Was Mary Magdalene a Prostitute

Trey of Diamonds said:

Ah. Sorry, I get it now. The point is that we aren't trying to prove anything..

Click to expand...

Finally, somebody admitted it.

crystalonyx said:

Finally, somebody admitted it.

Click to expand...

You know, I've noticed that a lot of people think the point of a discussion is to convince the other person that one point is wrong and the other right. To me that isn't discussing that is preaching. Discussion is an exchange of information for the sake of extending knowledge. If that knowledge alters your perception well and good but if it doesn't, also well and good. We are better for knowing more, not changing our minds.

Trey of Diamonds said:

You know, I've noticed that a lot of people think the point of a discussion is to convince the other person that one point is wrong and the other right.

Click to expand...

I've noticed that too, and agree with all you said. But from my interactions with crystalonyx, I think his/her meaning was "Finally, someone who values the stories in the bible admitted that they are talking about nothing."

Mary, mother of Jesus was from Bethlehem.

The Magdalene, was from Magdala, and by all tradition was not of the same generation as Mary of Bethlehem.

Therefore thereis no textual or traditional basis for thinking them the same person.

Now was Peteer the same person as Barrabas? Quite possibility.

Regards,
Scott

Popeyesays said:

Mary, mother of Jesus was from Bethlehem.

The Magdalene, was from Magdala, and by all tradition was not of the same generation as Mary of Bethlehem.

Therefore thereis no textual or traditional basis for thinking them the same person.

Now was Peteer the same person as Barrabas? Quite possibility.

Regards,
Scott

Click to expand...

Hey Popeye, we aren't discussing whether or not the Marys were all the same, I think that came up in the Wedding of Jesus thread. We're discussing whether or not Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Oh, and whether or not the discussion of myths have merits.

lilithu said:

I've noticed that too, and agree with all you said. But from my interactions with crystalonyx, I think his/her meaning was "Finally, someone who values the stories in the bible admitted that they are talking about nothing."

Click to expand...

Could be. I wasn't so much responding to what Crystalonyx meant as taking the opportunity to pontificate on the subject.

MAry Magdalene was obviously a fictional character, as one can tell from the inconsistencies between the gospels concerning the death and ressurection of the supposed Christ, as follows:

"1. Was there a guard at the tomb?
2. Why did the woman/women come to the tomb?
3. When did the woman/women obtain the spices?
4. How many and who were the first visitor(s) to the tomb?
5. What time of day was it when the first visitor(s) arrived.
6. Was there a stone over the entrance to the tomb when the first visitor(s) arrived?
7. Was there an earthquake?
8. Who else was at the tomb?
9. What did the visitor(s) do immediately thereafter?
10. Where were the disciples to first see Jesus?
11. By whom were the disciples told that they would meet the risen Jesus in Galilee?
12. Where was Jesus' very first post-Resurrection appearance?
13. To whom did the risen Jesus first appear?
14. What was the order of post-Resurrection appearances?
15. Did the risen Jesus want to be touched?
16. Did those who first heard this story believe or disbelieve?
17. When did Jesus ascend to Heaven?
18. When did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit?
19. Was the risen Jesus recognized by those who saw him?
20. Was the risen Jesus physical?
21. How many times was the risen Jesus seen by the disciples?
22. How many disciples were present when Jesus appeared to them?
Afterword





The New Testament Empty Tomb and Resurrection stories are of vital importance to traditional Christianity, yet they are riddled with inconsistencies of detail, inconsistencies which one could reasonably expect would not exist had their authors been inspired by a perfect and omnipotent God, inconsistencies which might well tend to make it seem that these stories are at least somewhat fictitious--if not entirely so."

logician said:

The New Testament Empty Tomb and Resurrection stories are of vital importance to traditional Christianity, yet they are riddled with inconsistencies of detail, inconsistencies which one could reasonably expect would not exist had their authors been inspired by a perfect and omnipotent God, inconsistencies which might well tend to make it seem that these stories are at least somewhat fictitious--if not entirely so."

Click to expand...

I disagree. Inconsistencies might show that there isn't a perfect and/or omnipotent God but not that a person did or did not exist. Especially if you don't believe in an omnipotent God. If there is no God then wouldn't it make sense that all these inconsistent stories about Mary, Jesus and so forth be nothing more than imperfect recollections of actual people? Some say the reason the NT was written so long after the death of Christ was due to the fact his followers believed he would come back in their life time. So, if they waited 20 or 30 years and then wrote down what they thought was important to remember wouldn't there be inconsistencies? I can see the arguement that this means there is no omnipotent God because he would have made sure they got it right but not that there was no Mary or Jesus either for that matter.

There was not enough evidence to substantiate that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Magda the city she was from was known as a city of prostitution, but that doesn't make her one....Her name is not used in any reference to prostitution.

popeyesays said:

Mary, mother of Jesus was from Bethlehem.

The Magdalene, was from Magdala, and by all tradition was not of the same generation as Mary of Bethlehem.

Therefore thereis no textual or traditional basis for thinking them the same person.

Click to expand...

No one is actually comparing Mary Magdalene with Mary mother of Jesus.

There is another Mary, and she is of Bethany. Bethany is a different city to Bethlehem. Mary of Bethany is the one who is sister of Lazarus (who Jesus raised from the dead) and Martha. This Mary is the one who anointed Jesus' feet (in John's) or head (in Matthew's and Mark's).

There is Luke's version, which happened in either Capernaum or Nain in Galilee, but this woman is not named, but there is resemblance with John's version.

