posted June 25, 2006 02:24 PM         

This Mary Mystery had me going... hopefully, this makes sense

All four of our gospels note that women from Galilee who followed Jesus were present at the crucifixion and attended to his burial. Mark lists the names of the three of these woman:

1. Mary Magdalene
2. Mary the mother of James and the younger and Joses
3. Salome (Mark 15:40)

Matthew, who uses Mark as his source, has the same list with slight changes:

1. Mary Magdalene
2. Mary the mother of James and Joseph
3. The mother and the sons of Zebedee (Matthew 27:56)

Mary Magdalene was the well-known companion of Jesus…. Salome, mentioned only by Mark, is very possibly Jesus’ sister, or perhaps, according to Matthew, the mother of the two fishermen James and John, who were part of the twelve (Luke 5:10). In Luke’s account he drops the names and simply says that “woman” were present, just as he did earlier with the names of the brothers of Jesus (Luke 12:49, 55). As we will see, Luke is not keen to emphasize the family of Jesus.

Note that we have two women named Mary who were present. Later, about the burial of Jesus, Matthew tells us again that Mary Magdalene was there, as well as the “other Mary” (Matthew 27:61). When the women returned to the tomb early as Sunday morning to find it empty, again Matthew tells us they were “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1). So the obvious question is this: Just who is the mysterious “other Mary”

Mark identifies her specifically two more times—once at the burial as “Mary the mother of Joses,” and then at the empty tomb as “Mary the mother of James”(Mark 15:47; 16:1) He also notes that Salome was present.

So we know this second Mother of a “James and Joses.” But is there any other way to identify her further? We do know “another Mary” who has two sons named “James and Joses”—none other than Mary the mother of Jesus. These are the very names, even including the nickname “Joses” (that Matthew consistently edits) of her first two sons born after Jesus (Mark6:3). Is it possible or even probable that this “mysterious other Mary” is Mary the mother of Jesus? It surely should not surprise us that Jesus’ own mother would witness to his death, and participate in the Jewish family burial practices. And if so, why does Mark not openly identify her as such?

Beyond this primary record of Mark, largely followed with some editing by Like and Matthew, we do have one other independent account as to the identity of these women—namely the gospel of John. Notice carefully his list of the three women at the cross:

1. Jesus’ mother, Mary
2. His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clophas
3. Mary Magdalene (John 19:25)

Notice, we still have three women, but Salome has dropped out and all three are now named Mary! No matter how common the name Mary was at the time, surely three Marys should give us pause. Something seems to be going on here. John knows something that either he, or those who later edited his gospel, chose to veil.

The inclusion of Mary Magdalene does not surprise us, since she is in all the lists. But John tells us explicitly that Mary mother of Jesus was present. That would allow us to safely identify Mark’s “Mary the mother of James and Joses” as Jesus’ mother Mary. But then who is the “new” third Mary—the wife of Clophas? And who is Clophas? This Mary is identified as the “sister” of Mary mother of Jesus—but what is the likelihood that two sisters in the same family would have the same name?

Let’s begin with Clophas, since we do know something about him. When Jesus died he left his brother James (apostle) in charge of his followers. James was murdered in A.D 62 and our earliest record tells us that an aged man known as “Simon son of Clophas” succeeded him. We are further told that this Clophas was the brother of Joseph, the husband of Mary. If such were the case it is entirely possible that our Mysterious Mary, wife of Clophas, mother of “James and Joses.” Was a sister-in-law of Mary, married to her to her husband Joseph’s brother. That is the solution that the church has settled on over the centuries. But notice, if such were the case, what we have is more than a bit strange:

Comparison of the “two” Marys

Mary m. Joseph
James-Joses-Simon

Mary m. Clophas bother of Joseph
James-Joses-Simon

It is really likely that these two women, both named Mary, whether sisters or sisters-in-law, married to brothers and had three sons with the same names and born in the same order: James, Joses, and Simon?

What seems more plausible is that Mark’s “Mary mother of James and Joses” was the same Mary as the mother of Jesus and the gospel of John (or its later editors) has created a third Mary, wife of Clophas, who in fact was the same woman—in order to disguise the fact that Jesus’ mother Mary, after the death of Joseph, married his brother Clophas. A decrypted version of John would read

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother Mary wife of Clophas and Mary Magdalene.

This would agree perfectly with Mark and not create the absurdity of sisters-in-law of the same name having identically named children, including the nickname “Joses,” in the same order of birth. According to this reconstruction our three women at the cross most likely were:

1. Mary Magdalene
2. Mary, the widow of Joseph who married Clophas, Joseph’s bother
3. Salome, either the sister of Jesus or the mother of the sons of Zebedee

There is one additional point about Clophas that supports this interpretation. His name comes from the Hebrew root Chalaph and means to “change” or to “replace.” It is in an ancestor of the English term “caliphate,” referring to a dynastic succession of rulers. So this is likely not his given name—Alphaeus. His firstborn son was regularly known as “James son of Alphaeus” or “James the younger” to distinguish him from James son of Zebedee the fisherman, brother of the apostle John.

Given this information, a rather different but historically consistent picture begins to emerge. Jesus was born of an unknown father, but was not the son of Joseph. Joseph died without children, so according to Jewish law “Clophas” or “Alphaeus” became his “replacer,” and married his widow, Mary, mother of Jesus. His firstborn son, James the brother who succeeded Jesus, legally became known as the “son of Joseph” after his deceased brother in order to carry on his name. This would mean that Jesus had four half-brothers and at least two half-sisters, all born of his mother Mary but from a different father.

This is one plausible reconstruction of the evidence. There are things we can never know with certainty. Clophas is mentioned only once in the entire New Testament (John 19:25).” If he and his brother Joseph were much older than Mary it is likely that neither was alive when Jesus was an adult. This is further indicated in the gospel of John when Jesus, the eldest son in the family, just before his death, handed his mother over the care of the mysterious “beloved disciple” that John prefers not to name (John 19:26). There is evidence that this person is most likely James, his brother, the next eldest in the family. But whoever it was, Jesus’ giving his mother into the care of another indicates she was a widow. We have to remember that the gospels are primarily theological accounts of the Jesus story written a generation a more after his death. When it comes to Jesus’ family there is much they do not spell out, and there are things they appear to deliberately suppress. We have seen that Mark preserves material that is edited or removed by Matthew and Luke. John knows more than he is willing to say explicitly…. It is truly a tangled tale of political intrigue and religious power plays with stakes destined to shape the future of the world’s largest religion.

What we can say with some degree of certainty is the following: Joseph was not the father of Jesus, and Mary’s pregnancy by an unnamed man was “illegitimate” by social norms. Jesus had four half-brothers and two half-sisters, all children of Mary but from a different father—whether Joseph or his brother Clophas. Jesus by age thirty functions as head of the household and forges a vital role for his brothers, who succeeded him in establishing a Messianic Dynasty destined to change the world. This extended family of Jesus is the foundation of the mostly forgotten and marginalized Jesus dynasty and it is long overdue for resurrection. By restoring the various historical possibilities related to the family, we are prepared to gain a truer understanding of Jesus and how he might understood what he believed was his God-ordained mission as Messiah and King of a recorded nation of Israel.

“The Jesus Dynasty.” James D. Tabor. (77-81)

Cheers,

posted June 26, 2006 07:02 PM         

Who Was The Real Mary Magdalene?

So many legends, apocryphal stories and layers of myth have accrued to the figure of Mary Magdalene that the only honest answer is that we can?t really be sure. She certainly existed, and it is now accepted that she was a major apostle in Jesus?s group of disciples.

The issue for readers is that the author of The Da Vinci Code presents Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus, the mother of his children, and the progenitor of the subsequent royal Davidic bloodline. This is what we have to accept at least for the duration of reading the book, or else we lose the author?s purpose. For comprehensive details concerning this popular hypothesis, readers might care to consult other sources - for instance, genealogist Laurence Gardner?s Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Lynn Picknett?s Mary Magdalene, Barbara Thiering?s Jesus the Man, Margaret Starbird?s The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, and Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln?s Holy Blood, Holy Grail..

Although detractors of this theory point to its relatively recent appearance in the vast literature relating to Jesus and his relationship with Mary Magdalene, there have, in fact, been similar speculations over the centuries, including by some highly respected religious figures....

The theory was given additional substance (and, it must be admitted, increased opportunity for some imaginative theorising) as old parchments and scrolls have been uncovered in their centuries-old hiding-places. There are documents in the possession of both Church and layman establishments that have not yet been released, possibly because they have not yet been decrypted. It is almost certain that many more will be found, and that together these are likely to help clarify the picture one way or the other.

What is now known quite definitely is that Mary Magdalene was a woman of substance, a loyal supporter and follower of Jesus and, it is now thought, very likely his most important and most-loved apostle. It was to her that he revealed himself when he re-appeared after his crucifixion, and it was she whom he asked to reveal his living presence to the other apostles.

?Mary of Bethany? anointed the head of Jesus with spikenard in the house of Lazarus (Simon Zelotes) in Bethany. (See Matthew 26:6-7 and Mark14:3.) Spikenard is an ancient and very costly aromatic ointment that was used only on special occasions, including in ritual observances between those to be committed to each other in marriage. In John 11:1-3 we are told that the same woman anointed the feet of Jesus later, using spikenard that filled the house with its perfume. Luke (7:37-38) reports that a woman anointed the feet of Jesus with ointment and then wiped them with her long hair, and John (11:1-2) tells us that this woman was Mary.

Laurence Gardner points out in Bloodline of the Holy Grail that Mary had performed this same ritual three months after the wedding feast at Cana which had taken place ?two and a half years earlier?.

He notes that on both occasions Jesus was seated at table like the king in The Song of Solomon: ?While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.? (The Song of Solomon, 1:12) Gardner relates Mary?s act of devotion to an ancient rite concerning the preparation of the bridegroom?s table by the bride and says that using spikenard was specific to the ritual of both the First and Second Marriage ceremonies. In keeping with Messianic tradition, only the wife of Jesus, he says, would have been permitted to perform these ceremonies of sacred anointment. (pp. 86-87)

We are on firmer ground regarding the identity of Mary than we are concerning the later role she played. The ?Mary of Bethany? label seems to have resulted from the fact that Martha and Mary are referred to as ?sisters? in the house of Lazarus of Bethany (whose real name was Simon Zelotes), but this was a titular term rather like that applied to nuns of a religious order and does not indicate that they were blood relations. Mary?s actual name was Sister Miriam Magdala? or Mary of Magdala; that is, Mary Magdalene.

It is of significance that in some ascetic and spiritually devout Jewish groups of the Qumran period, ?Miriam? (or ?Mary?) was a title of some distinction as it indicated that the bearer was the leader of the women in her particular group and also took part in the formal ministry along with the male leaders, the ?Moses? figures.

Genealogist Laurence Gardner states that Mary Magdalene?s father was the Chief Priest, Syrus the Jairus, and therefore second only to the High Priest. The Jairus Priest, he says, had been a hereditary position from the time of King David and was handed down only through the descendants of Jair. (See Numbers 32:41)

Mary Magdalene would have been a fitting marriage partner for Jesus, who was heir to the royal line of David, for she was descended through her mother from the royal house of Israel, the Hasmonaean royal line, and a daughter of the tribe of Benjamin to which Israel?s first anointed king, Saul, had also belonged.

The tribes of Benjamin and Judah had been supportive of each other from early tribal times, and if there were indeed a joining of the two royal lines by marriage it would have been seen by many Jews as a positive and healing factor at a time when there was much dissension among them, as well as a pervasive hopelessness owing to the seemingly all-powerful overlordship of Rome.

