2/25/15

The Real Mary Magdalene by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1803

The Real Mary Magdalene

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The name “Mary” appears 54 times in the New Testament. There is Mary, the mother of Jesus (Matthew 1:18), Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2), and Mary, the mother of James and Joses (Mark 15:40), who is likely the same as the “other” Mary (Matthew 27:56,61; 28:1) and “the wife of Clopas” (John 19:25). Also mentioned are Mary of Bethany (John 11:1), Mary, the mother of Mark (Acts 12:12), and Mary of Rome (Romans 16:6). Obviously, Mary (Greek Maria or Mariam) was a popular name in New Testament times. It still is today (see “The Most Popular...,” 2006).
No Mary has been more popular in recent days, however, than Mary Magdalene. A plethora of new books feature her, including Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, which is based on the false notion that she gave birth to the heir of Christ, whose descendants supposedly survive to this day. Mary Magdalene, a name likely indicating affiliation with the Galilean city of Magdala (see “Mary,” 1986), has been the focus of talk shows, movies, books, magazines, and more. Sadly, modernists have greatly misunderstood, exaggerated, and distorted her role in the life of Jesus and the early church. The prevailing idea is that Mary Magdalene has finally been released from the male-dominated, “anti-sexual” religious world (see Carroll, 2006, 37[3]:119), and that the real Mary has finally been revealed. Is this true? Was Mary Magdalene Christ’s secret lover? Did she erotically wash His feet with her hair? Did she eventually become His wife and bear His child? Was she a former prostitute? Just who was Mary Magdalene, really?
Those who have heard only of the newly made-over Mary Magdalene might be disappointed to find that the real Mary of Magdala does not fit the modern-day, dramatized version. Mary Magdalene is mentioned a total of 12 times in the New Testament—the oldest historical record mentioning her name. All 12 occurrences appear in the gospel accounts, wherein we learn the following:
  • Jesus cast seven demons out of her (Luke 8:2; Mark 16:9).
  • She was one of many who provided for Jesus out of her own means (Luke 8:1-3).
  • She witnessed the crucifixion of Christ (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25).
  • She was present at His burial (Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:47).
  • She arrived at Jesus’ tomb on the Sunday following His crucifixion to find His body missing (Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-7; John 20:1).
  • She saw the risen Lord, spoke with Him, and later reported the encounter to the apostles (Matthew 28:9-10; Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18).
Where are the passages about her physical relationship with Christ? Where are the hints of erotic behavior? Where is the sexualized version of Mary Magdalene? In truth, the new version of Mary Magdalene is a figment of someone’s imagination.
First, the notion of Mary Magdalene being a former prostitute, apparently made popular as early as the sixth century by Pope Gregory I (see Van Biema, 2003), simply is unfounded. Luke did record an occasion during Jesus’ ministry when a woman “who was a sinner” (Luke 7:37, emp. added) and of poor reputation among the Pharisees (7:39) washed His feet with her tears and hair, and anointed them with oil (7:36-50). And, Luke did place this event in his gospel account just two verses before he introduces Mary Magdalene, “out of whom had come seven demons” (Luke 8:2). But Luke never specifically stated that the woman of disrepute was a prostitute, or that her name was Mary Magdalene. Other than the juxtaposition of the “sinner” at the close of Luke 7 and Mary at the commencement of Luke 8, no connection between the two women exists. What’s more, if one argues that the proximity of the two women is what links them together, one wonders why “Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others” (Luke 8:3) could not also be considered candidates, since they are mentioned along with Mary Magdalene.
Second, Scripture never hints that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married or romantically involved in any way. Did He exercise His power over demons by casting seven of them from her? Yes (Luke 8:2; Mark 16:9). Did she (along with “many others”) financially support His ministry? Yes (Luke 8:2-3). Did she cling to Him momentarily following His resurrection? Yes (John 20:17). Was she a dedicated follower of Christ? From all that we can gather in the New Testament, we must assume that she was. Still, nothing in the Bible suggests that she was Jesus’ wife or secret lover.
Even the so-called Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), which unbelievers freely admit was not written until the second century A.D. (cf. Cockburn, 2006, 209[5]:88-89), says nothing about a sexual relationship with Christ. This non-inspired text does contend that Peter told Mary, “Sister, we know the savior loved you more than any other woman” (Meyer, 2005a, p. 38). Furthermore, in this text Levi described Jesus as loving Mary “more than us” (p. 41). Still, however, nothing sexual is mentioned. The New Testament records how Jesus “loved” Mary, Martha, and Lazarus (John 11:5); the Jews even marveled at His love for Lazarus (John 11:36). Mark wrote of how He “loved” the rich young ruler (Mark 10:21). And John repeatedly testified of one particular unnamed disciple whom “Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). [NOTE: Proof that this beloved disciple was not Mary Magdalene is found in John 20:2 where she spoke to Peter and the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (John 20:2).] When we read the uninspired statements from The Gospel of Mary in light of the fact that the New Testament specifically states that Jesus loved certain individuals, one can see more clearly the lack of sexual overtones.
Anyone who has read Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code is aware that his entire novel revolves around the alleged historical fact that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child together (2003, pp. 244-245). Brown bases his claim on the following brief statements from the non-inspired, gnosticGospel of Philip, which apparently was penned during the second or third century (cf. Meyer, 2005b, p. 63; Isenberg, n.d.). [NOTE: Brackets indicate missing words.]
Three women always walked with the master: Mary his mother, [] sister, and Mary of Magdala, who is called his companion. For “Mary” is the name of his sister, his mother and his companion (Meyer, 2005b, p. 57).
The companion of the [] is Mary of Magdala. The [] her more than [] the disciples, [] kissed her often on her []. The other []...said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” (Meyer, 2005b, p. 63).
Brown alleges that “any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse” (p. 246, emp. added). Thus, Mary Magdalene and Jesus must have been married, right? Wrong! The Gospel of Philip was not even written in Aramaic, but in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language. What’s more, the Coptic word for “companion” is synonymous with neither “wife” nor “spouse.” Ben Witherington III, writing in Biblical Archaeological Review, addressed this very point:
The word here for companion (koinonos) is actually a loan word from Greek and is neither a technical term nor a synonym for wife or spouse. It is true the term could be used to refer to a wife, since koinonos, like “companion,” is an umbrella term, but it does not specify this fact. There was another Greek word, gune, which would have made this clear. It is much more likely that koinonos here means “sister” in the spiritual sense since that is how it is used elsewhere in this sort of literature. In any case, this text does not clearly say or even suggest that Jesus was married, much less married to Mary Magdalene (2004, 30[3]:60).
How sad to think that millions of people have been deceived about the relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus because The Da Vinci Code’s fiction is consumed as historical fact.
One might assume that The Gospel of Philip hints at a sexual relationship between Mary and Jesus, since Brown alleges that it states Jesus “used to kiss her often on her mouth” (p. 248, emp. added). The word “mouth,” however, is not in the text. Several words are missing from the Coptic manuscript, including those that would designate where He allegedly kissed her. Perhaps the missing word is hand, head, cheek, or nose. When the woman of Luke 7 kissed Jesus’ feet, He responded by telling Simon, “You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in” (7:45). Jesus’ statement implied that even though the woman wept at His feet, washed them with her hair, anointed them with fragrant oil, and kissed them repeatedly (7:36-39), she did not act erotically. On the contrary, she honored Jesus with humble service and adoration, unlike Simon and the others.
Finally, if Jesus did kiss Mary Magdalene, as The Gospel of Philip alleges, it hardly would justify a case for marriage. This so-called “gospel” mentions elsewhere that the followers of Christ “also kiss each other” (Meyer, 2005b, p. 57). And, according to Scripture, Christians were in the habit of greeting “one another with a holy kiss” since the church began (Romans 16:16, emp. added; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; see Miller, 2003). In short, kissing is not equivalent to marrying and having children.
Mary Magdalene apparently was a devout, faithful follower of Christ. Not a shred of solid biblical or extrabiblical evidence suggests she played the role of harlot, wife, mother, or secret lover. The New Testament, as the oldest, most reliable (and only inspired!) witness to her identity, testifies loudly and clearly about her genuine faithfulness to the Lord, and keeps silent about those things which twenty-first-century sensationalists allege. As in so many instances, we must learn to respect the Bible’s silence! And, there is a deafening silence concerning Mary Magdalene as our Lord’s wife or the mother of His child.

