I don't believe in a so-called Jesus line. Back then, lots of churches and stories were created about which apostles did what. The Eastern church says she followed John the apostle and then became an hermit. Some people in France say she might have gone there. The gnostic gospels, one of which says Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene, came much later than Jesus, something like 200 or so years after, and were written under false authorship.
immaculate conception
- Thread starter mario
- Start date
okinrus: I don't believe in a so-called Jesus line.
*************
M*W: Well, of course not. You're a christian.
*************
okinrus: Back then, lots of churches and stories were created about which apostles did what. The Eastern church says she followed John the apostle and then became an hermit.
*************
M*W: When you said "she," I assume you're talking about MM. There is some scholarly thought/evidence that MM did, in fact, become a hermit. Those saying "she followed John the Apostle," is not uncommon in the scholarly arena. In fact, it has been said that everywhere in the NT MM is mentioned, there also mentioned is John the Apostle. The title "Beloved Disciple" has formerly referred to John, but now the biblical scholars are saying that MM was the "Beloved Disciple!" Also among the authorities today, it is believed that MM actually wrote the Gospel of John and Revelations.
*************
okinrus: Some people in France say she might have gone there.
*************
M*W: There's no doubt about MM's journey to Gaul (France) where she lived out her life. There's archeological evidence of it. The question I have is did Jesus accompany her alive, or did she take his bones to Gaul -- assuming he was actually crucified. However, scholarly research claims that Jesus did not die on the cross nor was he resurrected -- he just went away somewhere. You must remember, I am talking about the historical Jesus -- not the mythical Pauline dying demigod savior.
*************
okinrus: The gnostic gospels, one of which says Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene, came much later than Jesus, something like 200 or so years after, and were written under false authorship.
*************
M*W: The entirety of the NT was written and influenced by Paul to take the spotlight off of MM probably for simply being a woman much less a prostitute. ("Prostitute" in the language of the day did NOT mean a streetwalker or whore. It was a woman involved in service to the temple. The word for "whore" was something else entirely).
When Luke says that Jesus appointed Peter to shepherd his church, according to the Gnostic Gospels, that was not true. Jesus left his church to his brother James, but upon his murder by Paul, Jesus left it to his Beloved Disciple, MM. It would be more inciteful to re-read the NT, and everywhere it mentions John the Apostle, replace it with MM, and it will tell a more truthful story.
I realize for christians it would be zero to none for believing what the GGs have to say, but to learn the truth, one would need to read the GGs with an open-mind and consider all possibilities. It would be quite impossible for the GGs to have been written in the second century, because in some of them Jesus walks with them and speaks to them in the present. MM died between 95-120 AD, and she not only wrote a gospel, she appeared in the others. Peter was one of the apostles that walked with Jesus during his lifetime, but Peter betrayed Jesus. His betrayal of Jesus is not accurate the way Paul recorded it. When Paul wrote the Epistles, Jesus was long gone. Jesus truly rejected Peter, because Peter tried to betray MM. If you could read Revelations with this in mind, maybe it would become more clear. MM feared Peter. Like da Vinci tried to show in The Last Supper, Peter's hand is cutting MM's throat like a knife. Yes, MM was sitting next to Jesus at The Last Supper. Up to now, every art lover thought that it was the Beloved Disciple sitting next to Jesus, and IT WAS! It was MM.
Saying the GGs hold the "hidden secrets" really don't hide the truth, they just tell first-hand what Paul twisted. After reading the GGs, one would realize that what Paul wrote or influenced was NOT the truth about Jesus. If one is a christian, s/he should want to know the truth about Jesus -- the REAL Jesus! The GGs are not to be feared for the information they bring. After reading the GGs, it will become quite obvious how the truth about Jesus was deranged by Paul.
The GGs had to be written while Jesus was alive, since he speaks first-hand to Peter and to MM and the others. Just remember that those supposed "hidden secrets" in the GGs were the teachings of Jesus and not the others.
Jesus may have still been alive in the 50s-70s AD, because he preached about the false teachers (Paul and maybe even his gospel writers)! The apostles of the NT were not the true apostles of Jesus. The GGs don't tell of a virgin birth. Philip teaches about the resurrection being symbolic and not an actual event. However, Jesus did die, in fact, while he walked with MM, Peter, Thomas, Philip and the others. MM taught that Jesus's spirit would be with them always. After Jesus's death, they wrote about their many dreams and visions of Jesus while he was alive.
*************
M*W: Well, of course not. You're a christian.
*************
okinrus: Back then, lots of churches and stories were created about which apostles did what. The Eastern church says she followed John the apostle and then became an hermit.
*************
M*W: When you said "she," I assume you're talking about MM. There is some scholarly thought/evidence that MM did, in fact, become a hermit. Those saying "she followed John the Apostle," is not uncommon in the scholarly arena. In fact, it has been said that everywhere in the NT MM is mentioned, there also mentioned is John the Apostle. The title "Beloved Disciple" has formerly referred to John, but now the biblical scholars are saying that MM was the "Beloved Disciple!" Also among the authorities today, it is believed that MM actually wrote the Gospel of John and Revelations.
*************
okinrus: Some people in France say she might have gone there.
*************
M*W: There's no doubt about MM's journey to Gaul (France) where she lived out her life. There's archeological evidence of it. The question I have is did Jesus accompany her alive, or did she take his bones to Gaul -- assuming he was actually crucified. However, scholarly research claims that Jesus did not die on the cross nor was he resurrected -- he just went away somewhere. You must remember, I am talking about the historical Jesus -- not the mythical Pauline dying demigod savior.
*************
okinrus: The gnostic gospels, one of which says Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene, came much later than Jesus, something like 200 or so years after, and were written under false authorship.
*************
M*W: The entirety of the NT was written and influenced by Paul to take the spotlight off of MM probably for simply being a woman much less a prostitute. ("Prostitute" in the language of the day did NOT mean a streetwalker or whore. It was a woman involved in service to the temple. The word for "whore" was something else entirely).
When Luke says that Jesus appointed Peter to shepherd his church, according to the Gnostic Gospels, that was not true. Jesus left his church to his brother James, but upon his murder by Paul, Jesus left it to his Beloved Disciple, MM. It would be more inciteful to re-read the NT, and everywhere it mentions John the Apostle, replace it with MM, and it will tell a more truthful story.
I realize for christians it would be zero to none for believing what the GGs have to say, but to learn the truth, one would need to read the GGs with an open-mind and consider all possibilities. It would be quite impossible for the GGs to have been written in the second century, because in some of them Jesus walks with them and speaks to them in the present. MM died between 95-120 AD, and she not only wrote a gospel, she appeared in the others. Peter was one of the apostles that walked with Jesus during his lifetime, but Peter betrayed Jesus. His betrayal of Jesus is not accurate the way Paul recorded it. When Paul wrote the Epistles, Jesus was long gone. Jesus truly rejected Peter, because Peter tried to betray MM. If you could read Revelations with this in mind, maybe it would become more clear. MM feared Peter. Like da Vinci tried to show in The Last Supper, Peter's hand is cutting MM's throat like a knife. Yes, MM was sitting next to Jesus at The Last Supper. Up to now, every art lover thought that it was the Beloved Disciple sitting next to Jesus, and IT WAS! It was MM.
Saying the GGs hold the "hidden secrets" really don't hide the truth, they just tell first-hand what Paul twisted. After reading the GGs, one would realize that what Paul wrote or influenced was NOT the truth about Jesus. If one is a christian, s/he should want to know the truth about Jesus -- the REAL Jesus! The GGs are not to be feared for the information they bring. After reading the GGs, it will become quite obvious how the truth about Jesus was deranged by Paul.
The GGs had to be written while Jesus was alive, since he speaks first-hand to Peter and to MM and the others. Just remember that those supposed "hidden secrets" in the GGs were the teachings of Jesus and not the others.
Jesus may have still been alive in the 50s-70s AD, because he preached about the false teachers (Paul and maybe even his gospel writers)! The apostles of the NT were not the true apostles of Jesus. The GGs don't tell of a virgin birth. Philip teaches about the resurrection being symbolic and not an actual event. However, Jesus did die, in fact, while he walked with MM, Peter, Thomas, Philip and the others. MM taught that Jesus's spirit would be with them always. After Jesus's death, they wrote about their many dreams and visions of Jesus while he was alive.
ALL the gospals were written after jeaus death (god i wish my mum was here, she has all this infomation in her head). I dont mean a few months after he died but up to 400 YEARS after his death. Now the Q document (if it can be found) would be the most contempary (due to the fact that by definition it MUST have been writen while he was alive because HE wrote it)
MW: 2 questions, do you mean john the baptist by john the Apostle. Its along time since i read the bible last.
Second, do you know WHY the templar ect revered john the baptist rather than jesus? what i was watching left that out unfortunatly and i have no idea where to start looking to find the answer
MW: 2 questions, do you mean john the baptist by john the Apostle. Its along time since i read the bible last.
Second, do you know WHY the templar ect revered john the baptist rather than jesus? what i was watching left that out unfortunatly and i have no idea where to start looking to find the answer
It's my understanding that John the Baptist was Jesus' teacher.
Asguard: ALL the gospals were written after jeaus death (god i wish my mum was here, she has all this infomation in her head). I dont mean a few months after he died but up to 400 YEARS after his death.
*************
M*W: There are hundreds of manuscripts that were written after Jesus's death, but the question is -- when did Jesus really die? The Gnostic Gospels would have us believe he was still alive after the crucifixion.
*************
Asguard: Now the Q document (if it can be found) would be the most contempary (due to the fact that by definition it MUST have been writen while he was alive because HE wrote it)
*************
M*W: I didn't know Jesus wrote the Q gospel. I believe it has already been translated and reinterpreted, so it must have been found.
*************
Asguard: MW: 2 questions, do you mean john the baptist by john the Apostle. Its along time since i read the bible last.
*************
M*W: No. John the Baptist is another individual than John the Apostle. However, interestingly, MM had some kind of connection to John the Baptist, too! I don't fully understand the connection. John the Baptist was allegedly Jesus's cousin, and if the GGs are right (which I believe they are), John the Apostle was the pseudonym of MM.
*************
Asguard: Second, do you know WHY the templar ect revered john the baptist rather than jesus? what i was watching left that out unfortunatly and i have no idea where to start looking to find the answer
*************
M*W: Good questions, Asguard! The Templars revered John the Baptist, but I don't fully understand the connection here either. The Templars built into their cathedrals a headless man that some say is Baphomet. However, Baphomet has also been used as another name for John the Baptist. If you ever notice a skull in paintings of MM, that is allegedly the skull of John the Baptist. I wish I could find information on their connection. Perhaps, John the Baptist and John the Apostle could both be pseudonyms for MM. In reality, the only historical person in these stories is MM. In other words, it has already been proven that she actually existed. I'm not trying to take the steam out of Jesus's possible existence, because there would be no reason for MM to exist without Jesus existing as well.
What books have you read on this subject? Maybe I can help.
*************
M*W: There are hundreds of manuscripts that were written after Jesus's death, but the question is -- when did Jesus really die? The Gnostic Gospels would have us believe he was still alive after the crucifixion.
*************
Asguard: Now the Q document (if it can be found) would be the most contempary (due to the fact that by definition it MUST have been writen while he was alive because HE wrote it)
*************
M*W: I didn't know Jesus wrote the Q gospel. I believe it has already been translated and reinterpreted, so it must have been found.
*************
Asguard: MW: 2 questions, do you mean john the baptist by john the Apostle. Its along time since i read the bible last.
*************
M*W: No. John the Baptist is another individual than John the Apostle. However, interestingly, MM had some kind of connection to John the Baptist, too! I don't fully understand the connection. John the Baptist was allegedly Jesus's cousin, and if the GGs are right (which I believe they are), John the Apostle was the pseudonym of MM.
*************
Asguard: Second, do you know WHY the templar ect revered john the baptist rather than jesus? what i was watching left that out unfortunatly and i have no idea where to start looking to find the answer
*************
M*W: Good questions, Asguard! The Templars revered John the Baptist, but I don't fully understand the connection here either. The Templars built into their cathedrals a headless man that some say is Baphomet. However, Baphomet has also been used as another name for John the Baptist. If you ever notice a skull in paintings of MM, that is allegedly the skull of John the Baptist. I wish I could find information on their connection. Perhaps, John the Baptist and John the Apostle could both be pseudonyms for MM. In reality, the only historical person in these stories is MM. In other words, it has already been proven that she actually existed. I'm not trying to take the steam out of Jesus's possible existence, because there would be no reason for MM to exist without Jesus existing as well.
What books have you read on this subject? Maybe I can help.
i actually havent read any unfortunatly. I havent been able to pick up a copy of the templar revelation yet and i am not sure yet where to go from there (what i found on the net was confusing and probably crap). I hired the cracking the da vinci code movie and was facinated by what the 2 authors of the templar revelation had to say. it was nice to have some sort of way to sort what is theory from what is just the story, altho their knife looks like fish to me actually.
Its interesting that you say john the baptist may have been a way of saying MM because these 2 seemed to imply that altho there was a conection between the 2 that there were differences.
Hey speaking of john, did you see that painting where mary was holding jeaus with john and the angel urial? The first one is VERY confusing, with the angel pointing. I mean if he ment the baby doing the blessing to be john why have the angel that is associated with john pointing at jeaus. The second one (if you remove the cross which they belive was added latter) seems to make more sence because the angel ISNT pointing, its quite oviouse who she is surporting.
Oh B\W if john is mary then that piture of the baby jeaus and the lamb REALLY doesnt make any sence. If jeaus was mary's lover why would he be trying to pull her head off. However that is one persons interpritation of what he knew when he was alive so he may have been wrong about them being 2 different people. If mary and john are the same person MW, what do you think the Beheading of john represents?
Its interesting that you say john the baptist may have been a way of saying MM because these 2 seemed to imply that altho there was a conection between the 2 that there were differences.
