It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Flange Gasket
"The women of the Order of Dan were lay Nazarites. Mary Magdalene, as a "Miriam", was a Head Sister of the Order (the equivalent of a senior bishop) and was entitled to wear black, like the Nazarites and the priests of Isis. With the early reverence for Mary Magdalene, a cult known as the "Black Madonna" emanated from Ferrieres, Gaul in AD 44."
From Bloodlines of the Holy Grail, Sir Laurence Gardner
Originally posted by Flange Gasket
I'm just saying that there exists a body of opinion that the Black Madonna's represent the Magdelene and the child of Jesus, who fled to the Herodian estates of Gaul during the Roman Persecution (at which time the Herodian dynasty had fallen foul of Nero and were in exile themselves).
No where in the bible does it state Jesus was ever married. I think that theory has been tossed around for a long time with no real credibility.
Yes it does matter. It matters because the Christian church did include in its reputation, their ever evolving abstaining from acts of the flesh by their clergy, based on Paul's interpretations of Jesus' doctrine, and their own insipid reasoning. It matters because if he was married, then we need to know who his wife was and what type of husband he was. It matters because if he was we need to know if he had descendants, and why they disappeared into obscurity. It matters because Paul effaced women where Jesus did not, and where it is clear that Jewish women did have a voice.
Originally posted by Janus
Would it really matter if Jesus did marry? Would it take anything away from his message? Jesus was put on Earth to suffer for our sins. He was Human and as such he would be as suseptable to love as the rest of us wouldn't he?
From the Modern perspective the year 70 is a decisive turning point in Jewish history. But did contemporaries also regard it as such a clear watershed separating the period of the Temple and the Pharisees from the period after 70, without the Temple and with the Rabbis? The introduction of the title ‘Rabbi’ (to be distinguished from ‘Rabbi’ as a form of address meaning ‘my lord, my master’) suggests such a consciousness of a new era.
. . . This is reflected in t.Eduy (Z.460): ‘He who has students who in turn have students of their own is called Rabbi. If his students are forgotten, he is called Rabban; if even the students of his students are already forgotten he is called [merely] by his name.’ The use of terminology which this text represents was not only an external change that began in the period after 70 CE, but indicates a new self-understanding.
As J. Neusner has variously emphasized (e.b. Phar 3:228, 282f.), this desire was not yet manifest in the days of Jamnia: a sense of discontinuity was then not yet in evidence. This only emerged at Usha, when it was clear that there would be no Temple and no restoration of earlier conditions in the forseeable future: ‘the real break in the history of the Pharisaic-rabbinic movment comes not at 70, with the distruction of the Temple, but with the reconstitution of the rabbinic movement and the patriarchal government in the north. (Phar 3:283.)
Only [then] was there an awareness that the break of 70 was irreparable.
Before I provide testimony of the earliest known church father to us that either proves you wrong or the building blocks of Christianity nonsensical, in that not only that what you read in the NT is a farce, but what you read is represented by your own reference as having been written by those of a much later era who were ignorant of the rules, I will make a bargain with you. You provide to me the proof that the wise men were in total three, and that Jesus said he himself was God thereby proving the trinity, and I will concede he was not married. Deal?
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
One of the arguments advanced in this thread is that Jesus MUST have been married because he was a rabbi. I pointed out that in Jesus' lifetime, "rabbi" was a term of respect, and not the religious office of modern Judaism.
I have requested proof of this before several times and have yet to see even an attempt at declaring marriage requirements materialize before my eyes, statements of belief are not proof. By this logic of interpreting the NT, Peter was not married either.
Since the rules for rabbinical conduct were not laid down until a generation after his lifetime,
As above then, the term was applied some time after 70ACE. Where if the simple address as pertains to the truth of the story is incorrect, there is no reason to believe the rest. Given your excuse, Mary could have said: My spouse! My spouse! since obviously rabbini is represented as a lie.
Modern Jewish scholarship agrees that the office of the rabbinate did not exist in Jesus' lifetime. So his being addressed as "Rabbi/Rabboni" doesn't provide evidence (either positively or negatively) concerning his marital status.
I have read of the connection between Mary and France, which I must say only gained global awareness because of Dan Brown's tale. We have to remember that it takes very little to start and perpetuate a myth, one need only look at how everyone is now accepting stargates as fact, and this from a concept in a movie. However, the black Madonna from what I have learned is not in fact black, but I am not 100% convinced either. Way back in the Byzantine era when the eastern orthodox church introduced iconography, the faces and hands of the paintings were covered with various layers of a varnish which over the ages darkens and gives the appearance of a black skin tone, the problem lies with the rest of the colouration and their considerable lacking in shades of dark. In my familuy there is a very old Polish rendering of a black Madonna fashioned after Our lady of Czestochowa, (in Poland's famed cathedral, the painting supposedly attributed to Luke) which led me on this search. It too is covered with layers upon layers of varnish and so I we cannot determine the true colour, but it is blacker than I would expect which leads me doubt about the severity of the colour distortion by varnish.
Originally posted by Flange Gasket
There's two thousand years of tradition in Provence in France of the settlement of Mary Magdelene, Mary Salome and others from the Holy Land in France, where Mary Magdelenes sarcophogus lies buried in a tomb dedicated to her. The people of Provence beleive the Black Madonna's to be representations of the Magdelene and child.
I believe as many others do that this concept was added later by the Pauline church.
they are talking of the Son of God, equivalent with God,
which I must say only gained global awareness because of Dan Brown's tale. We have to remember that it takes very little to start and perpetuate a myth,
i must disagree this information has been around and available for many years.[./quote]And so we agree to disagree. One thing I know for sure is that when someone authors a conspiracy, it takes root. Most believe without having done their own research.
Originally posted by stalkingwolf
Of this I do not disagree, especially since PJII reinstituted faith on Mary the mother of Jesus. This however has nothing to do with a black Madonna.
also there can be found traces of Magdalene followers from the beginnings of church history. it has only become more appearant in recent times with the expansion of the internet and the web. I myself have been reading and following the course of it for close to 25 years, when i still swore i wouldnt have one of these damn things in my house.
If we can (and we should), we can begin to understand why there is a lack of evidence from this period, because it was destroyed, but that does not mean that people did not exist or events did not transpire.