Mary Magdalene

[MoonBreath]

for awhile now, and on and off in the past, i've held an interest in Mary Magdalene. That interest only grew when i read and saw books pointing to the possibility that she may have been a priestess of the Goddess, such as Isis who i've had an connection with for a long time now. The book i read regarding her possibly being a priestess was The Moon Under Her Feet, and a book series i've considered buying with the same idea is The Maeve Chronicle books by Elizabeth Cunningham. My fascination with the Magdalene only grew when i read Margaret Starbird's book The Woman with the Alabaster jar and the book St. Mary Magdalene: The Gnostic Tradition of the Holy Bride. I read the second book mentioned due to my growing interest in Gnosticism. I've also considered buyng the Gospel of Mary and a statuette of Mary Magdalene to add to my Goddess altar space.

Just a little bit ago, i decided to take a quiz on facebook which told you what woman of the bible you are most like. Guess who i got? Mary Magdalene! i know, i know, its just a facebook quiz, but it just seems like to much of a coincidence not to have any meaning at all, considering my persistant interest in her! :) what do you think?

[watersprite]

I think that Mary Magdalene had a place in history that was totally covered up by "the Church."
I would like to read more about her. You are not going to find truly accurate portrayals in the bible, as it was written by men, changed by men and interpreted by men. Many of them, right up to the present, totally misogynistic.

[playerx]

the men who wrote it weren't misogynist. :)

But no, Mary Magdelene was just a woman who had demons in her that Jesus cast out. :)

[Cunae]

It was the Catholic church that branded her a prostitute and reinforced that idea for hundreds of years to keep her story polluted... which is disgusting. I think recently they acknowledged there never was proof to substantiate the belief.

I enjoy the idea that MM and Jesus were in love. He was human as well as God and I see no conflict with the possibility. He couldn't go anywhere with that love, however, as he had a greater calling on which he had to focus.

[MoonBreath]

Mystic Christian is right. From what i've read, Pope Gregory the Great in 561 CE made her out to be the unnamed female sinner, along with Mary of bethany. In 1969, the catholic church offically said that Pope Gregory was wrong, that she wasn't the repentant prostitute.

When i saw i got Mary Magdalene i said to myself, "no way!" lol! :smile:

[~*Midnight Flame*~]

The Catholic Church has begun to admit quite alot of things lately...after the The Da Vinci Code came out, they were pretty much forced into saying something, anything, on MM...and, as we all know, they don't exactly like having to tell the truth. About anything.

I believe she was one of the most misunderstood women in the Bible...and if Jesus loved her, good for him. He understood what love could do for a human being, and was not afraid to love the one woman who had been cast out by all others.

[MoonBreath]

sheesh, it was about time they acknowledged the fact that she wasn't who pope gregory claimed her to be! took long enough! lol! ;)

[Cunae]

sheesh, it was about time they acknowledged the fact that she wasn't who pope gregory claimed her to be! took long enough! lol! ;)

No, I think a lot of people still see her as the reformed prostitute. The idea that she was anything but is often considered "feminist influence" or something like that. It's sad because she was clearly a very special person in Christ's life.

[OneGreyOwl]

I'm reading a book by Tom Kenyon and Judy Sion entitled "The Magdalen Manuscript: The Alchemies of Horus and the Sex Magic of Isis." Supposedly the book was channelled by Kenyon from the Magdalen. Interesting if you're okay with the concept of channeling. I go on a case by case basis personally, if the material makes logical sense, resonates with something that I know to be true then I take it at face value.

[~*Midnight Flame*~]

I'm reading a book by Tom Kenyon and Judy Sion entitled "The Magdalen Manuscript: The Alchemies of Horus and the Sex Magic of Isis." Supposedly the book was channelled by Kenyon from the Magdalen. Interesting if you're okay with the concept of channeling. I go on a case by case basis personally, if the material makes logical sense, resonates with something that I know to be true then I take it at face value.

Very true, but most of what we know about Mary Magdalen has to be taken with a grain of salt...remember, the Church lied about her, as did what the Bible mentioned of her. For all we know, the Church, despite what they've now said, could still be lying about Mary.

[vikinggoddess]

I loved "The moon under her feet" and Margret Starbird's book too.

My friend gave me this really cool Magdalene oracle
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/magdalene-oracle/

Have you seen it already?

[~*Midnight Flame*~]

I loved "The moon under her feet" and Margret Starbird's book too.

My friend gave me this really cool Magdalene oracle
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/magdalene-oracle/

Have you seen it already?
Very interesting...I may have to look into them a bit more.

[OneGreyOwl]

Very true, but most of what we know about Mary Magdalen has to be taken with a grain of salt...remember, the Church lied about her, as did what the Bible mentioned of her. For all we know, the Church, despite what they've now said, could still be lying about Mary.Well, what's said in the book is a departure from anything I've heard before (except maybe the gnostic texts, I confess, although I own the apocryphal texts I haven't actually read the Gospel of Mary Magdalen). But supposedly both she and Jesus' mother were priestesses of an Isian cult. Interesting food for thought, if nothing else.