Hey speaking of john, did you see that painting where mary was holding jeaus with john and the angel urial? The first one is VERY confusing, with the angel pointing. I mean if he ment the baby doing the blessing to be john why have the angel that is associated with john pointing at jeaus. The second one (if you remove the cross which they belive was added latter) seems to make more sence because the angel ISNT pointing, its quite oviouse who she is surporting.
Oh B\W if john is mary then that piture of the baby jeaus and the lamb REALLY doesnt make any sence. If jeaus was mary's lover why would he be trying to pull her head off. However that is one persons interpritation of what he knew when he was alive so he may have been wrong about them being 2 different people. If mary and john are the same person MW, what do you think the Beheading of john represents?
Okinrus,
You are in conflict. If the god needed nothing then he’d be able to “save” us without becoming a human.
Worse – why even bother with a birth? Why not manifest as a fully grown human that magically appears in the desert and walks into the town and begins his preaching?
The “virgin” term appears to be a proliferation of a translation error where the original Hebrew for “virgin” and “young woman” is almost identical. One is credible and the other isn’t
DNA is an attribute of all biological life.
You are in conflict. If the god needed nothing then he’d be able to “save” us without becoming a human.
Worse – why even bother with a birth? Why not manifest as a fully grown human that magically appears in the desert and walks into the town and begins his preaching?
The “virgin” term appears to be a proliferation of a translation error where the original Hebrew for “virgin” and “young woman” is almost identical. One is credible and the other isn’t
DNA is an attribute of all biological life.
Yes, I guess your taking this the wrong way or something. If God is to save us, then saving us through human nature and becoming a human being is tautology.The assumption I make here is that God must save us. God cannot create an apple and have the apple save us.
Well, I don't know if that would meet the requirements for having human nature. I don't think mere material makes us have human nature, but something else. When God created Adam God had to have set requirements for human nature. These aren't really explicit in the Genesis though.
In Issaih, it's possible the Greek Septuagint translators interpreted the Hebrew word almah for virgin. The passage in Issaih indicates that the birth was special, and so the Septuagint translators may have read it to be virgin. Another possibillity isthe Massoretic texts have been changed or the Septugaint was translated from a possible variant hebrew version of Issiah. The Massoretic, then, would be translated from another variant. Over all, from what I read, I wouldn't say it's a wrong translation, but one of many possible many translations.
Asguard: i actually havent read any unfortunatly. I havent been able to pick up a copy of the templar revelation yet and i am not sure yet where to go from there (what i found on the net was confusing and probably crap). I hired the cracking the da vinci code movie and was facinated by what the 2 authors of the templar revelation had to say. it was nice to have some sort of way to sort what is theory from what is just the story, altho their knife looks like fish to me actually.
*************
M*W: I read the Templar Revelation and couldn't put it down. I like the style of the two authors. I recommend you start by reading Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Secret Genealogy of Jesus Revealed, by Laurence Gardner. It's not light reading.
*************
Asguard: Its interesting that you say john the baptist may have been a way of saying MM because these 2 seemed to imply that altho there was a conection between the 2 that there were differences.
*************
M*W: Well, here's what I've read. Mary, the mother, and MM were allegedly related to King Herod or his wife. MM was able to easily prevent Jesus from being crucified with her family connections. There was a stand-in on the cross. Some say Simon the Cyrene, others say Judas Sicariote. Whomever was hung on that cross went by the name "Bar Abbas," or "Son of the Father." If Jesus's real father was Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, then Jesus had Roman connections and could have been released by that avenue.
The connection between MM and JtB is a Templar belief. They may have been the same person. I don't know. I tend to think not. Of course, the Templars built all those massive cathedrals in France for MM -- not Jesus's mother! The arched entrance ways in these cathedrals are supposed to depict the vagina of the goddess. In other words, there is no salvation except through the vagina of MM!!! I take that as her womb is the holy grail.
*************
Asguard: Hey speaking of john, did you see that painting where mary was holding jeaus with john and the angel urial? The first one is VERY confusing, with the angel pointing. I mean if he ment the baby doing the blessing to be john why have the angel that is associated with john pointing at jeaus. The second one (if you remove the cross which they belive was added latter) seems to make more sence because the angel ISNT pointing, its quite oviouse who she is surporting.
*************
M*W: Yes, I am familiar with that painting. Those strange implications indicate that all is not "kosher" (for a better word) in the holy family! There were many paintings during the Renaissance by various artists who sort of told artistic jokes in their paintings. Is the painting you're speaking of the Virgin of the Rocks? That's another enigmatic one if it's different. If you look closely, da Vinci painted phalluses and vaginas into the rocks! The message here is -- Jesus was conceived in the good old-fashioned way! Further, Jesus may have been a twin. Scholars today think that Thomas was Jesus's twin. I've read that many of the paintings of the day when the church was the state, depict MM holding a baby. The older fellow isn't Joseph, Jesus's step-dad, but it's Joseph of Arimathea! MM is the young mother. The older woman is Jesus's mother. Now when I go to art galleries, I have a whole different perspective!
*************
Asguard: Oh B\W if john is mary then that piture of the baby jeaus and the lamb REALLY doesnt make any sence.
*************
M*W: The lamb was symbolic, not for Jesus, but for the zodiacal ram Aries! There is so much allegory in the NT referring to the zodiac. Aries-ram, lamb; Gemini-twins; Pisces-fish, Jesus; Aquarias-John the Baptist; Virgo-Jesus's mother; Leo-lion (the lion will lay down with the lamb refers to a conjunction of the constellations); Libra-judgment; Sagittarius-could be Jesus's biological father, Pandera, an archer in the Roman legion.
*************
Asguard: If jeaus was mary's lover why would he be trying to pull her head off.
*************
M*W: I need to look at that painting again. I know the one you're talking about. Since Jesus was a baby, was it the angel who was grasping her hand like a claw? I think the symbolism of this painting is to subtely show that Jesus was a normal kid.
*************
Asguard: However that is one persons interpritation of what he knew when he was alive so he may have been wrong about them being 2 different people. If mary and john are the same person MW, what do you think the Beheading of john represents?
*************
M*W: If the Apostle John is a pseudonym of MM, and MM is always depicted with the skull at her feet, that could either be Jesus's or JtB's due to the Templar connection. However, the beheading of JtB I think may symbolize MM losing her virginity to Jesus which would destroy the RCC. MM had political connections with Herod's family. We really don't know if the beheading happened or not, but assuming it did, I don't buy the story of Salome's dance, etc., etc. JtB is revered by the Templars. He was Jesus's cousin supposedly. However, NT interpretation of 'head' means penis and feet are also referred to as 'dogs. When MM anointed Jesus's head, that was symbolic for sexual intercourse. There's so much we need to learn!
*************
M*W: I read the Templar Revelation and couldn't put it down. I like the style of the two authors. I recommend you start by reading Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Secret Genealogy of Jesus Revealed, by Laurence Gardner. It's not light reading.
*************
Asguard: Its interesting that you say john the baptist may have been a way of saying MM because these 2 seemed to imply that altho there was a conection between the 2 that there were differences.
