The Adulterous Woman.

[Grailhunter]

I don't care about Mosaic law, Christ put an end to it. I know Exodus in the bible as history, not law to follow. Are you reading that into what I say because of historical facts?

I am not sure how you look at it. I was mostly commenting on how a lot of Christians have a fixation on them. And the misunderstanding on what are the Ten Commandments.

 

[Rockerduck]

I am not sure how you look at it. I was mostly commenting on how a lot of Christians have a fixation on them. And the misunderstanding on what are the Ten Commandments.

Ok. Yep, I know what you are talking about.

 

[Magdala]

Jesus did not write in the dust, Jesus wrote "on the ground".

Dust can be found on the ground. And, the reason why Jesus wrote words in dust and not dirt or sand, etc., on the ground is because it was windy to the point of raising dust in the courts of the Temple.

Why do you think John made the statement, "with his finger". John could have just said "wrote on the ground", but John made sure he said, "with his finger". John knew the Old Testament and what he was referencing to prove Christ deity as God.

What Jesus wrote in the dust on the ground were the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers, who were condemning her for sin they forgave themselves of, which is why His actions were followed by His command "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." His command not only confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, as well as saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found, giving her time and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them, but it also demonstrated that He's God, because only God could know the sins they were guilty of.

Off base there [...]

It was off base to say that God doesn't override His own words, and that His Truth overrides assumptions? Why?

 

[Magdala]

We are all sinners, I was not talking about that.

If you weren't talking about sin, then what did you mean by "nothing negative linked to Mary Magdalene", when we're discussing whether or not she was the woman who repented of her sins in Simon the Pharisee's house?

[...] considering the significance of Mary Magdalene and significance of the event of forgiven prostitute, if she was Mary Magdalene I believe she would have named in the story line.

You rightly said that Mary Magdalene was significant, but that doesn't necessarily mean she would've been named in the account of the repentant woman in the house Simon the Pharisee, which you rightly said was a significant event, because Luke is the only Evangelist that wrote about it, and, for example, neither did he name the significant women disciples present at Jesus's crucifixion, a significant scene, in his account, one of whom was Mary Magdalene, according to the other Evangelist accounts. Furthermore, you said that the reason Mary Magalene wasn't the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house was because it would've been "completely out of character" for her to be. Let's compare the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house (Lk. 7:36-50) and Mary Magdalene: the former was a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), and the latter was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), which indicates her sins were great, and thus it stands to reason that she would've been well-known due to them. Therefore, why would it have been completely out of character for Mary Magdalene to repentof her sins, which would've been many, and seek Jesus's forgiveness?

Also just for your knowledge level. Mary Magdalene was not her name and Magdalene was not a surname. Her name was Miriam just like Christ mother and she was called Miriam the Magdalene.

Firstly, the English name "Mary" is derived from the Hebrew (Miriam), Aramaic (Maryam, or Mariam), and Koine Greek (Maria and Mariam) forms of it. Secondly, did you deliberately create an "error" to "correct", or were you previously unaware that "Mary Magdalene" is a toponymic surname?

 

[Rockerduck]

You said "What Jesus wrote in the dust on the ground were the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers, who were condemning her for sin they forgave themselves of, which is why His actions were followed by His command "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." His command not only confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, as well as saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found, giving her time and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them, but it also demonstrated that He's God, because only God could know the sins they were guilty of".

The Apostle John said He wrote with His finger on the ground. You are adding a word not there. Are you saying Jesus couldn't write on the ground and this had to be dust? Jesus is God and that is man's logic that there had to be dust to write on. Jesus could write on anything. Again, using the 10 Commands and listing them one at a time would accomplish the same thing. Jesus was using the Law of Moses against them, for using the Law of Moses to trap Jesus. See the irony.

 

[Grailhunter]

If you weren't talking about sin, then what did you mean by "nothing negative linked to Mary Magdalene", when we're discussing whether or not she was the woman who repented of her sins in Simon the Pharisee's house?

Like I said we all sin…..nothing negative as in significant. What is in the scriptures shows that she was significant to Christ’s ministry. Then you have the history whether it be legends or truths.

Not necessarily, because neither did Luke name the significant women disciples present at Jesus's crucifixion,

25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,[a] here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. John 19:25-27

Mary Magdalene is because it would've been "completely out of character" for her to be. Let's compare the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house (Lk. 7:36-50) and Mary Magdalene: the former was a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), and the latter was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), which indicates her sins were great, and thus it stands to reason that she would've been well-known due to them. Therefore, why would it have been completely out of character for Mary Magdalene to repentof her sins, which would've been many, and seek Jesus's forgiveness?

Well I disagree with you on all counts.
I am not convinced that the demons were real entities.....Issues with the mind was often contributed to demons or as I said emotional PMS.

And show me the scripture that indicates that Mary Magdalene....by name was repentant or asked forgiveness.

Firstly, the English name "Mary" is derived from the Hebrew (Miriam), Aramaic (Maryam, or Mariam), and Koine Greek (Maria and Mariam) forms of it. Secondly, did you deliberately create an "error" to "correct", or were you previously unaware that "Mary Magdalene" is a toponymic surname?

No I was correct....surnames are not a custom in this era. The name Miriam does appear in different languages....But Miriam does not translate to Maria or Mary. Miriam....Moses' sister condemned him for marrying a Pagan and God punished her and the name means rebellion and translators did not see that that was a name that was appropriate for Christ's mother....so they changed it. They would do that sort of thing. For example the Magi.....means witches or sorceries so they changed it to wise men and in tradition to three kings. Oh three kings of orient are….

 

[Magdala]

I am not convinced that the demons were real entities.....Issues with the mind was often contributed to demons or as I said emotional PMS.

Demons are real entities.

"The demons also believe, and shudder" (Jas. 2:19)
The demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of pigs.” (Matt. 8:31)
"When the demon was cast out [...]" (Matt. 9:33)
"But the Pharisees said, “By the prince of the demons, he casts out demons." (Matt. 9:34)
"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “This man does not cast out demons, except by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons.” (Matt. 12:24)

Diseases and conditions of the body and mind are also real, e.g., leprosy, paralysis, blindness, deformities, and so on. PMS is a condition, one that women go through monthly, and it ends when they enter menopause. If the "seven demons" that Mary Magdalene was healed from was PMS, was that a monthly healing, or...?

And, what is diabolic possession but a disease of the spirit infected by Satan, to the extent of degenerating into a spiritual diabolic being? How can certain perversions in human beings be explained otherwise? Perversions that make man much worse than beasts in ferocity, more lewd than monkeys in lust, and so on, and make a hybrid, in which man, animal and demon are mingled.

…..nothing negative as in significant.

How is Mary Magdalene having been healed by seven demons nothing significant?

25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,[a] here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. John 19:25-27

You had said, "[...] considering the significance of Mary Magdalene and significance of the event of forgiven prostitute, if she was Mary Magdalene I believe she would have named in the story line." You rightly said that Mary Magdalene was significant, but that doesn't necessarily mean she would've been named in the account of the repentant woman in the house Simon the Pharisee, which you rightly said was a significant event, because Luke is the only Evangelist that wrote about it, and, for example, neither did he name the significant women disciples present at Jesus's crucifixion, a significant scene, in his account, one of whom was Mary Magdalene, according to the other Evangelist accounts.

And show me the scripture that indicates that Mary Magdalene....by name was repentant or asked forgiveness.

Firstly, nowhere in the four Gospels is it written "Mary Magdalene repented and sought forgiveness", but that doesn't mean she never did. In fact, considering that all humans, except a few, are sinners, and Jesus stressed the importance of repentance and forgiveness, and Mary Magdalene was a faithful disciple of His, one can safely assume that she did, if they're going by what is said in the Gospels alone.

Secondly, you said that the reason Mary Magdalane wasn't the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house was because it would've been "completely out of character" for her to be. Let's compare the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house (Lk. 7:36-50) and Mary Magdalene: the former was a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), and the latter was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), which indicates her sins were great, and thus it stands to reason that she would've been well-known due to them. Whether or not you agree that the former and latter were well-known for their sins, why would it have been completely out of character for Mary Magdalene to repent of her sins, which would've been many, and seek Jesus's forgiveness?

....surnames are not a custom in this era.

In the culture of ancient Israel, people were often identified by their parentage or place of origin, or residence, e.g., "Jesus of Nazareth", "Jesus of Galilee, or "Jesus the Nazarene", "Mary Magdalene", "Mary of Magdala, or "Mary the Magdalene", "Judas Iscariot", or "Judas of Kerioth", "Lucius of Cyrene", "Simon of Jonah", and so on.

[...] Miriam does not translate to Maria or Mary.

Μαρία​

Forms of the word
Dictionary: Μαρία, -ας, ἡ
Greek transliteration: Maria
Simplified transliteration: Maria

Numbers
Strong's number: 3137
GK Number: 3451

Statistics
Frequency Testament: 27
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: n-1a
Gloss: Mary, [perhaps] {beloved} or {plump
Definition: Mary, pr. name (1) The mother of Jesus, Mt. 1:16; Acts 1:14. (2) Mary, wife of Clopas, mother of James, Mk. 15:40; Lk. 24:10; Jn. 19:25. (3) Mary Magdalene, Mt. 27:56; Lk. 20:18. (4) Sister of Martha and Lazarus, Lk. 10:39; Jn. 11:1; 12:3. (5) Mother of Jn. surnamed Mark, Acts 12:12 (6) A Christian at Rome, Rom. 16:6

Μαριάμ​

Forms of the word
Dictionary: Μαριάμ, ἡ
Greek transliteration: Mariam
Simplified transliteration: Mariam

Numbers
Strong's number: 3137
GK Number: 3452

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 27

Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: n-3g(2)
Gloss: Mary, [perhaps] {beloved} or {plump
Definition: the indeclinable form of Μαρια

true visions......do not override scripture

You had said that you try not to let true visions from God override Scripture. How could and why would true visions from God override anything else truly from God?

 

[Grailhunter]

Demons are real entities.

Did not say that demons do not exist.
But in this time period they associated demons with disease or conditions.

How is Mary Magdalene having been healed by seven demons nothing significant?

Oh it was wonderful....not evil.

 

[Grailhunter]

You had said, "[...] considering the significance of Mary Magdalene and significance of the event of forgiven prostitute, if she was Mary Magdalene I believe she would have named in the story line." Not necessarily, because Luke is the only Evangelist who wrote about the repentant woman in the house Simon the Pharisee, which you rightly said was a significant event, and, for example, neither did he name the significant women disciples present at Jesus's crucifixion, a significant scene, in his account, one of whom was Mary Magdalene, according to the other Evangelist accounts.

Because the name of the prostitute was not significant. Again my point.

Firstly, nowhere in the four Gospels is it written "Mary Magdalene repented and sought forgiveness", but that doesn't mean she never did. In fact,

A religion based on what is not in the scriptures......Wilder than speculation.....The sky is the limit. Yeshua the time traveling flying saucer pilot went back in time and landed in Jerusalem with bags of J's so they could use them in the scriptures. We are entering silly territory and the end of this debate.

 

[Grailhunter]

Secondly, you said that the reason the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house wasn't Mary Magdalene is because it would've been "completely out of character" for her to be. Let's compare the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house (Lk. 7:36-50) and Mary Magdalene: the former was a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), and the latter was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), which indicates her sins were great, and thus it stands to reason that she would've been well-known due to them. Whether or not you agree that the former and latter were well-known for their sins, why would it have been completely out of character for Mary Magdalene to repent of her sins, which would've been many, and seek Jesus's forgiveness?

I have already disagreed with this and I do not like repeating myself.....we are about at the end of this debate. I did not say they did not translate Miriam to Mary or Miriam.....they could translate them to Lucy, it is just not correct.

 

[Grailhunter]

You had said that you try not to let true visions from God override Scripture. How could and why would true visions from God override anything else truly from God?

Correct visions have lower authority and consideration compared to scriptures.
OK God Bless were about done with this debate.
Maybe we will get together on another.

 

[Magdala]

The Apostle John said He wrote with His finger on the ground. You are adding a word not there. Are you saying Jesus couldn't write on the ground and this had to be dust? Jesus is God and that is man's logic that there had to be dust to write on. Jesus could write on anything. Again, using the 10 Commands and listing them one at a time would accomplish the same thing. Jesus was using the Law of Moses against them, for using the Law of Moses to trap Jesus. See the irony.

Firstly, ground is a solid surface, but not all surfaces can be written on with one's finger to form words. For example, go outside and use your finger to try and spell out and form a legible word on stone, or concrete. Then, do the same thing, but this time, put dirt, sand, or dust on the stone, or concrete surface first. See what happens. Secondly, I'm not adding a false detail to the adulterous woman scene, but rather filling in the scene with a true detail that isn't mentioned in the Evangelist's accounts, and that's why it's not there.

 

[Rockerduck]

Firstly, ground is a solid surface, but not all surfaces can be written on with one's finger to form words. For example, go outside and use your finger to try and spell out and form a legible word on stone, or concrete. Then, do the same thing, but this time, put dirt, sand, or dust on the stone, or concrete surface first. See what happens. Secondly, I'm not adding a false detail to the adulterous woman scene, but rather filling in the scene with a true detail that isn't mentioned in the Evangelist's accounts, and that's why it's not there.

I can't write on concrete with my finger, but Jesus can. Nothing is impossible for God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The astronomical, meteorological, and mathematical analysis's done on Maria Valtorta's writings, and the conclusions, lend credence to her claims, which gives reason for glory to God, because He's the reason those conclusions were reached.

All that these give credence to is that the origins are supernatural. Whether God or devil is the issue, for demons know past events well.

I'm no longer in a position where I know nothing about Maria Valtorta and are undecided in my judgment of her writings. Back when I was though, I wasn't not discerning when I started reading her writings and compared them with Scripture. I also familiarized myself with the arguments of both her critics and supporters, reviewed the proofs that support her writings being of supernatural origin. Most importantly, by the Grace of God, in cooperation with my free will, faith, and love, I've been able to accept the proofs by God, and recognize God's voice in her writings. Without that, no amount of proofs could convince anyone, and to prove it, for example, Jesus gave many proofs on earth that He is God incarnate, and yet some still remained unbelieving. Whatever your judgment of Maria Valtorta's writings ends up being, I just hope you at least conduct a thorough investigation into her beforehand with faith that God will always make His true spokespersons known, and expose the false ones, and with charity towards Maria by not beginning your investigation into her and her writings with a preconceived notion that she must have been, or most likely was, a false spokesperson of God.

Sorry but free will, faith and love and arguments of critics and supporters mean nothing. what matters is do her words complement or contradict Scripture.

do they lead to the glory of Jesus and the Father or someone else.

 

[Magdala]

I can't write on concrete with my finger, but Jesus can. Nothing is impossible for God.

You can write legible words with your finger on the ground if it has a dirt, sand, or dust type substance on it, as could Jesus. Could Jesus also have done so with His finger without any of those substances on the ground? Yes, but He also could've healed people without touching them, and yet there were times when He laid His hands on a person, or touched eyes with His spittle and dirt first, and so on.

The actual point of contention here is what Jesus wrote, and it was the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers, who were condemning her for sin they forgave themselves of, which is why His actions were followed by His command "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." His command not only confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, and saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found, giving her time and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them, but it also demonstrated that He's God, because only God could know the sins they were guilty of.

 

[Grailhunter]

Demons are real entities.

"The demons also believe, and shudder" (Jas. 2:19)
The demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of pigs.” (Matt. 8:31)
"When the demon was cast out [...]" (Matt. 9:33)
"But the Pharisees said, “By the prince of the demons, he casts out demons." (Matt. 9:34)
"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “This man does not cast out demons, except by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons.” (Matt. 12:24)

Diseases and conditions of the body and mind are also real, e.g., leprosy, paralysis, blindness, deformities, and so on. PMS is a condition, one that women go through monthly, and it ends when they enter menopause. If the "seven demons" that Mary Magdalene was healed from was PMS, was that a monthly healing, or...?

And, what is diabolic possession but a disease of the spirit infected by Satan, to the extent of degenerating into a spiritual diabolic being? How can certain perversions in human beings be explained otherwise? Perversions that make man much worse than beasts in ferocity, more lewd than monkeys in lust, and so on, and make a hybrid, in which man, animal and demon are mingled.



