It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Mary Magdalene Conspiracy

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Have you ever wondered why certain books of the bible were left out? It’s not because they had no context, it’s because the information they held would challenge the thinking of the early church. My discussion is on Mary Magdalene.

Why was there no focus on this disciple of Jesus? Yes I said it disciple. Contrary to popular belief she was not a prostitute but one of Jesus closes companions. He shared special teaching with her that he did she with the other apostles. The early church saw this but showing Mary Magdalene as a smart independent woman would not go well with the male power base. If you ask me this is a slap in the face to Jesus. He saw something is this woman, something special. But instead of including what Jesus said to her in the Bible. They paint her as a prostitute.

She was first mentioned in the book of Paul. He described who she was then soon after there a was a passage about a prostitute cleaning the feet of Jesus. The early church decided that it would be convenient for them to defame her in a way. If you ask me having only men in the Vatican is a problem waiting to happen. How do you except to get a full view of religion when you exclude woman? They just bring a different perspective to the table. Jesus was a smart man and saw this. I mean think about it look at the knowledge that he dropped on this woman. Would he do this if he thought that woman were incapable to grasp spirituality.



Peter said to Mary, "Sister, we know that the Saviour loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Saviour which you remember - which you know (but) we do not, nor have we heard them." Mary answered and said, "What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you." And she began to speak to them these words: "I," she said, "I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, 'Lord, I saw you today in a vision.' He answered and said to me, 'Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure.' I said to him, 'Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it through the soul or through the spirit?' The Saviour answered and said, 'He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind which [is] between the two - that is [what] sees the vision...'

(the mid-section of the original text is missing)

"[S] it. And desire that, 'I did not see you descending, but now I see you ascending. Why do you lie, since you belong to me?' The soul answered and said, 'I saw you. You did not see me nor recognise me. I served you as a garment, and you did not know me.' When it had said this, it went away rejoicing greatly.

"Again it came to the third power, which is called ignorance. It (the power) questioned the soul saying, 'Where are you going? In wickedness are you bound. But you are bound; do not judge!' And the soul said, 'Why do you judge me although I have not judged? I was bound though I have not bound. I was not recognised. But I have recognised that the All is being dissolved, both the earthly (things) and the heavenly'.

When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, (which) took seven forms. The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the
fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven [powers] of wrath. They ask the soul, "Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?" The soul answered and said, "What binds me has been slain, and what surrounds me has been overcome, and my desire has been ended and ignorance has died. In a [world] I was released from a world, [and] in a type from a heavenly type, and (from) the fetter of oblivion which is transient. From this time on will I attain to the rest of the time, of the season, of the aeon, in silence."


Look I’m not asking anyone to denounce their religion. I just want people to stop taking what these people say as the absolute truth. You are giving them to much power. Please just open your eyes and recognize. Peace all

Da Truth will set you free



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:19 PM
link   
She was a prostitute, though not after she was with Jesus. At that time, she became the first "groupie" in history. Prostitutes do it for money....she did it for fun.

I'll bet he shared some "special" teachings with her....akin to how David Koresh shared "special" teachings with his 12 year old wives....
Not to compare Jesus with this con-man, as at least Jesus likely believed his own press....and supporters.

The early church only sought to distance the relationship between Jesus and Mary, as surely, the son of god wouldn't have a harlot out of wedlock! But, he did. Jesus was a free spirit, and a great man (though not the son of God), kind of the first hippie really....and such a connection wouldn't fly with the flock....



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I saw that program on TV as well I think it was on the history channel! It was called Banned from the Bible..



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
She was a prostitute, though not after she was with Jesus. At that time, she became the first "groupie" in history. Prostitutes do it for money....she did it for fun.

I'll bet he shared some "special" teachings with her....akin to how David Koresh shared "special" teachings with his 12 year old wives....
Not to compare Jesus with this con-man, as at least Jesus likely believed his own press....and supporters.

The early church only sought to distance the relationship between Jesus and Mary, as surely, the son of god wouldn't have a harlot out of wedlock! But, he did. Jesus was a free spirit, and a great man (though not the son of God), kind of the first hippie really....and such a connection wouldn't fly with the flock....


So let me get this straight....

/disclaimer- This is not a disagreement, just never heard of this before.

Jesus had intimate contact with Mary Magdelene? If so how do you know this? Do you have any links that I may read?



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:34 PM
link   
It's common sense....

A woman doesn't typically leave her rich benefactor just because of a "spiritual awakening"....
She left because she fell for him. C'mon, don't tell me you seriously think she was going along with him for enlightenment, do you?

If you really must know sources, I can dig some up, mostly talking about the fallacy of the death by cross, and resurrection, and the smuggling away by Joseph of Arimethia, and eventually settling in Riennes, France with Mary, and having children.


my own disclaimer: this is my conclusion based on research, common sense, and historical tellings, as well as the inconsistencies surrounding this in the Bible, including those books excluded from the bible...