The figure of Mary Magdalene that is emerging from the bewildering mixture of fact, legend and religious tinkering is a far cry from the now officially rejected Biblical myth of the reformed prostitute.

Scribes of the Roman Church embroidered on the New Testament description of Mary Magdalene as a ?sinner?, ignoring the fact that this merely referred to the celibate almah state to which she was obliged to adhere at a particular time in terms of her religious culture. A plausible theory is that the male-dominated Church manipulated the term to impugn Mary Magdalene?s character by describing her as a harlot, and this was reinforced in the sixth century by Pope Gregory I?s inaccurate proclamation that Mary was a reformed prostitute. Even here, though, one cannot be sure of the facts, as author, Sharan Newman, among others, claims that Gregory?s words have, in turn, been misinterpreted and that he did not intend that Mary Magdalene should be labelled a prostitute. His words nonetheless had exactly that effect.

If the intention to label Mary Magdalene as a harlot was never there, one wonders why, in 1969, the Vatican issued its rather low-key retraction. This should have removed seventeen centuries of calumny from Mary Magdalene?s name, but largely did not do so. It is known that retractions typically receive much less publicity than did the original untrue statements and so continue to be believed by the public at large. And so it is with the accusations against the character of Mary Magdalene.

Mary Magdalene is increasingly seen as one of the major feminist icons of our time. Books about her proliferate, and some of the stories that exalt her in this new role are probably as exaggerated as those that earlier diminished her.

In some places, especially in France, to which she might have fled after the Crucifixion, adulation of ?the Magdalen? has become a thriving industry.

Are we ever likely ever to know the real Mary Magdalene? At this stage, it seems unlikely. But as more historical material from her own time becomes available, we will be able to form a picture that will be closer to the flesh-and-blood woman whom Jesus undoubtedly loved, whether as wife or as devoted follower and friend. http://www.pubbys.com/davincianswers/Who%20Was%20The%20Real%20Mary%20Magdalene.htm

~Another authour goes on saying: Over the last few years some extravagant claims have been made about Mary of Magdala. Was she really Jesus’ paramour? Did she become a famous preacher after the Easter events? Did she later found Christian communities with distinctive theologies--with a feminist or Gnostic tinge?

Just last month, a doctoral thesis came across my desk dealing with medieval stories about Mary of Magdala, which have no basis in the New Testament. This does not necessarily mean they are all false, but they have to be examined with a critical eye--especially when they do not seem to have any analogues or precursors in traditions that go back as far as the second century C.E.What, then, can we say with certainty about Mary Magdalene? First, her name was not Mary. It was Miriam, as is also true for the mother of Jesus. This means she was named after the Jewish prophetess of the Old Testament (see Ex. 15.20-21). Second, she did not have a last name, ‘Magdalene.’ Like many ancient Near Eastern people, including Jesus, she was distinguished from others through mention of her place of birth or residence–in this case Magdala. Magdala was a tiny fishing village on the northwest corner of the sea of Galilee, an area we know Jesus evangelized.

Two of the extraordinary qualities about Jesus, which distinguished him from other Jewish sages, is that he recruited followers, and he was itinerant. What is even more unusual is that he recruited and traveled with both female and male followers. This would have been seen as scandalous by most early Jews, who believed women should only travel with their own kin. Miriam of Magdala was one of Jesus’ disciples and traveled with him and the Twelve..... (Mary, Mary, extraordinary 1,2)

posted July 01, 2006 02:07 AM         

THE TWO JESUS'S

Which One Do You Serve?
by Christopher C. Warren

Yeshua and Jesus Bar Abbas

It is not commonly known that two Jesus' were tried before the Roman Procurator, Pontius Pilate. One had the surname Bar-Abbas (son of Abbas) and the other Bar-Joseph (son of Joseph). The Moffat translation of the Bible records:

At festival time the governor was in the habit of releasing any one prisoner whom the crown chose. At that time they had a notorious prisoner called Jesus Bar-Abbas; so, when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Who do you want released? Jesus Bar-Abbas or Jesus the so-called Christ? (Matt.27:15-17, Moff.).

Two Jesus's -- one a political revolutionary (called, at that time, 'zealots') and the other an itinerant preacher who taught of an invisible Kingdom within the heart. The one was a killer, the other a saviour. Both had the same name -- Jesus (or Yahshua/Yeshua in Hebrew) -- two Jesus's preaching two different Gospels -- one a gospel of war and hate, and the other a gospel of peace and love.

Jesus Bar-Abbas was eventually released and lived to carry on his crusade against Rome: His freedom did not last for long, however: tradition records that he subsequently perished in one of his guerilla actions.

Jesus Bar-Joseph, on the other hand, voluntarily surrendered His freedom and with it bought the freedom of all men and women enslaved in sin who are willing to receive it. He triumphed over death and is alive in heaven preparing for His glorious return.

The False Jesus's of the Churches
Today there are many religions preaching 'Jesus', but which one are they in truth preaching about: The political revolutionary Jesus Bar-Abbas who tries to change the world by human means or the spiritual revolutionary Jesus Bar-Joseph who has already changed the world on the spiritual plane and who invites those who will trust in Him to become a part of His invisible army of spiritual warriors?

I am troubled when I see in Christendom the two Jesus' mixed up or even mixed together. There are many gospels being taught in the churches which resemble Jesus Bar-Abbas' program than Jesus Bar-Joseph's. Jesus Bar-Abbas wanted a political state freed of foreign occupiers and a puppet King (Jesus Bar-Joseph) to rule it. But God has other plans. There is no room for Bar-Abbas's in the Kingdom of the Father because this Kingdom is not built up by force of any kind. Neither are there any casualties. Those who come to it are saved. The only casualties are those who stay away from it.

The Psychiatric Victims of the False Jesus
I look around and I see numerous casualties in the churches -- I see people entering churches with problems and leaving them with even greater ones. The psychiatric institutions are filling up with the victims of some of the charismatic groups (like the inappropriately named 'New Life' Movement), Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others. I see churches which are little more than boxes like the ones in museums containing fossils and other relics. I see churches with bizzare theologies that warp the mind and lead their deluded members into believing that they are virtual gods upon a 30 second profession of faith. I see churches which teach their members to prattle gibberish and claim this as evidence of salvation, condemning all other who do not do the same. I see, in short, DEATH -- I see the spiritual sword of Jesus Bar-Abbas, the cavalry of "victory-or-death" fanatics besieging the walls of Jersualem like the Crusaders of old all over again, slaughtering the "infidels". I see churches who claim that their members who have been saved by a god who recognises no free agency who decides beforehand who will be saved and who will be damned. I see churches who say that babies who are not baptised will burn for ever in a fiery hell. I see the blood-stained sword of Jesus Bar-Abbas.

Uncomfortable a thought though it may be the reality is that there are two Jesus's in the orthodox churches, not to mention the Jesus's in the New Age groups, the emasculated Jesus's of the liberal Christians, and the Jesus's who are little more than the idealised ego-projections of unrepentant man.

What is Happening in Christendom Today??
What, then, of the fantastic conversions that are taking place in Asia, Africa and elsewhere? Millions are being saved. Yes, they are being saved. They are discovering the Lord of Freedom and then the missionaries of Jesus Bar-Abbas are coming along with their doctrinal straight-jackets and making them worse prisoners than they were before. Jesus Bar-Joseph becomes a Jesus Bar-Abbas!

Friend, there is only one Jesus who saves. Confessing "Jesus" is not enough -- the question must always be: which one?

http://www.nccg.org/044Art-2Jesus.html

posted July 12, 2006 12:07 AM         

Interesting that you mention that... I am currently reading something of the same lines... I will post... give me some time...