REALLY interesting book that could shake Christianity

Originally posted by Esoterica
Yeah. I can paint a picture where Jesus is purple and has fireballs shooting out his ass. Doesn't make it true :p

I have for years wanted to do a pic of the Easter Bunny nailed to the cross and one of Santa Clause in a manger instead of baby Jesus.

Originally posted by Dr. Know

Originally posted by Hamilton

Yes, and there's many other things in the picture aswell. There are two Jesuses here and Peter is holding a knife. John is depicted as a woman, the use of colors suggests links to the occult etc. etc. The part with John being depicted as a woman I think has to do with the idea that the Gospel of John infact is the memoirs of Miriam of Bethany aka Mary Magdalen, whom I believe may have been the wife of Jesjuah, who may indeed have carried forth princes and princesses to the house of Jesjuah who may have been able to hide from the Jewish elite and the Church during the Christian persecutions and the "herecy" persecutions.

Blessings,
Mikromarius aka Hamilton

Hamilton, I see where you going here, and I must say I think you point is a little misguided. The knife in the painting that you refer to is an "anonymous" hand, not the hand of Peter.

Your theory has been debunked a million times before. It is clearly the hand of Peter, he rests it against his hip. It is a butter knife, not a weapon, and if you look closely, Peter is infact eating, but when Jesjuah says that someone will kill him, Peter rushes up and his whole posture shows how horrified he is. It's as if he cannot believe it.

Second, I have read many white papers about the Gospel of John being written by Mary Magdalene. I beleive that to be wrong. I think I know what you reference when you say this (please correct me if I am wrong). The Gopel of John often references an "anonymous" disciple. Or this disciple is often refered to as "the disciple Jesus loved most". The way I see this interpreted is that when John wrote his Gospel, he didn't refer to himself in the third person (as John) like we would today. Instead he knew that he was Jesus most beloved disciple and those references to the "disciple that Jesus loved most" were actually references to himself and not Mary Magdalene.

I did not say that Mary wrote the book. I said I believe it is the memoirs of Mary Magdalen. The etymology of the name Mary is a little unsure. But there are two possibilities which stands forth as the most probable. Either it is a Semitic name which may mean bitter or bitterness, or it is more correct to trace the name back to ancient Egypt and the name Mry which means Beloved. The male variant of that name is Mr which means Love. If you study the etymology of the names in the Bible, you will soon figure out that there is a hidden code within the stories, written in the names of people and places. The last time we hear about the Ark of the Covenant for instance, the guy who speeks about it is named "God is Hidden". In the book of Hosea, this language gets even more obvious. You can't understand the Book of Hosea without knowing what the names mean.

You can argue the validity of this simpley because in the Gospel of John there are many references to the anonymous disciple or the "disciple that Jesus loved most", and those verses seem to point to a cover up that in fact Mary was a disciple of Jesus. But I think these references are the way that John interpreted himself in the eye's of Jesus.

Mary the disciple means the Beloved disciple etymologically. But somehow it has been very important for the church to hide Jesjuah's family life.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Hello I just Got the Book Yesterday as a Gift, and I tell u nothing suprises me.. I will read this and hope that the movie does the book justice.

If you tell the same lie long enough, people will begin to accept it as Truth. Belief is a powerful force.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Sapphire]

Fiction is fantasy. Brown based a great deal of his
Davinci Codes on the Holy Blood, Holy Grail...story of the Templers. In many ways I found Brown's Code a slick
form of plagerism, but artistically that's called being eclectic. Every artist in every genre does it.

No, Davinci Codes does not shake Christianity's foundation. Christians take the Bible as genuine. Once that hurdle is crossed, very little in the world of fiction/fantasy can shake anyone's beliefs.

Doesn't the second image from left also appear to be of a woman's?

Originally posted by surfup
Doesn't the second image from left also appear to be of a woman's?

Yea I think I see 2 women. Unless their just feminine looking men.

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
Yea I think I see 2 women. Unless their just feminine looking men.

In the restored one, the image appears to be a man, but in the real one, the image looks like a girl.

Also in the last reastored one they have the feet of jesus, but in the other two they are covered up.

Well what do you know, maybe he wasn't gay after all. Im still not buying that son of god theory though.

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by ashley]