*************
M*W: In many famous paintings throughout the world, Mary Magdalene is depicted with a skull at her feet. Some art critics have said they believe the skull to be that of Jesus which would defy the Christian belief of the resurrection. Other art critics believe the skull to be that of John the Baptist. In these same paintings, most of the depictions of MM show her to have a round belly indicating that she was pregnant. Has anyone else seen these famous paintings in galleries or museums? I'd like to hear from those of you who are familiar with these famous paintings and to know what your opinions are of them. If you're not familiar with these paintings, don't bother replying.

At the time of the Crusades, Christendom was one Unified Civilization. But every Society has its malcontents -- its Ambitious Lucifers. Now, consider, if you wanted to assemble a Secret Society that would work at odds with the Centralized Catholic Power Structure, would you not consider creating a Subversive Doctrine. All your Mary Magdalene suppositions are simply Templar and Masonic Inventions. To attack Catholicism they came up with first an Anti-Catholic Myth, and later they resorted to more Secularly Focussed attacks -- Democracy, Socialism, Anarchy, Communism, Libertarianism.

So, find any of your Big Belly Skull Paintings commissioned prior to the rise of the Knights Templar, who could pay artists to paint any damned thing they liked. What!? You don't think paintings are like photographs, do you? Oh, but I forget how well educated you tell everyone you are. So certainly you must be able to make easy distinctions. Yeah, right.

It seems at least possible that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, though there is no direct evidence which supports that suggestion.

Has anybody read The da Vinci Code?

James R: It seems at least possible that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, though there is no direct evidence which supports that suggestion.

Has anybody read The da Vinci Code?[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: I read it, but it was just a reiteration of other writer's earlier research, so it doesn't offer anything new under the sun. I've read all the follow-ups to The da Vinci Code, but they say nothing new either. The da Vinci Code was not well-researched, so it ended up being a novel.

The biblical scholars who research the marriage aspect of Jesus and MM have written well-researched books, most of which are currently available online or in bookstores everywhere. Of course, those who are afraid of knowing the truth won't bother to research it.

Why do you say it is the truth? How do you know? This is just another set of stories.

Fascinating theory:
http://www.beloveddisciple.org

I think that the more common elements in MM paintings would be the (falsely attributed) "annointing jar" and the (historically questionable) red hair.

One of my personal faves: "Mary Magdalene in the Grotto"-- Jules Joseph Lefebvre:
http://www.illusionsgallery.com/Mary-Magdalene.html

It seems at least possible that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, though there is no direct evidence which supports that suggestion. Has anybody read The da Vinci Code?
Good grief. I thought better of you.

-=T=-: Fascinating theory:
http://www.beloveddisciple.org

I think that the more common elements in MM paintings would be the (falsely attributed) "annointing jar" and the (historically questionable) red hair.

One of my personal faves: "Mary Magdalene in the Grotto"-- Jules Joseph Lefebvre:
http://www.illusionsgallery.com/Mary-Magdalene.html
*************
M*W: Thank you so much for answering and providing those links. I will read it in depth when I return from out of town. Yes, the alabaster anointing jar is a common element as is the "red" hair. MM probably had olive skin and dark hair. I think the "red" hair association is more symbolic than literal. Whose skull do you think that is and why? In some weird wanton way, MM has a "come hither" look in the grotto painting. I am tending to see her as the one true savior who anointed Jesus. From earlier feminist works, it is believed that men can only receive salvation through a woman (Native Americans also believe this).

I've read about MM's penning the fourth gospel and Revelations. When I read Revelations, it all makes sense to me when I put it in MM's perspective.

Thanks for your post, and I hope to hear more from you soon!

M*W,
A while back I did some research on representations of Magdalene in art, and the skull that you allude to honestly did not jump out at me as a common thread. If you have titles or artists or examples (or links), I'd like to revisit them.

As far as the "belly" thing... obviously, if you're referring to renaissance works, you won't find many representations of Mary (or any woman) as a waif-- those guys knew about the gen-yoo-ine womanly form. ;)

Thanx

-=T=-: M*W,
A while back I did some research on representations of Magdalene in art, and the skull that you allude to honestly did not jump out at me as a common thread. If you have titles or artists or examples (or links), I'd like to revisit them.