REFERENCES

Brown, Dan (2003), The Da Vinci Code (New York, NY: Doubleday).
Carroll, James (2006), “Who Was Mary Magdalene?,” Smithsonian, 37[3]:108-119, June.
Cockburn, Andrew (2006), “The Gospel of Judas,” National Geographic, 209[5]:78-95, May.
Isenberg, Wesley W. (no date), The Gospel of Philip, [On-line], URL: http://www.theologywebsite.com/etext/naghammadi/philip.shtml.
“Mary” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Meyer, Marvin, ed. (2005a), The Gospel of Mary, in The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco).
Meyer, Marvin, ed. (2005b), The Gospel of Philip, in The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Veils, Footwashing, and the Holy Kiss,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2322.
“The Most Popular Names Chosen for Baby Boys and Girls over the Past 120 Years” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://www.thenewparentsguide.com/most-popular-baby-names.htm.
Van Biema, David (2003), “Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner,” Time, 162[6]: August 11, [On-line],URL: http://www.danbrown.com/media/morenews/time.html.
Witherington, Ben (2004), “Reviews,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 30[3]:58-61, May/June.

From Mark Copeland... The Philosophical Case For Creation

                                     "THE CASE FOR CREATION"

                  The Philosophical Case For Creation

INTRODUCTION

1. In our introduction to "The Case For Creation", we raised several
   basic questions...
   a. Where did life come from?  How did it all begin?
   b. Is matter eternal, with life evolving through purely natural
      processes?
   c. Is matter not eternal, with life created by a supernatural 
      force?

2. We began by reviewing "The Biblical Case For Creation"...
   a. Which states that matter is not eternal, but created by a 
      Supreme Being
   b. E.g., "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" - Gen 1:1

3. Many, of course, are not content with simply accepting the Biblical claim...
   a. Wanting more reasons to believe in God and creation
   b. Leading some to consider philosophical reasons for their faith

["The Philosophical Case For Creation" presents several reasons to
believe in God and creation as the explanation for the origin of life.
Let's briefly review five, beginning with...]

I. THE UNIVERSAL SENSE OF OUGHT

   A. EXPLANATION...
      1. Everywhere people have a sense of "ought", a moral code of some sort
         a. That in certain circumstances, certain things should be done
            - cf. Ro 2:14-15
         b. Even among the most remote tribes cut off from civilization
      2. Even atheists and agnostics have a sense of justice
         a. Who are angered when it is violated
         b. As in cases of rape and murder
      -- Also called the moral or anthropological argument

   B. IMPLICATION...
      1. This moral nature in man suggests a Moral Being as the Original
         Cause of life - Ps 89:14
      2. If there is no God, there is no right or wrong, good or evil
      3. If there is no God, no atheist can object on moral grounds to
         murder or rape
      -- Life from random chance does not explain the universal sense of ought

[A similar reason to believe in God and creation as the origin of life is...]

II. THE UNIVERSAL RELIGIOUS INSTINCT

   A. EXPLANATION...
      1. "Men in all the world, and throughout all time, not only
         believe in deity, but also engage in acts of worship and
         devotion." - Ferrell Jenkins, Introduction To Christian Evidences
      2. "The religious principle is extremely potent in all nations,
         dominating their thought and history." - ibid.
      3. "Everywhere the human heart has a craving for God. There will
         be exceptions as individuals, but the exceptions do not
         invalidate the rule. The atheist is an exception in every society!" - ibid.
      -- Also called the general argument

   B. IMPLICATION...
      1. For every deep longing of man, there is something that
         satisfies it (e.g., hunger-food)
      2. There must be a reality (i.e., God) that complements our
         universal religious craving
      3. Solomon writes of God placing eternity in the hearts of man
         - Ecc 3:11
      4. Paul says a longing for God was placed in man by God Himself
         - Ac 17:26-27
      5. Only the fool and the wicked repress their religious instincts
         - Ps 14:1; 10:4; Ro 1:18,28
      -- Life from random chance does not explain the universal religious instinct

[Another reason to believe in God and creation as the origin of life is...]

III. THE PRESENCE OF BEAUTY AND SUBLIMITY

   A. EXPLANATION...
      1. This argument is based upon the presence of beauty and
         sublimity in the universe
      2. It observes that we have both...
         a. The presence of beauty in nature itself, and in art produced by man
         b. The response of man to such beauty (appreciation and awe)
      -- Also called the aesthetic argument

   B. IMPLICATION...
      1. How did this "beauty" and the "ability to appreciate" develop?
      2. Was it the result of blind chance, or did it come ?
      3. Or did it come from a Supreme Being, who Himself is artistic,
         with an appreciation for beauty? - cf. Exo 28:2; Job 40:9-10;
         Ps 19:1-2; 96:4-6
      -- Life from random chance does not explain the presence of beauty and sublimity

[Then there are two philosophical arguments that are strongly supported
by science. The first being...]

