Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Gnosticism2] Jesus, Mary, & Da Vinci.....

Expand Messages
  • Ginosko
    MM David Something else about Da vincii you might find interesting is that there arer those who now claim him to be the creator of the Turin shroud thru use of
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      MM David

      Something else about Da'vincii you might find interesting is that there arer
      those who now claim him to be the creator of the Turin shroud thru use of
      his own "camera obscura". They have replicated the process sucessfully to my
      understanding. The very chemicals required were known to Arabic scientists
      going back to the 10th cent (silver nitrate being the chief one) to which he
      himself had access to their docs.

      MP
      Penn

      --
      "Toleration isn't much. But it is the first step towards curiosity,
      interest, study, understanding, appreciating and finally valuing diversity.
      If we can get everyone on the first step of tolerance, at least we won't be
      killing each other."

      Anon


      > Hi all. I'm new here and excited about being a new member of this
      > group. My main interests lie in the Gnostic Gospels, many seem to
      > dismiss them at apparent fact (mainly Catholics, i.e., the Vatican).
      > I'm Catholic myself actually, and find them (the gospels) very
      > enlightening and educational. I currently have the Gosepl of Thomas
      > and looking to get the Gospel of Mary Magdalene this week, along
      > with the Da Vinci Code. My question is, what are everyone's thoughts
      > on the tv special that was on last night, entitled "Jesus, Mary, &
      > Da Vinci"? It was on Primetime, the ABC channel at 8pm. I didn't
      > know very much about the Da Vinci Code, but I knew it was a book and
      > recently published. I enjoyed watching the program, practically made
      > my night. To anyone who watched it, do you know if or where I can
      > get a copy of that special, whether it be on VHS at the ABC website
      > or somewhere else? I look forward to talking with you all over time.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • David
      Incog, as much as I enjoyed the ABC special, it did seem to only cover the subject of Mary s being or not being a prostitute, so you re indeed right. That one
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Incog, as much as I enjoyed the ABC special, it did seem to only
        cover the subject of Mary's being or not being a prostitute, so
        you're indeed right. That one issue out-weighed the others of her
        possibly being the one to the right of Christ in "The Last Supper";
        being married to Christ, or not; as well as the Prieure de Sion and
        the possible descendents of Christ and Mary Magdalene. I found it to
        be very informing despite it only covering one particular issue.
        After having thought about everything that was covered and reading a
        few things on the Da Vinci Code and some of the historical subjects
        included with the Da Vinci Code at ABC.com, I'd have to say that the
        issue of Christ and Mary Magdalene is quite probable. I mean, none of
        us were there in his time
        and there are a few errors in the bible as it stands, i.e., the
        conflicting genealogies of Christ in the NT and things coulda been
        kept out of the Gospels, like Christ's personal life, because all we
        read about is his ministry and having twelve disciple, I'd figure at
        least one of them would know his personal life. Anyway, all I'm sayin
        is that the fact he was or wasn't married coulda been included, so
        we'd know more about him, but that kind of thing wasn't written. And
        the person who is supposed to be John in "The Last Supper" does look
        mighty feminine, and Jesus and Mary were rather close, as is
        believed, so it coulda been her. I also have to say that the painting
        is just a painting, not a snap-shot, the figures were painted in a
        way that showed Da Vinci's skill in painting people. People talk like
        it was a picture taken at the time of the Last Supper, like that's
        what they looked like and basing opinions about who is who and
        possibly why everyone close to Jesus wasn't there with him at the
        Last Supper and included in the story of the Last Supper in the NT.
        Not to discredit Da Vinci with his painting, just giving people
        something to think about regarding the painting. Think that's all I
        have to say at the moment. :-)

        David
      • Wayne
        ... wrote: a historical analysis but no one seemed to get the point that her ... be ... innocence ... whore ... as ... a ... husband ... of
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, incognito_lightbringer
          <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          a historical analysis but no one seemed to get the point that her
          > portrayal in gnosticism and early Christianity as a "whore" was
          > metaphorical. Examples: Thunder Perfect Mind "I am the honored one
          > and the scorned one. I am the whore and the holy one." or Gospel of
          > Thomas "Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will
          be
          > called the child of a whore"" or The Second Treatise of the Great
          > Seth "For those who were in the world had been prepared by the will
          > of our sister Sophia - she who is a whore - because of the
          innocence
          > which has not been uttered." In some cases the feminine and the
          whore
          > is also a metaphor for the soul: The Exegesis on the Soul "As long
          as
          > she was alone with the father, she was virgin and in form
          > androgynous. But when she fell down into a body and came to this
          > life, then she fell into the hands of many robbers. And the wanton
          > creatures passed her from one to another and [...defiled] her.Some
          > made use of her by force, while others did so by seducing her with
          a
          > gift. In short, they defiled her, and she [...lost] her virginity.
          > And in her body she prostituted herself and gave herself to one and
          > all, considering each one she was about to embrace to be her
          husband"
          >
          > Mary Magdelene is a symbol for the fallen Sophia. She's the one the
          > descending Christ comes to save.
          > Instead, it was assumed the motivation was to belittle her because
          of
          > the misogyny of a patriarchal system. Which I'm not saying wasn't a
          > motivation, but there's another side to this. The ABC special
          > interviewed several religious experts including Pagels and no one
          > brought up the alternative explanation.



          The only True explanation.
        • incognito_lightbringer
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 12, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            <<I'd have to say that the
            issue of Christ and Mary Magdalene is quite probable. >>

            David, who cares?
            The problem I have with this is that gnosticism is about freeing the
            spirit from the material, and here are a bunch of bozos concerned in
            what direction the sperm went.
            For what reasons? Power? Prestige? Are they hoping they can control a
            second coming?
            It's ridiculous.

            <<the conflicting genealogies of Christ in the NT>>
            'Cause the people writing it got their facts mixed up.
            Or else they wrote it to "prove" he was the foretold Jewish messiah.
            People nowadays have problems tracing their family history even a few
            generations back.

            <<Anyway, all I'm sayin
            is that the fact he was or wasn't married coulda been included, so
            we'd know more about him,>>

            I have this wacky theory that he didn't go through a wedding
            ceremony, simply because Mary, as a symbol of the fallen Sophia, is
            *already* his wife. But that's just me ;)

            <<And
            the person who is supposed to be John in "The Last Supper" does look
            mighty feminine>>

            Not only that, but the Mona Lisa is claimed to be, by some, Leonardo
            himself in drag. As a symbol of his divine feminine half. They've
            done computer models to try and back this theory up. Leonardo, on his
            death bed, had two paintings by him. One of John the Baptist, hint
            hint, and the other was the Mona Lisa. Of course, John the Baptist is
            painted looking remarkably like a lecherous Dionysus, so who knows
            how Leonardo interpreted gnosticism?
            Leonardo also painted Jesus standing over a table with three pieces
            of bread on it, no wine. Some claim it looks remarkably like a shell
            game (you know, that street hustle dating back to ancient Egypt?). A
            commentary on orthodox interpretation of that day perhaps?

            <<I also have to say that the painting
            is just a painting, not a snap-shot, >>

            Well, I like my personal copy of the icon of the Black Madonna
            currently hanging in Czestochowa Poland. If there's a second coming,
            or a time machine, I'm hoping he'll turn out to be a black dude just
            to shock all the bigots. :)


            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "David" <christianofzion@y...>
            wrote:
            > Incog, as much as I enjoyed the ABC special, it did seem to only
            > cover the subject of Mary's being or not being a prostitute, so
            > you're indeed right. That one issue out-weighed the others of her
            > possibly being the one to the right of Christ in "The Last Supper";
            > being married to Christ, or not; as well as the Prieure de Sion and
            > the possible descendents of Christ and Mary Magdalene. I found it
            to
            > be very informing despite it only covering one particular issue.
            > After having thought about everything that was covered and reading
            a
            > few things on the Da Vinci Code and some of the historical subjects
            > included with the Da Vinci Code at ABC.com, I'd have to say that
            the
            > issue of Christ and Mary Magdalene is quite probable. I mean, none
            of
            > us were there in his time
            > and there are a few errors in the bible as it stands, i.e., the
            > conflicting genealogies of Christ in the NT and things coulda been
            > kept out of the Gospels, like Christ's personal life, because all
            we
            > read about is his ministry and having twelve disciple, I'd figure
            at
            > least one of them would know his personal life. Anyway, all I'm
            sayin
            > is that the fact he was or wasn't married coulda been included, so
            > we'd know more about him, but that kind of thing wasn't written.
            And
            > the person who is supposed to be John in "The Last Supper" does
            look
            > mighty feminine, and Jesus and Mary were rather close, as is
            > believed, so it coulda been her. I also have to say that the
            painting
            > is just a painting, not a snap-shot, the figures were painted in a
            > way that showed Da Vinci's skill in painting people. People talk
            like
            > it was a picture taken at the time of the Last Supper, like that's
            > what they looked like and basing opinions about who is who and
            > possibly why everyone close to Jesus wasn't there with him at the
            > Last Supper and included in the story of the Last Supper in the NT.
            > Not to discredit Da Vinci with his painting, just giving people
            > something to think about regarding the painting. Think that's all I
            > have to say at the moment. :-)
            >
            > David
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.