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

Re: Jesus, Mary, & Da Vinci.....

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Nov 6, 2003
      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 2 of 11 , Nov 6, 2003
        --- 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 3 of 11 , Nov 12, 2003
          <<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.