Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I am curious as to what the significance (if any) is to the fact that Mary Magdalene was the First to witness the resurrection of Christ. A "fallen woman" according to some accounts. Yet, a "female". Why did Jesus not choose to reveal himself to any one of the male apostles? To me, it speaks volumes about tolerance and acceptance, no matter what impression you may have about Mary Magdalene. Then, how does one explain so much of Paul's writings which show marked misogyny (women hating) and other biases? User:Seekcommon

Many faithful women such as Mary Magdalene stood by Jesus at the time of his death. Mary Magdalene was outstanding in her faith and works of devotion. Within Judaism women were considered unworthy of being legal witnesses and Jesus used Mary Magdalene as his witness to inform his disciples that he was alive and so therefore this was a blow to Jewish tradition. User: DAISY

Actually recent studies (,9171,472868-2,00.html) suggest Mary Magdalene may not have been a "fallen woman" at all, claiming it was a lie installed by the early church.

And from what I know about him, Jesus was one of the few men in his time who saw men and women as equals, Paul on the other hand was a common 0 AD near-east man, raised according to traditional Jewish values, explaining his misogyny.

Middle Man

Yes, an important message for me anyway is how Jesus looked at people versus how some conservatives (and yes liberals) view the role of women and how they are to be treated. So much of what people believe to be based on scripture etc etc is simply not true. Yes, even slavery was considered OK since the slaves were "dark skinned" and so on and so forth. Another message for me is that one cannot and should not take the Bible as the infallible words of God - but words that were translated and passed on from man to man with every man adding his interpretations and prejudices and beliefs and forcing the followers to accept them. But EVEN TODAY, there are those who cannot accept anything other than "Bible is the word of God in it's entirety" and simply refuse to examine anything that contradicts that. Oh well ... words that help a few gain power over many User:Seekcommon

Yeah, well, they're only human I guess, human behaviour is all the evidence I need to see man wasn't created in God's image, but is in fact just an ape without fur.

I wonder though, when it was first believed the Bible was God's literal word? I don't know whether the Israelites already believed it, or that it's a church doctrine.

Middle Man

Didn't they call her Apostola apostolorum? "my strength is made perfect in weakness" after all.--Adoyre 10:00, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I dont know whether is had much significance or not. In the 2 times where JESUS picked "Apostles" he picked ALL MEN and (as far as i know) no Women wrote a gospel(canon) nor baptised nor were given the power to heal as in the "Apostles"...

Mary was given this opportunity to find Christ resurected, who are you and I to object? --Wally 20:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)


It is a sad thing to watch the increasingly prejudiced comments that continue to flow from some people. Articles from a politically biased magazine is by no means considered a source for any study. It seems to be a popular fad to use agnostic writings in order to discredit Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. All serious study into these writings have shown their false teachings hundreds of years ago. The only people that continue to use these fictitious books are those that promote religious bigotry towards others. If you seriously want to understand the Word of God then get involved in a local Bible study group. Making ignorant remarks meant to inflame religious hatred is a sad commentary of a persons' character.--Roopilots6 09:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)