[sleepycat]

Hi MoonBreath.
My suggestions:
1] Do some research on Hebrew customs cira 100bc-100ce then apply what you learn to what is written in the bible about Mary. There's not much (in the bible) about her, but what is there is VERY telling if you understand the customs.

BTW, sacred prostitutes were common and revered in several societies at that time. No shame in it at all. But that's a thread in and of itself.

2] Once you have a grasp of the energy you are trying to connect with (Mary's) Try a light meditation with a few things that you associate with her and see what you get.

Journey Well and Bravely

[MoonBreath]

Mystic Christian: oh, i meant those who follow the Catholic faith. It is sad though that there probably are many people who do think this way. Thankfully there are some people like the Gnostic Christians, who see her in a beautiful way, and there are lots of books out about her, including her gospel, that are available to those who want to learn more about her :)

Lady Tavington: That is a good thing about The DaVinci Code in regards to the movie helping to more than likely renew people's interest in Mary Magdalene :)

OneGreyOwl: that book sounds interesting, maybe i'll check it out sometime :)

vikinggoddess: The Moon Under Her Feet is one of my favorite books! :) I'm tempted to buy the book The Cruxifiction of Mary Magdalene. It looks really interesting! i like the Magdalene oracle your friend sent you, it's very beautiful! :)

sleepycat: Thank you for the suggestions! :smile:

[Nox_Mortus]

From what I've read, it is possible that she may have been Jesus' lover and/or been a significant part of his ministry, but I think a lot of the New Age stuff about her being a goddess worshipper and whatnot is largely unfounded.

[MoonBreath]

Nox_Mortus: some sites i've been to say she could have been a priestess and other sources say she was a jewish aristocrat. It would be nice if there was more information on her background history! :uhhuhuh:

[Nox_Mortus]

Nox_Mortus: some sites i've been to say she could have been a priestess and other sources say she was a jewish aristocrat. It would be nice if there was more information on her background history! :uhhuhuh:

I would agree that it would be nice if there where more information, but unfortunately there's not a whole lot of conclusive evidence for or against much of anything that relates directly to Jesus' life or ministry.

[MoonBreath]

Nox Mortus: i agree :uhhuhuh:

[Laoghaire]

Do some careful research and don't confuse the other Mary's... If I'm not mistaken, it is said that there are three Mary's and one of them was Mary Magdalene. Still, this one Mary has taken in all the stories of the other two. Confusing...

Are there English translations of the books of Marianne Fredriksson? I read a book of her once, about a certain Mary, although I cannot remember which one... _inabox_

[Agaliha]

Do some careful research and don't confuse the other Mary's... If I'm not mistaken, it is said that there are three Mary's and one of them was Mary Magdalene. Still, this one Mary has taken in all the stories of the other two. Confusing...

Are there English translations of the books of Marianne Fredriksson? I read a book of her once, about a certain Mary, although I cannot remember which one... _inabox_

Yeah, many agree that the woman with the alabaster box/jar and anointed Jesus was not Madgalene, but Mary of Bethany or another Mary. But the stories get meshed together...that's just one example.

The book, I just searched and I believe I found it:
According to Mary Magdalene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/According_to_Mary_Magdalene) (Enligt Maria Magdalena, 1997)

[Laoghaire]

Yep, that was it. I don't like Fredriksson's writing style (very short, not too many words) but the book was beautiful in a soothing way. Worth a try...

[MoonBreath]

it is confusing when they all have the same first name! lol! :smile:

[Garm]

She makes a good coat peg, you can hang upon her what you will

After going through the alternative Xtian texts, which don't quite give the same account of her and her importance, the only factor that stands out as consistent is that Saint Pete really didn't like her

[Glowy]

I had read ( now need to find my source.. goodness knows where) that MM was wealthy on her own, and helped finance Jesus's ministries.

[Darth Brooks]

I think that Mary Magdalene had a place in history that was totally covered up by "the Church."
I would like to read more about her. You are not going to find truly accurate portrayals in the bible, as it was written by men, changed by men and interpreted by men. Many of them, right up to the present, totally misogynistic.

Yeah and sometimes it seems like those of us who aren't misogynistic are guilty by association.


It was the Catholic church that branded her a prostitute and reinforced that idea for hundreds of years to keep her story polluted... which is disgusting. I think recently they acknowledged there never was proof to substantiate the belief.

Unfortunately for everybody, there is very little proof of anything when it comes to Mary Magdalene.


I enjoy the idea that MM and Jesus were in love.Oh my goodness I mistakenly read that as "Marilyn Manson and Jesus were in love." (Sorry, couldn't resist!) ;)


He was human as well as God and I see no conflict with the possibility. He couldn't go anywhere with that love, however, as he had a greater calling on which he had to focus.If you were the supreme God and Creator of the universe, and you decided to incarnate yourself in human form, wouldn't you want to have a little bit of naughty fun every now and again? All work and no play makes God a very dull...er, God! :D


From what I've read, it is possible that she may have been Jesus' lover and/or been a significant part of his ministry, but I think a lot of the New Age stuff about her being a goddess worshipper and whatnot is largely unfounded.

Agreed. Though it is certainly true the idea is very enticing.


