The Shroud Of Turin

[Celesta]

@Jonathan

Sounds intriguing. I'm not sure if I'm familiar with this Apollonius, or not. I've heard of Apollonius of Tyana. At first I thought you meant Apuleius, the author of The Golden Ass because of the animal cruelty comment. So here's a new resource for me, then. Thank you.

I can see how anyone would try to escape Domitian by dematerialising. What a monster, he was.

[Jonathan H]

To Ally,

OK, so who are these serious historians who argue that the Magdalene was a major figure in early Christianity -- so major that her true role has been covered up, at some point, by the Catholic Church?

To Celesta,

It is argued [by Robert M. Price, for example] that the there was a mega famous miracle worker/itinerant philosopher at the time of Jesus, who even escaped the clutches of the cruel Roman emperor Domitian by dematerialising -- so the legend goes -- and there are statues to him which date from the First Century.

The figure who occupies the historical space we would expect of Jesus of Nazareth, before Constantine's 'conversion', is the intriguing figure of Apollonius of Tyana [also an early adherent of animal rights and thus a vegetarian].

Elements of Apollonius' story were used by 'Mark' in his construction of the Ur-Gospel.

[Celesta]

The earliest writings are by Paul, Thessalonians in particular. He doesn't talk about miraculous conversions, being blinded in any supernatural way, or Ananias. "Q" is thought to lie between Paul's writings and Mark. It's not certain where Thomas falls. Later books, like Mark, put in supernatural events, probably an attempt to explain to people what the early followers of Christ experienced in Christ, a living connection to God.

[Ally]

I love how everyone who argues their stance always uses the same phrase "no serious historian believes that". There's a convincing argument. Really.

[Jonathan H]

I think the idea that Mary Magdalene, who like Jesus of Nazareth exists in no primary sources whatsoever, was some major figure in the early Christian movement -- which was a very, very splintered affair -- is entirely a modern conceit.

Nobody who is a serious historian, or theological scholar, Liberal, Protestant or Catholic, thinks that she is the Beloved Disciple.

The Christ figure presented to us in the original Gospel, Mark -- which is the first time this Jesus enters recorded history -- is portrayed as a man with a mother, brothers, and sisters, but no wife or family of his own. Unusual for a Jewish man of the era but perfectly within the mythical/literary traditions of the divine saviour figures of Paganism. Moreover, St Paul seems to have been unmarried too and his Letters, in the form they have come down to us, are a primary source.

[Ally]

Those who believe Jesus was married, don't believe he ended up married AFTER the crucifixion but believe he must have been married to have become the religious leader that he was. It must be remembered that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish, not Christian, and Jewish custom considers being married and having children (be fruitful and multiply) to be one of the first and highest laws of God. So it would have been odd (though not impossible) for him to have set himself up as a spiritual and religious leader to a group of Jews, if he was not obeying the first of god's laws.

And while this was not mentioned in Brown's book (an odd oversight since he went so far as to identify John as Mary in a freaking painting but left out this bit), there are many who believe the beloved disciple often mentioned in the book was in fact Mary Magdalene and the book of John was written by her disciples--meaning she was an equal participant and preacher in the role of spreading the word of Christ. Whether her sect was indeed what became known as Johns, the Christian church spurred by efforts to minimize the role of women in the church reduced her role. It is well known that they slandered her reputation to reduce her role and her level of importance.

Regardless, because being married was such an ingrained part of Jewish custom, if Jesus had not been married, you would think that his disciples would have specifically mentioned it, because it would have been VERY unusual. But they do not mention it. It is easier to believe that the Christian church, in efforts to make Jesus seem divine, sexless and remove him from being a "human", removed references to his wife, rather than believe that none of his disciples directly mentioned the fact that their leader was not married.

[Jonathan H]

I think Dan Brown's novel is awful for many reasons but, as a civil court rightly decided, he did not 'rip off' 'The Holy and the Holy Grail' because the latter was not a novel.

It claimed to be a work of history.

Novelists adapt from history all the time to create works of fiction.

The guys who wrote that work in 1983 were totally fooled by a French fraudster with neo-fascistc leanings.

