Dan Green: Just about everything imaginable has been either said or suggested about the biblical figure presented to us as Mary Magdalene. That much we can agree. The most favoured and recent of the many hypothesis is that she was the partner of the historical and biblical figurehead Jesus carrying his child and along with that the continuation of a Holy Bloodline. This Mary figure, who after the biblical account where she was the first to visit the tomb of the rising Christ, simply vanishes from record yet warrants becoming an object of character assassination by the Catholic Church and added to their tarnishing of all things female by virtue of Original Sin propaganda and inventing us the lie that she was a prostitute. This enigmatic Mary must have been a potent female in particular, an actual spiritual Teacher who had a following whose importance may well have been thought better removed in order to satisfy a preferred emphasis on a male Jesus figure to cater for the deep-seated homosexual tendencies that have now been brought to light by the exposure of systematic and covered up Catholic Church child abuse in both USA and Ireland and suspected in many other countries if not all where Catholicism is rooted. That the figure of Mary Magdalene may well have been far more important in history than we could have imagined, eclipsing that of the male Jesus storyline as it is told, may well be one of the better secrets held in relation to her and the mystery attached to Rennes-le-Chateau. Is her connection with blood – menstruation – the one thing a male church hierarchy loathed, to menstruate being ‘men’s true hate’? Was this enigmatic Mary considered such a threat that she was physically removed from accurate recordings of history that would displease the Church, preferring an emphasis on an elevated and deified male Jesus figure? This story line may be some two thousand years ago, but in that time human nature has changed little and powerful women who worry the residing male authority of the day are usually removed, Princess Diana and Benazir Bhutto being two recent examples. Could a pregnant Mary Magdalene have been demised?
How is it that every da Vinci and his dog 'knew' secrets about Jesus or Mary Magdalene, yet we know nothing today?
The Catholic Church was powerful before da Vinci, it had already had 1500 years to hide any evidence (if there ever was any to hide), yet they did nothing until after da Vinci died? Even taking into account the CC might not have known anything itself until the Holy Wars uncovered evidence, that still leaves centuries for them to operate it.
Perhaps da Vinci was part of some secret society and perhaps the members of this society did convince themselves they knew some great secrets, and perhaps they were simply deluding themselves?
Or perhaps he is (through the Mona Lisa?) simply smiling at the chaos he has sown with his devilish humour?
In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown
"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them." - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project
"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.
I'm no specialst, but here's what some say about the date:
"Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 60 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature."
And btw, even if they are the 'rantings of a Gnostic', that in no way makes them less valuable...
Even though the present church loves to portray themselves as the one and only true Christian Chrurch, and would love it if the Gnostics disappeared altoghether from the face of the planet (they tried to 'help' with that process of eliminiation, centuries ago), that still doesn't make them more right.