Food & Drink2 mins ago
Mary Magdalene
37 Answers
Just been watching a documentary about Mary Magdalene, and a question that's always puzzled me has cropped up once again. Mary followed Jesus during his ministry, she watched him die on the cross, and she helped prepare his body for burial, so she must have known him pretty well. However, just three days after the crucifixion she was the first to meet the resurrected Jesus, but she failed to recognise him. My question is why?
Personally, I don't believe Jesus died on the cross, but that's irrelevant to this question. Whether he had died or not, the bible tells us Mary didn't know him. I'm looking at this from an historical point of view and I'm hoping for a feasible answer, so please indulge me here. What possible reason could there be?
Personally, I don't believe Jesus died on the cross, but that's irrelevant to this question. Whether he had died or not, the bible tells us Mary didn't know him. I'm looking at this from an historical point of view and I'm hoping for a feasible answer, so please indulge me here. What possible reason could there be?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
any number of possible answers - she was short sighted, he had his back to her, she was distracted (having found the tomb empty), he no longer resembled the man shose face she had last seen distorted with pain on the cross... most of us fail to recognise people we know at one time or another, and the possible reasons are lgion.
Note that although Matthew, Mark and John (not Luke) all say she saw him, John is the only one who says she did not recognise him. Perhaps he was just wrong? The gospels difffer on many points, without necessarily contradicting each other on significant ones; this is just one of them.
Note that although Matthew, Mark and John (not Luke) all say she saw him, John is the only one who says she did not recognise him. Perhaps he was just wrong? The gospels difffer on many points, without necessarily contradicting each other on significant ones; this is just one of them.
Don't quite get that terambulan could you be more specific?
You know Naomi I was unsure for a long time about the resurection story but oneday I was watching the news and a film crew was in around in the west bank I think it was and he was there screaming a miracle, that he'd just seen his dead son who'd been killed a few days before and you could see in his eyes that he really believed this.
The thing is that in grief people really believe things like this, you have to remember that people then did not understand death as we do today as biological processes that stop.
When you see a person as a shell that contains a magical life force that is actually what makes arms move and people talk then the idea of someone reinhabiting their body is not as ridiculous as it seems to us.
I think you have to try to get behind the eyes and consider the emotional state that any of these people would be in.
Too much of our imagery of this is bound up in a very European "Robert Powell as Jesus " sort of thing. Watch the news of goings on in the middle east - much more like what would be going on.
In those conditions anything is possible
You know Naomi I was unsure for a long time about the resurection story but oneday I was watching the news and a film crew was in around in the west bank I think it was and he was there screaming a miracle, that he'd just seen his dead son who'd been killed a few days before and you could see in his eyes that he really believed this.
The thing is that in grief people really believe things like this, you have to remember that people then did not understand death as we do today as biological processes that stop.
When you see a person as a shell that contains a magical life force that is actually what makes arms move and people talk then the idea of someone reinhabiting their body is not as ridiculous as it seems to us.
I think you have to try to get behind the eyes and consider the emotional state that any of these people would be in.
Too much of our imagery of this is bound up in a very European "Robert Powell as Jesus " sort of thing. Watch the news of goings on in the middle east - much more like what would be going on.
In those conditions anything is possible
Sorry, terambulan, I don't quite get that link either.
If John did make a mistake, it's an odd one to make. I can't imagine why it would occur to him that she didn't recognise Jesus unless she'd said she didn't. As far as an imaginary sighting goes, I think we have to discount that, since Jesus appeared many times after the resurrection and even allowed people to touch him. (Don't forget I'm looking at the available evidence and doing a bit of a Miss Marple here!).
If John did make a mistake, it's an odd one to make. I can't imagine why it would occur to him that she didn't recognise Jesus unless she'd said she didn't. As far as an imaginary sighting goes, I think we have to discount that, since Jesus appeared many times after the resurrection and even allowed people to touch him. (Don't forget I'm looking at the available evidence and doing a bit of a Miss Marple here!).
Jesus came back many times and allowed people to touch him
I think you have to question where are you getting this information from.