As far as the "belly" thing... obviously, if you're referring to renaissance works, you won't find many representations of Mary (or any woman) as a waif-- those guys knew about the gen-yoo-ine womanly form. ;)
*************
M*W: I'll do a search and get back to you. I've never read anything that alluded to the skull at MM's feet, but I've observed that the skull was a common theme in the galleries and museums I've visited. The bulging belly, however, is not just a Rubenesque feature in some of the paintings. The bulging belly has been commented on by art critics.

I'm really glad you joined sciforums, and I'd like to hear more about your research!

Thanx

The bulging belly has been commented on by art critics.

A "critic" is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he is unbiased -- he hates all creative people equally.
~Lazarus Long

:D

*************
M*W: Good quote! Here's a website to start from. Let me know what you think about the skull.

http://www.magdalene.org/alone/alone.htm/

*************
M*W: -=T=-, here's another website. I'm sure you are quite capable of finding other websites, but these are two examples of MM in art.

http://www.womenpriests.org/magdala/mag_art.htm

The severed head/skull in paintings was often symbolic of secret knowledge.

ConsequentAtheist:

Good grief. I thought better of you.

What are you referring to? That I might entertain the idea that Jesus was married? Or perhaps you have a problem with Jesus as a historical figure? Or maybe The da Vinci Code is too low-brow for you?

Please explain.

Circe: The severed head/skull in paintings was often symbolic of secret knowledge.
*************
M*W: Circe, thank you for your input.

What are you referring to? That I might entertain the idea that Jesus was married? Or perhaps you have a problem with Jesus as a historical figure? Or maybe The da Vinci Code is too low-brow for you?
The phrase:It seems at least possible that {X}, though there is no direct evidence which supports that suggestion.is as classic as it is worthless. Given an historical Jesus:
Is it at least [sic] possible that he was a psychotic midget?
Is it at least [sic] possible that he was a homosexual?
Is it at least [sic] possible that he was a woman?
Is it at least [sic] possible that he was a Roman spy?
Is it at least [sic] possible that he was a lost alien?Is something that is "at least possible" more credible than something that is meerly possible or at most possible? Is it credible at all? And was the reference to The da Vinci Code intended as relevant, i.e., as something that somehow elevates the stories to the status of "at least possible"?

Or maybe The da Vinci Code is too low-brow for you?
I've never read it, though my wife has. She tells me it's a pretty interesting piece of fiction.

The bulging belly, however, is not just a Rubenesque feature in some of the paintings.
It depends on what position a rubenesque woman is depicted by the artist.

everneo: It depends on what position a rubenesque woman is depicted by the artist.
*************
M*W: I posted several websites of Magdalene art located in galleries and museums which would address your post. There are many works that depict MM with draped clothing in various positions, but there are also many famous works with MM standing and sitting that show her bulging belly. There are other "clues" in most of these famous paintings that associate MM with mystical and spiritual motifs.

My earlier question was about the skull that is found in many of these paintings, and I've learned that it is symbolic for death or the afterlife showing that MM is comfortable with death. There are so many other clues by many artists who couldn't have possibly collaborated on their works. There is one painting that has MM holding an egg -- symbolizing fertility. There are many other paintings with MM reading a book -- symbolizing esoteric knowledge or wisdom. Many show candles burning and mirrors -- symbolizing MM's spirituality or soul and her reflection or image. In paintings I have seen in galleries and museums, I have noticed that there are many works by various artists of the "holy family." Before I learned what I have about MM, I always thought the "holy family" was Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus. Now I realize this is not the case! These artists were probably depicting MM, Jesus and their child, often times with Mary and Joseph looking on!

The alabaster jar is MM's most famous symbol. MM was a temple prostitute (priestess) as was Jesus' mother and the other "Mary's." They were "pillars" of their community. The title Mary means "elevated one, magnificant woman, woman of independent means." The Marys were healers. MM with her alabaster jar denotes not only physical healing but spiritual healing (or the life giving force). 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.

MM was a temple prostitute (priestess) as was Jesus' mother and the other "Mary's." 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.