Three Marys

[InquisitiveInHalifax]

Has anybody else noticed that there are three Marys in the bible as there are three manifestations of God (father, son and holy ghost)? Would it be far-fetched to say that the three Marys could be three manifestations of the divine feminine (maiden, mother and crone of the pagan teachings)? Opinions greatly welcomed (I hope this is the proper forum for this), thank-you.

[wil]

I'd like to see you expound on your concept. And come on, it can't be as far fetched as snakes into rods, living in the fishes belly for three days or getting turned into a pillar of salt... +you are outside the clutches of the abrahamic religions...

namaste,

[Thomas]

What follows is the speculation of a Catholic symbolist, and cannot be considered 'orthodox',

In Christian symbolism 'Mary' can be conceived as a name of the soul.

Thus Mary, the Blessed Virgin, also known, among her other titles as Theotokos, Immaculata and Co-Redemptrix, symbolises the purified soul. The soul is purfied by the presence of the Spirit, but the Spirit wil not enter where it is not first welcome. Mary's 'I am the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy will' signifies the soul's assent.

A point to stress here is that by 'co-redemptrix' Catholics do not mean that the Mother is the equal of her Son in the work of salvation, but rather that man will not be saved if he does not wish to be saved; thus before man can be saved there must be an assent on his part to the work of grace, which is always freely offered to him. (Thus the Prodigal Son.)

Mary Magdalene signifies the soul corrupted by the world, but nevertheless its theomorphic nature remains, wounded, blighted, obscured, by the passions of the sensible appetite (to use Scholastic terms). There is some confusion over the Magdalene - St Luke refers to Christ's exorcism of 'seven devils' (the number is significant) and although Magdala could refer to her birthplace, there is a Talmudic expression which signifies 'adultress', so some argue that she was the woman taken in adultery.

Mary the sister of Martha is the soul in its contemplative element, whereas Martha is the soul caught up with the work of the world and thus loses sight of the 'better part' which mary had opted for. Meister Eckhart, on the other hand, preached on the higher spiritual status of Martha.

(And this sheds, in symbolic terms, light on the understanding of Lazarus, brother to Mary and Martha.)

(Also there are those who accord a special significance to those Jesus referred to by name, and his 'Martha, Martha... ' should therefore not be overlooked.)

Ther is also Mary, wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John, and Mary wife of Cleophas ... but these were never named by Christ, not spoken to directly (as far as we know) so they occupy a place of lesser importance in this context.

Thomas

[bgruagach]

Another more pragmatic (and less spiritual) reason could be that the three Marys were introduced to Christianity as a way to draw in converts from existing European Pagan religions. Some Pagan faiths included a triple goddess figure who was sometimes referred to as the three mothers, the three matrons, or somethings similar. I know that in some Celtic myth the goddess Brigid (who was adopted into Christianity as St. Brigit) was depicted as being three women -- the three Brigids. More recently Pagan faiths have associated the triple goddess with three phases of life, as a maiden, mother, and crone figure and waxing, full, and waning phases of the moon.

There is a photo of a neolithic carving of the three mothers found in the UK at this website. There's a different one at this website too.

[aged hippy]

Hello InquisitiveInHalifax,

You asked:

Has anybody else noticed that there are three Marys in the bible as there are three manifestations of God (father, son and holy ghost)? Would it be far-fetched to say that the three Marys could be three manifestations of the divine feminine (maiden, mother and crone of the pagan teachings)? Opinions greatly welcomed (I hope this is the proper forum for this), thank-you.

- Yes, and they were all at the Crucifixion too.


In the case of the Norns, the Wyrd Sisters, etc., the symbolism seems to have been that one (Urd) was the past, one (Verdandi) was the present, and the other (Skuld) was the future.
Another way to see it is that the two weaves (warp and woof/past and present) produce the third (pattern/future).
This also seems to imply an example of Karma, because a combination of the past and the present are what determine the future.


How this applies to the early Christian symbolism i'm not sure, it could be that Mary (His mother) was the Virgin (past), his mother's sister - Mary the wife of Cleophas - was the past (the mother), and Mary Magdalene the future (old woman).
I see Mary Magdalene as the future because it seems possible to me that she was the Spiritual 'other half' of the Christ - His Feminine aspect - and that they will eventually be reunited.

[Thomas]

That's not at all bad...

In Christian symbolism Mary, as the perfected soul (Immaculate Conception) thus symbolises the soul before the Fall, and thus can be seen to signify the past, the origin, the Golden Age, etc. as you speculate.

The symbolic aspect of virgin/mother then means that her integrity as a being is unaffected by the world. Also encompasses the Platonic notion that the higher engenders the lower without any alteration to its own state (the high can effect the low, but the low cannot effect the high).

Mary Magdalene then, as the 'spiritualised soul' is the fallen soul perfected by faith and grace. In effect she is 'saved' and I would agree she is future-orientated.

Mary Cleophas is an uncertain figure, but tradition recognises her as the mother of James and John, yet this issue is further clouded by the uncertainty of the persons/relations of James the Just, James the Great and James the Less.

Without research I might speculate that James (the Just) and John both symbolise aspects of the intellective process (man/intellect woman/soul). James the Just as 'wisdom', or at least 'common sense' whereas John is the spiritualised intellect. This would also tie in with the possibility that James and John were followers of the Baptist, John the Forerunner, who symbolises the purified/prophetic intellect made ready to receive the grace of illumination ("make straight the way of the lord").

So Mary Cleophas would be the present or the status quo?

This places John and Mary Magdalene in a close relationship (as adopted son and daughter) of the Blessed Virgin and to Christ, which might account for some of the confusion regarding the one 'whom Christ loved'.

Just some thoughts...

Thomas

[wil]

The symbolic ...Without research I might speculate that James (the Just) and John both symbolise aspects of the intellective process (man/intellect woman/soul). James the Just as 'wisdom', or at least 'common sense' whereas John is the spiritualised intellect.

Filmore positted using Judaic traditional name/trait information that the marriage between Joseph and Mary was the marriage between knowledge and wisdom and that the 12 disciples all brought 12 divine powers to assist in Jesus's quickening, not always by example, sometimes to either ignite that power/reaction in him, or by what not to do...

Faith-Peter
Love- John
Strength-Andrew
Wisdom-James (Son of Zebedee)
Power-Philip
Imagination-Bartholomew
Understanding-Thomas
Will-Matthew
Order-James (Son of Alphaeus)
Zeal-Simon the Zealot
Elimination-Thaddeus
Life-Judas/Mathias

[aged hippy]

That's how i see it, Thomas, that's my interpretation of how the Norns/Wyrd Sisters and other tri-part Goddesses relate to the three Marys of the NT.


You said: "So Mary Cleophas would be the present or the status quo?" - ummm - yes, i typed it wrong first time, i should have checked the past/present/future and said "Mary the wife of Cleophas - was the present (the mother)", rather than "past", as i did.
It was rather late....


It seems to me that if Mary (the wife of Joseph) was the mother of Jesus, then she was probably an ordinary (but extremely honoured) woman — however, if she was the mother of the Christ then she must have been the incarnation of the Feminine aspect of the Father/Mother. This makes it - to me - unnecessarily complicated. And very unlikely, even if it were possible - which i don't think it is.
She is spread thinly enough as it is.

In my opinion, the Christ 'inhabited' the physical body of Jesus in exactly the same way that Uriel attached Himself to Hermas.


Without wishing to muddy the waters overmuch, other two/threefold ideas came to mind last night (just as well i didn't pursue them ), one of them concerns the two aspects of ourselves, the conscious (Masculine) and unconscious (Feminine) which, when united create a third.

[wil]

In my opinion, the Christ 'inhabited' the physical body of Jesus in exactly the same way that Uriel attached Himself to Hermas.

Not that through study, contemplation, enlightenment and prayer Jesus rose his level of understanding and spirituality to that of the Christ, but Christ 'inhabited'?

Inhabited almost sounds uninvited, but you have it in quotes. Can you expound, explain?

[Thomas]

Well guys - we part company here, as you might have guessed ...

I will add that in 'my' symbolism Peter is the 'will' rather than 'faith' - although the two are inseparable, true faith is in the surrender of one's will - and in all cases these represent human, not divine, archetypes - there is only one Divine Archetype.

Peter was the willful disciple, hot-headed ("get thee behind me, satan!"), the one who tried to walk on the water (and nearly succeeded), the one drew his sword and was ready to take on the mob and the temple guards single-handed at the arrest of Christ.

Jesus' final words to Peter, a man who obviously wasn't used to being pushed around, must have been chilling:

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry [thee] whither thou wouldest not."

Thomas

[wil]

Namaste Thomas....don't quit, lets explore...Not defending Filmore or Judaic meanings of names, but is the rock(peter) that the church was built on will? or faith?

Peter was the willful disciple, hot-headed ("get thee behind me, satan!"), the one who tried to walk on the water (and nearly succeeded), the one drew his sword and was ready to take on the mob and the temple guards single-handed at the arrest of Christ.

Is saying 'satan get behind me' what a strong wilful person would profess or one gathering attempting to find his faith? I'd also think that standing on water even for a moment takes more faith than will...and lastly it is my understanding that more than 600 men came to arrest Jesus, not a mob a cabal (a name for a unit of soldiers), which meant Jesus's men were not only numerous but well armed (he did tell them if they didn't have a sword to sell their property and get one) And then he told Peter to back off, and that in no uncertain terms his entire entourage would be ready to fight...but he will come quietly... (one doesn't get away with turning over the tables of the money changers (well armed and guarded) without some pretty strong and visible backing)

[aged hippy]

Hi Wil,

I put that badly, they're not meant to be quotation marks " " to show a "quote" as such. What i intended them to denote was a word which i wasn't sure was the correct (or best) way to describe the dialogue of one human with another consciousness other than his own.
What i'm trying to say is that a small part of the consciousness of the Christ and of Uriel were able to cohabit with the consciousness of Jesus and Hermas respectively.
If you see what i mean.

