin on the Sabbat was an evil, hellenistic fabrication, but the story of Mary M. touching Jesus is historical fact...:cover:

 

[Ben Masada]

Why is "Magdalene" never explicitlymentioned with "Lazarus" and "Martha"?

Why is "Magdalene" never explicitly mentioned with "Bethany"?

And why does the anointing of Jesus' feet or head with perfume never explicitly connect directly with "Magdalene"?

Because "Mary Magdalene" is a completely different person to "Mary of Bethany".

As to the marriage of (whichever) Mary to Jesus, there's no real connection, and the revelation that the relationship between the 2 is more than platonic is found in the Gnostic texts - Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Philip. And whether they were married or not, really matter except for the curious.

The rest is just assumption and open interpretation.

I think the explicity you are talking about is omitted as part of the Church conspiracy to erase the obviousness that Jesus was a married man, and to Mary Magdalene.

I think that the pseudonim "Magdalene" is never mentioned with Lazarus and Martha, because they would avoid to be reminded of Mary's business in Magdala for the sake of family decorum.

Regarding the anointing, I think the reason is the same why "Magdalene" would not be mentioned. However, Luke comes close enough by saying that the woman who anointed Jesus was known in the town as a sinner. This is the same the same to say, "as a prostitute."

And the fact that they were married or not married is not as that simple as you seem to imply. The repercussions for the Church would be disastrous. Don't forget Jesus is God for Christianity. Think of God with a wife and probably children on earth left from the time He was in the flesh? A lot of explaining here for Christianity.

On the other hand, if Jesus was not married, they are going to have to give up that he was a religious Jew and much less a Rabbi. They will never be able to bake that cake and eat it too.

 

[Ben Masada]

That's not the issue here. This is the issue:

You haven't proved that any more than I can prove that Jesus was not married. Frankly, I don't care whether Jesus was married. I wouldn't care if Jesus had married Sammy Sosa. It wouldn't matter one iota to my faith. Apparently, only you are concerned with whether Jesus was married, and that wasn't even the point of your thread.
My point is that you have certainly not proved that "Jesus was married to the sister of Martha and Lazarus." it's a mildly interesting theory, but has no bearing on who Mary Magdalene "really was."

If you don't care a iota if Jesus was married or not, since it has nothing to do with your faith, why do you keep this masturbation
going on? Give it up and leave for those who care to discurse the matter.

 

[Ben Masada]

It keeps being said that Jesus being a religious Jew had everything to do with him being married since he allowed Mary M. To annoint him. We must remember that Jesus did quite a few things orthodox Jews wouldn't. Such as allow work on the Sabbath, the eating of unclean beasts and eating without the ritual washing required by orthodoxy of the time... To say he was Jew as a reason to "marry" him is useless when considering he turned Judaism on its ear at his coming and teaching... Never in scripture or tradition does it say that Jesus followed all the laws of the Jews, only that what he did was righteous. Jews today may not believe in demons, but the ancient Hebrews certainly did. They attributed illness and mishaps to demonic entities.

All those accusations of not being Jewish were the work of Paul and his partisans in order to discard Jesus from his Jewishness and document his free-of-the-Law church.

And regarding your "Never in scripture or tradition, it says that Jesus followed all the laws of the Jews," you have just called Jesus a liar to have declared that he had come to keep and observe all the Laws of the Jews down to the letter and even to dot of the letter, to warn us to do the same and to teach it without the slightest change. Read Matthew 5:17-19. I hope you have learned with this one, never to say never again.

 

[sojourner]

If you don't care a iota if Jesus was married or not, since it has nothing to do with your faith, why do you keep this masturbation
going on? Give it up and leave for those who care to discurse the matter.

Debate does not depend upon faith. It depends upon scholarship and evidence. You have no evidence to adequately prove your premise.:areyoucra

 

[sojourner]

All those accusations of not being Jewish were the work of Paul and his partisans in order to discard Jesus from his Jewishness and document his free-of-the-Law church.

And regarding your "Never in scripture or tradition, it says that Jesus followed all the laws of the Jews," you have just called Jesus a liar to have declared that he had come to keep and observe all the Laws of the Jews down to the letter and even to dot of the letter, to warn us to do the same and to teach it without the slightest change. Read Matthew 5:17-19. I hope you have learned with this one, never to say never again.

I don't think Paul ever accused Jesus of not being Jewish. Paul doesn't need to destroy Judaism in order to propagate Xy. Here you go with your wild accusations again, which you cannot support with reasonable scholarship.

Matthew 5:17-19 does not say that Jesus "had come to keep and observe all the Laws of the Jews down to the letter and eve to dot of the letter, to warn us to do the same and to teach it without slightest change." Mathew 5:17-19 is taken out of context. Look at Matt. 23. Matthew's agenda is not the "keeping of the Law." Matthew isn't "anti-Jew." He's "anti-establishment." In 23, he "woes" the establishment -- not Jews in general. The thrust of Matt. is the passing of the mantle from the establishment to the commoner. The commoners are keeping the Law by following Jesus; not the establishment by observing the picayune details.

 

[gnostic]

I think the explicity you are talking about is omitted as part of the Church conspiracy to erase the obviousness that Jesus was a married man, and to Mary Magdalene.

You're speculating.

I think that the pseudonim "Magdalene" is never mentioned with Lazarus and Martha, because they would avoid to be reminded of Mary's business in Magdala for the sake of family decorum.

Again, you're speculating.

Actually, if the Magdala really has such a bad rep, then why is she named as Mary Magdalene at the crucifixion, and if being a sinner or prostitute, then why is she in Mary (Jesus' mother)?

And her name is explicitly mention (Mary "Magdalene") as one of the women who witness the risen Jesus?

The first time she was ever actually linked to the sinner (or "prostitute") by Pope Gregory in the 6th century.

And the 1st time MM was ever confused with Mary of Bethany, is by the 3rd century Christian author, Hippolytus.

Can you really take any of these two writers seriously?