Yeah, many agree that the woman with the alabaster box/jar and anointed Jesus was not Madgalene, but Mary of Bethany or another Mary. But the stories get meshed together...that's just one example.

Reminds me of the Seven Hathors in Egypt. Originally they were separate Goddesses, but They eventually became melded together because They were all given the same title, "Hathor," which simply means "House of Horus" (the sky). Nobody seems to be sure who these Goddesses originally were either.

I don't have a solid opinion on Mary Magdalene myself, but I think it's probably true there's more to her than is normally thought in mainstream Christianity.

[Jazameen]

I do believe that there may have been a Mary Magdalene, as there may have been a Jesus, but as some has said that Pope Gregory had a very big hand in changing her image. It is very strange that one sect of Christianity would call her a prostitute, while others call her a saint.

[MoonBreath]

Thanks to all who have added to this thread! :)

amarante: Thank you for the beautiful and encouraging response! :) i've felt compelled to learn and read more about her for awhile now. I got a big smile on my face when i recieved her as the woman i was most like from the bible on that quiz! lol! :smile:

[ninurta2008]

I don't think she was a member of an Isian cult, just because in the first century Judea, there was other things that were going on that put Jesus in the middle of them in the New Testament. The first situation was the temple revolts, in the first century CE the province of Judea was one of the most rebellious provinces in Rome. I personally believe he was a person revolting against Roman tyranny. So as we all know, Jesus is seen differently by everyone.

But as for Mary Magdalene, sorry I got off track. Mary Magdalene in my mind could have been a close apostle and friend, why? Well women held high ranks in early christianity, and she is the only one of the women that has her last name mentioned. Why is that important? Its something usually done only for males, and none of the females, even Jesus' mother, has her last name mentioned as much as mary magdalene.

[MoonBreath]

ninurta2008: you make a really good point! i never really thought much about the fact that she was the only one to have her last name mentioned! :uhhuhuh:

[LostSheep]

Yeah, many agree that the woman with the alabaster box/jar and anointed Jesus was not Madgalene, but Mary of Bethany or another Mary. But the stories get meshed together...that's just one example.

The book, I just searched and I believe I found it:
According to Mary Magdalene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/According_to_Mary_Magdalene) (Enligt Maria Magdalena, 1997)


Yep, that was it. I don't like Fredriksson's writing style (very short, not too many words) but the book was beautiful in a soothing way. Worth a try...

Oh yes, that's one for the 'biblical fiction' thread. yes, that's a nice book, that.

[David19]

I thought this was a good link for anyone interested in Mary Magdalene:

http://magdalene.org/

Also, on Aeon Bytes this weekend, there will be an episode about the Gospel of Mary Magdalene:

http://www.thegodabovegod.com/

Hope this helps :).

[MoonBreath]

David19: Thanks for the great links! i espically like magdalene.org! :smile:

[spiral]

No, I think a lot of people still see her as the reformed prostitute.

Yeah, I was taught this in Catholic high school about five or six years ago. The church may have decided that she wasn't a prostitute after all, but they haven't made it very well known.

[MoonBreath]

i'm really annoyed with Pope Gregory, even if he's been dead for a very long time! lol!:smile: I don't see how he could have gotten her confused with the woman sinner in Luke, considering how she was mentioned in the gospels preceding Luke. If the woman sinner was Mary M., then wouldn't it have said Mary Magdalene, instead of "a woman in the city, which was a sinner,"?

[_Banbha_]

You think Pope Gregory was confused? I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

[MoonBreath]

_Banbha_: You're probably right. Acknowledging the fact that Jesus's closest apostle was a woman would help give women a higher status within Christianity, and we wouldn't want that now would we? ;)

[Darth Brooks]

_Banbha_: You're probably right. Acknowledging the fact that Jesus's closest apostle was a woman would help give women a higher status within Christianity, and we wouldn't want that now would we? ;)

Sure we do! :thumbsup:

[_Banbha_]

'xactly. :uhhuhuh:

[MoonBreath]

I second the thumbs up! :thumbsup:

[Attila_the_Honey]

the men who wrote it weren't misogynist. :)

But no, Mary Magdelene was just a woman who had demons in her that Jesus cast out. :)

If I remember correctly, there are at least 3 different Mary's mentioned in the Bible without any particular distinction between them. I think there was one Mary who had demons cast out of her, but then again that may have just been an unidentified woman. Considering the unnamed penitent prostitute identity was assigned to Mary Magdalene unrightfully, then I wouldn't be surprised at all if the church had decided to give her the label of "demon possessed" as well... Feel free to correct me if I didn't exactly get some of that right :).

I'm personally of the opinion that the "fact" that Jesus was a real person at all is one that is highly debatable. If he is no more a mythical figure with no more place in history as a sentient being than Zeus was, then it follows that Mary Magdalene never existed either except as a literary figure... I find Bible history and archaeology all very fascinating. Mostly, I find it interesting to find the truth revealed behind many of society's commonly accepted religious "truths". Still doesn't stop me from being intrigued by both the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene ^_^.

[David19]

David19: Thanks for the great links! i espically like magdalene.org! :smile:

No problem, and I'm glad you liked it, the Magadane link is quite cool, I haven't finished reading it all, but, the FAQ is quite good, IMO.