How is Mary Magdalene having been healed by seven demons nothing significant?



You had said, "[...] considering the significance of Mary Magdalene and significance of the event of forgiven prostitute, if she was Mary Magdalene I believe she would have named in the story line." Not necessarily, because Luke is the only Evangelist who wrote about the repentant woman in the house Simon the Pharisee, which you rightly said was a significant event, and, for example, neither did he name the significant women disciples present at Jesus's crucifixion, a significant scene, in his account, one of whom was Mary Magdalene, according to the other Evangelist accounts.



Firstly, nowhere in the four Gospels is it written "Mary Magdalene repented and sought forgiveness", but that doesn't mean she never did. In fact, considering that all humans, except a few, are sinners, and Jesus stressed the importance of repentance and forgiveness, and Mary Magdalene was a faithful disciple of His, one can safely assume that she did, if they're going by what is said in the Gospels alone.

Secondly, you said that the reason the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house wasn't Mary Magdalene is because it would've been "completely out of character" for her to be. Let's compare the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house (Lk. 7:36-50) and Mary Magdalene: the former was a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), and the latter was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), which indicates her sins were great, and thus it stands to reason that she would've been well-known due to them. Whether or not you agree that the former and latter were well-known for their sins, why would it have been completely out of character for Mary Magdalene to repent of her sins, which would've been many, and seek Jesus's forgiveness?



In the culture of ancient Israel, people were often identified by their parentage or place of origin, or residence, e.g., "Jesus of Nazareth", "Jesus or "Jesus the Nazarene", "Mary of Magdala", or "Mary the Magdalene", "Judas Iscariot", or "Judas of Kerioth", "Lucius of Cyrene", "Simon of Jonah", and so on.









You had said that you try not to let true visions from God override Scripture. How could and why would true visions from God override anything else truly from God?

See posts 68 and on

 

[Magdala]

Did not say that demons do not exist.

Intentionally or not, you gave the impression that you're convinced demons don't exist, which is why I showed that they do. Thank you for clarifying yourself.

I am not convinced that the demons were real entities.....Issues with the mind was often contributed to demons or as I said emotional PMS.

But in this time period they associated demons with disease or conditions.

In that time period, demons (evil spirits) were cast out as well. Scripture connects sin with diseases and conditions of the body and the soul. Furthermore, not all diseases and conditions are the result of sin. Regarding the "seven demons" Jesus healed Mary Magdalene from, I have yet to share what Jesus has explained that to mean, but what I'll say for now is... you can rule out PMS.

Oh it was wonderful....not evil.

So, what began as "nothing negative, as in significant, linked to Mary Magdalene" has become "nothing significant, as in evil, is linked to Mary Magdalene"? What do you mean by that, if you're not referring to sin, which is evil?

Because the name of the prostitute was not significant. Again my point.

Your initial reason for why Mary Magdalene couldn't have been the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house was because it would've been "completely out of character".

My refutation: "You said that it would've been "completely out of character" for Mary Magdalene to have been the repentant woman in Lk. 7:36-50. So, explain why you say that Mary Magdalene, who was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), and who you rightly say was the greatest woman disciple aside from Jesus's Mother, couldn't have been the woman, a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), repenting of her sins, and seeking forgiveness from Jesus in the house of Simon the Pharisee? (Lk. 7:36-50)"

Your rebuttal: the reasoning behind your point shifted to being about the repentant woman by saying "if she was Mary Magdalene, I believe she would have been named in the story line" and "the name of the prostitute was not significant."

My refutation (I): "You rightly said that Mary Magdalene was significant, but that doesn't necessarily mean she would've been named in the account of the repentant woman in the house Simon the Pharisee if it was her, which you rightly said was a significant event, because Luke is the only Evangelist that wrote about it, and, for example, neither did he name the significant women disciples present at Jesus's crucifixion, a significant event, in his account, one of whom was Mary Magdalene, according to the other Evangelist accounts."

My refutation (II): "Let's compare the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house (Lk. 7:36-50) and Mary Magdalene: the former was a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), and the latter was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), which indicates a number of sins, and thus it stands to reason that she would've been well-known due to them. Whether or not you agree that the former and the latter were well-known for their sins, why would it have been completely out of character for Mary Magdalene to repent of her sins, which would've been many, and seek Jesus's forgiveness?""

Your rebuttal: your repeated your latest reason "the name of the prostitute was not significant", which has already been heard and addressed.

A religion based on what is not in the scriptures......Wilder than speculation.....The sky is the limit. Yeshua the time traveling flying saucer pilot went back in time and landed in Jerusalem with bags of J's so they could use them in the scriptures. We are entering silly territory and the end of this debate.

So, according to you, Mary Magdalene, whom you rightly declared to be the second greatest woman disciple of Jesus—God and teacher Who stressed the importance of repentance and forgiveness—didn't repent and seek forgiveness from Him... all because her moment of repentance isn't explicitly made known in Scripture. At this point in our discussion, on your end, it seems reason has gone out the window.

I did not say they did not translate Miriam to Mary or Miriam.....

I didn't say that you did.

[...] Miriam does not translate to Maria or Mary. Miriam....Moses' sister condemned him for marrying a Pagan and God punished her and the name means rebellion and translators did not see that that was a name that was appropriate for Christ's mother....so they changed it.

What do you think the name "Miriam" accurately translates to in Koine Greek?

[...] visions have lower authority and consideration compared to scriptures.

True revelations from God that are not mentioned in Scripture, some of which pertain to what is mentioned in Scripture, exist. Why would those revelations from God be of lower authority and consideration?

 

[Magdala]

All that these give credence to is that the origins are supernatural.

I agree.

what matters is do her words complement or contradict Scripture.

The words that Maria Valtorta wrote and attributed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, among others, compliment Scripture.

do they lead to the glory of Jesus and the Father

Yes.

 

[Grailhunter]

So, according to you, Mary Magdalene, whom you rightly declared to be the second greatest woman disciple of Jesus—God and teacher Who stressed the importance of repentance and forgiveness—didn't repent and seek forgiveness from Him... all because her moment of conversion isn't explicitly made known in Scripture. At this point in our discussion, on your end, it seems reason has gone out the window.

Of course I disagree and show me in scriptures where she stressed the importance of repentance and forgiveness.

Intentionally or not, you gave the impression that you're convinced demons don't exist, which is why I showed that they do. Thank you for clarifying yourself.




In that time period, demons (evil spirits) were cast out as well. Scripture connects sin with diseases and conditions of the body and the soul. Furthermore, not all diseases and conditions are the result of sin. Regarding the "seven demons" Jesus healed Mary Magdalene from, I have yet to share what Jesus has explained that to mean, but what I'll say for now is... you can rule out PMS.



So, what began as "nothing negative, as in significant, linked to Mary Magdalene" has become "nothing significant, as in evil, is linked to Mary Magdalene"? What do you mean by that, if you're not referring to sin, which is evil?



Your initial reason for why Mary Magdalene couldn't have been the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house was because it would've been "completely out of character".

My refutation: "You said that it would've been "completely out of character" for Mary Magdalene to have been the repentant woman in Lk. 7:36-50. So, explain why you say that Mary Magdalene, who was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), and who you rightly say was the greatest woman disciple aside from Jesus's Mother, couldn't have been the woman, a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), repenting of her sins, and seeking forgiveness from Jesus in the house of Simon the Pharisee? (Lk. 7:36-50)"

Your rebuttal: your reasoning became about the repentant woman by saying "if she was Mary Magdalene, I believe she would have been named in the story line" and "the name of the prostitute was not significant."

My refutation (I): "You rightly said that Mary Magdalene was significant, but that doesn't necessarily mean she would've been named in the account of the repentant woman in the house Simon the Pharisee if it was her, which you rightly said was a significant event, because Luke is the only Evangelist that wrote about it, and, for example, neither did he name the significant women disciples present at Jesus's crucifixion, a significant event, in his account, one of whom was Mary Magdalene, according to the other Evangelist accounts."