*************
M*W: Well, here's what I've read. Mary, the mother, and MM were allegedly related to King Herod or his wife. MM was able to easily prevent Jesus from being crucified with her family connections. There was a stand-in on the cross. Some say Simon the Cyrene, others say Judas Sicariote. Whomever was hung on that cross went by the name "Bar Abbas," or "Son of the Father." If Jesus's real father was Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, then Jesus had Roman connections and could have been released by that avenue.
The connection between MM and JtB is a Templar belief. They may have been the same person. I don't know. I tend to think not. Of course, the Templars built all those massive cathedrals in France for MM -- not Jesus's mother! The arched entrance ways in these cathedrals are supposed to depict the vagina of the goddess. In other words, there is no salvation except through the vagina of MM!!! I take that as her womb is the holy grail.
*************
Asguard: Hey speaking of john, did you see that painting where mary was holding jeaus with john and the angel urial? The first one is VERY confusing, with the angel pointing. I mean if he ment the baby doing the blessing to be john why have the angel that is associated with john pointing at jeaus. The second one (if you remove the cross which they belive was added latter) seems to make more sence because the angel ISNT pointing, its quite oviouse who she is surporting.
*************
M*W: Yes, I am familiar with that painting. Those strange implications indicate that all is not "kosher" (for a better word) in the holy family! There were many paintings during the Renaissance by various artists who sort of told artistic jokes in their paintings. Is the painting you're speaking of the Virgin of the Rocks? That's another enigmatic one if it's different. If you look closely, da Vinci painted phalluses and vaginas into the rocks! The message here is -- Jesus was conceived in the good old-fashioned way! Further, Jesus may have been a twin. Scholars today think that Thomas was Jesus's twin. I've read that many of the paintings of the day when the church was the state, depict MM holding a baby. The older fellow isn't Joseph, Jesus's step-dad, but it's Joseph of Arimathea! MM is the young mother. The older woman is Jesus's mother. Now when I go to art galleries, I have a whole different perspective!
*************
Asguard: Oh B\W if john is mary then that piture of the baby jeaus and the lamb REALLY doesnt make any sence.
*************
M*W: The lamb was symbolic, not for Jesus, but for the zodiacal ram Aries! There is so much allegory in the NT referring to the zodiac. Aries-ram, lamb; Gemini-twins; Pisces-fish, Jesus; Aquarias-John the Baptist; Virgo-Jesus's mother; Leo-lion (the lion will lay down with the lamb refers to a conjunction of the constellations); Libra-judgment; Sagittarius-could be Jesus's biological father, Pandera, an archer in the Roman legion.
*************
Asguard: If jeaus was mary's lover why would he be trying to pull her head off.
*************
M*W: I need to look at that painting again. I know the one you're talking about. Since Jesus was a baby, was it the angel who was grasping her hand like a claw? I think the symbolism of this painting is to subtely show that Jesus was a normal kid.
*************
Asguard: However that is one persons interpritation of what he knew when he was alive so he may have been wrong about them being 2 different people. If mary and john are the same person MW, what do you think the Beheading of john represents?
*************
M*W: If the Apostle John is a pseudonym of MM, and MM is always depicted with the skull at her feet, that could either be Jesus's or JtB's due to the Templar connection. However, the beheading of JtB I think may symbolize MM losing her virginity to Jesus which would destroy the RCC. MM had political connections with Herod's family. We really don't know if the beheading happened or not, but assuming it did, I don't buy the story of Salome's dance, etc., etc. JtB is revered by the Templars. He was Jesus's cousin supposedly. However, NT interpretation of 'head' means penis and feet are also referred to as 'dogs. When MM anointed Jesus's head, that was symbolic for sexual intercourse. There's so much we need to learn!
itopal: Boloney - no such thing has been found, nor can such be attributed to being a Jesus self-written Q. (source) document; that is just more bogus pointless speculation; mythology about mythology; about a hypothetical.
P.S. A more appropriate title to this thread would be immaculate deception.
*************
M*W: There's already a book by that name!
P.S. A more appropriate title to this thread would be immaculate deception.
*************
M*W: There's already a book by that name!
I'm just not sure why god couldn't save us from the clouds? Or just thru faith alone, like how it is being done today. If you believe in god and want an afterlife, then it really doesn't matter if he became a human with human nature and a human body and walked amongst us once. God inherently has a human nature somewhere inside him anyway, because he gave it to us.
Hang on. i think ive confused you (when i was talking about john i ment john the baptist, NOT john the apposal. I agree john the aposal probably was MM and so im igoring him because he probably never existed)
I was refering to 2 different paintings (actually 4 because they BOTH have 2 versions)
The first one (or rather 2) was the virgin on the rocks your right (sorry couldnt rember the name) where urial is pointing at the baby that is closer to mary (being seltered by her) while reciving the blessing of the other child, in the second painting the pointing finger is gone. Now if urial is the angel who protects john (where i surpose gabrial protects jeaus) and the baby closest to her is JOHN (which makes sence) and so its john blessing jeaus, then why is urial pointing at jeaus? The claw is mary and your right it does look like she is holding a head, so maybe the fingers only significance IS to decapitate the head thats not there. It just seems strange that she is pointing at jeaus. Did john need guidence to know who to bless? i cant honestly think of any reason for the finger. As to the vagina's i cant comment, the video of the painting i saw didnt give me enough of a chance to see those.
The lamb i was talking about was in 2 versons of a painting that i dont know the name of (altho the movie called it a cartoon). It shows jeaus on mary's lap and in the first verson there is the baby john at mary's (mary his mother not MM) feet. I didnt get a good look at what jeaus was doing in the first painting but in the second verson he is playing with the lamb (that has replaced john) and it looks like jesus is trying to rip the lambs head off. He also has his leg wraped around the lamb so it looks like the lambs head is cut off. If your right and john the baptist IS MM then jesus must have had some REAL hatred of his lover because it looks like he is trying to kill the lamb. So i doubt that da vinci thought of MM and JtB as the same person (wether he though john the apposal was repersentive of MM i dont doubt)
As to what happened to JtB i really cant rember. Its about 10 years since i stoped beliving in the catholic faith and since then i havent really read the bible so alot of it i cant really rember
Oh B\W are you saying that VM and MM are related? If so then ICK, isnt there something in the bible about screwing close relitives.
One more thing, what do you think of the authors of templar reverlations implying that it was consitines infulance on catholisium as the reason that judaisum is monothiastic (not sure how islam fits into it because i am not sure wether muhumid lived before or after rome adopted catholisum as its chief religion)
I really dont understand the conection between JtB and MM tho because if they are saying that jeuse usurped johns place as the christ then who cares about MM, she was just another women with just another husband and no different from anyone else. If jesus was important and therefor MM is the reperenstive of the godess then whats with JtB? These 2 seem to be rather mutually exscusive, but im sure they arnt, there is something missing.
I was just talking to mum (who has some background resurch on the gospals ect because she had to take scripture and some historical background as part of her training for teaching in the catholic system) and she was saying that historians (im a little suspicious of some of the infomation because they are catholic historians) belive that john the Apostle actually did exist as a real person. They know his linage ect, but i am still suspicious that maybe some of whats atributed to him may have MM.