[Xander67]

According to what we have available to us, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first before he went to his desciples. I believe this indicates that she was a bit more significant to him than just a woman whom he cast demons out of.

I think there is deffinately more to it than was told, there are churches built in honor of her, and other monuments in Europe.

[Attila_the_Honey]

Indeed, he appeared to her after the resurrection first and she then went and told everyone what she had seen. I don't think anyone believed her at first due to the fact that she was a woman... I think based on all the scriptures that are available that make mention of her, it is evident that she was a pretty important woman in Jesus' life. What that role was specifically can only be mere speculation at this point.

There are monuments built to her in Europe, but I think a lot of that has to do with churches wanting to establish a connection to her to make themselves more appealing to religious pilgrims during the Middle Ages. There were churches in France who claimed to have her bones and thus created/perpetuated the myth that she had travelled and then died there after the crucifixion. Obviously, there is no evidence for any of these claims, but they make for nice stories :).

[Xander67]

yes,
I think there is a bit more to the Sacred Feminine Mysteries, :)

I saw the film in which Susan Surrandon narrated about her, (breaking the davinci code I think it was called) It had a good amount of historical perspective.

[higherself]

Hello,

I think it is necessary to shed some light on the Mary Magdalena stuff because there has been a lot of misconceptions and lies about Mary Magdalena and the vessel of wisdom she incarnates. She has had other earthly incarnations after her life with Jesus 2000 years ago. In this life time, Mary Magdalena (Eve Anderson in this life time) and Jesus (Stefan) await their physical meeting again, spiritually they are already united...

Yes, Mary Magdalena in this life time is Eve Anderson and her Goddess spirit is Sophia, twin flame of Jesus. Jesus too came back on Earth in 2005 and his name is Stefan.

Please read more on her website:
http://www.enlightenmentpathsir.com/revealingsophia.htm
Eve Anderson' s contact and bio:
http://www.enlightenmentpathsir.com/contactandbio.htm

Eve was deeply inspired by her Goddess Spirit Sophia and Creator God to write a unique book which sheds light and sets all matters right. The truth brought forth in the book is universal, connected to all faiths and non-faiths on Earth which are half truths.

http://eveanderson.weebly.com/silent-armageddon.html

The Divine Feminine Consciousness was in exile from our consciousness for 2000 years ago, now is the time for all truths to be told....

[~Elise~]

Hello,

I think it is necessary to shed some light on the Mary Magdalena stuff because there has been a lot of misconceptions and lies about Mary Magdalena and the vessel of wisdom she incarnates. She has had other earthly incarnations after her life with Jesus 2000 years ago. In this life time, Mary Magdalena (Eve Anderson in this life time) and Jesus (Stefan) await their physical meeting again, spiritually they are already united...

Yes, Mary Magdalena in this life time is Eve Anderson and her Goddess spirit is Sophia, twin flame of Jesus. Jesus too came back on Earth in 2005 and his name is Stefan.

Please read more on her website:
http://www.enlightenmentpathsir.com/revealingsophia.htm
Eve Anderson' s contact and bio:
http://www.enlightenmentpathsir.com/contactandbio.htm

Eve was deeply inspired by her Goddess Spirit Sophia and Creator God to write a unique book which sheds light and sets all matters right. The truth brought forth in the book is universal, connected to all faiths and non-faiths on Earth which are half truths.

http://eveanderson.weebly.com/silent-armageddon.html

The Divine Feminine Consciousness was in exile from our consciousness for 2000 years ago, now is the time for all truths to be told....

No more posts like this

[john.a]

Whoever she was, whatever she did for a living and whichever Mary we speak of in the New Testament, it is most likely that she was thoroughly, thoroughly Jewish. The idea of worshipping a Goddess would have been tantamout to blaspheme for her.

However, barring that, it is really interesting that you would place her on your altar. =) I thought I would give you a little heads up with the Gospel of Mary. All we have left is two Greek fragments from the 3rd century and a fuller, but incomplete, Coptic manuscript from the 5th century. From the language stylistics, we can assume the original book - or collection of documents - was written around the 2nd century. It therefore, isn't going to be, a very accurate description of what really went on almost two hundred years earlier during the ministry of Jesus.

Even taking that into consideration, it is very, very, Christian in form. The beginning concerns Jesus giving a revelation on the nature of sin. Mary is even accused of being slightly misogynistic if you want to consider this Gospel accurate: she says, "Let us praise his greatness for he has prepared us and made us into men!" It ends with Jesus instructing his followers to proselytize.

But! Belief does not equal history and to each his own if you wish to include it as part of your personal set of beliefs. =) However, just to warn you, the text can fit on two pages and there are many gaps and holes and we can't fill everything in. I don't think you need to buy it, lol. You might as well print it out and decorate it Ten Commandments style cuz they're really short fragments.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Incorrect...

There is evidence of worship of YHVH , and Asherah , in old
texts...I am sure Agaliha , could direct us to them , or Philosophia ,
if they chose...

It is wise on this board , John , to do all your research , before
making such statements...

However said...welcome to MW...:thumbsup:



Whoever she was, whatever she did for a living and whichever Mary we speak of in the New Testament, it is most likely that she was thoroughly, thoroughly Jewish. The idea of worshipping a Goddess would have been tantamout to blaspheme for her.

[john.a]

It is very strange that one sect of Christianity would call her a prostitute, while others call her a saint.

She may be considered a prostitute by some, but in the Catholic Church her supposed relics have been venerated. Remember she is venerated (especially in France) as being a penitent saint and that others Saints have done much worse than being a prostitute (St. Paul, prior to conversion, was in the business of killing Christians). Her status as a prostitute, whether or not it is accurate, is not intended as a defamation. In the Gospels, she and the Apostle John were the only ones brave enough to stick with Jesus 'til the end and she witnessed His crucifixion. The Gospels also claim her to be the first to whom the resurrected Christ appeared. She is hardly defamed.


Mary Magdalene in my mind could have been a close apostle and friend, why? Well women held high ranks in early christianity, and she is the only one of the women that has her last name mentioned. Why is that important? Its something usually done only for males, and none of the females, even Jesus' mother, has her last name mentioned as much as mary magdalene.

Magdala is a a town on the western shore of the sea of Galilee.

[john.a]

Incorrect...

There is evidence of worship of YHVH , and Asherah , in old
texts...I am sure Agaliha , could direct us to them , or Philosophia ,
if they chose...

It is wise on this board , John , to do all your research , before
making such statements...

However said...welcome to MW...:thumbsup:

=) Research has been done. I'm no amateur.

The four letters that you wrote, which in Orthodox Jewish tradition are too sacred to ever write down (other than in the Torah) and even pronounced, are revealed to Moses as God's "name" in the Pentateuch. This has nothing to do with polytheism or Goddess worship. =)

It is theorized that the nation of Israel during the first temple era were henotheists - that is, they acknowledged the existence of other deities but believed theirs to be superior. The exact wording of the first Commandment now becomes clear. The evidence for this is interesting, to say the least. More specifically, they may followed a cult with roots in the Canaanite religion in which the goddess Asherah figures. This worship of which you speak is problematic all throughout the Old Testament; the people of Israel, it seems, turn away from their god several times to worship some older, Canaanite deities - it seems that they just couldn't completely, turn away from the traditions of their pagan ancestors. This spurred on the scolding of certain Old Testament prophets. Jeremiah for instance sometime around the sixth century BCE, so wrathfully opposes the worship of Asherah.

However, by 100 BCE, the most of the Jews in the Levant were hellenized and monotheism ruled supreme. By Jesus' time, it would have been blaspheme to worship Asherah. However, in all humility, if I am too be corrected by Agaliha or Philosophia, so be it. My education may have been faulty. =)

[Shawn Blackwolf]

Pre what you mention...yet even before Caananite...

Though that is not documented...

and you mean Yod He Vau He ?

I say it all the time , in ritual...I am very far from an amateur ,
as well...as you shall find others here , have countered these
arguements before...successfully , I might add...

Yes , Caananite...Asherah...and the Asherim...the poles in the
high places I am more than familiar with , including how to
build them...

As I told Moonbreath , myself , the Magdelene was one of our
Priestessess...and we do not believe in blasphemy , or worship
of later gods ...we do not believe in worship...

But that is a different matter...:smileroll



=) Research has been done. I'm no amateur.

The four letters that you wrote, which in Orthodox Jewish tradition are too sacred to ever write down (other than in the Torah) and even pronounced, are revealed to Moses as God's "name" in the Pentateuch. This has nothing to do with polytheism or Goddess worship. =)

It is theorized that the nation of Israel during the first temple era were henotheists - that is, they acknowledged the existence of other deities but believed theirs to be superior. The exact wording of the first Commandment now becomes clear. The evidence for this is interesting, to say the least. More specifically, they may followed a cult with roots in the Canaanite religion in which the goddess Asherah figures. This worship of which you speak is problematic all throughout the Old Testament; the people of Israel, it seems, turn away from their god several times to worship some older, Canaanite deities - it seems that they just couldn't completely, turn away from the traditions of their pagan ancestors. This spurred on the scolding of certain Old Testament prophets. Jeremiah for instance sometime around the sixth century BCE, so wrathfully opposes the worship of Asherah.

However, by 100 BCE, the most of the Jews in the Levant were hellenized and monotheism ruled supreme. By Jesus' time, it would have been blaspheme to worship Asherah. However, in all humility, if I am too be corrected by Agilah or Philosophia, so be it. My education may have been faulty. =)

[john.a]

Pre what you mention...yet even before Caananite...

Though that is not documented...

I don't understand this segment.


and you mean Yod He Vau He ?

I say it all the time , in ritual...

You may of course. I didn't say you were Jewish.


I am very far from an amateur ,
as well...as you shall find others here , have countered these
arguements before...successfully , I might add...

I never meant to accuse anyone else of not being an amateur. I just wanted to get it across that it is a presumption to say that I have not done my research - especially since I rarely post on this forum; I have no reputation by which to judge the validity of my claims. Neither do you know my educational background.

I don't know what you mean when you say that others have countered "these" arguments because we're not really arguing anything at this point. What arguments have I proposed that others have successfully countered?


