The Damascus Road Event

Leo Volont: I suspect the only reason Peter was written of was because he was the only Real Apostle to show any patronage for Paul. It would be the Pauline Congregations which would claim for Peter ascendency over the Church... because he was the only Apostle who would recognize paul as something other than a complete fraud.
*************
M*W: Peter knew Jesus in the flesh, but Paul did not. Peter may have told Paul things about Jesus which Paul twisted and wrote down. Peter also knew Mary Magdalene was intimate with Jesus, but somehow Paul didn't write that down or it was suppressed. As you said, Paul did push Peter toward the pontificate, but they had a falling out toward the end. It was probably because Peter knew Jesus and what Paul was writing about Jesus was bullshit. Further, in one of the gnostic gospels (I can't remember which one), after the crucifixion Peter was talking to Jesus -- in the flesh!
*************
Leo Volont: Then we have Paul in Galatians tell us outright that Peter accepted Paul only because of the money he was contributing. Luke makes the same argument in the book of Acts -- that Paul was able to receive audiance by the Church of Jerusalem because of his hefty financial contributions.

So... is it really THE WORD OF GOD, or just Money Talking?
*************
M*W: It's always about the money. Paul robbed several churches including the Jerusalem Church and murdered James by throwing him off a balcony.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: Peter knew Jesus in the flesh, but Paul did not. Peter may have told Paul things about Jesus which Paul twisted and wrote down. Peter also knew Mary Magdalene was intimate with Jesus, but somehow Paul didn't write that down or it was suppressed. As you said, Paul did push Peter toward the pontificate, but they had a falling out toward the end. It was probably because Peter knew Jesus and what Paul was writing about Jesus was bullshit. Further, in one of the gnostic gospels (I can't remember which one), after the crucifixion Peter was talking to Jesus -- in the flesh!
Click to expand...

Dear Medicine Woman,

We can understand Paul and Peter's falling out when we again examine Galatians... Paul understood that he had an exclusive Franchise of the Gentiles, and that Peter would confine himself to the Jews. This was how they started. But Peter lost a significant amount of his prestige with the Jews when his Protege Paul began in instigate riots against the congregations of the other Apostles. Peter's apology for Paul in his letters -- that Paul was dangerously 'misunderstood' -- would not be sufficient. Peter may have started as Leader of the Apostles, but even by Acts 15 we see that Peter is answering to James. Eventually Peter was entirely ostracized from Jerusalem and he went off seeking his fortunes in Rome... with Gentiles. I suppose he thought that he would leave the Greeks to Paul and that he himself would take on the Latins. But to Paul, 'a deal was a deal', and the Gangster Paul perceived it that Peter was 'muscling in' on his territory -- his Gentile Franchise.

Medicine Woman, we agree upon everything else, but the only evidence that Christ treated women as sex objects come from what could only have been from the cheap lurid fiction of the day... afterall, the cheap pruient Hollywood Screenwriters of the day, and the authors of visereal Romantic Fiction MUST have seen an opportunity with Mary Magdaline. No matter how much penance she would do for having once been a 'party girl' there are few in the World who would ever let her forget it. You would dreg up her past and forever paint her as a Girl of Sin. It is really not very charitable of you. You also seem to imply that Christ was a real lecher and would sexually exploit those women who would place themselves in His power. Besides, all of this Mary Magdaline talk has simply been propagated by the Masons as nothing more than a sheer attack on the Catholic Church. Its never been true and they could hardly care if it were, as long as it portrays Jesus as just another guy with a hardon, all their ends are achieved.
 
Actually, I think MW is very pro-Magdalene.

Re: MW's chronology: I believe the Letter to the Hebrews has nothing to do with Paul and was written in the early to mid 2nd Century. I'm not certain the Peter letters have anything to do with Peter himself, though I could be wrong on that. So far from authoring the books of John and Revelation, I personally doubt that Magdalene was even literate. At any rate, those books are the product of an early Christian apocalyptic sect, were written about 100 CE (or at least a minimum of 60 years after the life of Christ) and have no direct connection with the people around Christ at all.