I was refering to 2 different paintings (actually 4 because they BOTH have 2 versions)
The first one (or rather 2) was the virgin on the rocks your right (sorry couldnt rember the name) where urial is pointing at the baby that is closer to mary (being seltered by her) while reciving the blessing of the other child, in the second painting the pointing finger is gone. Now if urial is the angel who protects john (where i surpose gabrial protects jeaus) and the baby closest to her is JOHN (which makes sence) and so its john blessing jeaus, then why is urial pointing at jeaus? The claw is mary and your right it does look like she is holding a head, so maybe the fingers only significance IS to decapitate the head thats not there. It just seems strange that she is pointing at jeaus. Did john need guidence to know who to bless? i cant honestly think of any reason for the finger. As to the vagina's i cant comment, the video of the painting i saw didnt give me enough of a chance to see those.
The lamb i was talking about was in 2 versons of a painting that i dont know the name of (altho the movie called it a cartoon). It shows jeaus on mary's lap and in the first verson there is the baby john at mary's (mary his mother not MM) feet. I didnt get a good look at what jeaus was doing in the first painting but in the second verson he is playing with the lamb (that has replaced john) and it looks like jesus is trying to rip the lambs head off. He also has his leg wraped around the lamb so it looks like the lambs head is cut off. If your right and john the baptist IS MM then jesus must have had some REAL hatred of his lover because it looks like he is trying to kill the lamb. So i doubt that da vinci thought of MM and JtB as the same person (wether he though john the apposal was repersentive of MM i dont doubt)
As to what happened to JtB i really cant rember. Its about 10 years since i stoped beliving in the catholic faith and since then i havent really read the bible so alot of it i cant really rember
Oh B\W are you saying that VM and MM are related? If so then ICK, isnt there something in the bible about screwing close relitives.
One more thing, what do you think of the authors of templar reverlations implying that it was consitines infulance on catholisium as the reason that judaisum is monothiastic (not sure how islam fits into it because i am not sure wether muhumid lived before or after rome adopted catholisum as its chief religion)
I really dont understand the conection between JtB and MM tho because if they are saying that jeuse usurped johns place as the christ then who cares about MM, she was just another women with just another husband and no different from anyone else. If jesus was important and therefor MM is the reperenstive of the godess then whats with JtB? These 2 seem to be rather mutually exscusive, but im sure they arnt, there is something missing.
I was just talking to mum (who has some background resurch on the gospals ect because she had to take scripture and some historical background as part of her training for teaching in the catholic system) and she was saying that historians (im a little suspicious of some of the infomation because they are catholic historians) belive that john the Apostle actually did exist as a real person. They know his linage ect, but i am still suspicious that maybe some of whats atributed to him may have MM.
Asguard: Hang on. i think ive confused you (when i was talking about john i ment john the baptist, NOT john the apposal. I agree john the aposal probably was MM and so im igoring him because he probably never existed)
*************
M*W: I may have been confused, but JtA was MM, so that's settled. JtB was revered by the KT as you said. However, there is some kind of connection between JtB & MM, but I've not read any conclusive evidence about this. The KT revered them both, and JtB was allegedly beheaded. The confusion here lies in the fact that both VM & MM were related to King Herod. An interesting note here is that when both Pontius Pilate and Herod and his family retired, they all moved to Gaul in the South of France knowing full well that MM (and who knows, maybe Jesus, were there)!
In those days it was unheard of a woman writing anything! I can understand why MM wrote under the pseudonym of the Beloved Apostle, John. The strange association is noted, although in the words of the gospel writers, that at the foot of the cross Jesus said, "John, behold thy mother; woman, behold thy son." (BTW, I'm quoting this from memory). This could just be a way for the gospel writers to ignore MM.
*************
Asguard: I was refering to 2 different paintings (actually 4 because they BOTH have 2 versions)
The first one (or rather 2) was the virgin on the rocks your right (sorry couldnt rember the name) where urial is pointing at the baby that is closer to mary (being seltered by her) while reciving the blessing of the other child, in the second painting the pointing finger is gone. Now if urial is the angel who protects john (where i surpose gabrial protects jeaus) and the baby closest to her is JOHN (which makes sence) and so its john blessing jeaus, then why is urial pointing at jeaus? The claw is mary and your right it does look like she is holding a head, so maybe the fingers only significance IS to decapitate the head thats not there. It just seems strange that she is pointing at jeaus. Did john need guidence to know who to bless? i cant honestly think of any reason for the finger. As to the vagina's i cant comment, the video of the painting i saw didnt give me enough of a chance to see those.
The lamb i was talking about was in 2 versons of a painting that i dont know the name of (altho the movie called it a cartoon). It shows jeaus on mary's lap and in the first verson there is the baby john at mary's (mary his mother not MM) feet. I didnt get a good look at what jeaus was doing in the first painting but in the second verson he is playing with the lamb (that has replaced john) and it looks like jesus is trying to rip the lambs head off. He also has his leg wraped around the lamb so it looks like the lambs head is cut off. If your right and john the baptist IS MM then jesus must have had some REAL hatred of his lover because it looks like he is trying to kill the lamb. So i doubt that da vinci thought of MM and JtB as the same person (wether he though john the apposal was repersentive of MM i dont doubt)
*************
M*W: To distinguish Jesus from JtB, JtB is always pointing his index finger upward. I don't think the lamb represents MM, and the GGs indicate Jesus's love for MM. For the most part, Jesus and JtB are depicted as babies. In any event, look for the pointed index finger.
Here's a few I found that you may be interested in:
The Last Supper
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/auth/vinci/lastsupp.jpg
Virgin of the Rocks
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/rocks.jpg
Notice the phallic symbols and the vaginal orifices painted within the "rocks."
Madonna and Child with St. Anne
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/auth/sketch/madonna.jpg
St. Anne and Jesus with the Lamb (not correct title)
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/sketch/st-anne.jpg
Other paintings that depict an older man does not mean that it is Joseph, stepfather to Jesus. Joseph held no real place in Jesus's life, but Joseph of Arimathea did. He was either Mary's brother or MM's uncle. There is also the possibility since mother Mary and MM were related through the Herod family, MM and Jesus were probably cousins.
I noticed how Jesus was squeezing the lamb. The lamb symbolizes Jesus -- how strange! Oh, wait a minute! Jesus IS trying to hurt the lamb! Could this mean a self-inflicted wound?
*************
Asguard: As to what happened to JtB i really cant rember. Its about 10 years since i stoped beliving in the catholic faith and since then i havent really read the bible so alot of it i cant really rember
*************
M*W: Well, you really haven't missed anything by not reading the bible. Most of it, if not all of it, is untrue. It's just made up fiction. JtB was beheaded by Herod's family. I don't find this a likely prospect, because JtB and Jesus were cousins, too, and related to Herod's family. Now,the symbolism of the "beheading" could mean any number of things. Salome was involved with her seductive dance of the seven veils. "Veils" itself are symbolic for uncovering the truth. Perhaps JtB and Salome had a thing going on. Beheading would then mean sexual intercourse. The "head" is symbolic for intercourse. The "feet" are symbolic of male genitals.