Yes , Caananite...Asherah...and the Asherim...the poles in the
high places I am more than familiar with , including how to
build them...

As I told Moonbreath , myself , the Magdelene was one of our
Priestessess...and we do not believe in blasphemy , or worship
of later gods ...we do not believe in worship...

I did not state that you "believe in" blasphemy or worship later gods. I don't know where you got that from. I'm simplying characterizing Magdalene as a Jewish woman from the first century. However, like I said earlier, history does not equal belief.
I don't shoot you down for believing Magdalene was one of your priestesses. However, the historical record says very little about Magdalene and to a scholar, it is hard to construct evidence that she worshipped in a non-kosher way, much less that she was a Priestess. If you can offer evidence good enough to make it into a solid scholarly journal, then we're talking! :mmm:

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I don't understand this segment.

Simple enough , John...

Asherah , is not a Caananite goddess...long before...
though you , nor anyone else shall find the evidence
of that in history...



You may of course. I didn't say you were Jewish.

Of course I may...that is my right...and it would not
matter if I were Jewish...far from it...I have said those
very syllables , in front of rabbis...we have a mutual
respect for the paths...you see , I know the tradition
of the first temple , and what came before...



I never meant to accuse anyone else of not being an amateur. I just wanted to get it across that it is a presumption to say that I have not done my research - especially since I rarely post on this forum; I have no reputation by which to judge the validity of my claims. Neither do you know my educational background.

If you had done your research , you would not have called the
Magdelene a blasphemer , if she did worship Asherah...if...

You would have stated she may have been a priestess of Asherah ,
if you were honest about that research...

I don't know what you mean when you say that others have countered "these" arguments because we're not really arguing anything at this point. What arguments have I proposed that others have successfully countered?

See above...



I did not state that you "believe in" blasphemy or worship later gods. I don't know where you got that from. I'm simplying characterizing Magdalene as a Jewish woman from the first century. However, like I said earlier, history does not equal belief.
I don't shoot you down for believing Magdalene was one of your priestesses. However, the historical record says very little about Magdalene and to a scholar, it is hard to construct evidence that she worshipped in a non-kosher way, much less that she was a Priestess. If you can offer evidence good enough to make it into a solid scholarly journal, then we're talking! :mmm:

You are most correct in that which I highlighted...

As history does not equal belief...nor do I believe in history ,
for it is written by conquerors , victors , and those who control
the media , in any generation...

Ours was always an oral Tradition...

Or have you not done your research , or have you forgotten ?

True Qabalah , true Tradition , was always mouth to ear...:bigredgri

[Toby Stimpson]

But, there's a bit of an issue here... because logically it doesn't make sense.

You're telling John that he hasn't done his research when your description of research is being privy to an oral tradition that has no records of it's self, and cannot be substantiated at all other than your word for it. So how can he do his research into the oral tradition that you have claimed you are the only person to be a part of right now... that has no written history or track record?

John is clearly stating his facts as rooted in studies built off of thousands of years of recorded history. No matter how much bias is in that history, it is still a record of what came before (in some form).

If someone doesn't believe in history, can that someone say that people have it wrong when there's 3000 years of records as opposed to an individual's word? even if that individual is a good person, it's still a staggering logical fallacy.

[Toby Stimpson]

And now a post on Mary Magdalane. I saw this cool documentary on the Da Vinci code... not so much ABOUT the Da Vinci code and more around the figures in it... and apparently there was a group of Knights Templar that held Mary Magdalane in high esteem... praying to her similar to how modern Catholics pray to Mother Mary. Interesting stuff :)

[john.a]

Asherah , is not a Caananite goddess...long before...
though you , nor anyone else shall find the evidence
of that in history...

Ah. It's all explained, then. =) I'll have to bow out of this humbly. I know nothing of the past beyond the historical record.

Of course I may...that is my right...and it would not
matter if I were Jewish...far from it...I have said those
very syllables , in front of rabbis...we have a mutual
respect for the paths...you see , I know the tradition
of the first temple , and what came before...

=) I'd love to enter into the discussions you have with Rabbis in which you pronounce the Name. In fact, would you like to enlighten me a little and tell me about what you know of the First Temple era and what came before?

If you had done your research , you would not have called the
Magdelene a blasphemer , if she did worship Asherah...if...

You would have stated she may have been a priestess of Asherah ,
if you were honest about that research...

Don't tell me what I have and have not done and in with how much honesty I have applied myself. There is no record found anywhere of Magdalene having been a preacher of Asherah. If you argue that the evidence is not in the historical record as you did above, then fine. So be it. I am not privy to the special knowledge which only you have.

As history does not equal belief...nor do I believe in history ,
for it is written by conquerors , victors , and those who control
the media , in any generation...

I'm not gonna get into this. I'm just going to bow out again.

Ours was always an oral Tradition...

Or have you not done your research , or have you forgotten ?

True Qabalah , true Tradition , was always mouth to ear...:bigredgri

I haven't forgotten because I never knew. About who "You" are and "Your" oral Tradition. This thread is devolving into something about You and Your knowledge and Your religion. It is getting off topic and we are no longer really discussing Magdalene the way the OP has framed the discussion. This is my official last response. =) It was great talking with you.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I understand your point Toby...

