Wednesday, November 9, 2011

The Vilification of Mary Magdalene

The mistaken beliefs of Mary Magdalene becomes obvious as one researches the literature available, first she is mentioned several times throughout the Gospels of the New Testament as accompanying Jesus on his journeys, such as in Luke 8:2; and in the Gospel of Matthew as being present at his crucifixion (27:56). Also in the Gospel of John, she is recorded as the first witness of Jesus' resurrection (John 20:14-16) (Mark 16:9, later manuscripts)—seemingly not as an equal apostle, yet no matter how we frame it, she was the thirteenth. In the Gospel of Mary Magdalene itself, Peter is opposed to Mary's words, because she is a woman... (outwardly as you read and reread these conversations in the writings of Mary Magdalene, it becomes more obvious, or at least for me that she was a woman ahead of her times, and the male apostles had a hard time dealing with it).
Levi, in his defense of Mary Magdalene and her teaching (for she does try to teach the apostles what she has learned of the resurrection of Christ, and perhaps teach is too heavy a word for the male gender, thus we shall use, edify, or enlighten). Levi tells Peter directly to his face, and to those apostles standing about: “Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.” In the Gospel of Philip, a similar statement paints a more obvious picture of Mary’s position with the Lord, as perhaps even a more trusted apostle. (The question comes to mind, who has vilified Mary, and why, who has tampered with the New Testament? We may have answered one of the questions or mysteries already).
Mary comes to fullness—as we look ahead here, not only as a woman ahead of her times, but also as an exemplary disciple. A witness to Jesus’ ministry, a visionary of the glorified Jesus, and in contest with Peter, living in a man’s world—and I mean, a man’s world in every word a women may have spoken in those far-off days of paramount jealousies, envies, and other cardinal sins. Perhaps it is time, being the 21st Century that one need no longer look at her as they have in the past, for it becomes quite noticeable someone or persons have bent the truth, deleted the facts, indistinct the reality of her life. However, perhaps as I have previously stated and put clearly she was the thirteenth apostle. Moreover, let me add, in good repute yet she becomes in her own time the forgotten one, the elapsed apostle, we can straighten things out though? Yes indeed, we can!

A true look into Mary’s life we see the erroneous view that Mary of Magdalene was not a prostitute, as so often misconceived. Moreover, for what it is, it is no more than a cheap piece of theological fiction, of some jealous lunatic. Alternatively, insane clergy who dare not write the truth in fear of his life. (On the other hand, modern day writers have no more evidence of her being a prostitute, and, there is no evidence for her being Christ’s lover, which again is simply the imagination of the 21st Century’s movie guiros, theaters trying to make a buck, or sell a book…). It is perhaps, a step to freeze the legitimacy of women’s leadership qualities of those remote days; moreover, it cheapens the viewer’s look at the first Christians. This was a time the disciples were putting together the doctrines of Christ’s Church. Its foundation—its religion per se, and I suppose being in a male orientated world, the disciples were concerned about reliability—acceptance, how people would recognize —mentally accept, being able to allow, a female tutor of God, of this new faith, and Jesus Christ’s part of the Trinity, incarnate.

We see in John 20 and in Matthew 28, Mary Magdalene wanting to take hold of Jesus’ feet. This has been widely popularized in many dimensions, with critical comments, a point of contention. Let us straighten this out, now and forever. There is nothing good on planet earth that Satan and his followers have not tried to corrupt; thus, her reputation of being less than a wholesome woman is simply a textual corruption. How can one tell? The original text reads “fear” rather than “touch” so it should read, “ not fear me” not “ not touch me” or perhaps it could have read “ not fear to touch me” the words “...fear to touch,” are the ones in question, because the words are odd for Jesus’ manner of speech. Another point is, later on in the same chapter of John, Jesus says to Thomas—in so many words, ‘Touch my hands and side....’ Again, it is to Mary’s discredit I do believe such textual corruption exists. I repeat Thomas is actually encouraged to touch. On the other hand, Jesus might have simply been saying in his own way to Mary, here, right now, I stand before you, you do not need to fear or touch me. You see Thomas, like Peter, both were a little weak, and perchance, Jesus was trying to say, faith is better than denial or even doubt, the two sins of Thomas and Peter. There are many possibilities here, but the main factor being: he was not scolding her for anything, as the fraudulent has tried to design into the text: to install a morsel of doubt into the text.

Mary said, “I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, ‘Lord, I saw you today in a vision.’ He answered and said to me, ‘Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure.’ I said to him, ‘So now, Lord, does a person who sees a vision see it through the soul or through the spirit?’” (From the Gospel of Mary, contained in Berolinensis 8502)
Comments on the Dialogue:
In the conversation, Jesus Christ teaches that the inner self is composed of the soul, spirit, and mind; as a result, visions are seen and understood in the mind (Andrew and Peter oppose not believe the Lord would speak to her first, or before without speaking to them first).
The dialogue and context of Mary called Magdalene, should be viewed I do believe in a broader Christian context. She is if anything, an intriguing glimpse into that long lot and biased past. The ancient years of the past, and a look into the apostles (and their human nature), and in what they would only allow a look into, some two-thousand years ago. One can now see a deeper Christianity, and its identity.
This confrontation between Peter and Mary can also be read in the Gospel of Thomas, Pistis Sophia, and the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians. It would seem—and understandable so, Peter and Andrew preferred, and represented the orthodox position of their day, which rejected the authority of women to teach, at near any cost.

It might be noteworthy, psychologically anyhow, to say Peter was heartbroken, because of his denial of Christ, and thus, Christ restored his credibility, or tried to, this never happened to Mary, and this may even have played a roll in Peter’s heavy confrontation with her, she was unspoiled in this area, where he was not. Like it or not, such betrayals, although forgivable, play a roll mentally in self-approval (self-esteem) and he was not getting any from Mary. We too often think of the Apostles as superhuman, when in essence, they are human beings, although chosen for specific tasks.

No: 560 (12-28-2009) Reedited 10-22-2011