Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Ben Masada · Mar 9, 2009

We are talking about Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany, who were known respectively as Mary Magdalene and Mary, the sister of Martha.

After the wedding in Cana of Galilee, Jesus had become much more than just a guest in Bethany. According to John 12, when Jesus returned to Bethany from perhaps some of his missionary trips with his disciples, he was hungry and they made him a supper. They who? Mary, Martha and Lazarus.

Since the supper was at their house, Lazarus would sit at the table with Jesus and his disciples, and Martha would serve the table. At the appropriate time, Mary brought a pound of costly perfume and started anointing Jesus' feet and wiping his feet with her hair. (John 12:1-3) Needless to say, it was quite romantic.

We all know that Jesus was an Orthodox religious Jew, and every Jewish woman knew and knows that she cannot approach a religious Jew, and is not even supposed to talk to him, let alone to touch or anoint him in such a romantic manner if she is not his wife.

I believe we have proved that Jesus was married to the sister of Martha and Lazarus. Now, was she the same as Mary Magdalene? Let's ask Luke. (Luke 7:36-40)

Luke adds a guest who perhaps was not familiar with Jesus' wife to criticize him for allowing a prostitute to touch and kiss him that way while she would anoint him with such a costly perfume. She had been a prostitute because that 's the name with which Luke calls her "a woman known in the town to be a sinner." (Luke 7:37)

Why would the Pharisee, a religious Jew criticize Jesus for allowing such a display of inappropriate behaviour? Because Jesus was also a religious Jew. Obviously, the Pharisee was not familiar with Mary.

Mark says in Mark 14:3 that she would anoint Jesus starting from his head. There is no way a religious Jew would allow such a thing if the woman was not his wife. And the anointing was made in the same place and Mark calls the host by the name of Simon, the leper. That's Lazarus by another name, since Lazarus was a leper.

Matthew also reports the same place at the house of this Simon the leper who is Lazarus. And Mary anoints Jesus starting with his head.

Conclusion: 1. Mary Magdalene and Mary, the sister of Martha were one and the same woman; 2. Jesus was a religious Jew who, to allow such an anointing by a woman, it's only obvious that they were married; 3. Now, to insist that Jesus was not married is to affirm that he was not Jewish, and much less a Rabbi. And to claim that all cases of anointing are four different cases with the purpose to safeguard the gospel writers from being charged with contradiction, it will be tantamount to expose Jesus to negative credibility charges for behaving as a "Don Juan." Therefore, it's much more to his sacred reputation that he was a married man to the sister of Martha, who was known as Mary Magdalene.

Ben:

IF_u_knew · Mar 10, 2009

I had always assumed yes. In John, it explicitly states that it was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus...
John 11:
2(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

What confuses is me is why the question asked of Jesus in the following manner:
Luke 7: 39Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

and the only explanation I can think of is that it was added in...

I do note that immediately following this, in Luke 8, the author is sure to point out Magdalene's, err.. general history...
2And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

They are obviously one and the same. Considering that Jesus was questioned in the manner of Luke 7 (which is odd given she was the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and wife of Jesus) and Magdalene's past marred immediately following the account, I would venture to guess that an author might have been on the envious side. (???)

Ben Masada · Mar 10, 2009

IF_u_knew said:
I had always assumed yes. In John, it explicitly states that it was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus...
John 11:
2(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

What confuses is me is why the question asked of Jesus in the following manner:
Luke 7: 39Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

and the only explanation I can think of is that it was added in...

I do note that immediately following this, in Luke 8, the author is sure to point out Magdalene's, err.. general history...
2And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

They are obviously one and the same. Considering that Jesus was questioned in the manner of Luke 7 (which is odd given she was the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and wife of Jesus) and Magdalene's past marred immediately following the account, I would venture to guess that an author might have been on the envious side. (???)

Interesting observation Katie, but do you know what? The same Mary, the sister of Martha had two kinds of life. One at Magdala which landed on her an adjective which she could never get rid of: The Magdalene. No wonder she was known by some
in the town as a sinner. No one can be known as a sinner if he or she is not seen sinning. And the life of a prostitute is not only known but also seen. And the other kind of life she had was as the sister of Martha.

Ben: :yes:

IF_u_knew · Mar 10, 2009

Ben Masada said:
Interesting observation Katie, but do you know what? The same Mary, the sister of Martha had two kinds of life. One at Magdala which landed on her an adjective which she could never get rid of: The Magdalene. No wonder she was known by some
in the town as a sinner. No one can be known as a sinner if he or she is not seen sinning. And the life of a prostitute is not only known but also seen. And the other kind of life she had was as the sister of Martha.