IV. EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE

   A. EXPLANATION...
      1. One form of this argument has three simple steps:
         a. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause
         b. The universe began to exist
         c. Therefore the universe has a cause
      2. This argument is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument
         a. Formulated in its present form by al-Ghazali
         b. A Muslim who lived from 1058 to 1111
      -- This argument is generally known as the cosmological argument

   B. IMPLICATION...
      1. Many scientists today believe the First Cause is the "Big Bang"
         a. Because of the evidence from astronomy
         b. But the Big Bang is itself an effect
         c. What caused the Big Bang?
      2. The Bible reveals an adequate cause:  "In the beginning God..."- Gen 1:1
         a. A common objection:  "Who caused God?"
            1) This objection fails to carefully note the first premise
               of the argument
            2) I.e., "whatever begins to exist must have a cause"
         b. By definition God is eternal
            1) He is an eternal being, possessing eternal power - Ps 90:2; cf. Ro 1:20
            2) He is a spiritual being - Jn 4:24
            3) His omnipresence illustrates how He defies laws of nature - Jer 23:23-24
         c. So the argument does not apply to Him - He is the Uncaused
            Cause of all things!
      -- God is the ultimate First Cause (not an effect that requires a
         cause)

[Finally, discoveries in molecular biology and other scientific fields strongly support...]

IV. THE EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

   A. EXPLANATION...
      1. Whatever is designed must have a Designer
         a. A watch shows design, and implies a watchmaker
         b. To credit such intricate and precise workmanship to blind
            chance is unreasonable
      2. Many things in the natural world show evidence of design
         a. Orderly movement of heavenly bodies, making space travel possible
         b. Animal instinct, such as the migration patterns of birds,
            eels, and salmon
         c. Biological machines in simplest of cells
      3. Therefore a designer exists
      -- Also called the teleological argument

   B. IMPLICATION...
      1. Intelligent design suggests a Being with intelligence possessing purpose
      2. To credit intricate and precise design to blind chance is unreasonable
      3. Contemplating on the universe and the human body rightfully
         produces awe, and points man to his Creator - cf. Ps 19:1-2;139:14; Ro 1:19-20
      -- Life from random chance does not explain the evident intelligent design

CONCLUSION

1. What reasons are there to believe that life originates from an
   Almighty Creator...?
   a. The universal sense of ought
   b. The universal religious instinct
   c. The presence of beauty and sublimity
   d. The argument from first cause
   e. The evidence of intelligent design

2. These are mostly philosophical arguments...
   a. Especially the first three
   b. But the last two depend heavily on scientific evidence

Most people today are probably persuaded by science rather than
philosophy, so in our next study we will focus more on...

                   "The Scientific Case For Creation"

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

From Gary... Are you going down the right road?


I think this picture comes from New Jersey; on the road leading to Pennsylvania. Anyway, today, as I am looking at the picture I realize how unambiguous the message here is.  And that message on the right is priceless!!!!  Although this seems a bit ridiculous, I am sure some people will misconstrue the meaning of the left two signs and just scratch their heads in bemusement!!! This reminds me of a passage from the book of Acts, which man people have twisted beyond belief. Read on...

Acts, Chapter 2 (WEB)

14  But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke out to them, “You men of Judea, and all you who dwell at Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to my words.  15 For these aren’t drunken, as you suppose, seeing it is only the third hour of the day.  16 But this is what has been spoken through the prophet Joel: 
  17 ‘It will be in the last days, says God,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh.
Your sons and your daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions.
Your old men will dream dreams.
  18 Yes, and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days,
I will pour out my Spirit, and they will prophesy.
  19 I will show wonders in the sky above,
and signs on the earth beneath;
blood, and fire, and billows of smoke.
  20 The sun will be turned into darkness,
and the moon into blood,
before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.
  21 It will be, that whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

  22  “Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in your midst, even as you yourselves know,  23 him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed; 24 whom God raised up, having freed him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it.  25 For David says concerning him, 
‘I saw the Lord always before my face,
For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved.
  26 Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced.
Moreover my flesh also will dwell in hope;
  27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades,
neither will you allow your Holy One to see decay.
  28 You made known to me the ways of life.
You will make me full of gladness with your presence.’

  29  “Brothers, I may tell you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,  31 he foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay.  32 This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses.  33 Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this, which you now see and hear. 34 For David didn’t ascend into the heavens, but he says himself, 
‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit by my right hand,
  35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’

  36  “Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” 

  37  Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 

  38  Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.”  40 With many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation!” 


The apostles had just spoken in tongues (the original word for tongues which means known languages) Peter explains what is going on, why and what they must do. They didn't need to be told to believe in God, or to confess there sins, they already understood these things. They just needed to be told how to be saved- '“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ..."'

Many people teach that 2:38 is unnecessary for salvation; if this is true, then why did Peter preach it? Good question, isn't it?  Your salvation depends upon understanding this correctly, so read all this very carefully and do what is right!!!  Or, do I really need to make a sign like that above....????