*************
Asguard: Oh B\W are you saying that VM and MM are related? If so then ICK, isnt there something in the bible about screwing close relitives.
*************
M*W: Yes, VM & MM were related through Herod's family ties. Screwing family members in those days were not only approved of, there were laws to ensure it! When a man's brother dies, he needs to copulate with his sister-in-law to propagate that lineage. In Egypt, it was not only customary to mate with one's biological sister, but it was demanded to retain purity in the bloodline. We just can't do it today!
*************
Asguard: One more thing, what do you think of the authors of templar reverlations implying that it was consitines infulance on catholisium as the reason that judaisum is monothiastic (not sure how islam fits into it because i am not sure wether muhumid lived before or after rome adopted catholisum as its chief religion)
*************
M*W: Constantine surely did influence catholicism and all of christianity, but I don't see how Constantine could influence Judaism as a monotheistic religion. That was Moses's doing. Muhammad lived after the development of catholicism.
*************
Asguard: I really dont understand the conection between JtB and MM tho because if they are saying that jeuse usurped johns place as the christ then who cares about MM, she was just another women with just another husband and no different from anyone else. If jesus was important and therefor MM is the reperenstive of the godess then whats with JtB? These 2 seem to be rather mutually exscusive, but im sure they arnt, there is something missing.
*************
M*W: If JtB was Jesus's cousin, it's possible that he was MM's cousin, too. That's neither here nor there, though. Jesus didn't actually usurp JtB's place as the Christ. That was all of Paul's doing when he wrote the mythical story of the dying demigod savior. The real story may be that JtB was the Christ after all, and that's why he's associated with MM. MM, herself, was Christlike. In fact, I see MM as more of a Christ than even Jesus! All I know right now is that the KT revered them both equally while ignoring Jesus for the most part.
*************
Asguard: I was just talking to mum (who has some background resurch on the gospals ect because she had to take scripture and some historical background as part of her training for teaching in the catholic system) and she was saying that historians (im a little suspicious of some of the infomation because they are catholic historians) belive that john the Apostle actually did exist as a real person. They know his linage ect, but i am still suspicious that maybe some of whats atributed to him may have MM.
*************
M*W: Well, the RCC is going to teach what supports its own agenda -- the existence of the Beloved Apostle John is one of them. This is one of their many "cover-ups!" The language and writing style of the Gospel of John and Revelations are quite similar, and scholars today aren't afraid to speak the truth. Just imagine a century ago how fearful it would have been for anyone to say something against 2000 years of the church of lies!
*************
M*W: I may have been confused, but JtA was MM, so that's settled. JtB was revered by the KT as you said. However, there is some kind of connection between JtB & MM, but I've not read any conclusive evidence about this. The KT revered them both, and JtB was allegedly beheaded. The confusion here lies in the fact that both VM & MM were related to King Herod. An interesting note here is that when both Pontius Pilate and Herod and his family retired, they all moved to Gaul in the South of France knowing full well that MM (and who knows, maybe Jesus, were there)!
In those days it was unheard of a woman writing anything! I can understand why MM wrote under the pseudonym of the Beloved Apostle, John. The strange association is noted, although in the words of the gospel writers, that at the foot of the cross Jesus said, "John, behold thy mother; woman, behold thy son." (BTW, I'm quoting this from memory). This could just be a way for the gospel writers to ignore MM.
*************
Asguard: I was refering to 2 different paintings (actually 4 because they BOTH have 2 versions)
The first one (or rather 2) was the virgin on the rocks your right (sorry couldnt rember the name) where urial is pointing at the baby that is closer to mary (being seltered by her) while reciving the blessing of the other child, in the second painting the pointing finger is gone. Now if urial is the angel who protects john (where i surpose gabrial protects jeaus) and the baby closest to her is JOHN (which makes sence) and so its john blessing jeaus, then why is urial pointing at jeaus? The claw is mary and your right it does look like she is holding a head, so maybe the fingers only significance IS to decapitate the head thats not there. It just seems strange that she is pointing at jeaus. Did john need guidence to know who to bless? i cant honestly think of any reason for the finger. As to the vagina's i cant comment, the video of the painting i saw didnt give me enough of a chance to see those.
The lamb i was talking about was in 2 versons of a painting that i dont know the name of (altho the movie called it a cartoon). It shows jeaus on mary's lap and in the first verson there is the baby john at mary's (mary his mother not MM) feet. I didnt get a good look at what jeaus was doing in the first painting but in the second verson he is playing with the lamb (that has replaced john) and it looks like jesus is trying to rip the lambs head off. He also has his leg wraped around the lamb so it looks like the lambs head is cut off. If your right and john the baptist IS MM then jesus must have had some REAL hatred of his lover because it looks like he is trying to kill the lamb. So i doubt that da vinci thought of MM and JtB as the same person (wether he though john the apposal was repersentive of MM i dont doubt)
*************
M*W: To distinguish Jesus from JtB, JtB is always pointing his index finger upward. I don't think the lamb represents MM, and the GGs indicate Jesus's love for MM. For the most part, Jesus and JtB are depicted as babies. In any event, look for the pointed index finger.
Here's a few I found that you may be interested in:
The Last Supper
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/auth/vinci/lastsupp.jpg
Virgin of the Rocks
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/rocks.jpg
Notice the phallic symbols and the vaginal orifices painted within the "rocks."
Madonna and Child with St. Anne
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/auth/sketch/madonna.jpg
St. Anne and Jesus with the Lamb (not correct title)
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/sketch/st-anne.jpg
Other paintings that depict an older man does not mean that it is Joseph, stepfather to Jesus. Joseph held no real place in Jesus's life, but Joseph of Arimathea did. He was either Mary's brother or MM's uncle. There is also the possibility since mother Mary and MM were related through the Herod family, MM and Jesus were probably cousins.
I noticed how Jesus was squeezing the lamb. The lamb symbolizes Jesus -- how strange! Oh, wait a minute! Jesus IS trying to hurt the lamb! Could this mean a self-inflicted wound?
*************
Asguard: As to what happened to JtB i really cant rember. Its about 10 years since i stoped beliving in the catholic faith and since then i havent really read the bible so alot of it i cant really rember
*************
M*W: Well, you really haven't missed anything by not reading the bible. Most of it, if not all of it, is untrue. It's just made up fiction. JtB was beheaded by Herod's family. I don't find this a likely prospect, because JtB and Jesus were cousins, too, and related to Herod's family. Now,the symbolism of the "beheading" could mean any number of things. Salome was involved with her seductive dance of the seven veils. "Veils" itself are symbolic for uncovering the truth. Perhaps JtB and Salome had a thing going on. Beheading would then mean sexual intercourse. The "head" is symbolic for intercourse. The "feet" are symbolic of male genitals.
*************
Asguard: Oh B\W are you saying that VM and MM are related? If so then ICK, isnt there something in the bible about screwing close relitives.