Ben: :yes:

Ah, I do see what you are saying.

... wait... So, if the questioner knew, well.. Anyway, I do see your point.

herushura · Mar 10, 2009

"Mary" itself is a Title more then a name, as its the feminin form for the word "Mas"
meaning "Master" thus Mary magdelene could render "Miss Magdalene"

Magda means high Places/tower, and "Elene " - "Al-ene" could be related to bethany - beth-"ene"
Bethany = house of An
Alene = one/god form/of An
- An is the hebrew word for heliopolis / and bethany just mean someone from An, so it say that mary of bethany was from AN, infact the word "Mary" originated in Egypt as a title for "Women in high places" (magda= high places) thus" magdalene" could render "beloved
Princess of Anu"

unfortunatly the only princess of An at that time was "CΕΛΕNΕ" or selene, the only princess that bears the title and the name is very similer indeed

John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Mary of Clopas - Cleopatra of Mauretania / Maure = Mary
Mary Magdalaene - Selene / S-elene
Mary of clopas is Magdalene daugther

Clopas is a Greek name of Semitic origin while Cleopas, which means "illustrious father," is the Greek masculine for the feminine Greek name Cleopatra

You could call it coincidence or controversial / why is jesus surrouned by Ptolomy princesses, jesus was buried in a tomb, and his dead body was anointed (krst) egytpian style, and egyptian believed that dead royaltys would always ressurect

gnostic · Mar 10, 2009

No passages ever really connect Mary "Magdalene" with Martha and Lazarus. Mary of Bethany is the one always written in association any sibling.

The 2nd thing is that Mary of Bethany is never linked with being exorcise of 7 demons; the exorcism is associated with MM. It never say that Mary "of Bethany" being the one at the crucifixion and resurrection.

It is clear that MM comes from Galilee. She was one of the many women who followed Jesus from Galilee. MB is from the south, because Bethany is near Jerusalem.

No, I believed that they were 2 different women.

MM has never called a harlot, prostitute or whore. This Early Church's confusion (started by Pope Gregory I) with over the 2 Marys, but a propaganda to cast MM, because there have been tradition and the so-called gospel of MM circulating before his time.

What make you say that MM is the prostitute or that she has been married? There are nothing indicate she married. Are you referring the incidence about the near stoning? No name was ever given to that woman. Jesus seemed to have this woman about to be stoned, for the 1st time. But it was cleared that Jesus had exorcise demons from MM, and perhaps met her for the 1st time during exorcism, not at the stoning. As I said before that MM comes from the north, from Galilee, but this stoning scene it is clearly in Jerusalem.

Ben Masada · Mar 11, 2009

gnostic said:
No passages ever really connect Mary "Magdalene" with Martha and Lazarus. Mary of Bethany is the one always written in association any sibling.

John 12:3 says that the Mary who anointed Jesus feet and wiped them with her hair was Mary the sister of Martha. If you agree with me that Jesus was a religious Jew, no woman could do what she did if she was not married to him. If you don't agree, we have no need to contlinue the discussion because we are not talking about Jesus, a Jewish man but somebody else.

The 2nd thing is that Mary of Bethany is never linked with being exorcise of 7 demons; the exorcism is associated with MM. It never say that Mary "of Bethany" being the one at the crucifixion and resurrection.

The expression "seven demons" is not to be interpreted literally. It means only the struggle Jesus had to go through to extricate Mary from her style of life. Jews don't believe in demons.

It is clear that MM comes from Galilee. She was one of the many women who followed Jesus from Galilee. MB is from the south, because Bethany is near Jerusalem.

Magdala is in the Galilee, where Mary had her business. Mary would carry two kinds of life. Mary the business woman and Mary the sister of Martha.

No, I believed that they were 2 different women.

In other words, we are not dealing with a Jewish man, but perhaps a Greek man. As a religious Jew, Jesus could never allow a woman to anoint him the way it is reported. And if they were two women as you assert, the same applies to Jesus as not being a Jewish man.

MM has never called a harlot, prostitute or whore. This Early Church's confusion (started by Pope Gregory I) with over the 2 Marys, but a propaganda to cast MM, because there have been tradition and the so-called gospel of MM circulating before his time.

I choose to agree with Pope Gregory I. Luke says that the woman who anointed Jesus was known in the town as a sinner. In other words, this is a prostitute.