At least, that's how i see it ...



... quite possibly completely incorrectly.

[Thomas]

but is the rock(peter) that the church was built on will? or faith?

I think will is the foundation of faith - will is a constituent of the human person (as is soul, intellect, emotion, instinct, etc.) but faith (like hope, or love) is not a constituent in the same way, it's a product, if that makes sense?

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
Luke 22:31-32

This preceeds the famous foretelling of Peter's denial of Christ.

This is fundamental to Christianity - it is a religion of 'being', not 'knowing', it is a religion of 'conversion', not 'initiation' - the initiatic rites are rites of introduction. 'Knowledge' says nothing about the man, what he does says everything.

To be a Christian, especially today (as ever) requires an act of will, in the face of uncertainty, and an act of courage (moreso today as the west is effectively no longer a Christian mileau). The same applies to being a Buddhist, a Jew, whatever.

Christianity holds that human faith, towards God, is met by an infused faith from God - it is a mode of Divine Union - that strengthens the will ... but this is a whole other debate ...

In short it's not knowledge of Christ that saves, its faith in Christ that saves, and 'faith' assumes we act as we believe ... unfortunately, what we say we believe, and what our actions say about what we believe, are often two very different things.

Is saying 'satan get behind me' what a strong wilful person would profess or one gathering attempting to find his faith? I'd also think that standing on water even for a moment takes more faith than will

I view it as Peter didn't think - especially the account of walking on the water, which reads like a Roadrunner cartoon (my favourite) he climbs out the boat, walks on the water, looks down and realises he's walking on the water, and begins to sink ...

... of course, the symbolism of the event is the point.

and lastly it is my understanding that more than 600 men came to arrest Jesus, not a mob a cabal (a name for a unit of soldiers), which meant Jesus's men were not only numerous but well armed

You've lost me here? Where does it say Christ was attended by a well-armed group?

I have often questioned the 'sword' issue. In my more speculkative moments I have said (and I think here) that in his spare time Peter would probably enjoy bouncing rocks off Roman skulls - but he was a fisherman, so why would he need a sword? And why would the occupying powers let him walk round with one (whole areas of sociopolitical uncertainty here)

What I do understand is that as a sailor and fisherman Peter would need a knife, and a serious knife at that; but why would the Messenger of Peace tell his disciples to go out and arm up, if he had no intention of fighting anyway?

Thomas

[wil]

You've lost me here? Where does it say Christ was attended by a well-armed group?

I have often questioned the 'sword' issue. In my more speculkative moments I have said (and I think here) that in his spare time Peter would probably enjoy bouncing rocks off Roman skulls - but he was a fisherman, so why would he need a sword? And why would the occupying powers let him walk round with one (whole areas of sociopolitical uncertainty here)

What I do understand is that as a sailor and fisherman Peter would need a knife, and a serious knife at that; but why would the Messenger of Peace tell his disciples to go out and arm up, if he had no intention of fighting anyway?

We have different versions in the gospels about arresting Jesus, was it Pilate's men, Roman Soldiers or a mob? There are references in to a cabal which is in excess of 600 men...do you bring that to arrest a man of peace? Seems more like the methods used to get David Koresh and quell the Branch Davidians.

What did the followers of Jesus think he was going to do? They were looking to him to be the new king...if he was the Messiah or Saviour it wasn't of their souls..it was to rule, there existed only one way to take over rule in that area..and that is with an army...if you don't have a sword, sell your stuff and buy one is pretty clear. I have come to enforce the law...The jews were going to take back their God given rights....who was going to lay down and let that happen?

Imagine a bazaar...people in the streets selling stuff everywhere...and now we have the money changers...who does this?? No walls, no bank protection, you borrow money on the street...who do we deal with?? Not suits and ties...the same types that control that world today had to control it then...and probably had paid off the powers that be to allow them to operate freely...and we think turning over the tables would go unnoticed and 'oh, ok sorry Jesus...we'll just move out and to another corner' I've seen the fights downtown over the location of a hot dog stand...I can imagine the issues at that time... Is it possible he did this without backing...do we think he just survived on a reputation of healing the sick?

[Thomas]

Wil -

We're in danger now of concentrating on incidentals and losing sight of the big picture. You can take every verse of scripture and speculate any number of possibilities, endlessly, until you lose sight of the thing altogether - it's a question of hermeneutics - you can only properly understand a part if you understand the whole.

To be honest, it seems to me you are looking for every other possible meaning of the text than the one that is orthodox, and reading into what you find things that simply aren't there. Where is this leading? What is your point?

You might ewant to read my reference to John Milbank's essay here:
Why did Jesus have to die?

you will see an interpretation of the Paschal events from a theological and spiritual perspective.

Thomas