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
She was a prostitute, though not after she was with Jesus. At that time, she became the first "groupie" in history. Prostitutes do it for money....she did it for fun.

I'll bet he shared some "special" teachings with her....akin to how David Koresh shared "special" teachings with his 12 year old wives....
Not to compare Jesus with this con-man, as at least Jesus likely believed his own press....and supporters.

The early church only sought to distance the relationship between Jesus and Mary, as surely, the son of god wouldn't have a harlot out of wedlock! But, he did. Jesus was a free spirit, and a great man (though not the son of God), kind of the first hippie really....and such a connection wouldn't fly with the flock....


Ok I’m going to ask you a simple question. How do you know she was a prostitute? And please give some proof to your claim saying it’s in the bible is a cop out. She was not a groupie. The church made here seem that way. But again I ask how do You know?



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystispice
I saw that program on TV as well I think it was on the history channel! It was called Banned from the Bible..


Yep your right I saw it last night and became really mad. Do you see how they decieve us then give us tid bit's of information



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
It's common sense....

A woman doesn't typically leave her rich benefactor just because of a "spiritual awakening"....
She left because she fell for him. C'mon, don't tell me you seriously think she was going along with him for enlightenment, do you?


Is that really hard to believe? We are all on a spiritual quest in this life and at one point one has to realize that the material is not as important as the spiritual. But please sick to the topic. We are probably in a agreement with a lot about the Christ. But on this one I think you dead wrong Gazrok



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:51 PM
link   
How do any of us KNOW? It was two thousand years ago.... I'm claiming.
Since the bible (and those writings left out of it) are the only record we have to go on, we must either assume they are basically correct, or throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak....


From these writings, she is portrayed as a woman of wealth, who was simply bored, and was prostituting for fun, not desparation. She certainly wouldn't be the only one so doing at the time, so there is little reason to deny it. However, the point really is, after meeting Jesus, she did this no more.

If you look at those writings that aren't included, they speak of a closer relationship (though not coming directly out and saying it was a sexual one....that's where common sense comes into play)....



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Thank You for the prompt responce.

I have been doing some investigating on my own and came up with this article from the Washington Times that states that Mary was not even a prostitute (something that I definitely did not know)

www.washtimes.com...

I don't know the answer to this question but as of right now I lean to the idea that Jesus did not have intimate contact with Mary M. I will however be researching the issue more.



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Thank You for the prompt responce.

I have been doing some investigating on my own and came up with this article from the Washington Times that states that Mary was not even a prostitute (something that I definitely did not know)

www.washtimes.com...

I don't know the answer to this question but as of right now I lean to the idea that Jesus did not have intimate contact with Mary M. I will however be researching the issue more.


Like I said the idea of her being a prostitute was kind of hinted at then accepted as truth. If she had a intimate relationship with the christ what is wrong with that? After all he was human.



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Never said anything was wrong with it.... Indeed, I'd say it was the logical conclusion....
Great article by the way....I'll have to investigate the other writings, to double check, (the reference to her husband at the time, etc.)

Problem is, the bible is the one which tries to maintain the purity of the relationship. A purity which directly flies in the face of logic...that is my angle, not to question whether her relationship with Jesus was right or wrong....



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Never said anything was wrong with it.... Indeed, I'd say it was the logical conclusion....
Great article by the way....I'll have to investigate the other writings, to double check, (the reference to her husband at the time, etc.)

Problem is, the bible is the one which tries to maintain the purity of the relationship. A purity which directly flies in the face of logic...that is my angle, not to question whether her relationship with Jesus was right or wrong....


Ok we can agree on that



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 08:17 PM
link   
There is no evidence whatsoever that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
The Bible only states that she was a woman with sin and it was only later that this was twisted to make it seem that she was a prostitute.
If anything this was only an example of how frightened early Christians were of women in politics and gave a good excuse to marginalise them and place them in a second class position.
It is thought that the disciple Paul (the main founder of the Church after Jesus' death) wasa the instigator of the rumours surrounding Mary. He was known to dislike her and it seems to be a rumour that he started to maintain his postion as "lead disciple". The early Church was male orientated because society back then was dominated by man. For a woman to be in a position of strength would have undermined a fledgling religion.


The Nag Hamedi texts point to a totally different scenario. In one excerpt, Jesus is told by Mary that Paul hates women and in another Paul confronts Jesus as to why he loves Mary and kisses her on the mouth. This leads to the conclusion that Mary was much more than a mere prostitute but was actually romantically involved with Jesus in some way.
The Bible points to her as being a woman who had money and she would also seem to be a woman who had power. Some scholars believed her to be the sister of Joseph of Arimathea ( one of Jesus' rich benefactors) but whatever, she is the ONLY woman in the Bible who has a surname. Every other woman belongs to a man and is stated as being "daughter of", "wife of" or "sister of".
Some have even speculated that Mary Magdelene was the wife of Jesus.