What make you say that MM is the prostitute or that she has been married? There are nothing indicate she married. Are you referring the incidence about the near stoning? No name was ever given to that woman. Jesus seemed to have this woman about to be stoned, for the 1st time. But it was cleared that Jesus had exorcise demons from MM, and perhaps met her for the 1st time during exorcism, not at the stoning. As I said before that MM comes from the north, from Galilee, but this stoning scene it is clearly in Jerusalem.

As I said above, the woman in Luke who anointed Jesus was well known in town as a sinner. This means prostitute. Everything indicates that the wedding in Cana was of Jesus with Mary Magdalene, who stuck with him till the last moment in the cross. And she was the one whom Jesus recommended his mother and vice-versa.

Regarding that woman allegedly caught in adultery and brought for stoning, never happened. It sounds like a parable. An execution could never happen that way, and once the Sanhedrin decided on a sentence, such a decision could never be revoked by a man in the street. That was definitely a parable.

Conclusion: The women were not two or three or four. They were one only, and she was married to Jesus. She was known as Mary Magdalene because of her business in Magdala in the Galilee, and known as Mary of Betany either when she was with her family in Bethany or after she got married and left Magdala for good. It it's not thus, we are not talking about Jesus, a Jewish religious man.

Ben:

gnostic · Mar 20, 2009

ben masada said:
John 12:3 says that the Mary who anointed Jesus feet and wiped them with her hair was Mary the sister of Martha. If you agree with me that Jesus was a religious Jew, no woman could do what she did if she was not married to him. If you don't agree, we have no need to contlinue the discussion because we are not talking about Jesus, a Jewish man but somebody else.

Yes, I know this verse. And this verse never say she is Mary Magdalene. Because of this Mary connection with Bethany, we know her to be that of the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

You keep forgetting that Mary Magdalene (not Mary of Bethany) came from Galilee with other women who also came Galilee. That much is clear. If you read Mark 15:40-41, then you will see that she is originally from Galilee. This is confirm by the later gospel, Matthew 27:55-56, where it also say she had followed Jesus from Galilee with other women.

Bethany on the other hand, is a town in Judaea, not from Jerusalem.

Not once was Mary Magdalene was ever linked with Bethany.

Can you find one where MM is mentioned explicitly with Bethany.
Or one explicit link with Martha and Lazarus?
Or explicit link with that of the sinner who washed Jesus' feet?

It would have to have the name Mary Magdalene in those links, which you have claim. Until you find explicit links with all 3, then it is just you making guessworks out of nothing.

Each time Mary Magdalene was mentioned in the gospel, they had called her by "Mary Magdalene", eg. the woman who had 7 demons driven out of her (including Luke 8:2 and Mark 16:9); at the crucifixion and resurrection they always string "Magdalene" to "Mary".

Don't you find it strange the omissions whenever there's an episode with Mary and her siblings, or with Bethany; she was never called Mary Magdalene?

That's quite telling, and prove that there is a different Mary to MM.

Ben Masada · Mar 21, 2009

gnostic said:
Yes, I know this verse. And this verse never say she is Mary Magdalene. Because of this Mary connection with Bethany, we know her to be that of the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

Click to expand...

The question is: Do you agree that we are talking about Jesus of Nazareth? I guess you do. Do you agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious Jew? It's obvious because he was a Rabbi. Now, you can take it from me that a woman could not massage Jesus from his head down to his feet and wipe them with her hair if she was not his wife. Since you have already agreed that according to John 12:3, that Mary who anointed Jesus was the sister of Martha, so, they were married to each other. If not, this Jesus was not Jewish, and Christianity must be reviewed.

You keep forgetting that Mary Magdalene (not Mary of Bethany) came from Galilee with other women who also came Galilee. That much is clear. If you read Mark 15:40-41, then you will see that she is originally from Galilee. This is confirm by the later gospel, Matthew 27:55-56, where it also say she had followed Jesus from Galilee with other women.

Click to expand...

The confusion of the writer or the reader about Mary Magdalene being from Galilee is because Magdala was in Galilee, and Mary had her business in Magdala. That's the reason why she got that pseudonym of Magdalene. And we have no choice but to think of Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany as the same Mary, because otherwise, we have to discard Jesus as a religious Jew or Rabbi,
and exchange him for a Jewish Don Juan, because if you ask me, the four gospels are so badly composed that Jesus had four different women anointing him with the same costly perfume.

Not once was Mary Magdalene was ever linked with Bethany.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that explicitly she would have to. A successful woman like Mary Magdalene could have two homes. One in her business town and the other in her hometown.

Or explicit link with that of the sinner who washed Jesus' feet?
It would have to have the name Mary Magdalene in those links, which you have claim. Until you find explicit links with all 3, then it is just you making guessworks out of nothing.

Click to expand...

Well, let's make a deal. Can you show me explicitly where in the whole of the NT I can read a statement that Jesus was not married? No, you cannot. But you want to believe that Jesus was a Rabbi. Well my friend, you can't bake your cake and eat it too. Likewise, you can't have a religious Jews Jesus as a Rabbi behaving like a Don Juan, being anointed with costly perfume everywhere he goes. You see? You have got trapped in the same web you thought to trap me.
It means the whole of the NT becomes a hoax. Are you ready for that?

Each time Mary Magdalene was mentioned in the gospel, they had called her by "Mary Magdalene", eg. the woman who had 7 demons driven out of her (including Luke 8:2 and Mark 16:9); at the crucifixion and resurrection they always string "Magdalene" to "Mary".

Click to expand...

And do you need any more evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene after you read of their connexions during the worst moments of Jesus? There is another evidence here. Jesus' beloved disciple was Mary Magdalene, to whom from the cross, Jesus recommended her to take care of his mother. Jesus knew that financially Mary was able to. And as a religious Jew, he could not recommend his mother to a male disciple. Besides, Mark says that ALL the disciples fled into hiding when Jesus was arrested. (Mark 14:50) It means John was not before Jesus' cross. The Church put him in there for Jesus' recommendation of his mother in order to cloud the truth that Mary Magdalene was his wife.

Don't you find it strange the omissions whenever there's an episode with Mary and her siblings, or with Bethany; she was never called Mary Magdalene?

Click to expand...

Aren't you able to think that those omissions were fabricated by the Church to prevent the future to think of Jesus as a married man? It's quite telling that in spite of all the struggle to adulterate the NT text, the human mind is able to read between the lines.

Ben: :yes:

davis.esquire · Mar 25, 2009

Ben,
Again you are supposing about what you don't know instead of asking.

You supposed, "We all know that Jesus was an Orthodox religious Jew, and every Jewish woman knew and knows that she cannot approach a religious Jew, and is not even supposed to talk to him, let alone to touch or anoint him in such a romantic manner if she is not his wife."

Then you concluded, "I believe we have proved that Jesus was married to the sister of Martha and Lazarus."

Lazarus is the Greek name for the Hebrew Eleazar. Lazarus was the son of Aaron whose family was appointed to be the Chief overseer of all chief priests and judges (Numbers 3:32), and only the house of Lazarus can touch, make or even concoct anything that smells like the annointing oil (Numbers 4:16; Exodus 30:31-33).

Since all the sins of Israel fell upon the tabernacle and the priests (Numbers 18:1-6) until the Lord comes to remove the sins from the priests (Numbers 18:20-22), as the Chief overseer of all chief priests and judges (Numbers 3:32) all the sins of Israel laid upon the House of Lazarus until the Lord comes.

Simon the leper, botched with sores, was Lazarus at the know time of the coming Christ who removes the sins from Lazarus (Matthew 26:6,7-8). However, before Mary a sister of Simon (Lazarus) annointed Jesus and CONDEMNED JESUS TO DEATH (Matt 26:12-13; Ex 30:33-38), Lazarus died not realizing that Jesus had postponed His mission of BURNING THE CHAFF (gossip; Jer 23:1-3,15,28-30; Ps 1:1-4; Matt 3:11-12,13-15). Thus, when Jesus stood before the tomb of Lazarus and called, Lazarus come forth", the heir of Lazarus, the son of Simon the leper, Judas Iscariot (John 6:70-71) came forth to fulfill the postponed fulfillment of righteousness (Matt 3:14-15). Judas Isacriot was Lazarus sitting at the table (John 12:2-5) when Mary fulfilled the righteous condemnation of Christ and fulfilled the postponement (John 12:7). All the people knew that Lazarus was there because they could smell the annointing oil only Lazarus can touch and Mary condemned Jesus to death with (John 12:9).

Jesus came to be hung on a tree and accursed of God (Galatians 3:13) so that all the world may see that any sycophant who exalts anyone between God and himself will have the opportunity to repent (Is 45:5-7; Micah 7:4-6; Matt 10:34-36; Micah 7:7; Matt 19:17; 2Cor 5:16,19,21; Heb 9:28).

As a matter of fact, when Judas heard Christ's praise of Mary for condemning Him, Judas recognized the price of a woman's vow that his lower priests couldn't figure out from Zechariah 11:12-13; Leviticus 27:2-4).

God is the God of the living, not the dead (Matt 22:29-30), therefore we beseech thee in Christ stead, be ye reconciled to God (2Cor 5:20).

davis.esquire · Mar 25, 2009

Ben,
Again you are supposing about what you don't know instead of asking.

