Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

The murder of Mary Magdalene

22 posts in this topic

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?

arrow3.gifView: Full Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Evidence" from your friend's cousin's friend? Sorry, but had to laugh at that.

The only evidence you'll find af Magdeline's exixtence is in the Gospels. Stories fabricated 1000 or 1500 yrs after her death is not evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Evidence" from your friend's cousin's friend? Sorry, but had to laugh at that.

The only evidence you'll find af Magdeline's exixtence is in the Gospels. Stories fabricated 1000 or 1500 yrs after her death is not evidence.

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Evidence" from your friend's cousin's friend? Sorry, but had to laugh at that.

The only evidence you'll find af Magdeline's exixtence is in the Gospels. Stories fabricated 1000 or 1500 yrs after her death is not evidence.

No, she also shows up in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts of like 1800 years ago.

And as a more important figure than in the Gospels we all know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"alternative gospels".........gnostics, from 200 yrs after the Resurrection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"alternative gospels".........gnostics, from 200 yrs after the Resurrection.

Yes, but a lot sooner than you first assumed.

And the Gospel of Thomas in considered authentic, and dates from less than 50 years after Jesus died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but a lot sooner than you first assumed.

And the Gospel of Thomas in considered authentic, and dates from less than 50 years after Jesus died.

I assume nothing. We learn every day.

Most of the writings attributed to St Thomas are, in my opinion, the rantings of a Gnostic.

Considered by whom to be authentic? And what do you mean by authentic; written by the Apostle Thomas or just written in the first century AD?

(Dan Brown has a lot to answer for....lol)

http://www.catholic....ew.php?id=11492

Edited by Eldorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've long thought that maybe there are no "secrets" and da Vinci was just adding to and revelling in the gossip of the day.

Like Mark Twain would do in later years.

Edited by Eldorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan Green: The murder of Mary Magdalene.

Dan Brown: Da Vinci Code.

What's happen'n here? Maybe one and the same bloodline?

But this absolutely floored me ... ''Lincoln Cathedral Code''

((((( :rofl: )))))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan Green: The murder of Mary Magdalene.

Dan Brown: Da Vinci Code.

What's happen'n here? Maybe one and the same bloodline?

But this absolutely floored me ... ''Lincoln Cathedral Code''

((((( rofl.gif )))))

lol

Could make a new movie entitled the Colour Conspiracy Code. (Theme song by Barry White, 3rd Dan black belt in smooching).

Nothing wrong with a bit of speculation if you concede that it is just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996).

Enough said :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume nothing. We learn every day.

Most of the writings attributed to St Thomas are, in my opinion, the rantings of a Gnostic.

Considered by whom to be authentic? And what do you mean by authentic; written by the Apostle Thomas or just written in the first century AD?

(Dan Brown has a lot to answer for....lol)

http://www.catholic....ew.php?id=11492

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."

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And btw, even if they are the 'rantings of a Gnostic', that in no way makes them less valuable..."

It makes them less valuable to me because I doubt their authorship, I doubt their truth, I'm not a conspiracy nut and I don't blame religion for all the world's ills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the Roman Catholic Church: to me they are no better than the Italian Mafia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the Roman Catholic Church: to me they are no better than the Italian Mafia.

Don't the Jesuits do spritual exercises that are reminiscent of gnosticism anyway. They just wanted to be the only ones to have the Gnosis, which is fair enough but not very ethical.

The debate over the authorship surely comes down to whether the disciples were affiliated with the community. It seems more than likely to me as they held off the Romans for nearly two hundred years didn't they? More seems to fit with what we know than not i.e. he was a devout jew, a reformer, he opposed the romans. Just because it doesn't fit with what christianity became doesn't mean they didn't have the same source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the Roman Catholic Church: to me they are no better than the Italian Mafia.

I doubt them too, along with all the other "churches"....but i believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Can't find much fault with peace, love and forgiveness.

Edited by Eldorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the Roman Catholic Church: to me they are no better than the Italian Mafia.

I thought they were(?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt them too, along with all the other "churches"....but i believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Can't find much fault with peace, love and forgiveness.

The reason I said it is because it's the (Roman) Catholic Church who has dominated what's to be put in the Bible and what not for many centuries.

I can't see any reason why certain manuscripts like the Gospel of Thomas could not be put in the Bible too.

You should read it some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt them too, along with all the other "churches"....but i believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Can't find much fault with peace, love and forgiveness.

But you aren't getting the full picture of Jesus. In fact you are getting a Roman Emperor's interpretation of what you should know about Jesus.

Just look at the dead sea scrolls which show that Mary Magdalene and even Judas had their own gospels, which were outlawed when the Romans adopted christianity.

The bible was created not to spread jesus' message but to control a large and diverse empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If Jesus survived the cross, did not die, did not rise, and did sire children, then he was Not God, Not The Messiah, and his bloodline was not holy. He was just a fisherman turned fraud. As such, who shives a git who he had children by, or what happened to him, his whore companion, or their illegitimate brats? If Jesus was God, was The Messiah, did die, and did rise, then he did NOT mate with anyone, and did not have any children. Either way, any claim of holy bloodline/right to rule based on descent from Jesus, is totally Bogus. Anyone with the mind of a four year old, or better, should be able to figure that out.

Edited by eclectic 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If Jesus survived the cross, did not die, did not rise, and did sire children, then he was Not God, Not The Messiah, and his bloodline was not holy. He was just a fisherman turned fraud. As such, who shives a git who he had children by, or what happened to him, his whore companion, or their illegitimate brats? If Jesus was God, was The Messiah, did die, and did rise, then he did NOT mate with anyone, and did not have any children. Either way, any claim of holy bloodline/right to rule based on descent from Jesus, is totally Bogus. Anyone with the mind of a four year old, or better, should be able to figure that out.

I'm just musing here so please forgive me if I'm wrong. I'm only 3.

He was, supposedly, the Son of God in a man's body, therefore it would be possible for him to mate. No?

And, considering there are about a billion people on earth who worship Him, then I guess there are many who would indeed shive a git if he had descendants. Not that this descendant, if they existed, would have any right to "rule" anything or anyone.

And btw, was he not a carpenter?

(edited for usual spelling mistakes, cos am only three fgs!)

Edited by Eldorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.