But whichever way you look at it, Mary was a majorly important figure - she even has her own gospel although the Church found fit to leave it out of the New Testament. She seems to me to be one of the Biblical figures whom the Church wanted to sweep under the carpet for their own political means.



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 08:35 PM
link   
If you can't trust the Catholic Church, who can you trust?

Link 1:

www.newadvent.org...

gives the definition of Magdala, the location

www.newadvent.org...

describes a group of nuns called the Magdalens

and lastly

www.newadvent.org...

talks about Mary Magdalen (Saint)... which, according to Mark 16:9, had 7 devils cast out of her by Jesus.

In my own understanding, Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus risen (according to the Gospel of John)... the Apostles did not see him until evening. Why show himself to her first? Out of love, the husband/wife kind.



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 09:41 PM
link   
If you want to have a good read on this idea, pick up "The DaVinci Code" by Dan Brown. It's a best seller and goes deep into this topic.



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth
Have you ever wondered why certain books of the bible were left out?


You must have watched that special on the History Channel too eh?



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 11:00 PM
link   
the info about Jesus being intimate with Mary can be found in the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which is based on a secret church document found in France which tells all about it. The author elaborates on it of course but who knows? It's been proven numerous times and in tons of books that jesus is just continuation of sun god worship. Look at Bible Myths, the Christ Conspiracy, Jesus: Last of the Pharoahs, and truthbeknown.com.



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Fella's ....Mr Brown basically stole all his material from the Book mentioned above "Holy Blood Holy Grail"..Not to mention his history and facts of the Church are just plain wrong. I wont get into detail on that but I will let you know what I think of the book. I am sorry if I lose any of you but by reading the above posts I think some of you really need to do your own research instead of rely on authors like Mr Brown.

His willful distortions of documented history are more than matched by his outlandish claims about controversial subjects. But to a postmodernist, one construct of reality is as good as any other.

Brown’s approach seems to consist of grabbing large chunks of his stated sources and tossing them together in a salad of a story. From Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Brown lifts the concept of the Grail as a metaphor for a sacred lineage by arbitrarily breaking a medieval French term, Sangraal (Holy Grail), into sang (blood) and raal (royal). This holy blood, according to Brown, descended from Jesus and his wife, Mary Magdalene, to the Merovingian dynasty in Dark Ages France, surviving its fall to persist in several modern French families, including that of Pierre Plantard, a leader of the mysterious Priory of Sion. The Priory—an actual organization officially registered with the French government in 1956—makes extraordinary claims of antiquity as the “real” power behind the Knights Templar. It most likely originated after World War II and was first brought to public notice in 1962. With the exception of filmmaker Jean Cocteau, its illustrious list of Grand Masters—which include Leonardo da Vinci, Issac Newton, and Victor Hugo—is not credible, although it’s presented as true by Brown.

Brown doesn’t accept a political motivation for the Priory’s activities. Instead he picks up The Templar Revelation’s view of the organization as a cult of secret goddess-worshippers who have preserved ancient Gnostic wisdom and records of Christ’s true mission, which would completely overturn Christianity if released. Significantly, Brown omits the rest of the book’s thesis that makes Christ and Mary Magdalene unmarried sex partners performing the erotic mysteries of Isis. Perhaps even a gullible mass-market audience has its limits.

From both Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation, Brown takes a negative view of the Bible and a grossly distorted image of Jesus. He’s neither the Messiah nor a humble carpenter but a wealthy, trained religious teacher bent on regaining the throne of David. His credentials are amplified by his relationship with the rich Magdalen who carries the royal blood of Benjamin: “Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false,” laments one of Brown’s characters.

Yet it’s Brown’s Christology that’s false—and blindingly so. He requires the present New Testament to be a post-Constantinian fabrication that displaced true accounts now represented only by surviving Gnostic texts. He claims that Christ wasn’t considered divine until the Council of Nicea voted him so in 325 at the behest of the emperor. Then Constantine—a lifelong sun worshipper—ordered all older scriptural texts destroyed, which is why no complete set of Gospels predates the fourth century. Christians somehow failed to notice the sudden and drastic change in their doctrine.

But by Brown’s specious reasoning, the Old Testament can’t be authentic either because complete Hebrew Scriptures are no more than a thousand years old. And yet the texts were transmitted so accurately that they do match well with the Dead Sea Scrolls from a thousand years earlier. Analysis of textual families, comparison with fragments and quotations, plus historical correlations securely date the orthodox Gospels to the first century and indicate that they’re earlier than the Gnostic forgeries. (The Epistles of St. Paul are, of course, even earlier than the Gospels.)

Primitive Church documents and the testimony of the ante-Nicean Fathers confirm that Christians have always believed Jesus to be Lord, God, and Savior—even when that faith meant death. The earliest partial canon of Scripture dates from the late second century and already rejected Gnostic writings. For Brown, it isn’t enough to credit Constantine with the divinization of Jesus. The emperor’s old adherence to the cult of the Invincible Sun also meant repackaging sun worship as the new faith. Brown drags out old (and long-discredited) charges by virulent anti-Catholics like Alexander Hislop who accused the Church of perpetuating Babylonian mysteries, as well as 19th-century rationalists who regarded Christ as just another dying savior-god.

Unsurprisingly, Brown misses no opportunity to criticize Christianity and its pitiable adherents. (The church in question is always the Catholic Church, though his villain does sneer once at Anglicans—for their grimness, of all things.) He routinely and anachronistically refers to the Church as “the Vatican,” even when popes weren’t in residence there. He systematically portrays it throughout history as deceitful, power-crazed, crafty, and murderous: “The Church may no longer employ crusades to slaughter, but their influence is no less persuasive. No less insidious.”

Goddess Worship and the Magdalen
Worst of all, in Brown’s eyes, is the fact that the pleasure-hating, sex-hating, woman-hating Church suppressed goddess worship and eliminated the divine feminine. He claims that goddess worship universally dominated pre-Christian paganism with the hieros gamos (sacred marriage) as its central rite. His enthusiasm for fertility rites is enthusiasm for sexuality, not procreation. What else would one expect of a Cathar sympathizer?

Astonishingly, Brown claims that Jews in Solomon’s Temple adored Yahweh and his feminine counterpart, the Shekinah, via the services of sacred prostitutes—possibly a twisted version of the Temple’s corruption after Solomon (1 Kings 14:24 and 2 Kings 23:4-15). Moreover, he says that the tetragrammaton YHWH derives from “Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.”

But as any first-year Scripture student could tell you, Jehovah is actually a 16th-century rendering of Yahweh using the vowels of Adonai (“Lord”). In fact, goddesses did not dominate the pre-Christian world—not in the religions of Rome, her barbarian subjects, Egypt, or even Semitic lands where the hieros gamos was an ancient practice. Nor did the Hellenized cult of Isis appear to have included sex in its secret rites.

Contrary to yet another of Brown’s claims, Tarot cards do not teach goddess doctrine. They were invented for innocent gaming purposes in the 15th century and didn’t acquire occult associations until the late 18th. Playing-card suites carry no Grail symbolism. The notion of diamonds symbolizing pentacles is a deliberate misrepresentation by British occultist A. E. Waite. And the number five—so crucial to Brown’s puzzles—has some connections with the protective goddess but myriad others besides, including human life, the five senses, and the Five Wounds of Christ.

Brown’s treatment of Mary Magdalene is sheer delusion. In The Da Vinci Code, she’s no penitent whore but Christ’s royal consort and the intended head of His Church, supplanted by Peter and defamed by churchmen. She fled west with her offspring to Provence, where medieval Cathars would keep the original teachings of Jesus alive. The Priory of Sion still guards her relics and records, excavated by the Templars from the subterranean Holy of Holies. It also protects her descendants—including Brown’s heroine.

Although many people still picture the Magdalen as a sinful woman who anointed Jesus and equate her with Mary of Bethany, that conflation is actually the later work of Pope St. Gregory the Great. The East has always kept them separate and said that the Magdalen, “apostle to the apostles,” died in Ephesus. The legend of her voyage to Provence is no earlier than the ninth century, and her relics weren’t reported there until the 13th. Catholic critics, including the Bollandists, have been debunking the legend and distinguishing the three ladies since the 17th century.

Brown uses two Gnostic documents, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, to prove that the Magdalen was Christ’s “companion,” meaning sexual partner. The apostles were jealous that Jesus used to “kiss her on the mouth” and favored her over them. He cites exactly the same passages quoted in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation and even picks up the latter’s reference to The Last Temptation of Christ. What these books neglect to mention is the infamous final verse of the Gospel of Thomas. When Peter sneers that “women are not worthy of Life,” Jesus responds, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male.... For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

That’s certainly an odd way to “honor” one’s spouse or exalt the status of women.... I could go on and on but I am tired..hehe.

I love this board and enjoy getting a different view on current events and sometimes even "religon". But I honestly could not let this one go with out giving my two cents, my job does not allow it...good night and let us all pray for our soldiers.



posted on Dec, 26 2003 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Hey meter3 how about suggesting some alternate reading on this subject as it seems you are read up on it?




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join