You supposed, "We all know that Jesus was an Orthodox religious Jew, and every Jewish woman knew and knows that she cannot approach a religious Jew, and is not even supposed to talk to him, let alone to touch or anoint him in such a romantic manner if she is not his wife."

Then you concluded, "I believe we have proved that Jesus was married to the sister of Martha and Lazarus."

Lazarus is the Greek name for the Hebrew Eleazar. Lazarus was the son of Aaron whose family was appointed to be the Chief overseer of all chief priests and judges (Numbers 3:32), and only the house of Lazarus can touch, make or even concoct anything that smells like the annointing oil (Numbers 4:16; Exodus 30:31-33).

Since all the sins of Israel fell upon the tabernacle and the priests (Numbers 18:1-6) until the Lord comes to remove the sins from the priests (Numbers 18:20-22), as the Chief overseer of all chief priests and judges (Numbers 3:32) all the sins of Israel laid upon the House of Lazarus until the Lord comes.

Simon the leper, botched with sores, was Lazarus at the know time of the coming Christ who removes the sins from Lazarus (Matthew 26:6,7-8). However, before Mary a sister of Simon (Lazarus) annointed Jesus and CONDEMNED JESUS TO DEATH (Matt 26:12-13; Ex 30:33-38), Lazarus died not realizing that Jesus had postponed His mission of BURNING THE CHAFF (gossip; Jer 23:1-3,15,28-30; Ps 1:1-4; Matt 3:11-12,13-15). Thus, when Jesus stood before the tomb of Lazarus and called, Lazarus come forth", the heir of Lazarus, the son of Simon the leper, Judas Iscariot (John 6:70-71) came forth to fulfill the postponed fulfillment of righteousness (Matt 3:14-15). Judas Isacriot was Lazarus sitting at the table (John 12:2-5) when Mary fulfilled the righteous condemnation of Christ and fulfilled the postponement (John 12:7). All the people knew that Lazarus was there because they could smell the annointing oil only Lazarus can touch and Mary condemned Jesus to death with (John 12:9).

Jesus came to be hung on a tree and accursed of God (Galatians 3:13) so that all the world may see that any sycophant who exalts anyone between God and himself will have the opportunity to repent (Is 45:5-7; Micah 7:4-6; Matt 10:34-36; Micah 7:7; Matt 19:17; 2Cor 5:16,19,21; Heb 9:28).

As a matter of fact, when Judas heard Christ's praise of Mary for condemning Him, Judas recognized the price of a woman's vow that his lower priests couldn't figure out from Zechariah 11:12-13; Leviticus 27:2-4).

God is the God of the living, not the dead (Matt 22:29-30), therefore we beseech thee in Christ stead, be ye reconciled to God (2Cor 5:20).

davis.esquire · Mar 25, 2009

P.S.
Ben,
Since all sins fall upon Lazarus, and thye priests made "..my Father's house a den of thieves....", then Lazarus is the Chief thief....until the Lord returns with shock and awe as THIEF IN THE NIGHT!

Ben Masada · Mar 25, 2009

davis.esquire said:
Ben,

Again you are supposing about what you don't know instead of asking.

Click to expand...

Did you want me to ask you if Jesus was married? You would say NO, I would ask you where is the proof statement that he was not married, and you could not show me, because there is no such a statement. So, we have no choice but to speculate on the pros and cons in terms of evidences.

You supposed, "We all know that Jesus was an Orthodox religious Jew, and every Jewish woman knew and knows that she cannot approach a religious Jew, and is not even supposed to talk to him, let alone to touch or anoint him in such a romantic manner if she is not his wife."

Then you concluded, "I believe we have proved that Jesus was married to the sister of Martha and Lazarus."

Click to expand...

Well my friend, John 12:1-3 says the following: Jesus was having supper at the house of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Lazarus was sitting at the table with Jesus, Martha was serving and Mary was anointing Jesus with this costly perfume. Since Jesus was a religious Jew, Mary had to be his wife. Does it take a genius to figure that out? Would you know if I asked instead of offering my contribution? I didn't think so.

Lazarus is the Greek name for the Hebrew Eleazar. Lazarus was the son of Aaron whose family was appointed to be the Chief overseer of all chief priests and judges (Numbers 3:32), and only the house of Lazarus can touch, make or even concoct anything that smells like the annointing oil (Numbers 4:16; Exodus 30:31-33).

Click to expand...

Eleazar was a very common name in Israel, especially in the First Century. This Lazarus could very well be not related to Eleazar son of Aaron.