My refutation (II): "Let's compare the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house (Lk. 7:36-50) and Mary Magdalene: the former was a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), and the latter was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), which indicates a number of sins, and thus it stands to reason that she would've been well-known due to them. Whether or not you agree that the former and the latter were well-known for their sins, why would it have been completely out of character for Mary Magdalene to repent of her sins, which would've been many, and seek Jesus's forgiveness?""

Your rebuttal: Repeating your latest reason "the name of the prostitute was not significant", which has already been heard and addressed.



So, according to you, Mary Magdalene, whom you rightly declared to be the second greatest woman disciple of Jesus—God and teacher Who stressed the importance of repentance and forgiveness—didn't repent and seek forgiveness from Him... all because her moment of conversion isn't explicitly made known in Scripture. At this point in our discussion, on your end, it seems reason has gone out the window.



I didn't say that you did.



What do you think the name "Miriam" accurately translates to in Koine Greek?



True revelations from God that are not mentioned in Scripture, some of which pertain to what is mentioned in Scripture, exist. Why would those revelations from God be of lower authority and consideration?

Yeap….demons and the devil do exist.

28 And when He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men confronted Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way.
29 And they cried out, saying, “What business do You have with us, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before [b]the time?” 30 Now there was a herd of many pigs feeding at a distance from them. 31 And the demons begged Him, saying, “If You are going to cast us out, send us into the herd of pigs.” 32 And He said to them, “Go!”And they came out and went into the pigs; and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the waters. Matthew 8:28-32

I still say PMS can seem like demons.

No sin or evil connected to Mary Magdalene that is as much connect to you and me.

Sorry you are frustrated.

Her name is transliterated Mariam (Μαριάμ) but my point is that it cannot be translated to the English name Mary. And no reason, we can pronounce the names of the characters in the scriptures in English.. Yob, Yames, Yacob....No J's in the scriptures.

True revelations from God are not going to contradict scripture. But to be fair contradict scripture or seem to contradict scripture…. No matter what the scriptures are an abbreviated account of the story.
So somethings are left unanswered and for that reason people want to add to it.

For example; Some people believe that Mary Magdalene was Yeshua’s wife even though the scriptures do not say she was His wife. Not with out some reasoning.

1. In the Jewish culture for a man to decide not to marry would be like a Christian urinating on a cross.

2. If a man was not married by the age of 30 it would be assumed he was homosexual.

3. For a man to be a Jewish priest or Rabbi, or religious leader of any kind he would have to be married or widowed.
So in the case of Christ it would seem that there would be no reason for the Jews to address Him on religious matters. Still this does not mean He was married, some of the Apostles were not married.... we just do not know the answers to this
I am done with debating any of this topic, but I will debate you on other topics.

 

[Magdala]

Yeap….demons and the devil do exist.

You already said that. Again, initially, you gave the impression that you're convinced demons don't exist, which is why I showed that they do. Again, thank you for clarifying yourself.

I still say PMS can seem like demons.

It's also said that women can seem like they are mentally ill when going through PMS. And, then there are people who really are possessed by demons.

[...] show me in scriptures where she stressed the importance of repentance and forgiveness.

I didn't say that she did, but rather I said, "So, according to you, Mary Magdalene, whom you rightly declared to be the second-greatest woman disciple of Jesus—God and teacher Who stressed the importance of repentance and forgiveness—didn't repent and seek forgiveness from Him... all because her moment of repentance isn't explicitly made known in Scripture. At this point in our discussion, on your end of it, it seems reason has gone out the window."

True revelations from God are not going to contradict scripture.

Correct, but true revelations from God that are not mentioned in Scripture, some of which pertain to what is mentioned in Scripture, exist as well. Why would those revelations from God be of "lower authority and consideration" as you have said?

I am done with debating any of this topic, but I will debate you on other topics.

I've typed a recap of our discussion up to this point that you can reference, if and when you decide to re-engage in it. See below.

Your initial reason for why Mary Magdalene couldn't have been the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house was because "there is nothing in the scriptures to link the prostitute with Mary Magdalene."

My refutation: "There is nothing in Scripture that doesn't link Mary Magdalene to the woman in Lk. 7:36-50 either, and while the difficulty in linking the two using Scripture is the fact that a lot of details surrounding that scene are not mentioned in the four Gospels, the gaps were filled in by Jesus through taking recourse to visions. On January 21st, 1944, Maria Valtorta received a vision of that scene, and in her descriptions of all that she saw and heard, the woman who entered Simon the Pharisee's house was Mary Magdalene. This scene is chapter 235 of The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. II, which you can read here."

Your rebuttal: the reasoning behind your point shifted to being about Mary Magdalene by saying it would've been "completely out of character".

My refutation: "You said that it would've been "completely out of character" for Mary Magdalene to have been the repentant woman in Lk. 7:36-50. So, explain why you say that Mary Magdalene, who was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), and who you rightly say was the second greatest woman disciple, couldn't have been the woman, a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), repenting of her sins, and seeking forgiveness from Jesus in the house of Simon the Pharisee? (Lk. 7:36-50)"

Your rebuttal: the reasoning behind your point shifted to being about the repentant woman by saying "if she was Mary Magdalene, I believe she would have been named in the story line" and "the name of the prostitute was not significant."

My refutation (I): "You rightly said that Mary Magdalene was significant, but that doesn't necessarily mean she would've been named in the account of the repentant woman in the house Simon the Pharisee if it was her, which you rightly said was a significant event, because Luke is the only Evangelist that wrote about it, and, for example, neither did he name the significant women disciples present at Jesus's crucifixion, a significant event, in his account, one of whom was Mary Magdalene, according to the other Evangelist accounts."

My refutation (II): "Let's compare the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee's house (Lk. 7:36-50) and Mary Magdalene: the former was a well-known sinner (Lk. 7:39), and the latter was healed by Jesus from seven demons (Lk. 8:2, Mk. 16:9), which indicates a number of sins, and thus it stands to reason that she would've been well-known due to them. Whether or not you agree that the former and the latter were well-known for their sins, why would it have been completely out of character for Mary Magdalene to repent of her sins, which would've been many, and seek Jesus's forgiveness?""

Your rebuttal: you repeated your latest reason "the name of the prostitute was not significant", rather than address my refutations to it above, and thus they remain unaddressed. And, I'll add another:

It's important to note that there are personal gestures, which are repeated and are peculiar to a person like the person’s style. They are unmistakable gestures. The following are two distinct scenes where the woman in each scene honored Jesus by means of the same gesture.

• The Repentant Woman in the House of Simon the Pharisee

"A woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that he was reclining in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. Standing behind at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and she wiped them with the hair of her head, kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment." (Lk. 7:36-50)

• Mary of Bethany

"Then six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, who had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. So they made him a supper there. Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with him. Therefore Mary took a pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious, and anointed Jesus’s feet and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment." (Jn. 12:1-3)

"While he was at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster jar of ointment of pure nard—very costly. She broke the jar, and poured it over his head." "Most certainly I tell you, wherever this Good News may be preached throughout the whole world, that which this woman has done will also be spoken of for a memorial of her.” (Mk. 14:3;9)

"Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him having an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table.' "Most certainly I tell you, wherever this Good News is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of as a memorial of her.” (Matt. 26:6-7;13)

Based on the Evangelist accounts above, can you still really reasonably say that Mary Magdalene—a woman healed by Jesus from seven demons, and who, by your own admission, became the second-greatest woman disciple—and the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee and Mary of Bethany—both of whom were well-known sinners, and honored Jesus by means of the same gesture using their hair, with the gesture made in Bethany being memorialized by Jesus—couldn't have been the same woman?

Additionally, based on the account of Maria Valtorta, another true spokesperson of God, she confirms that Mary Magdalene, the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha of Bethany, were the same person. Their father, Theophilus, a Syrian, was the governor of Antioch, and faithful servant of Caesar, and their mother was Eucheria. Mary was a well-known prostitute, even among the Romans in Israel, and thus the disgrace of her family. By extension, her family was affected. They couldn't go among people without having to put up with their mockery, including from the Pharisees and scribes, and Martha never married, because no one married the sister of a prostitute. Mary's conversion was a process, rather than an event. I highly recommend reading A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta's Extraordinary Work, especially the chapters on the proofs, and The Story of Mary Magdalene (extracts from The Poem of the Man-God).