And I have nothing against John , personally...at all...

( eapecially if he is a friend of yours ! )

However , I was first admittedly reacting to his statement
she would have been a blasphemer , if she worshipped the
Goddess...any goddess...

This is the sort of patriarchal bullshit ( IMO ) , which must
always be countered , with information , oral , or written...

If one is researching Jewish Tradition , and does not include
deep study of the qabalah , and it's writings , yet claims to speak on
the Jewish spiritual tradition , rather relying on the bible , or
Old Testament , and the writings of the patriarchs , one has not
done their research...and if they did , they would know...

"Ear To Mouth" was the way the secret wisdom , was passed down...
as it is written by Qabalists...in the outer teachings...

To truly know the Jewish tradition , and speak on it , with
authority , one must first study for years , with a rabbi...

Or , as more than one has told me...recieve it direct , as I did...

John , I sent you a profile message , attempting to link you to
information , to help you understand , if you so choose...:thumbsup:


But, there's a bit of an issue here... because logically it doesn't make sense.

You're telling John that he hasn't done his research when your description of research is being privy to an oral tradition that has no records of it's self, and cannot be substantiated at all other than your word for it. So how can he do his research into the oral tradition that you have claimed you are the only person to be a part of right now... that has no written history or track record?

John is clearly stating his facts as rooted in studies built off of thousands of years of recorded history. No matter how much bias is in that history, it is still a record of what came before (in some form).

If someone doesn't believe in history, can that someone say that people have it wrong when there's 3000 years of records as opposed to an individual's word? even if that individual is a good person, it's still a staggering logical fallacy.

[Darth Brooks]

However , I was first admittedly reacting to his statement
she would have been a blasphemer , if she worshipped the
Goddess...any goddess...

According to mainstream Judaism at the time? She certainly would have been such. That much is undeniable. This, of course, does not mean she would have seen herself as such, or that she would necessarily have been seen as such by all Jews, if she truly was a priestess of Asherah. (The Sethian Gnostics*, particularly, probably would have loved it - yet they were not mainstream and did not represent the majority of the Jewish people.)


This is the sort of patriarchal bullshit ( IMO ) , which must
always be countered , with information , oral , or written...It's good that it be countered, but considering the amount of power and influence it has had, it can't really be denied or ignored either. Not if we are taking into account the primary forms of Judaism which held the most currency in Mary's time, which I believe was John's point.


If one is researching Jewish Tradition , and does not include
deep study of the qabalah , and it's writings , yet claims to speak on
the Jewish spiritual tradition , rather relying on the bible , or
Old Testament , and the writings of the patriarchs , one has not
done their research...and if they did , they would know...Fair enough - but you can't ignore the Old Testament, or the "writings of the patriarchs" if you prefer, either. Not if we are to establish an intellectually honest portrayal of Jewish tradition. If you cut out the Tanakh, you're cutting out a huge chunk of Jewish tradition.


"Ear To Mouth" was the way the secret wisdom , was passed down...
as it is written by Qabalists...in the outer teachings...

To truly know the Jewish tradition , and speak on it , with
authority , one must first study for years , with a rabbi...This is true of virtually any religious tradition. To truly understand your Faery Tradition, I expect one would have to study it for years. To truly understand the Setian Tradition, one would also have to study it for years. No one outside the Faery Tradition is really qualified to speak for that tradition, just as no one outside the Setian tradition is really qualified to speak for that tradition. Why should it be any different for Jewish tradition?

However, John is right to point out that by mainstream Judaism's standards at that time, Mary would have been considered a "blasphemer" if she actually was, in fact, a worshiper of Asherah. A claim for which there is a substantial lack of historical evidence, as you yourself have indicated. Whether she was or not, one cannot simply dismiss the importance and influence of mainstream Judaism during that period, if one is to have a proper understanding of the religious climate for that time. For one thing, it has an awful lot to do with why Jesus was crucified, if indeed he actually was.

And anyway, if people would have thought of her as a blasphemer, so what? That would only make her all the more important to be studied and understood, IMO.

__________________
* Not to be confused with the Setian Tradition, though there are certain areas where the two overlap in interesting ways. But that is for another discussion.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I can understand , and shall not argue these points ,
as I mostly concur...well stated...

However , being slander against her , "blasphemer" ,
as well as her being vilified in the past , for being
a "prostitute" , rather than a Holy Harlot of the
Temple of her tradition , thus a priestess , who was
Qudsha , an initiatress , is why I am quick to the draw ,
so to speak ...

There have been many stories told of "Fallen Woman" ,
and many of them have caused , and perpetuated great harm...

This was one , which has caused trouble since the story
was created...that is why I spoke up...:thumbsup:

And , of course...your last paragraph...we agree completely !



According to mainstream Judaism at the time? She certainly would have been such. That much is undeniable. This, of course, does not mean she would have seen herself as such, or that she would necessarily have been seen as such by all Jews, if she truly was a priestess of Asherah. (The Sethian Gnostics*, particularly, probably would have loved it - yet they were not mainstream and did not represent the majority of the Jewish people.)

