The Shroud Of Turin

[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.

[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.

[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 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]

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

[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.

[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]

@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.

[Archaic]

Apollonius of Tyana

Hi Jonathan. I'm not familiar with Apollonius either so I looked him up... here are a couple of links if anyone's interested:

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/apollonius_of_tyana.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Some of his activities sound very un-Christlike, like exhorting a crowd to stone a wretched beggar to death in order to cure the village of the plague.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Jonathan H;130667]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?[quote]

Define serious historian? Or is your definition someone who has published works agreeing with you?

[Jonathan H]

Not at all. There are a plethora of historians whom I read, and enjoy, and don't agree with on all sorts of subjects.

Niall Ferguson being one. A great historian -- and quite wrong about the Viet Nam War.

I mean are they either historians by training, and if so are they attached to an academic institution?

I am just asking for a name, any name?

[Robert]

In my opinion, the shroud came out of Battlecrease.

[Ally]

You've missed my point entirely. I don't care if every single "serious historian" on the planet believes Jesus farted sunflowers, there is no theory validated by the names of the people who believe them.

When you are using the exact same argument as "rationalists" such as DVV and arguing on the basis of "no serious historian believes it" as the sole evidence for your dismissal, you are arguing in direct opposition to reason.

The truth is not determined by who believes it. Considering you believe Jesus was a myth anyway, how can you actually be rationally arguing that there's no evidence to support Jesus being married and what "serious historians" believe? So no one can even determine whether he existed, and yet, serious historians are determined that if this possibly mythical man did exist, which they aren't saying he did, they are absolutely POSITIVE he wouldn't have been married.

There's sound reasoning.

Just out of curiosity, if you were raised from the dead, who would be the first person you'd go to see?

[Jonathan H]

Oh well, we will just have to agree to disagree about the quality, training, and methods of certain writers.

I am not sure I understand your concluding question?

As a child I found the story of Jesus as told in the Gospels disappointing. All those Super-man miracles and then a resurrection that is so unspectacular?

If you were raised from the dead after being killed by your enemies would you not appear before the High Priests, and Pilate, and the crowd who screamed for your death?

That'd show 'em!

That Jesus only appeared before his followers, male or female [who in one account number 500] I found very unsatisfying. It made no sense as a story compared to, say, the tales of Moses and Noah and David and Nimrod?

Mathew's Gospel strains to make it more Hollywood by having an eclipse, the Temple cracked, and dead people revived and walking around. It did not cut it for me.

At the turn of the last century, Dr Albert Schweitzer came up with a radical theory about the historical Jesus which, in the 1950's, a nervous 'Life' magazine went to great lengths to obscure when they turned him into a world celebrity; the humanitarian 'missionary' doctor in darkest Africa.

In 'The Quest of the Historical Jesus' and 'The Mystery of the Kingdom of God', Schweitzer argued that Jesus was a purely Jewish figure, a prophet/healer whose ministry was dominated by a single idea. That God was about to end the world and he, Jesus, would be designated the Messiah of this new Cosmic Kingdom, judging the living and the dead.

Therefore, what seems impossibly hard in Jesus' teachings now makes sense, even practical sense. The world is about to be destroyed and so forget burying the dead, forget material wealth, forget the primacy of the family unit. Don't fight back -- its both pointless and the so-called rich and powerful about their get their just deserts anyhow.

But the apocalypse was delayed, and so Jesus went to Jerusalem to be killed and thus trigger this Cosmic meltdown with his sacrificial death for the sins of the Jewish people. Of course, he was mistaken and that is the fundamental reason most Jews did not follow him. Yet, Schweitzer committed the rest of his life to this heroic/tragic figure as he believed that the ethics of Jesus, his call to action to help the poor in body and spirit, was forever relevant.

[Celesta]

This is from the Gospel of Mary:

Are we to turn around and listen to her? Did he choose her over us?"
Then [M]ary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what are you imagining? Do you think that I have thought up these things by myself in my heart or that I am telling lies about the Savior?"
Levi answered, speaking to Peter, "Peter, you have always been a wrathful person. Now I see you contending against the woman like the Adversaries. For if the Savior made her worthy, who are you then for your part to reject her? Assuredly the Savior's knowledge of her is completely reliable. That is why he loved her more than us.
"Rather we should be ashamed. We should clothe ourselves with the perfect Human, acquire it for ourselves as he commanded us, and announce the good news, not laying down any other rule or law that differs from what the Savior said."
After [he had said these] things, they started going out [to] teach and to preach.


It's one reason some people believe that Mary was more important in the Jesus movement than we were led to believe, and why some believe she was closer to Jesus than some of the other disciples.

There are only a few fragments of this text.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html

http://www.maryofmagdala.com/GMary_Text/gmary_text.html

http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm