Mary Magdalene and the enigmatic skull

[Medicine*Woman]

ConstipatedAsshole: Do you have evidence for this, or is it just some revelation from your Aliens? By the way, why don't you ever talk about your Aliens and Pharoah Moses any more?
*************
M*W: I've cited research on this subject as has -=T=- recently. Why do you continue to lie and say I have aliens? When have I ever said anything about aliens. That was your made up lie! You lie so much, you believe your lies! Besides, leo volont has taken over the subject of aliens. You need to direct your alien questions to him.

About Pharaoh Moses, you lying bastard, that has already been aired on Discovery Channel complete with Rabbi scholars and archeologists, and it has already been discussed on sciforums a long while back. Why are you such a dishonest person? You never post anything ORIGINAL of your own, so that tells us that you are one stupid mo-fu who is so insecure that all you do is bash everyone else because YOU ARE ILLITERATE!

James R: I think we need to take a poll to see if CA should be banned. He refuses to debate, because he thinks he is the ONLY one who knows everything on this forum. His posts are a total waste of space.

 

[Joeman]

ConsequentAtheist, stop trolling.

There is no direct evidence of anything unless you are actually there with a video camara.

That doesn't mean people can't talk about it.

 

[-=T=-]

I see the jar to be symbolic of the grail as a physical piece to be pursued, but I see the jar symbolically as related to MM's power as a high priestess or goddess. Only the temple priestesses had the power to do the anointing. I believe that MM "out-ranked" Jesus. After all, it was MM who anointed him as all Jewish wives did before their weddings. The jar symbolizes MM's power.

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread... the jar is possibly misplaced. When Jesus was anointed at Bethany by the woman with the alabaster jar [Matt. 26], Mary Magdalene was not named as the one doing the anointing. Also the misconception of MM as a prostitute has been refuted many times (even by the Catholic church)...

As far as the skull goes, I think the the paintings by Georges De La Tour are primarily the ones you are thinking of. In most of his representations of MM, she is pictured with skull, candle (although most of his paintings featured a candle as the main light source), sometimes book, and mirror. Mary also does indeed look possibly pregnant in his paintings. Perhaps his wife was his model.

The skull may also have been introduced into Magdalene paintings because of earlier paintings of the crucifixion. It was fairly common to depict a skull and/or crossbones at the foot of the cross at Golgotha (place of the skull). Of course Mary was also at the foot of the cross... so perhaps the skull just "came along for the ride".

The skull also represents mortality, which Mary Magdalene certainly would have had reason to contemplate after witnessing the death of her best friend.

...just some thoughts.

 

[James R]

consequentatheist:

Ok. Point taken.

My initial statement seems to have been read as me ascribing some credence to this claim solely on the basis of reading The da Vinci Code, which is obviously a work of fiction.

In fact, The da Vinci Code is not at all important to my opinion on this matter. I referred to it because it is an easily-accessible introduction to some of these ideas for the uninitiated. It draws on some scholarly work, but is obviously far from a scholarly work itself, and was never intended to be so.

I was careful to say that there is no direct evidence that Jesus was married, and I agree with you that if there was no evidence at all then there would be no more reason to assert that he was married than to assert that a monster lives in Loch Ness. However, from my other readings on the matter, from the available indirect evidence, I conclude that it would be a reasonable hypothesis that the historical Jesus was married. This is a hypothesis that is not without supporting evidence.

On the other hand, I doubt that this question can be settled either way, due to the lack of definitive evidence. My main point is that definitive claims that Jesus was a lifelong bachelor are as unsupported as claims that he was married. Therefore, either conclusion is possible, and we should keep an open mind.