Friday, December 21, 2007

More Myths: So, who was that lady who washed Christ's feet with her tears?

For more verification that Christ was NOT born on December 25, read this article:

Let's Take Christ Out of Christmas.

One of the most well-known Bible myths is the "truth" about Mary Magdeline: she was a prostitute. And now with Dan Brown, a fiction writer who many believe is a non-fiction writer, we have the myth that Mary Magdeline was not only married to Christ but that after His death, she went westward into the far western Roman Empire, set herself in what was the Roman province of Gaul, and set about to become the forebearer of the Frankish Merovingian line of kings that ended with Charlemagne's Carolingian line. All of this is tied into the not-so-mythical "Illuminati" that heads up the series of monarchies of Europe and gives rise to the notion (expressed so well by Louis XIV with his "Sun King" and his "I am the state") that because these monarchies, which tended to intermarry, are somehow all derived from the Merovingians, that means they are all derived from Christ and are thus ruling by "Divine Right." If I had a million dollars, I would give it to anyone who could prove using only the bible that Jesus did in fact marry Mary Magdeline. Perhaps at that wedding feast at Cana (John 2). But then again I don't have a million dollars.

But, back to Mary Magdeline, the "prostitute." In fact, other than in Luke 8, where it says that Jesus drove out seven demons from her, Mary Magdeline is only mentioned in connection to her visitation at the tomb and at the cross (Matthew 27 and 28; Mark 15 and 16, Luke 24, and John 19 and 20). So where in the blue blazes did anyone, any sect of Christianity, come up with "Mary Magdeline was a prostitute?"

This is how Luke 8 describes her: (Luke 8:2) "And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdeline, out of whom went seven devils," among the twelve disciples. One can infer from this that Mary Magdeline was a sinner and that she, being among the disciples, was one herself. There are various other Marys found in the New Testament (such as Mary the mother of Christ, Mary of Mary and Martha and Lazarus fame and Mary the mother of James and Joses and Mary the wife of Cleopus). From what I had learned in Catholic School, Mary Magdeline is "possibly" the Mary of Mary and Martha fame. But Mary and Martha and Lazarus lived in Bethany not Magdelina where Mary Magdeline is supposed to be from. There are also prostitutes mentioned: the one Jesus prevented from being stoned; the one who washed Jesus' feet and dried the feet with her hair; and other "sinning" women Jesus was associated with. However, except for the woman who was about to be stoned, it is not clear that the woman who washed His feet was a prostitute just from the description of her as a "sinner."

And, speaking of the woman who washed His feet: this occurs in Luke 7 at the end of that chapter, and, the next thing you read, Jesus and the disciples are traveling all over, and Mary Magdeline as well as Joanna and Susanna were with them. But does that mean that the woman of Luke 7:37-50 who washed His feet and Mary Magdeline of Luke 8:2 is the same woman? Further, does that imply that since the "sinning" woman of Luke 7:35-50 was a so-called "prostitute," then the Mary Magdeline of Luke 8:2 was also a "prostitute" or even the same woman in both instances? In fact, the only basis on which the woman of Luke 7 can be considered a prostitute was the Pharisee Simon's supposition that she was. Now, I ask, how would he know, unless he had, perhaps, a sinning relationship with her?

Now, for you Dan Brown-ites who are trying to prove that Jesus married Mary Magdeline. Your so-called "evidence" is faulty. Your evidence consists of the fact that why else would Mary Magdeline be at the foot of Christ's cross, and why else would she go visiting Him at the tomb, unless she was in fact His wife? The thing is, Mary Magdeline was not the only woman at the cross and was not the only woman at the tomb either. At the cross you had Mary Magdeline as well as (Matthew 27:56) Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children. Mark 15:41 also has Salome there. Then, at the tomb, you had Mary Magdeline and "the other Mary" (Matthew 28:1); Luke 24:10 has Mary Magdeline, and Joanna and Mary the mother of James. Mark has the same women that appear in Mark 15:41. Christ, of course, first appeared to Mary Magdeline. Yet, the Brownites use John's account to "prove" she and Christ must have been married. This gives the account of the nature of Christ's appearance to her. When Mary Magdeline went to the tomb (with the other women) she peeked in and didn't see Him. She ran to Peter and "the disciple that Jesus loved" and told them what happened, so both of them ran back with her to check it out, and saw only His burial clothes there. Peter and the "disciple that Jesus loved" left her there, and, at that point, Jesus appeared to her. He told her He was going to "ascend to" His "Father, and your Father, and unto my God and unto your God."

To paraphrase an old Burger King commercial, "where's the proof?" The "Mary Magdeline married Christ" crowd claims that since Christ first appeared to her, they must have been married! Further, Mary Magdeline, they say, is "the disciple that Jesus loved." Bull hockey! It is clear from this (and other instances of the use of the phrase) that the "disciple that Jesus loved" is John, the same John that Jesus revealed Himself to in Revelation.

But even if Christ and Mary Magdeline were married? So what? He was still going to have to die for the salvation of mankind! All this "Mary married Christ" nonsense cannot be proven using the Bible, and searching for such proof is nothing but a distraction fostered by a fiction writer who maybe has too much time on his hands.

But why do so many Christians believe this stuff, and believe that Mary Magdeline was a prostitute? Simple. They don't read the word of God themselves; instead, they believe what man says the word of God is, and don't bother to verify it.

Just another methodology that has "the Church" heading down the road toward Mystery Babylon, Mother of Harlots.

Deborah Lagarde

No comments: