The Magdalene Mystery.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Logarock

 

The Sophia philosophy (the origin of the name philo=lover, sophos=wisdom 'lover of wisdom') was around long before the Adam and Eve story, the Mary Magdalene story is a retelling of even more ancient stories.

Which is why the whole thing is compromised as something to take as truth, as the gnostics have it. Its a retelling, an overlaying of the ancient sacred feminine on the early church. The elevation of female persons of import in the early church to the status of teachers and leaders after the order of the mysteries of the sacred feminine not after the truth.

Yes, yes, philo/sophos-lover of wisdom, the original sin, the knowlege of good and evil, the challenge of Adams authority, giving head to fallen angels. We find it here in these fictions about a rift between mary and peter and along classic grounds and of the woman driving a wedge between man and his creator and in peters case the diminishing of his appointed standing with christ and the church. Not seeking equality at all but supremacy as of old, the woman seduced by the serpent with the promise of god status.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Logarock

But they had life. The world as we know it is an abortion of the original condition. But nice try at sugarcoating the thing.

The Garden is a mystical place not a geographical place. Like Saturn's gut. Like a Buddhist Pure Realm or "Buddha field". They did not have life. They had a super-dream realm in the collective unconscious.

But nice try at literalizing the thing.

edit on 8-4-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

We dont have to literalize it here. Lets just call it a point in time then. The point of seeking to be gods.

I can't agree to calling mystical places like the Garden a point in time. Ever heard of 'missing time'? Nor can I agree that Adam and Eve were seeking to be gods.

Hmm. God put Adam into a supernatural sleep and took a rib. Did God ever get around to waking Adam up? It doesn't say, does it...

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Logarock

But they had life. The world as we know it is an abortion of the original condition. But nice try at sugarcoating the thing.

The Garden is a mystical place not a geographical place. Like Saturn's gut. Like a Buddhist Pure Realm or "Buddha field". They did not have life. They had a super-dream realm in the collective unconscious.

But nice try at literalizing the thing.

edit on 8-4-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

We dont have to literalize it here. Lets just call it a point in time then. The point of seeking to be gods.

I can't agree to calling mystical places like the Garden a point in time. Ever heard of 'missing time'? Nor can I agree that Adam and Eve were seeking to be gods.

Hmm. God put Adam into a supernatural sleep and took a rib. Did God ever get around to waking Adam up? It doesn't say, does it...

edit on 8-4-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

Yea, it does say he was awake later.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Logarock

But they had life. The world as we know it is an abortion of the original condition. But nice try at sugarcoating the thing.

The Garden is a mystical place not a geographical place. Like Saturn's gut. Like a Buddhist Pure Realm or "Buddha field". They did not have life. They had a super-dream realm in the collective unconscious.

But nice try at literalizing the thing.

edit on 8-4-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

We dont have to literalize it here. Lets just call it a point in time then. The point of seeking to be gods.

I can't agree to calling mystical places like the Garden a point in time. Ever heard of 'missing time'? Nor can I agree that Adam and Eve were seeking to be gods.

Hmm. God put Adam into a supernatural sleep and took a rib. Did God ever get around to waking Adam up? It doesn't say, does it...

edit on 8-4-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

Yea, it does say he was awake later.

Not explicitly.

reply to post by BlueMule


Yea, it does.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Yea, it does.

It implies it, but that's not what I said. I'm interested in explicit statements. Can you provide one?

reply to post by BlueMule


Look it up yourself if you like. First few pages.

If you are suggesting that Adam never quite came out of it after seeing Eve for the first time, yea thats funny as well.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Look it up yourself if you like. First few pages.

If you are suggesting that Adam never quite came out of it after seeing Eve for the first time, yea thats funny as well.

I did look it up. As I said it's implied not explicitly stated.

Look at all this trouble you are having discerning the difference between implicit and explicit statements. And that's just the first few pages.

Now that's funny.

reply to post by Logarock


You are failing to understand the context of Sophia=Wisdom and of the orthodox church in the relegation of women, to the detriment of societies and the world in general.

If you cannot see things past Adam and Eve, if that is your starting point and everything orthodox Christian scripture as written by Patrician churches (that chose which texts suits their needs best and excluded those that don't fit their agenda) the basis of your viewpoint, then there isn't much point trying to talk to you about the bigger picture. One cannot see the whole picture looking through a keyhole.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


It is interesting how the whole aspect of Sophia was eradicated by the Western branch of the Orthodox Church. One of the earliest churches still standing, the Hagia Sophia, only bears that name because it has been reclaimed and the forces that worked during the time that Hagia Sophia was transformed to a mosque are nolonger potent, except in the hearts and minds of the fundamentalist Christians who seemingly refuse to acknowledge that women were ever a part of nascent Christianity.

I work in a restored 12th century church, it was prior to the Dissolution, an Alien Benedictine Monastery, only the nave remains intact. Prior to that, it was a great Basilica dedicated, by Alcuin, as the Alma Sophia. At some point, soon after, with the spread of the Latin Church, it was renamed in Christ's name. All things feminine were eradicated, baring the Virgin herself, leaving the 'real' women, with a role model impossible, for most, to emulate. Combine with this, the spread of Neo-Platonism, that held women as responsible for sin, and for the fall of man, and women were to accept their secondary status, their inherent evil, or be damned both on this plain, and any that may lie hereafter. No wonder that age heralded the greatest atrocities against women and children ever known, a path that we are all still walking. We, humanity, are ashamed of half of ourselves.

I like this from the Gospel of Thomas...

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."

gnosis.org...

To become fully human, we must not only recognise our dual aspects, but integrate them, not allowing one aspect to cloud our overall perception. That is what it means to be 'whole'.

I don't consider Mary Magdalene to be a personification of the divine feminine or symbolic of such, I prefer to consider her as a woman, plain and simple. When one considers the earliest days of Christianity, in the first century CE, in that context, it is without question that Jesus would not have turned away a female pupil, and had she excelled, nor would he have afforded her a lesser place than her male counterparts, she would, in his eyes at least, been an Apostle. And she would have taught. Paul had female students, why not Jesus? Why must we relegate, or indeed, escalate, that position? The close bond that Jesus shared with his Mother, her constancy, the symbolic seperation represented at the Wedding Cana that made way for Mary, and for me, the emphathy that Jesus clearly had for women as demonstrated by the way he guided Jarius's daughter through menarche into womanhood, and the woman in the market into menopause, is indicative of a man who realised the need to raise up women, and more significantly, it showed that he had learned skills from women himself.

The first Christians were egalitarian, that is what made them so very political, it was only when Christianity changed from a force of change, to the established mode of worship, complete with the adoption of the rituals of the elites, that it became a force reflective of the status quo, and women were relegated back to the role of second class citizens, and returned to the delineation of being angels or whores.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

I like this from the Gospel of Thomas...

Jesus said to them, "...and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female...then will you enter the kingdom."

A lie told about Jesus by a homosexual who desires to live in a same-sex society.

The opposite is true: Those who are not in their own bodies will not Ascend to the next level. That rules out all homosexuals.

reply to post by Kantzveldt

I'm not any sort of Neo-Gnostic, but in answer to your question as to how this benefits the masses, i suppose you'd have to consider societies were for historic/religious reasons women have been suppresed and without representation in the Divine scheme of things

You appear to be contradicting your self then because most of your threads are about regressing to some past golden era based on arcane ancient knowledge. I am not sure what you hope to achieve however as for the thule and vril societies which you seem to be a fan of, there was another guy whom was dictatorial & authoritarian, and male & gassed 6 million, 70 years ago whom was a great fan as well. No real prizes for guessing who.
I am also certain he was not one for equality of the sexes, so please you re all over the place with your views you re either progressive or you re not which one is it?

Post modern women tend to be their own worst enemies. They are on a very long leash nothing more.
Ultimately controlled by men with money power whom tell them when to jump and how high.
Their feelings of liberation seem to be pretty over rated and soon disappear in civil services e.g. army or police,law or politics where men in uniform still call the shots equality and affirmative action or not.

btw women like julia gillard or thatcher were chosen ones most likely initiates of frats (gillard oto)or similar placed carefully by illuminati. most women should not get too excited about breaking the glass ceiling.

reply to post by Theprimordialocker




Yes i'm very interested in Thule and Vril Damen as a phenomena whereby archetypes of Inanna/Ishtar/Isais are translated into new loci, or previous cultic associations indigenous to the region are revitalized, as was the case with the Celtic/Germanic Goddess Isa, the reason for this you will find in this paper...

In sum, in the complex and fluid Mesopotamian divine world, the major gods generally consist of aconstellation of aspects that may be treated as (semi-) independent or as part of a larger organic unity,as the context dictates. Each element in the constellation adds to the range of the deity, whose core isanthropomorphically presented, enabling him or her to have a far greater reach and to be active in far more arenas.

A deity may always expand his range by taking on new attributes, including new cultic images, sometimes through divine overlap or by co-opting another deity’s attributes. Likewise, adeity’s range may contract, e.g., when another deity adopts his power(s). In short, a deity’s rangedepends on the quantity, quality and exclusivity of his associated aspects.

Here a Goddess, there a Goddess...