*************
M*W: Yes, VM & MM were related through Herod's family ties. Screwing family members in those days were not only approved of, there were laws to ensure it! When a man's brother dies, he needs to copulate with his sister-in-law to propagate that lineage. In Egypt, it was not only customary to mate with one's biological sister, but it was demanded to retain purity in the bloodline. We just can't do it today!
*************
Asguard: One more thing, what do you think of the authors of templar reverlations implying that it was consitines infulance on catholisium as the reason that judaisum is monothiastic (not sure how islam fits into it because i am not sure wether muhumid lived before or after rome adopted catholisum as its chief religion)
*************
M*W: Constantine surely did influence catholicism and all of christianity, but I don't see how Constantine could influence Judaism as a monotheistic religion. That was Moses's doing. Muhammad lived after the development of catholicism.
*************
Asguard: I really dont understand the conection between JtB and MM tho because if they are saying that jeuse usurped johns place as the christ then who cares about MM, she was just another women with just another husband and no different from anyone else. If jesus was important and therefor MM is the reperenstive of the godess then whats with JtB? These 2 seem to be rather mutually exscusive, but im sure they arnt, there is something missing.
*************
M*W: If JtB was Jesus's cousin, it's possible that he was MM's cousin, too. That's neither here nor there, though. Jesus didn't actually usurp JtB's place as the Christ. That was all of Paul's doing when he wrote the mythical story of the dying demigod savior. The real story may be that JtB was the Christ after all, and that's why he's associated with MM. MM, herself, was Christlike. In fact, I see MM as more of a Christ than even Jesus! All I know right now is that the KT revered them both equally while ignoring Jesus for the most part.
*************
Asguard: I was just talking to mum (who has some background resurch on the gospals ect because she had to take scripture and some historical background as part of her training for teaching in the catholic system) and she was saying that historians (im a little suspicious of some of the infomation because they are catholic historians) belive that john the Apostle actually did exist as a real person. They know his linage ect, but i am still suspicious that maybe some of whats atributed to him may have MM.
*************
M*W: Well, the RCC is going to teach what supports its own agenda -- the existence of the Beloved Apostle John is one of them. This is one of their many "cover-ups!" The language and writing style of the Gospel of John and Revelations are quite similar, and scholars today aren't afraid to speak the truth. Just imagine a century ago how fearful it would have been for anyone to say something against 2000 years of the church of lies!
MW: I noticed how Jesus was squeezing the lamb. The lamb symbolizes Jesus -- how strange! Oh, wait a minute! Jesus IS trying to hurt the lamb! Could this mean a self-inflicted wound?
i dont think the lamb IS intended to be a self reprentation because acording to the authors of the templar relevlation the lamb is sometimes used to represent john the baptist because he was the one that proclamed the coming of the lamb of god. As the 2 paintings are identical except for the lamb rather than the baby (sorry i cant open http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/auth/sketch/madonna.jpg it says the page doesnt exist) i would think its pritty clear he ment John the baptist as the lamb. If so why does jesus want to harm john? (sorry i was using your sugestion that JtB and MM may have been one person before which didnt really fit that painting) What was the rivalry between them i wonder? Or does the rivalry represent something else
M*W: Well, the RCC is going to teach what supports its own agenda -- the existence of the Beloved Apostle John is one of them. This is one of their many "cover-ups!" The language and writing style of the Gospel of John and Revelations are quite similar, and scholars today aren't afraid to speak the truth. Just imagine a century ago how fearful it would have been for anyone to say something against 2000 years of the church of lies!
I actually think its more likly that there WAS a person who was john, with a verifiable line ect (because rember the romans were good at keeping records so things like this can be easierly checked), And that he was used to subvert marys place, than they totally made up someone at random to take her place. It just seems easier to me to take someone who was already a part of it and give him more promidence than to make up someone from scratch. I also think this is probably the way consitine did it because he already used that aproch on the pagans. Think about the pagen sybology that was subverted by consitine and the church to man something compleatly different. It wouldnt have made any sence to use something compleatly new to try to crush the pagens because it would have been WAY to oviouse. I think that the same may have been used for MM. Think about all the indervidual churches pratising there indervidual ways and keeping the truth across a whole range of areas, Which is better use of propergander to make something have a conection to reality (ie a real person) or make someone up totally new that they could then go and look at there own traditions and say "hang on, theres no john"?
i dont think the lamb IS intended to be a self reprentation because acording to the authors of the templar relevlation the lamb is sometimes used to represent john the baptist because he was the one that proclamed the coming of the lamb of god. As the 2 paintings are identical except for the lamb rather than the baby (sorry i cant open http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/auth/sketch/madonna.jpg it says the page doesnt exist) i would think its pritty clear he ment John the baptist as the lamb. If so why does jesus want to harm john? (sorry i was using your sugestion that JtB and MM may have been one person before which didnt really fit that painting) What was the rivalry between them i wonder? Or does the rivalry represent something else
M*W: Well, the RCC is going to teach what supports its own agenda -- the existence of the Beloved Apostle John is one of them. This is one of their many "cover-ups!" The language and writing style of the Gospel of John and Revelations are quite similar, and scholars today aren't afraid to speak the truth. Just imagine a century ago how fearful it would have been for anyone to say something against 2000 years of the church of lies!
I actually think its more likly that there WAS a person who was john, with a verifiable line ect (because rember the romans were good at keeping records so things like this can be easierly checked), And that he was used to subvert marys place, than they totally made up someone at random to take her place. It just seems easier to me to take someone who was already a part of it and give him more promidence than to make up someone from scratch. I also think this is probably the way consitine did it because he already used that aproch on the pagans. Think about the pagen sybology that was subverted by consitine and the church to man something compleatly different. It wouldnt have made any sence to use something compleatly new to try to crush the pagens because it would have been WAY to oviouse. I think that the same may have been used for MM. Think about all the indervidual churches pratising there indervidual ways and keeping the truth across a whole range of areas, Which is better use of propergander to make something have a conection to reality (ie a real person) or make someone up totally new that they could then go and look at there own traditions and say "hang on, theres no john"?
Oh B\W what do you think the pointing finger means in the virgin on the rocks?
its not the john symbol because she is pointing AT someone so what could she mean?
Oh B\W the last supper wasnt on that site either
and have you seen the adoration of the magi? that painting is FREAKY
its not the john symbol because she is pointing AT someone so what could she mean?
Oh B\W the last supper wasnt on that site either
and have you seen the adoration of the magi? that painting is FREAKY
Two things...
1.) Roman mentioned this, but I think it may have been missed by most.
"Immaculate Conception" does not refer to the birth of Jesus, it refers to the birth of Mary. As the story goes, God needed a vessel that was free of sin to carry his kid. Since all humans are born with Original Sin, he had to bless a woman to be the first (and apparently only) woman to be born completely free of sin. Clean - Immaculate. Mary was the Immaculate Conception.
2.) I can't believe people are trying to discern the science and DNA realities of the birth of a God-Man! To accept that Jesus was the son of God, you ahev to first accept that a high and mighty, omniscient, omnipotent God exists. You have to accept that he would need to send his "son" down to earth in order to save mankind. If you can accept those two simple precepts, why question the biologocal makeup of God's baby batter? It's absurd! If God exists, jesus could have been made of Play-Doh! It doesn't matter.