{quote]Since all the sins of Israel fell upon the tabernacle and the priests (Numbers 18:1-6) until the Lord comes to remove the sins from the priests (Numbers 18:20-22), as the Chief overseer of all chief priests and judges (Numbers 3:32) all the sins of Israel laid upon the House of Lazarus until the Lord comes.

The quotations you use have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Simon the leper, botched with sores, was Lazarus at the know time of the coming Christ who removes the sins from Lazarus (Matthew 26:6,7-8). However, before Mary a sister of Simon (Lazarus) annointed Jesus and CONDEMNED JESUS TO DEATH (Matt 26:12-13; Ex 30:33-38), Lazarus died not realizing that Jesus had postponed His mission of BURNING THE CHAFF (gossip; Jer 23:1-3,15,28-30; Ps 1:1-4; Matt 3:11-12,13-15). Thus, when Jesus stood before the tomb of Lazarus and called, Lazarus come forth", the heir of Lazarus, the son of Simon the leper, Judas Iscariot (John 6:70-71) came forth to fulfill the postponed fulfillment of righteousness (Matt 3:14-15). Judas Isacriot was Lazarus sitting at the table (John 12:2-5) when Mary fulfilled the righteous condemnation of Christ and fulfilled the postponement (John 12:7). All the people knew that Lazarus was there because they could smell the annointing oil only Lazarus can touch and Mary condemned Jesus to death with (John 12:9).

Sorry, but nothing of what you say above makes sense to me.

Jesus came to be hung on a tree and accursed of God (Galatians 3:13) so that all the world may see that any sycophant who exalts anyone between God and himself will have the opportunity to repent (Is 45:5-7; Micah 7:4-6; Matt 10:34-36; Micah 7:7; Matt 19:17; 2Cor 5:16,19,21; Heb 9:28).

Jesus did not come to be hung on a tree. He came to revive Judaism into a nation of Torah observance.

As a matter of fact, when Judas heard Christ's praise of Mary for condemning Him, Judas recognized the price of a woman's vow that his lower priests couldn't figure out from Zechariah 11:12-13; Leviticus 27:2-4).

Sorry, but you continue making no sense.

God is the God of the living, not the dead (Matt 22:29-30), therefore we beseech thee in Christ stead, be ye reconciled to God (2Cor 5:20).

The way to the heart of a Jew is through his mind. Appeals without knowledge hold no water.

Ben:

davis.esquire · Mar 26, 2009

Ben,
Fine.

Things you don't read don't make sense to you, but speculations that require nothing more than the equality of opinions and butt holes provide the choas you need.

Ben Masada · Mar 26, 2009

davis.esquire said:
Ben,
Fine.

Things you don't read don't make sense to you, but speculations that require nothing more than the equality of opinions and butt holes provide the choas you need.

Sorry, but the only thing I understood was "Ben, Fine."

gnostic · Mar 27, 2009

Please, Ben.

Please, don't confuse "what we do know" with "what we speculate on" or "what we suspect". They are completely two different things.

It is quite possible for Jesus to be marry to either Mary Magdalene or with Mary of Bethany, but that's only speculation and interpretation of the texts.

We only find that Jesus like kissing Mary Magdalene in the apocrypha or Gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene, and a hint in another gospel - that of Philip. But with gospels, we can only speculate on that relationship, and that's different from knowing.

It is only speculation and interpretation that you think the wedding at Cana was that of Jesus and Mary.

You are only speculating that the two Marys are one, but clearly there are two different persons.

ben masada said:
The confusion of the writer or the reader about Mary Magdalene being from Galilee is because Magdala was in Galilee, and Mary had her business in Magdala.

There's no speculation there at all about Mary Magdalene coming from Galilee, because it made quite clear that other women had also followed Jesus from Galilee.

And do you see anywhere that explicitly say that "Mary Magdalene" comes from Bethany or that she have siblings? No you don't. I have asked you so many times, but you don't get it. When I say explicit, I mean "Mary Magdalene" is a sister of Martha or "Mary Magdalene" is from Bethany. It does say that at all in the gospels.

And there are confusions of when and where the washing of Jesus' feet with expensive perfume took place. Only Luke (7:36-50) say that it took place in Simon the Pharisee's house is either in Capernaum (Luke 7:1) or in Nain (Luke 7:11); in verse 37, it says:

In that town was woman who lived a sinful life.

Regardless of whether she was sinful or not, she is unnamed woman, and both Capernaum and Nain are in Galilee. And Luke left out Bethany altogether.

The other gospels didn't mention Capernaum or Nain with regard to the feet washing; it took place in Bethany. Only John's (12:1-8) mentioned it taking place in the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary, where they held passover. And here we see Mary washing Jesus feet. And only here does it say that it was Judas Iscariot who protested and was rebuked.

Matthew's (26:6-13) and Mark's (14:3-9) that it took place in the home of Simon with the skin disease. The perfume was used on Jesus' head, not his feet. There's no Mary, and all the disciple protest of the waste of expensive perfume.

So we have different versions (Mark and Matthew's are the same). So only just one gospel say that the woman is Mary of Bethany, but no mention of Magdalene.

Ben Masada · Mar 28, 2009

gnostic said:
Please, Ben.

Please, don't confuse "what we do know" with "what we speculate on" or "what we suspect". They are completely two different things.

Click to expand...

I understand you. But we are allowed to speculate when there are evidences to hang our speculations from. What I don't like are hypothetical speculations.

It is quite possible for Jesus to be marry to either Mary Magdalene or with Mary of Bethany, but that's only speculation and interpretation of the texts.

Click to expand...

Based on the fact that to be a Rabbi, he had to be a married man.

We only find that Jesus like kissing Mary Magdalene in the apocrypha or Gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene, and a hint in another gospel - that of Philip. But with gospels, we can only speculate on that relationship, and that's different from knowing.

Click to expand...

The problem in the regular gospels is that, if Jesus was not married, Christians will be dealing with severe contradictions in the NT.

It is only speculation and interpretation that you think the wedding at Cana was that of Jesus and Mary.

Click to expand...

Yes, because there are many evidences in that wedding celebration to point to Jesus as the Bridegroom.

You are only speculating that the two Marys are one, but clearly there are two different persons.

Click to expand...

When you say "clearly," you are no longer speculating but affirming that the fact is proved, and you know that it is not. Besides, if the women were two and both anointed Jesus, there is trouble for Christianity. That man was not Jesus. And if he was Jesus, he was not a religious Jew and much less a Rabbi. Are you ready for a NT loaded with contradictions?

There's no speculation there at all about Mary Magdalene coming from Galilee, because it made quite clear that other women had also followed Jesus from Galilee.

Click to expand...

Mary became known as Magdalene because she spent much more of her life in Magdala, at least until Jesus got into her life.

And do you see anywhere that explicitly say that "Mary Magdalene" comes from Bethany or that she have siblings? No you don't. I have asked you so many times, but you don't get it. When I say explicit, I mean "Mary Magdalene" is a sister of Martha or "Mary Magdalene" is from Bethany. It does say that at all in the gospels.

Click to expand...

Tell me Gnostic, is there an explicit statement in the whole of the NT to the fact that Jesus was NOT married? No, there is not. Therefore, when you or any other Christian fights me back to refute my views that Jesus was married, all you have to provide me with are speculations, because there is nothing explicit about Jesus having NOT been married. So, if mine are speculations, yours are no less.

And there are confusions of when and where the washing of Jesus' feet with expensive perfume took place. Only Luke (7:36-50) say that it took place in Simon the Pharisee's house is either in Capernaum (Luke 7:1) or in Nain (Luke 7:11); in verse 37, it says:

Click to expand...

There is no confusion. There are contradictions. But this is normal for the NT. According to John the anointing happened in the house of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Lazarus was at the table with Jesus, Martha was serving the table and Mary was doing the anointing. There is no confusion about this one. If the other three times were not the same, the anointed was not Jesus, a religious Jew, and much less a Rabbi.

Regardless of whether she was sinful or not, she is unnamed woman, and both Capernaum and Nain are in Galilee. And Luke left out Bethany altogether.

Click to expand...

Now, tell me: What kind of credibility can we grant to the NT?

The other gospels didn't mention Capernaum or Nain with regard to the feet washing; it took place in Bethany. Only John's (12:1-8) mentioned it taking place in the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary, where they held passover. And here we see Mary washing Jesus feet. And only here does it say that it was Judas Iscariot who protested and was rebuked.

Click to expand...

So, you have no doubt that Mary, the sister of Martha was the woman who anointed Jesus. So, she was married to Jesus, because a woman would not dream about doing such a thing to a religious Jew if she was not his wife. If you think otherwise, that man was not Jesus. That's trouble for the NT.

Matthew's (26:6-13) and Mark's (14:3-9) that it took place in the home of Simon with the skin disease. The perfume was used on Jesus' head, not his feet. There's no Mary, and all the disciple protest of the waste of expensive perfume.

Click to expand...

Sorry my friend, but if that woman was not Mary, that man was not Jesus. That's trouble for the NT again.

So we have different versions (Mark and Matthew's are the same). So only just one gospel say that the woman is Mary of Bethany, but no mention of Magdalene.

Click to expand...

Very good! Now you have a choice. If all the women were one and the same, the man was Jesus if she was married to him. If the women were different, the man was not Jesus. I am sure, that's much more favorable to the NT that Jesus was a married man than not.

Ben:

gnostic · Mar 28, 2009

Ben MAsada said:
There is no confusion. There are contradictions. But this is normal for the NT. According to John the anointing happened in the house of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Lazarus was at the table with Jesus, Martha was serving the table and Mary was doing the anointing. There is no confusion about this one. If the other three times were not the same, the anointed was not Jesus, a religious Jew, and much less a Rabbi.

Actually there is a confusion of whose house in Bethany it was. John's clearly identified the house as been that of Lazarus, hence Jesus' host. While Mark's and Matthew's say it was the house of Simon, who has a skin disease.

It's only in John's that say Mary washed Jesus' feet, while the woman is unnamed in Mark's and Matthew's, and the perfume was poured on Jesus' head.

Every indication say that the gospel of Mark is earliest of the 4 canonical gospels, and Matthew's confirmed the detail found in Mark's. John's was the last of the 4.

Ben Masada said:
Based on the fact that to be a Rabbi, he had to be a married man.

Married or not, rabbi or not, it doesn't say one way or another about Jesus' marital status, so it is purely speculation. And it matters not to me, if he was married. It doesn't shake my belief about Jesus or Christianity, because I'm not a Christian. Being agnostic, I just deal with what we have - the texts.

I see religious account as nothing more than myths or legends. I deal with the bible just as I deal with any literature of mythical genre - what I read and see, is the source of information, but when dealing something that's not there in those sources, then it is really a matter of speculations or interpretations, which may have validity (or it may not).

There's nothing wrong with speculations and interpretations. Even you have the texts, they were written in different time, and they need to be interpret for further understanding.

You see that Jesus being rabbi, and they are (often) married, because it is traditional customs of Jewish society, then that's a possibility, but is that actually a rule. Jesus is different in many way, and seemed to challenge the hierarchical structure of that society. All I am saying that there are no real explicit evidences for his marriage, but I do believe it is quite possible.

Ben Masada · Mar 29, 2009

davis.esquire said:
P.S.
Ben,
Since all sins fall upon Lazarus, and thye priests made "..my Father's house a den of thieves....", then Lazarus is the Chief thief....until the Lord returns with shock and awe as THIEF IN THE NIGHT!

I am sorry but I didn't understand your post.

Ben Masada · Mar 29, 2009

gnostic said:
Actually there is a confusion of whose house in Bethany it was. John's clearly identified the house as been that of Lazarus, hence Jesus' host. While Mark's and Matthew's say it was the house of Simon, who has a skin disease.

Click to expand...

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.

It's only in John's that say Mary washed Jesus' feet, while the woman is unnamed in Mark's and Matthew's, and the perfume was poured on Jesus' head.
Every indication say that the gospel of Mark is earliest of the 4 canonical gospels, and Matthew's confirmed the detail found in Mark's. John's was the last of the 4.

Click to expand...

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

Married or not, rabbi or not, it doesn't say one way or another about Jesus' marital status, so it is purely speculation. And it matters not to me, if he was married. It doesn't shake my belief about Jesus or Christianity, because I'm not a Christian. Being agnostic, I just deal with what we have - the texts.

Click to expand...

Pure speculations! Whose, mine or yours? There is nothing explicit about Jesus having not married. It means you guys are allowed to speculate that Jesus was not married, but I can't that he was married? How convinient!

There's nothing wrong with speculations and interpretations. Even you have the texts, they were written in different time, and they need to be interpret for further understanding.

Click to expand...

Good! That's a good one. Since we are dealing with a Jewish issue, I expect that the word of a Jew enjoys much more credibility than that of an outsider.

You see that Jesus being rabbi, and they are (often) married, because it is traditional customs of Jewish society, then that's a possibility, but is that actually a rule. Jesus is different in many way, and seemed to challenge the hierarchical structure of that society. All I am saying that there are no real explicit evidences for his marriage, but I do believe it is quite possible.

Click to expand...

Why do you say that Jesus was different in many ways? If we are talking about his being married or not, why he was different? Was he gay? Sorry, but that's the impression Christians give when they say that Jesus could not be married because he was different in many ways.

Ben:

Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

Well-Known Member

Curious

Well-Known Member

Curious

Active Member

The Lost One

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member