These interests are progressive in every sense of the word. As you pointed out this hasn't exactly gone well, but that would concern ulterior motives and intent, and subsequent undesired effects that were unseen, i just note the dabbling.

Originally posted by Theprimordialocker
Post modern women tend to be their own worst enemies. They are on a very long leash nothing more.
Ultimately controlled by men with money power whom tell them when to jump and how high.

I don't really know what a 'post-modern woman' is, but returning to the context of the thread, the question remains, for me, and others, is why wouldn't Mary Magdelene be an Apostle, and if she was, could she have gone on her travels, as the other Apostles did, to spread the word? Now in the 'modern' world, certainly in the UK, we have established laws and acts that enable women to find autonomy, and to support themselves financially. No man with 'money power' can remove that right without popular support, which would include the support of the women themselves. In the Roman world, of which Mary was a part of, the clearest means for a woman to be able to achieve autonomy, or more appropriately personal freedom, was to adopt the dress of a widow, thereby publically relinquishing her sexuality. This enabled a woman to work, preach and teach, and to be financially independent, as well as physically, of males. Similarly, it allowed women to pursue an education in the first place and moreover, was socially accepted as a mode of life, but only for those women who were born free and could avoid marriage in the first place. Modern woman, and the role of the liberation movement, merely freed women from the latter two constraints, and as significantly, it was no longer a requirement of women to give up their sexuality, or the right to bear children, thus making them, in that respect, equal to men.

So in terms of women being on a short leash to men of power, perhaps, but for that argument to be true it must also be fully realised that that leash also applies to men who had similarly had to fight for the rights of equality and freedom at birth over the course of the previous few centuries to overcome the slavery of indenture and serfdom. Like it or not, men and women are in this together.

How about secret gospel of Mark that says Jesus had relation with certain young man whom he resurrected?
en.wikipedia.org...

Fragments The letter includes two excerpts from the Secret Gospel. The first is to be inserted, Clement states, between what are verses 34 and 35 of Mark 10:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.[10]

The second excerpt is very brief and is to be inserted, according to Clement, in Mark 10:46: And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them.[10]

Clement's commentary While Clement endorses these two passages as authentic to the Secret Gospel of Mark, he rejects, as a Carpocratian corruption, the words "naked man with naked man".[10]

Very shortly after the second excerpt - as Clement begins to explain the passages - the letter breaks off. However, just before that, Clement says, "But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications."[10]

These two excerpts comprise the entirety of the Secret Gospel material. No separate text of the secret gospel is known to survive.

I think it is very important to determine whether Jesus was married (with children), whether he was homosexual, or bi-sexual. Because that would determine the policy making of the major churches today.
We know nothing of the early life of Jesus before 30. It is a shame any new evidence that comes to light are almost immediately branded "forgery". How about the canonical gospels then: aren't exactly they the "forgery" made centuries later to substitute the truth, generations after Jesus, in environment of illiteracy and persecution? Today we have all that thanks to internet and worldwide spread of information. And it is still not counted by the leading churches. Why?

Here is a photo copy of the above letter of secret gospel of Mark in Greek:

The letter of Clement of Alexandria to Theodore
Transcription of the Greek text
by Morton Smith
(Internet version by Jack Kilmon and Wieland Willker)

www-user.uni-bremen.de...
www-user.uni-bremen.de...

reply to post by Daverock70s

I was intrigued by the letter you mentioned and did a little looking. There seems to be arguments made for and against it being a forgery. That could be an interesting discussion. But I think we'll need someone else as a guide. Once a person says:

How about the canonical gospels then: aren't exactly they the "forgery" made centuries later to substitute the truth, generations after Jesus, in environment of illiteracy and persecution?

anything else they may say on the subject is extremely suspect. But in answer to your question (which seems rhetorical), No they weren't written centuries, or generations, after Jesus.

Originally posted by Daverock70s
I think it is very important to determine whether Jesus was married (with children), whether he was homosexual, or bi-sexual. Because that would determine the policy making of the major churches today.

There is no way that Jesus who came to fullfill the law could or did break the law. These questions that have come up about such things are born out of corrupt minds and hearts. It simply cannot be grasped by some, many today, that Jesus could have been of pure enough heart to have relationships with people that didnt envolve sex of some nature.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Daverock70s

 

I was intrigued by the letter you mentioned and did a little looking. There seems to be arguments made for and against it being a forgery. That could be an interesting discussion. But I think we'll need someone else as a guide.

It is almost universally held by scholars that Secret Gospel of Mark is a forgery, the real question is whether Morton Smith was the forger. EightBits and I had a discussion on it in a recent thread -- I am of the belief that Smith was the culprit, EB was less sure.