1.) Roman mentioned this, but I think it may have been missed by most.
"Immaculate Conception" does not refer to the birth of Jesus, it refers to the birth of Mary. As the story goes, God needed a vessel that was free of sin to carry his kid. Since all humans are born with Original Sin, he had to bless a woman to be the first (and apparently only) woman to be born completely free of sin. Clean - Immaculate. Mary was the Immaculate Conception.
2.) I can't believe people are trying to discern the science and DNA realities of the birth of a God-Man! To accept that Jesus was the son of God, you ahev to first accept that a high and mighty, omniscient, omnipotent God exists. You have to accept that he would need to send his "son" down to earth in order to save mankind. If you can accept those two simple precepts, why question the biologocal makeup of God's baby batter? It's absurd! If God exists, jesus could have been made of Play-Doh! It doesn't matter.
Good point Raven, and your right about the immaculate conception.
To other christians here I give this warning: These teachings should not be discussed in this circle of heathens and sick-minded unbelievers. YOU speak of divine Mysteries. Cast not your pearls before the Swine...
To other christians here I give this warning: These teachings should not be discussed in this circle of heathens and sick-minded unbelievers. YOU speak of divine Mysteries. Cast not your pearls before the Swine...
Last edited:
Asguard: Oh B\W what do you think the pointing finger means in the virgin on the rocks?
its not the john symbol because she is pointing AT someone so what could she mean?
Oh B\W the last supper wasnt on that site either
and have you seen the adoration of the magi? that painting is FREAKY
*************
M*W: I haven't forgotten our interesting conversation about the art of da Vinci. I was still researching it im depth when sciforums went down the first time. I found this site:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/ftptoc/leonardo_ext.html
Some art scholars believe the Mona Lisa to be called "Mon I'lise." I will try to find the reason for this and get back to you (hopefully sometime this year!).
As you know, the RCC tried as best it could to maintain control over the art of the period so it would concur with its teachings. The Madonna was to be depicted only in blue and white. The RCC insisted that the artists of the day depict the Holy Family according to their rules: Mary and Jesus must be depicted in the forefront. Joseph and other relatives of Jesus held insignificant places in the back.
Anna, Mary's mother, was seldom featured in paintings with her daughter, because her presence detracted from Mary's divinity. However, there is one reference on this web site depicting Mary and her mother in equal positions in the forefront with Jesus' position being somewhat downplayed. The title of this painting by Francesco da San Gallo is called "Saint Anne and the Madonna." Interestingly, Saint Anne's name is listed first! I think this painting refers to Jesus' natural genealogy. We know who his mother is, but we don't know who his father might be leaving doubt about his godly paternity.
In Cesi's "The Vision of Saint Anne" depicts Anne kneeling before Mary. da Vinci's "The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne" places the adult Mary on her mother's knee.In Pietro Perugino's "The Family of the Virgin," Anne stands behind her daughter. Anne was supposed to be elderly when the Immaculate Conception was conceived, but these paintings don't reflect her age.
Joseph, Mary's elderly husband, and her father, Joachim, always caused problems for the artists. Both of them defied the artist's inclination to make them main characters on their canvasses. There is a more ancient painting by an artist named Taddeo Gaddi who died in 1366 that depicts Joachim being rejected by the the Jewish temple by the high priest Issachar while holding his baby girl! This seems to me to be a bit undignified for the father of the Immaculate Conception!
Michelangelo painted "The Holy Family." Mary is elevated upon a central throne, but Joseph is depicted in the background leaning over something and appearing somewhat bored.
Another painting by Ghirlandaio called "The Adoration of the Shepherds" circa 1485, shows Joseph much older than his wife, and appearing to take little interest in his family.
I think that whenever anyone observes art depicting Jesus and his relatives, it is wise to assume that the Madonna is not Jesus' mother but his wife! Mary Magdalen was associated with the rose and the lily. The lily became the fleur-de-lys, the flower of the French royal houses that descended from the Merovingians (the vine of Mary Magdalen).
It was the RCC who ousted the Merovingian Dynasty in the 8th century, nicely covering up the lineage of Mary Magdalen and Jesus.
I hope this is informative for starters.
its not the john symbol because she is pointing AT someone so what could she mean?
Oh B\W the last supper wasnt on that site either
and have you seen the adoration of the magi? that painting is FREAKY
*************
M*W: I haven't forgotten our interesting conversation about the art of da Vinci. I was still researching it im depth when sciforums went down the first time. I found this site:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/ftptoc/leonardo_ext.html
Some art scholars believe the Mona Lisa to be called "Mon I'lise." I will try to find the reason for this and get back to you (hopefully sometime this year!).
As you know, the RCC tried as best it could to maintain control over the art of the period so it would concur with its teachings. The Madonna was to be depicted only in blue and white. The RCC insisted that the artists of the day depict the Holy Family according to their rules: Mary and Jesus must be depicted in the forefront. Joseph and other relatives of Jesus held insignificant places in the back.
Anna, Mary's mother, was seldom featured in paintings with her daughter, because her presence detracted from Mary's divinity. However, there is one reference on this web site depicting Mary and her mother in equal positions in the forefront with Jesus' position being somewhat downplayed. The title of this painting by Francesco da San Gallo is called "Saint Anne and the Madonna." Interestingly, Saint Anne's name is listed first! I think this painting refers to Jesus' natural genealogy. We know who his mother is, but we don't know who his father might be leaving doubt about his godly paternity.
In Cesi's "The Vision of Saint Anne" depicts Anne kneeling before Mary. da Vinci's "The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne" places the adult Mary on her mother's knee.In Pietro Perugino's "The Family of the Virgin," Anne stands behind her daughter. Anne was supposed to be elderly when the Immaculate Conception was conceived, but these paintings don't reflect her age.
Joseph, Mary's elderly husband, and her father, Joachim, always caused problems for the artists. Both of them defied the artist's inclination to make them main characters on their canvasses. There is a more ancient painting by an artist named Taddeo Gaddi who died in 1366 that depicts Joachim being rejected by the the Jewish temple by the high priest Issachar while holding his baby girl! This seems to me to be a bit undignified for the father of the Immaculate Conception!
Michelangelo painted "The Holy Family." Mary is elevated upon a central throne, but Joseph is depicted in the background leaning over something and appearing somewhat bored.
Another painting by Ghirlandaio called "The Adoration of the Shepherds" circa 1485, shows Joseph much older than his wife, and appearing to take little interest in his family.
I think that whenever anyone observes art depicting Jesus and his relatives, it is wise to assume that the Madonna is not Jesus' mother but his wife! Mary Magdalen was associated with the rose and the lily. The lily became the fleur-de-lys, the flower of the French royal houses that descended from the Merovingians (the vine of Mary Magdalen).
It was the RCC who ousted the Merovingian Dynasty in the 8th century, nicely covering up the lineage of Mary Magdalen and Jesus.
I hope this is informative for starters.