An aspect of Brown's novel which I found disgraceful was that it managed to be unfair -- though admittedly fictitious -- about both Jesus AND Leonardo.

The latter was one of the greatest painters of all time and yet he is reduced to a member of a secret society passing on clues, supposedly in 'The Last Supper', about Mary Magdalene being the secret wife/chief disciple. It is worse than nonsense. It misses the point of Leonardo's life which was ideas, and realism in art, and futuristic designs, freed from Medieval superstition [a person without any formal education, whatsoever, nearly managed to crack the circulatory system via observation and lateral-thinking alone!].

There was no 'Da Vinci Code'. His greatness was [mostly] in the public sphere and was an exploration and celebration of human beings and nature.

As for Jesus a majority of believers, and non-believers in his divinity, at least agree that he was a committed and an heroic martyr, not somebody so shallow that he ended being crucified, then 'got better' through some sleight-of-hand, and finally ended up married, with children, in the South of France.

Son of God or not, Jesus died hideously and painfully for what he believed; that his death would somehow save the world.

At the very least Jesus is one of History's nicest people, who identified with the poor and the oppressed, and who ends up being tragically tortured and murdered.

Dan Brown's mega-best-seller is exhibit one in the case against popular culture as hopelessly infantilised; Jesus is not really crucified -- what tragedy? -- and Leonardo is not really a genius, just a hack passing on banal clues.

All viewed through the 'reassuring' miasma of conspiracy thinking; the laziest form of knee-jerk cynicism.

Plus, in the myth, the Holy Grail really was Christ's cup, one with mystical powers of regeneration -- but even this, the fun of Camelot, is taken away from us.

[Celesta]

Sorry Cel, my mistake.
The "Gospel of Mary" led me to the Apocrypha - it's a Coptic text, you know, and Ethiopia is on my mind, always.

Apologies.

No need for any apologies from you, my friend.

[DVV]

Sorry Cel, my mistake.
The "Gospel of Mary" led me to the Apocrypha - it's a Coptic text, you know, and Ethiopia is on my mind, always.

Apologies.

[Celesta]

Cel, I have no problem to discuss the Apocrypha - as soon as people understand that they are what they are, ie : late and apocryphal texts, which in no way contain any truth hidden by a Malicious Church.

Amitiés ma chère,
David

I'm not thinking about the Church, although it would be interesting to have other insights into Jesus. Whoever he was he certainly had a powerful influence on his followers. Powerful enough for them to risk prison or even death, in some cases. I'm talking about the people who knew him and kept his teachings going.

I still see and cherish certain candles someone lit for me and my loved ones and will never forget those candles. Ever.

Sleep well, David.

[Celesta]

RE: post 140

I meant to say that I wasn't sure that it started with Holy Grail, Holy Blood. Maybe it did.

[DVV]

Cel, I have no problem to discuss the Apocrypha - as soon as people understand that they are what they are, ie : late and apocryphal texts, which in no way contain any truth hidden by a Malicious Church.

Amitiés ma chère,
David

[Celesta]

Hi Cel.
I agree with you and Tom, and also with David.

My understanding of what David is saying is that Mary being the first witness of Christ's Resurrection isn't an accident, but a sign of special grace.

Hope we all know the details some day.

Best regards, Archaic

Hi Archy, I knew what he meant. It's what the goddess people thought, too. I'm not inclined to doubt them, David, or Tom. I'm just saying there may be more. I was thinking of the Gospel of Mary, which is here somewhere, but which I can't seem to lay my hands on right now. It's just that that opens a whole new argument/discussion, which I didn't really want to start. In fact the question 'what more than that?' was already asked. So I figured that "the other evidence" that I mentioned wouldn't be considered necessary. This is taking into consideration my interest in Biblical scholarship, mostly of the New Testament.

[DVV]

Indeed.

That's why I ask without asking.

Amitiés ma chère,
David

[Archaic]

Hello Archaic,

that's it indeed, and / but what more than that ?

Amitiés,
David

God only knows, mon ami.

Best regards, L'Archaic