Are there any first hand accounts remembering that the gospells are only traditionally associated with these people. Remember we don't actually know who wrote the gospels the names at the top are traditional associations
Remember too the earliest version of Mark's Gospellcodex Sinaiticus does not mention the resurrection or the eyewitness accounts at all!
Then compare the accounts:
For ex�ample, the Gospels list Mary as the first person who saw Jesus after his resurrection whereas 1 Corinthians 15:5 lists Peter as first. Likewise Matthew 28:2 lists Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as the first at the tomb whereas John 20:1 names only Mary Magdalene as being there.
And this is what is being held up as reliable and credible evidence?
I think you have to question where are you getting this information from.
Are there any first hand accounts remembering that the gospells are only traditionally associated with these people. Remember we don't actually know who wrote the gospels the names at the top are traditional associations
Remember too the earliest version of Mark's Gospellcodex Sinaiticus does not mention the resurrection or the eyewitness accounts at all!
Then compare the accounts:
For ex�ample, the Gospels list Mary as the first person who saw Jesus after his resurrection whereas 1 Corinthians 15:5 lists Peter as first. Likewise Matthew 28:2 lists Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as the first at the tomb whereas John 20:1 names only Mary Magdalene as being there.
And this is what is being held up as reliable and credible evidence?
If, instead of just treating the whole lot as the fiction it probably is, we are playing one of those fun games like "Where exactly was 221B Baker Street?", then there is a much more fundamental question: What killed Jesus?
It certainly wouldn't have been crucifixion, which was deliberately designed to be a slow lingering death lasting days. Taken down from the cross after only a few hours, Jesus would have suffered from painful holes in his wrists and feet, aching muscles and a very sore back - all treatable by Joe and Nick (sorry, Joseph of Aramathea and Nicodemus) in that cool cave with 100 lbs of ointments.
Incidentally neither Mary of Magdala nor anyone else would have seen Jesus' "death". One of the many things we know about Roman crucifixions is that they were very casual and contemptuous affairs in the local rubbish-dump with no member of the public allowed near. The cross (actually a T) would have been only about 5 ft high - just enough to get the victim's feet off the ground.
The standard picture of a tall cross at the top of a hill with friends and relations gathered at the bottom comes from the imagination of the artist, not from history.
It certainly wouldn't have been crucifixion, which was deliberately designed to be a slow lingering death lasting days. Taken down from the cross after only a few hours, Jesus would have suffered from painful holes in his wrists and feet, aching muscles and a very sore back - all treatable by Joe and Nick (sorry, Joseph of Aramathea and Nicodemus) in that cool cave with 100 lbs of ointments.
Incidentally neither Mary of Magdala nor anyone else would have seen Jesus' "death". One of the many things we know about Roman crucifixions is that they were very casual and contemptuous affairs in the local rubbish-dump with no member of the public allowed near. The cross (actually a T) would have been only about 5 ft high - just enough to get the victim's feet off the ground.
The standard picture of a tall cross at the top of a hill with friends and relations gathered at the bottom comes from the imagination of the artist, not from history.
I'm not a theologian but he was stabbed with a spear to check he was dead, that's if I remember correctly, you also have to bear in mind he'd been beaten terribly in the build up to his crucifixion.
The "spear of destiny" if I can recall is currently residing in a museum in Austria and was recently examined by scientists and found to be contemporary with the time of Jesus's life.
The "spear of destiny" if I can recall is currently residing in a museum in Austria and was recently examined by scientists and found to be contemporary with the time of Jesus's life.
Waldo, my answer was really to Jake. Coming back from the dead is an oxymoron of course - if you come back you aren't dead - but misdiagnoses do happen. If a prophet was the victim of one, it would hardly be surprising if his followers proclaimed that he had overcome death. I would have thought crucifixion was a pretty severe sacrifice whether it worked or not.
But yes, 123everton, I always thought that was the procedure: the stabbing was to make sure of death. But I guess stabbings can fail too.
As to why people should fail to recognise him, I've offered several suggestions.
But yes, 123everton, I always thought that was the procedure: the stabbing was to make sure of death. But I guess stabbings can fail too.
As to why people should fail to recognise him, I've offered several suggestions.