It's good that it be countered, but considering the amount of power and influence it has had, it can't really be denied or ignored either. Not if we are taking into account the primary forms of Judaism which held the most currency in Mary's time, which I believe was John's point.

Fair enough - but you can't ignore the Old Testament, or the "writings of the patriarchs" if you prefer, either. Not if we are to establish an intellectually honest portrayal of Jewish tradition. If you cut out the Tanakh, you're cutting out a huge chunk of Jewish tradition.

This is true of virtually any religious tradition. To truly understand your Faery Tradition, I expect one would have to study it for years. To truly understand the Setian Tradition, one would also have to study it for years. No one outside the Faery Tradition is really qualified to speak for that tradition, just as no one outside the Setian tradition is really qualified to speak for that tradition. Why should it be any different for Jewish tradition?

However, John is right to point out that by mainstream Judaism's standards at that time, Mary would have been considered a "blasphemer" if she actually was, in fact, a worshiper of Asherah. A claim for which there is a substantial lack of historical evidence, as you yourself have indicated. Whether she was or not, one cannot simply dismiss the importance and influence of mainstream Judaism during that period, if one is to have a proper understanding of the religious climate for that time. For one thing, it has an awful lot to do with why Jesus was crucified, if indeed he actually was.

And anyway, if people would have thought of her as a blasphemer, so what? That would only make her all the more important to be studied and understood, IMO.

__________________
* Not to be confused with the Setian Tradition, though there are certain areas where the two overlap in interesting ways. But that is for another discussion.

[ninurta2008]

Magdala is a a town on the western shore of the sea of Galilee.
I am aware. But what I am saying is that usually in the NT refering to people with titles means they have an important role. Mary mother of jesus, jesus of nazereth, mary of magdala (mary magdalene) (it was her last name, many last names were of their homecity).


And since she was at Jesus's tomb also reinforces her importance, since it would have been forbidden for non-related women to be their. Though I am puzzled by that becuase she wasn't married to Jesus, at least to my knowledge.

[john.a]

I am aware. But what I am saying is that usually in the NT refering to people with titles means they have an important role. Mary mother of jesus, jesus of nazereth, mary of magdala (mary magdalene) (it was her last name, many last names were of their homecity).

If you look at the NT as a piece of literature, than any and all people playing key roles who were active in the early ministry of Christ area the main characters - and as you know, all main characters are identified somehow. The Jewish tradition is to identify your father - they are patronymic. Since, however, many of these people's fathers weren't famous enough for them to be recognized, I suspect the authors of the Gospels as well as Paul opted for a place name identification. It doesn't mean you're "important" to the doctrine or the faith - all it meant is you were probably Christian and going around doing things. At any rate, she probably didn't refer to herself as "Mary Magdalene" nor did any NT authors - if she did want to mention her town, she most likely would have said, "Mary of Magdala" or "Mary from Magdala." The "Magdalene" part as a pseudo-last name probably evolved over the years.

It's also anachronistic to say they used place names as last names. It's not a "last name" in our sense of the word - it's a way of identification. The more common way for Jews at the time was to state a lineage starting from your father.

[ninurta2008]

If you look at the NT as a piece of literature, than any and all people playing key roles who were active in the early ministry of Christ area the main characters - and as you know, all main characters are identified somehow. The Jewish tradition is to identify your father - they are patronymic. Since, however, many of these people's fathers weren't famous enough for them to be recognized, I suspect the authors of the Gospels as well as Paul opted for a place name identification. It doesn't mean you're "important" to the doctrine or the faith - all it meant is you were probably Christian and going around doing things. At any rate, she probably didn't refer to herself as "Mary Magdalene" nor did any NT authors - if she did want to mention her town, she most likely would have said, "Mary of Magdala" or "Mary from Magdala." The "Magdalene" part as a pseudo-last name probably evolved over the years.

It's also anachronistic to say they used place names as last names. It's not a "last name" in our sense of the word - it's a way of identification. The more common way for Jews at the time was to state a lineage starting from your father.
When they use last names that's different, or son of........ thats different. How many times are people in the bible or biblical literature known by their city?

It was common for women to play big roles in the early church. That's what I think she was, was a major disciple of Jesus. The thing I am puzzled by is why she broke taboo and went in his tomb, the place only the wife, mother, maybe female relatives can go. Beyond that, I am not saying there is a further possibility of anything more.

[Louisvillian]

for awhile now, and on and off in the past, i've held an interest in Mary Magdalene. That interest only grew when i read and saw books pointing to the possibility that she may have been a priestess of the Goddess
Protip: the archetype of a universal "great goddess" didn't exist in Iron Age Judea.
It seems pretty damn obvious and clear that Mary of Magdala, if she even existed in the first place, was Jewish, since she was a follower of a Jewish preacher, Jesus of Nazareth.

Not saying that you necessarily can't believe such things. Just expressing my confusion as to where you derive the evidence for such claims.


I think that Mary Magdalene had a place in history that was totally covered up by "the Church."
Oh great, more conspiracy theory bullshit. :goodgrief


as it was written by men, changed by men and interpreted by men.Yes, because all men are part of a conspiracy to oppress women. :rolleyes: