Virgin Mary did not Visit the Tomb on the Rresurrection Sunday
Some think that virgin Mary, the Theotokos, was one of the 'Mary's who visited the tomb on the resurrection day. They take support in "Matthew 1:28"
claiming that the other Mary referred to is virgin Mary. They further argue that the early Christians used to call her as such to conceal her identity from the fiery enmity of the Jews.
Could virgin Mary be absent from the scene on the resurrection day?, they finally wonder.
1. Yes. She was NOT there. St. Mary believed completely in the resurrection as she believed previously in the parthenical conception. She did not need then to go to the tomb carrying spices for a dead body for her living Son. It is hardly possible to imagine that virgin Mary shared in a trip to an empty tomb and received the implied rebuke of the angels.
Assuming her being there would put an intrudent and baseless question mark about her faith.
2. Secondly, for such an imminent witness as the mother of Jesus Himself, the evangelists could not skip recording her testimony explicitly to the resurrection of her own Son. She is an imperial witness no doubt.
3. Further, she was always called in the gospels by either her name or by her relation to Jesus: e.g. Mary, Lord's mother, the mother of Jesus and His mother. No single occurence of calling her the other Mary.
How could her identity be everywhere else in the NT, when referred to, mentioned explicitly, but only concealed in the very situation when her testimony is very much valuable?
(Some argue that the gosepl writers meant to conceal her ideentity for fear that Jews who hate her take revenge!!!
One could never exaggerate on naming this argument, however spread and supported by some authorities, idiocy.
V. Mary is already mentioned explicitly by name in few locations. The logic itself is nonsense, for those who want to guard anybody, they hide himself not hide his name from a written book, which they are mentioned in, in the first place!!
I have heard this nonsense on a coptic pulpit. Alas! The nonsaense manages to get itself insiunated from one church to another!)
4. And above all, Can virgin Mary come second in order after Mary Magdalene?
Would the qualification go properly to virgin Mary as to distinguish her from Mary Magdalene, or should it have been the other way round?
So vorgin Mary was certainly NOT the other Mary, and had she went to the tomb, the evangelists must have recorded such a significant visit.
Assuming otherwise is not only evidenceless but also imposes further problems.
Who is the other Mary then?
We have three strong evident scriptures that the other Mary is the Mary, the sister of virgin Mary, and the mother of His ocusins.
First, in the very gospel of st. Matthew, the context shows clearly that "other" is a brief reference to an aforementioned one who is the mother of James and Joses.
Matthew 27:56: among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the
mother of James and Joses, and the mother of
As long as there is an aforementioned Mary, the "other Mary" must be a brief reference to that once mentioned, or the reference would be ambigious and misleading.
Actually, in Matthew 27:61, we find that the same Mary, the mother of James and Joses is referred to as the "other Mary":
And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other
Mary, sitting opposite the tomb.
Again, this must be the sister of virgin Mary, as she is was just coupled with Mary Magdalene in the very context, ( see also John:19:25)
Mark, hoever, 16:1 makes it rest.
Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary
Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
bought spices, that they might come and anoint
And Luke 24:10 gives even further affirmation:
It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the
mother of James, and the other women with them,
who told these things to the apostles.
144,000: Incredible Number of Bethlehem infants
It is sad that such a myth finds its way in our literature.
It is sad that such a myth finds its way in our literature. It is too silly a myth that the infants of Bethlehem that Herod slaughtered were 144,000! That goes against all evidence. Having 144,000 baby boys who were two-years-old or younger makes the minimum average of the whole population of the province to be no less than two millions. The current population of Bethlehem is 137,000 .
The population according to the Romanic census by the time of Our Lord's birth for the whole empire was 200 millions. It is nonsense then to think of such an exaggerated number living in Bethlehem and the surrounding land!
Also, it is more of nonsense to think of such a huge massacre going unmentioned in the historical sources!!
It is still nonsense from exegetical point of view: The myth, which most probably had a source in one of the refused apocryphal books, identifies those infant martyrs with the 144,000 virgins of Revelation 7:4 and revelation 14:3. Again, that identification is yet unjustified. The 144,000 of the revelation are called virgins (‘Parthenos’ in Greek) , a word that denotes celibate adults!!!
One more brilliant point regarding Herod's purpose: Herod never believed the claim of the Magis. Had he believed that there were Christ to appear, according to the prophecies and the Magis' star thing he could never have thought of attempting to kill Him. To make sense, so followed Herod a heinous political line of reasoning,
that he meant to kill the idea in the public mind! That what counts to him, the public believing in the Magis' claim, not his own believing that it did not exist at all. He must have collected intelligence reports from informers and sent forth an assassination squad to carry out a shocking attack in a tight time.
That will explains why he killed all male infants under the two year age, so as to settle this conviction in people's mind that Christ, they were expecting his coming, was not in this period of time andthe Maggi's claim were not to come true. To Herod, let people wait for their Christ in another ear away from the reign of his dynasty.
