Mary Magdalene

[naomi24]

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?

[naomi24]

No, I'm not a pathologist either, but I'm pretty sure that when the heart stops beating, there's obviously nothing to pump the blood around the body, and therefore it doesn't flow. Additionally, since he'd been beaten so severely, I imagine his body was already pretty bloody, so there must have been more than a slight trickle of blood emanating from that wound, otherwise amongst all the other injuries, it would probably have gone unnoticed.

[123everton]

But surely if you puncture the side of a freshly dead body suspended on a piece of wood any blood vessel or organs containing blood still in it once punctured would ooze blood?

[naomi24]

I'm not sure it would, not in any noticeable amount, anyway. Once the pump stops, the blood stops flowing and congeals.

[Blackthorn]

Maybe some people do come back, for whatever reason, mainly those who have 'passed over' in traumatic circumstances. If Jesus really did come back, and Mary knew this to be impossible, the 'Dawkinian' explanation may be that her brain could not accept, or was unable to process what her eyes were seeing because there was no 'frame of reference' to equate the image and the concept to. Maybe 'she did not know him' is a euphemism for 'she (literally) couldn't believe her eyes.' Does that make sense?

[naomi24]

Thanks Blackthorn. Yes, it makes very good sense, but I doubt that's what happened. She really didn't recognise him. She thought he was the gardener. Odd that some of his disciples didn't recognise him either even though they spent some time taking with him.

[Blackthorn]

Eric von Daniken suggests that Jesus might have wearing a disguise, (a Gardener?) which may not be as daft as it sounds. Maybe he didn't want to be recognised. Could it be he approached the disciples like this to try and gauge their true opinion of him, 'off guard' as it were?
Do we know what their conversation was about?

[Blackthorn]

I missed a 'been' out in that last response, nothing to do with Rowan Atkinson.

[weecalf]

Recognise in this context could mean something different from the usual explaination of the word.It could have ment she failed to grasp the fact that Jesus had returned from the dead even though he looked as he had before the death .

[naomi24]

Blackthorn, this is the text that refers to the incident.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lu ke%2024:13-24:35&version=50

The idea that he was in disguise is feasible. After all, he had been arrested and crucified by the Romans on a charge of sedition, and he had 'died' incredibly quickly; his 'corpse' had been taken away by friends rather than being left for the vultures, and had subsequently disappeared from a guarded tomb. I can't help feeling that this story is based in politics, and there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. Maybe he had to 'keep his head down'.

Your mention of Erich von Daniken surprises me. Are you a fan? I am - but there aren't many of us around here. I hadn't realised he'd written about this.

Weecalf, it's possible, but the texts seem to suggest that he wasn't recognisable physically.

[chakka35]

The suggestion that a soldier "pierced" Jesus' side (not stabbed and properly translated as "pricked" ) occurs only in "John" , written somewhere between AD90 and AD120, and not mentioned at all before that.

Yes, he would have had a sore back from the scourging, but all crucificees were scoured as standard procedure, so his lashing would be no more lethal an anyone else's. His two companions would have been treated the same way and were still very much alive, as one would expect - and (as naomi says) was very much expected by Pilate.

If Jesus really did die after such a short time then his alleged father was very very kind to him compared to the many other thousands who were allowed to suffer for days on the cross. Talk about cronyism!

[naomi24]

Well piercing definitely does more to speed up death, Chakka, doesn't it. All helps to perpetuate the myth.

[Jafi]

maybe it's got something to do with faith, naomi. Maybe they didn't recognise him as they didn't have the faith that he would return.

[naomi24]

Maybe Jafi. Seems odd to me though.

[Blackthorn]

Hi Naomi, apparently the diguise theory has some basis in 'fact'. My masonic mate believes that Jesus would not have 'died' anyway and, as a rebel leader, would have stayed incognito. He says you should get a copy of 'The Hiram Key' where this matter is dealt with in some depth, obviously from a Masonic viewpoint.
I am not a big fan of von Daniken, but in one book he devoted a chapter to this subject. I believe it was 'Miracles of the Gods' but I'm not sure now, its a few years since I read it and I can't find it now.

[naomi24]

I've read those books, Blackthorn, but a long time ago. Maybe it's time I refreshed my memory. I have them both. These were troubled times, and it seems clear to me that Jesus didn't die on the cross. I think politics, spin, subterfuge, bribery, intrigue - you name it - are at the heart of the whole story. There's definitely a very different history there from the one we're taught - just wish I could discover what it is. I find it absolutely fascinating and quite challenging.

[Blackthorn]

2000 years after the events concerned, after numerous biblical translations and re-writes you will be hard-pressed to come up with the definitive story.
An example in modern times is that of Hitler, only 70 years after the events every author and researcher seems to contradict the other, notwithstanding the fact that there are still people around who knew him personally. How will he be remembered in a few hundred years time, or two thousand?

[naomi24]

Good morning, Blackthorn. Apologies for the delay. The documented evidence for Hitler is overwhelming and therefore I think history will probably retain most of it. In the case of Jesus, however, the evidence is sparse to say the least, and, as you say, what there is has been re-written time and time again. The real problem is it's been re-written to suit an entirely different purpose. There is the odd clue to Jesus's objectives, for example the time he told his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords - something that isn't often mentioned - so if we could rid our minds of the notion of religion and miracles, and look at the story with a rational and realistic eye, we may have a better chance of discerning the truth.