Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it still doesn't address the problem. It doesn't matter whether a person was given a nickname by a friend or leader or got it form the place they came from if nthey are shown together with the Other person - such as Simon the zealot whose son Judas was not the Other Judas (not Iscariot) confusion is specifically avoided. But there is no attempt to distinguish between Mary Magadalene (supposedly of Magdala in Galilee) and mary of bethany. If we never saw Mary Magdalene outside galilee, the problem wouldn't rise, but we do indeed.
The close link between Mary magdalene and Jesus' mother is shown by them being together at the crucifixion and coming to ther tomb first thing after the sabbath. and even John, though he ignores Jesus' mother at the empty tomb, the 'we do no know where.." implies they were both there.
Now, when John makes it clear that this Mary who anoints Jesus in the house of Lazarus is in no way "clearly" distinguished from Mary sister of Martha and of Lazarus, then this importance ans well as failing to appear side by side the two so as we can tell them apart, the supicion is that there are the same person.
Since your excuses (I am obliged to use the term) as to why they are not the same person do not stand up to scrutiny, I have to ask again what good reason there is to not suppose that Nary Magadalene is not also Mary of Bethany?
I know that it is a puzzle as to why someone from Magdala was apparently a resident of Bethany. But then Joseph apparently from Arimeh was not only living in jerusalem, but was part of the Sanhedrin.
Ps I am not even going into the Gospel -Literalist scenario that tightens up all the characters until they become all one family.
Jesus.
Brother James (later leader of the Nazorenes) and John, Joses -Joseph
sister Salome, perhaps Joanna.
Simion Cephas. Son Judas, also Simon the zealot.
Mother in Law Mary, mother of Jesus, sisters Mary (wife of Jesus) and Martha,
This is all based on trusting the gospels with no mistrust, but I don't trust the gospels. just as well.
Now, when John makes it clear that this Mary who anoints Jesus in the house of Lazarus is in no way "clearly" distinguished from Mary sister of Martha and of Lazarus, then this importance ans well as failing to appear side by side the two so as we can tell them apart, the supicion is that there are the same person.
Well, doggone/ an insertion in John says they WERE the same person and therefore that the sister of Lazarus and Martha was a "sinful woman" John 11:2
(Mary, whose brother Lazarus was sick, was later to anoint the Lord with perfume and wipe His feet with her hair.) And guess what? the timing doesn't work out at all. Wonder if that was a later addition? You don't trust what?
Well, doggone/ an insertion in John says they WERE the same person and therefore that the sister of Lazarus and Martha was a "sinful woman" John 11:2
(Mary, whose brother Lazarus was sick, was later to anoint the Lord with perfume and wipe His feet with her hair.) And guess what? the timing doesn't work out at all. Wonder if that was a later addition? You don't trust what?
I don't trust the sinfuil woman scenario. The earlier account has..let me check...anointing at the head Matthew 26.6 and mark 14. They put it after the procession to the temple and the carve -up.
John on the other hand puts it that evening after supper on the day Jesus arrives from jericho and before the morning Hosannah procession to the temple where clearly Jesus does his rumpus - but John cansors that. He didn't censor the anointing or when it happened (12.3)because he used the image of Mary wiping his feet hith her hair - but kept the explanation that this was a burial rite.
Luke on the other hand, makes it a different event altogether, shifting it to a "Pharisees house" (7.37) in Galilee and having a 'sinful woman' doing an act of repentance. Now our pal Omegius tried to argue that this was a different event, but if so, (I asked) where is the event that Luke ought to have had in Bethany?
Just as the removal of the temple cleansing itself in John the removal of the anointing shown that they are the same event, fiddled.
Now, I argue that, if Mark and Matthew had an anointing of the feet and wiping of the feet with hair, they would hardly have altered it to an anointing on the head. But it is quite likely that the more dignified head anointing would have be altered to the more grovelling foot worship.
Thus we have an anointing of the head done by Mary sister of Lazarus and Martha and either before or after the temple procession. The question still remains whether Mary of bethany was the same person as Mary Magdalene. It isn't stated for ceetain, but as i suggested, the close relation with jesus and his mother shown by their going together with the tomb, and the closer relation to jesus even than his mother as shown by the anointing suggests they were indeed the same person.
Of course, there are many doubts and questions and you know I don't take the gospels as reliable, but I am always very interesated when I see the gospel writers independently and in different and conflicting ways falling iover themselves to cover up and disguise something is the gospels.
You don't need to to fiddle the facts unless there are facts to fiddle and they need fiddling.
I don't trust the sinfuil woman scenario. The earlier account has..let me check...anointing at the head Matthew 26.6 and mark 14. They put it after the procession to the temple and the carve -up. .....
Oh, ok. But it makes a better story that she is a prostitute and not just the sister of one of Jesus' friends who preferred listening to Jesus teach rather than help Martha prepare dinner.
Oh, ok. But it makes a better story that she is a prostitute and not just the sister of one of Jesus' friends who preferred listening to Jesus teach rather than help Martha prepare dinner.
I like good stories, too, But the ones I like best are the ones that turn out to be true.
I like good stories, too, But the ones I like best are the ones that turn out to be true.
Did you ever read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? In it the narrator, "Chief Broom," says about his story, "but it's the truth, even if it never happened."
That make no sense. I have watched "History Buffs" waterloo programme. In it the famous remark of the general Cambronne of the Old Guard "The guard dies, it does not surrender" is explained (as is known) to be false. He never aid it He did surrender. All the rest of his life Cambronne said that he never said it. But there it is, on his statue all the same. "True" even if it is false. "True" because people dearly want to believe it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not even going into the Gospel -Literalist scenario that tightens up all the characters until they become all one family.