In any case, Mary of Magdala comes from Galilee. Luke stated quite clearly that Jesus exorcised 7 demons from Mary Magdalene, and make no mention of her being the prostitute.

The accusation of prostitution had first come from Pope Gregory I. He also mixed the two Marys together. Since then, Mary Magdalene was seen as the sinner (Luke 7:36-50) who washed Jesus feet with tears and perfume, hence the prostitute. Personally I think Gregory is just a misogynist and an idiot.

There is a possibility that this unnamed sinner (or prostitute) at Simon the Pharisee' house can be linked with Mary of Bethany (and not Mary Magdalene). However, if you read it carefully, Luke state quite clearly implied that this woman is a local of either Capernaum (Luke 7:1) or Nain (Luke 7:11):

Luke 7:37 said:

And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment.....

Click to expand...

Luke 7:37 said:

In that town was a woman who lived a sinful life. She heard that Jesus was eating in the Pharisee's house, so she brought an alabaster jar full of perfume.....

Click to expand...

Since this woman is local to this town and Mary of Bethany is obviously from Bethany, then it is more than likely that we have two different women, who had washed Jesus' feet with perfume at different times and different places, and this woman is not Magdalene.

Trey of Diamonds said:

I disagree. Inconsistencies might show that there isn't a perfect and/or omnipotent God but not that a person did or did not exist. Especially if you don't believe in an omnipotent God. If there is no God then wouldn't it make sense that all these inconsistent stories about Mary, Jesus and so forth be nothing more than imperfect recollections of actual people? Some say the reason the NT was written so long after the death of Christ was due to the fact his followers believed he would come back in their life time. So, if they waited 20 or 30 years and then wrote down what they thought was important to remember wouldn't there be inconsistencies? I can see the arguement that this means there is no omnipotent God because he would have made sure they got it right but not that there was no Mary or Jesus either for that matter.

Click to expand...

You're quite mistaken if you believe the gospels were written by supposed eyewitnesses to these suppposed events. They were written by unknown authors much later, (certainly not by Matthew, Mark , Luke, or John)), the fictional characters thenmselves. ANd the inconsistensies are logically solid evidence that they were just fictional stories of a made-up personage, not an actual account of real events.

crystalonyx said:

logically solid evidence

Click to expand...

Why solid? Logical I can give you, evidence certianly but what makes it solid? It sounds like you don't want these people to have existed because it gives them legitimacy. I agree there little to support their existance but there is just as little to support their non-existance.

Trey of Diamonds said:

Why solid? Logical I can give you, evidence certianly but what makes it solid? It sounds like you don't want these people to have existed because it gives them legitimacy. I agree there little to support their existance but there is just as little to support their non-existance.

Click to expand...

This post does not make sense, how could you have evidence to support something's nonexistence? Lack of evidence is the only thing that supports that.

crystalonyx said:

This post does not make sense, how could you have evidence to support something's nonexistence? Lack of evidence is the only thing that supports that.

Click to expand...

We get it. You believe that Mary of Magdala is a fictional character that never existed. Fine.

How is this relevant to the OP???!

There is reasonable evidence to believe that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. WAS. ....WAS....until she met Jesus, and handsome fellow from a respectable town and family. They fell in love, mary left her old life behind, and the two of them got married.

If you had any objection you should have raised your hand when the priest said...'if there is anyone here who objects to this marriage, raise your hand'.

Its getting cold in here....:cold:

lilithu said:

We get it. You believe that Mary of Magdala is a fictional character that never existed. Fine.

How is this relevant to the OP???!

Click to expand...

I can see a relevance, after all, if she never exisited why does it matter if she was a prostitute or not. Besides, I love a good tangent.

crystalonyx said:

This post does not make sense, how could you have evidence to support something's nonexistence? Lack of evidence is the only thing that supports that.

Click to expand...

Sorry, let me be more clear. The point I'm disagreeing on is the term solid. This implies that she could not have existed and I challenge that. The evidence does not support either existence or non-existence so no one can know the truth for sure, we can only speculate. Maybe you think I'm just arguing semantics but lets face it, words are important, especially when trying to discuss things that are already hazy. Saying the evidence of inconsistencies in the story is SOLID evidence that Mary did not exist is incorrect because the word solid implies proof when no proof exists.

Trey of Diamonds said:

I can see a relevance, after all, if she never exisited why does it matter if she was a prostitute or not. Besides, I love a good tangent.

Click to expand...

If you can't prove she existed, how can you prove she was or wasn't a prostitute?

logician said:

If you can't prove she existed, how can you prove she was or wasn't a prostitute?

Click to expand...

I never asked for proof, only what people thought. There can be no proof only opinion really. The two questions are separate although related. One, did she exist at all and 2 if she did was she a prostitute. I agree that there is no evidence that shows her existence was definite but at the same time I've seen no evidence to suggest she did not exist. As to the question of whether she was a prostitute I think the evidence supporting is very thin and the people who believe her to be are making large leaps of faith to come to that conclusion.

So personally, I think there was a person who the Mary story is based on and I don't think that she was a prostitute. I think it is more likely that she was married to the person who the Jesus story is based on and that is rather thin as well.

Trey of Diamonds said:

I can see a relevance, after all, if she never exisited why does it matter if she was a prostitute or not.

Click to expand...

There's no question of whether Albus Dumbledore actually existed, is there?

If someone started a thread about whether or not Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald, would it be relevant for people to respond that Dumbledore never existed?

But hey, if you enjoy the same tired interjections of the proselytizing anti-theists, more power to you. :bow: