Spider,

Sorry to butt in. Here's a link to the Gospel of Phillip.

http://www.bible2000.org/lostbooks/phillip.htm


Peace,

Polycarp

The dynasty started in France was by Antipas.
He was the "Fisher King". When Mary Magdalene
left Jesus (divorced) she returned to Cana in
the east. Jesus remarried a seller of purple named Lydia?

-Offa,

Please don't take me as rude, but what they hell are you talking about here? I mean, I love it when you post because you always say something from left field and it makes me think and rethink what I think was right. But how do you back this particular comment up? Your defense that you're a pesher is flimsy. I have gone to you site and tried to follow what you have there to explain what pesher reasoning is, but you aren't clear on your examples and how you derive things. Is there other sites I can goto to learn more about Pesher-ism.

Likewise, how do you know/believe that Jesus married someone named Lydia after he and Mary Magdelene got divorced? What writings/scrolls support or even hint at this? (Related side note, I think that Jesus was indeed married to Mary Magdelene and that there are hints in the four canonical gospels. I just don't see the clues that suggest anything further than that.)

So, if you can, can you please give more information to support this. I think it would add a lot to the thread.

Thanks,
Spider

I have borrowed the word "pesher". If you want some
authenticity, go to www.yahoo.com and search for
"habakkuk". About eight choices down the word appears.
I am a different type of pesher, and, as being an atheist
as opposed to believing in some sort of God, I live by
a higher moral standard for I am unforgiven.

My favorite source for "pesher" is Flavius Josephus.
Only, you have to know that he is teaching. Of course, no
one can question him, but that is the whole idea. You must
draw knowledge from what is written. We can not question
Josephus or the authors of Scripture because they are long
gone. We can try to decipher what they were sharing amongst
themselves. They knew as well as we, the naughty things,
like Mary lost her virginity at about the age of 14. She
had 5 sons and at least two daughters. When she died she
was a Virgin (a Hebrew title for a Hebrew's wife). A Hebrew
was above a man so Mary never Knew a man.

The angel Gabriel was Mary's father. He was the
younger brother of the angel Michael (please note, only
high ranking Pharisee priests were called angels, all the
cute little pictures we see today of little children and
women with wings do not qualify. An angel must be an adult
male with offspring). The angel Gabriel was the notorious
"Simon the Essene". His older brother was the chief
priest "Zechariah" and he was the angel Michael. Zechariah
spent a season being impure awaiting the birth of a son
(John the Baptist). He was not allowed to preach (lost his
voice). After his son was born he returned to his duty as
chief priest (got his voice back).

Mary was Elisabeth's cousin. Please note, These
angels had harems and a sister and a cousin can be both.
The Hebrews married close relatives. Joseph was of the
lineage of kings and Mary was of the lineage of priests
(GOD). Jesus would qualify as a true "priest king".

Elisabeth kept herself hidden for five months. Why?
Because she was a Virgin and wasn't allowed to become
pregnant without holy intervention. (She wasn't supposed
to look pregnant because angels and Virgins did not do the
nasty.) Mary, likewise, would stay out of sight before the
birth of Jesus. (Jesus did not become illegitimate until
he turned 23 years old and changed his views (committed
adultery, an adulterer is one who changes their religion).

Remember, Spider, I am open to criticism. Criticism
is often helpful. You may believe and read anything you
would like. I am a pesher.

thanks,
offa

The... aquatic... preoccupation... of... fishermen... OOKKKAAAAAYYY... I'll bite.

What's your point here lpetrich?

And all I can say here is that most mythical figures had sex proves something to you and Price?

How about this?

The identification of Mary Magdalene with the prostitute AND with the woman that anoints Jesus' feet belongs to the 5th Century with Pope Gregory I the Great. The Early Fathers had rejected such a connection as impossible to establish.

"(Since Gregory I)...western Christians have cherished the cult of St Mary Magdalene, repentant prostitute was privileged to see the risen Christ. But whether the two Marys were the same or different-and whether there may well have been a third and even a fourth Mary in Jesus' circle-must remain undetermined. On such an insubstantial foundation, unfortunately, rests one of the most romantic of all legends, the theme of innumerable modern books, plays and films.
Many of these imaginative works do not hesitate to suggest, following up a hint in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' mistress. But for this surmise there is no justification-any more than for the idea that he had a homosexual relationship with the (beloved) disciple.... Indeed, on the subject of Jesus' sex life we have no information whatsoever."
(Michael Grant, Jesus, London, 1977, pg. 83).

For those that are wondering, Grant is an atheist, as well as one of the most respected authorities on ancient history in the world.

What I find amusing, is that the desire to believe almost any fanciful legend, so long as it feeds a currently held prejudice, appears to be so alive and well within the "freethinking" community.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited February 17, 2001).]

I'd like to first point out that Nomad seems to be choking on the gnat of a girlfriend while swallowing such camels as miracles and the virgin birth and the resurrection.

Nomad comments "And all I can say here is that most mythical figures had sex proves something to you and Price?"

To which I respond: This is in reference to a mythic hero tending to take a bride/queen at one point in his career. JC being single all his life would not fit, but having a girlfriend would be a partial fit, and the favorite candidate for such a girlfriend has been MM.

And I wonder if Michael Grant is misremembering that comment in the Gospel of Philip about JC repeatedly kissing MM on the mouth and loving her more than his other followers.

I did a websearch, and in addition to http://www.magdalene.org, I found the page http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_J...agdalene.html, which suggests that it was Mary Magdalene who had written the Gospel of John, and that she had been that unnamed "Beloved Disciple"; according to that page, that disciple's identity and gender had been concealed and changed by a later writer.

That view of the Gospel of John may be rather far-fetched, but that page does make the point that MM is never explicitly stated to be a prostitute or a reformed prostitute.

Of course, there is the possibility that she, like JC, may never have existed outside of the imaginations of the Gospel writers, but it's fun to think about. Of course, if JC had had a girlfriend, or even a wife, that lady might not have been MM.

The Gospel of Philip???

Please try to be serious lpetrich. I know you are having some fun on this thread, but an apocryphal writing from the 2nd (3rd?) Century is your proof?

I think I'll stick with Grant's assessment.

Nomad

I wonder why Nomad thinks that the Gospel of Philip was composed much later than the canonical Gospels, and why being non-canonical makes such a big difference.

And yes, I still think that one ought not to choke on the gnat of a girlfriend while swallowing the camel of miracles. Metaphorically, of course. And I hope that Nomad is familiar with that phrase.

Unless I miss my mark, it looks like you are reading Barbara Thiering and her weird and wonderful tales. Is that your idea of scholarship lpetrich?

The Gospel of Philip tells us that Jesus didn't really die on the cross. Instead it has Him revived by a Simon Magus. And Theiring herself loves the idea that Jesus ran off and married MM after this. Let's just say that believing ANY of this puts you out there in left field, but if it floats your boat, go for it. On the other hand, so far as I am aware, nobody dates this Gospel to earlier than the late 2nd or 3rd Century. If you have contrary evidence, however, please offer it.

At the same time, if you want to tell us that you think a book written hundreds of years after the fact are more accurate than those written within decades of Jesus' death and resurrection, go for it. But I don't think you will be building on your already feeble credibility here.

Nomad

Offa,

-ok, you make some interesting and somewhat left field comments here. I am not going to criticize at the moment. However, I would like to ask if you can cite your sources so I can do follow up reading. (for instance, how do you know that Pharisee priests were called "angels"? What references to you have for that?) Or, if you could, show your deductive reasoning for coming up with these ideas. Perhaps it is just me, but I don't follow your logic here.

Thanks,
Spider