Thus, ifthe population of infants mount up to tens of thousands, nay even hundreds, then his plot is pontless. It is then quite admissible that few infants could most probably evade such a massive massacre.
Assuming this impossible case leads to facing other impossible factor. With a practical respect, it is ultimately impossible to imagine the scenario of 144 thousand families not fighing for the lives of their infants, resulting in a famous battleruining the purpose of Herod at all.
The story is just nonsense exegetically, geographically, logically and historically speaking.
The infant martyrs of Bethlehem, however many they were, were the first to be killed for the sake of Jesus, and they have a significant meaning as an early start of martyrdom in Christianity. The story deserves better reverence.
Magis were Not Definitely Three"!
Mathew 2 is our only source of the story of the Magis.
Mathew does not tell how many the magis were.
He tells about three kinds of gifts presented by them,
and that causes the indefinite conclusion they were three
However, the gifts themselves were not three,
they were only comprised of three kinds, gold, incese, and myrrh!
Magis, most probably, did not come by alone,
and they were not mere simple scholars!
They came along with a considerable number of followers and servants.
and they would have been kings, princes, or lords of nobel rank.
That is implied from Mathew 2:3.
If they were mere individuals, there would have been little chance that a "whole" big city like Jerusalem,
along with its king, got "troubled" from there inquiries.
Magis did not visit the manger!
That can be shown clearly from the following references:
* Mathew 2:1 They followed the star from the east,
the journey must have taken considerable time.
* Mathew 2:7 with Mathew 2:16 Herod was keen to kill children
two-year old or younger, after he realized the time of the star.
It is hard to imagine that the holy family kept all the time>
in the manger which was an emergency place they resorted to.
* Mathew 2:11 They found Jesus in the "house" not the manger.
144,000: Incredible Number of Bethlehem infants
It is sad that such a myth finds its way in our literature.
It is too silly a myth that the infants of Bethlehem that Herod slaughtered were 144,000
That goes against all evidence.
144,000 baby boys who were two-years-old or younger makes the minimum average of the whole population of the province to be no less a couple of millions.
The current population of Bethlehem is 137,000 .
The population according to the Romanic census by the time of Our Lord's birth for the whole empire was 200 million.
It is nonsense then to think of such an exaggerated number living in Bethlehem and the surrounding land..
The myth, which most probably had a source in one of the refused apochryphical books, identifies those infant martyrs with the 144,000 virgins of Revelation 7:4 and revelation 14:3.
Again, that identification is yet unjustified. the 144,000 of the revelation are called virgins (parthenos in greek) , a word that denotes celebate adults.
The infant martyrs of Bethlehem, however many they were, were the first to be killed for the sake of Jesus, and they have a significant meaning as an early start of martyrdom in Christianity. The story deserves due accuracy.
John the baptist
Isaiah 40:3, Mathew 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 4:3, John 1:23
Because of neglecting the dyachretics (al tashkeel),
Many are used to calling John the baptist erroneously:
A voice crying in the wilderness (Sawtun Sarekh fi al barreya)
The correct reading is rather:
A voice of ONE crying in the wilderness (Sawt SAREKHEN fi al barreya)
After all, does that mistaken reading make any serious shift in the meaning?
Yes. The correct reading gives a brilliant hint on the humility of the baptist...
Isaiah prophesied on a voice of someone crying...
John the baptist was asked: Who are you?
Had he replied: I am the ONE Isaiah prophesied on as crying in the wilderness,
no one would have faulted him...
But he rather said:
I am the VOICE of that One, but NOT the One Himself
St. Mary Magdalene Was NOT An Adulteress!
There is not any biblical evidence or a clue that st. Mary Magdalene was an adulteress.
On the contrary, there is some strong clues that she was NOT!
The only information given about her life before she followed Jesus
is found in Luke 8:2 :
"Mary Magdalene, from whom, seven demons had gone out"
Next immediately, st Luke tell about other women who followed Jesus and mentions that many of them "provided for Him out of their money".
What does this paragraph imply?
First, Luke was keen to write about the repentances of sinners
at the hands of Jesus, and just in the previous chapter, (Luke 7)
he told about the sinful woman who met Jesus in the house of Simon!
Failing to tell that about st. Mary Magdalene
indicates that she was a sinner.
Second, Had Luke failed to tell anything about st. Mary Magdalene, we may then
have thought he kept silent on purpose, but telling about the seven deomns
who had gone out of her, implies he would rather have told about her
sinful career had she had any.
Third, There are strong clues that st. Mary Magdalene "provided for Jesus
out of her money" (Luke 8:3, John 20).
If that is true, so Jesus definitely did not break the commandment
of (Deutronomy 23:18) and He did not welcome such money.