It does not seem to me to be remotely likely that Paul faked his conversion to Jesus in order to escape from anything, nor that there can be any doubt that he truly repudiated the depth of his Jewish beliefs, regardless of whether he quoted Jesus directly or not. He was imprisoned because he was a Christian, not because he was a Jew.
 
Ophiolite: "But lets say all three versions sprang from Paul, via the pen of Luke. Again, differences should be expected: by way of clarification; through a wish to move emphasis;through muddied, or improved, recollection."

Battig1370: Ophiolite, Do you accept all three versions are The Word of God, that's what am getting at?

Christians, who are discples of Saul/St.Paul, believe that all three versions are The Word of God.

Peace be with you, Paul
 
Silas: Actually, I think MW is very pro-Magdalene.
*************
M*W: Thank you, Silas, for pointing this out. I don't recall ever denigrating MM (nor would I). I don't know where Leo got this idea.
 
Leo Volont: Medicine Woman, we agree upon everything else, but the only evidence that Christ treated women as sex objects come from what could only have been from the cheap lurid fiction of the day... afterall, the cheap pruient Hollywood Screenwriters of the day, and the authors of visereal Romantic Fiction MUST have seen an opportunity with Mary Magdaline.
*************
M*W: Leo, you have obviously mistaken me for somebody who gives a damn. Not only have I never said anything derogatory about MM, I have gone so far as to venerate her possibly even higher than Jesus! However, I do agree with you about the Hollywood Screenwriters of the day (i.e. Saul of Tarsus whose screen name was Paul). Also, I have never implied that Jesus treated women as sex objects! I do believe that he and MM were legally married and were sexually active enough to have three or so children whose descendants may be alive today.
*************
Leo Volont: No matter how much penance she would do for having once been a 'party girl' there are few in the World who would ever let her forget it. You would dreg up her past and forever paint her as a Girl of Sin. It is really not very charitable of you. You also seem to imply that Christ was a real lecher and would sexually exploit those women who would place themselves in His power. Besides, all of this Mary Magdaline talk has simply been propagated by the Masons as nothing more than a sheer attack on the Catholic Church. Its never been true and they could hardly care if it were, as long as it portrays Jesus as just another guy with a hardon, all their ends are achieved.
*************
M*W: I am as devoted to MM as you are to the BVM. MM was no 'party girl,' she was a wise woman who anointed her husband (which was the usual custom of matrimony). I don't believe Jesus took advantage of his women followers at all. Where did you get that from? However, I admit that I don't have a high regard for the Catholic Church -- been there, done that, bought a t-shirt, no regrets. But since you brought up the subject, I have a theory that'll surely piss you off, and I don't think anyone else has aired this theory -- Jesus and MM might have been siblings. Not too far-fetched in the day. Bottom line is a lot of truth was suppressed by the Church, and we are just now learning about it. Even though I don't believe Jesus was yet another dying demigod savior of the day, I do believe MM was a Goddess.
 
battig1370 said:
Battig1370: Ophiolite, Do you accept all three versions are The Word of God, that's what [I am getting at?
Click to expand...
Since I am a devout agnostic you will understand that I have doubts about any part of the bible being the Word of God. That said, I can readily move my current POV along the belief spectrum to an appropriate point. Viewed then, as a believer, I find no difficulty in accepting all three versions as the Word of God. After all, if God can give us phenomena that behave as particles and waves, he can surely give us some apparently contradictory versions of events. As a believer I would seek to resolve those contradictions and understand the intent.
 
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: I am as devoted to MM as you are to the BVM. MM was no 'party girl,' she was a wise woman who anointed her husband (which was the usual custom of matrimony). I don't believe Jesus took advantage of his women followers at all. Where did you get that from? However, I admit that I don't have a high regard for the Catholic Church -- been there, done that, bought a t-shirt, no regrets. But since you brought up the subject, I have a theory that'll surely piss you off, and I don't think anyone else has aired this theory -- Jesus and MM might have been siblings. Not too far-fetched in the day. Bottom line is a lot of truth was suppressed by the Church, and we are just now learning about it. Even though I don't believe Jesus was yet another dying demigod savior of the day, I do believe MM was a Goddess.
Click to expand...

Mary Magdaline WAS a 'party girl' and I am using that as a euphemism. After all, she was doing intense penance for SOMETHING. You never did bother reading the account of Mary Magdaline presented by Anne Catherine Emmerich. It would give you more insight.

But I don't mind that Mary Magdaline had a checkered past, as, after all, she did turn away from her sins.

What I do mind is the presentation of Christ as one of the worst kind of Gurus -- one who will take advantage of the vulnerabilities of his patients and clients. Is it not your contention that Jesus imposed himself sexually upon Mary Magdaline? I find that disgusting. The only reason the Masons have been perpetuating such propaganda is so that Christianity and Catholicism in particular can be Morally Eviserated. Catholicism can no longer be a True Religion if Jesus is nothing more than a predatory Playboy.

Yes, Mary Magdaline may have seen herself as a Spouse of Christ, along the lines of her being the First Nun, that is, a Chaste Spouse... A Spiritual Spouse. But is this what you have been maintaining, or do you hold with the Masons that there can be only one kind of relationship -- physical and carnal... degenerately worldly.
 
Leo Volont: Mary Magdaline WAS a 'party girl' and I am using that as a euphemism. After all, she was doing intense penance for SOMETHING. You never did bother reading the account of Mary Magdaline presented by Anne Catherine Emmerich. It would give you more insight.
*************
M*W: Again, MM was NOT a 'party girl.' Your bible lies as does your church. She was not catholic nor did any penance! I don't trust Anne Catherine Emmerich any further than I could throw her.
*************
Leo Volont: But I don't mind that Mary Magdaline had a checkered past, as, after all, she did turn away from her sins.
*************
M*W: MM was an honorable woman of independent means in the shipping industry of Bethany. Mer means ocean or sea, and that is where the name Mary originates. Although the bible never states MM was a 'prostitute,' even the word 'prostitute' had a different meaning in those days than it does now.
*************
Leo Volont: What I do mind is the presentation of Christ as one of the worst kind of Gurus -- one who will take advantage of the vulnerabilities of his patients and clients.
*************
M*W: Where do you get this from? I think you're imagining it.
*************
Leo Volont: Is it not your contention that Jesus imposed himself sexually upon Mary Magdaline?
*************
M*W: No! I've never implied that. Leo, I think you're getting senile.
*************
Leo Volont: I find that disgusting. The only reason the Masons have been perpetuating such propaganda is so that Christianity and Catholicism in particular can be Morally Eviserated.
*************
M*W: Leo, from your previous posts, you have made it clear that anything to do with sexual relations you find disgusting, immoral, nasty and devious. On the other hand, I don't have the hang-ups you do about sex. I find sexual relations to be normal (within appropriate parameters), they are healthy, and they provide healing to the partners appropriately involved, and sex is a basic human need as is air, water and food. Normal sex has been denigrated by your church for centuries. Your human ideal is the BVM -- that says it all! And, you know what, Leo? The BVM will remain perpetually "young" as well as a multipara.

As far as the Masons destroying catholicism -- more power to them! In whatever capacity I can avail toward this endeavor, I will be there to see it fall!
*************
Leo Volont: Catholicism can no longer be a True Religion if Jesus is nothing more than a predatory Playboy.
*************
M*W: Your words, not mine.
*************
Leo Volont: Yes, Mary Magdaline may have seen herself as a Spouse of Christ, along the lines of her being the First Nun, that is, a Chaste Spouse... A Spiritual Spouse. But is this what you have been maintaining, or do you hold with the Masons that there can be only one kind of relationship -- physical and carnal... degenerately worldly.
*************
M*W: MM and Jesus were married in spirit and in flesh, but your reference to her being the "First Nun" was disgusting! Your whole idea of a "Chaste Spouse" is disgusting! Chastity in marriage doesn't mean not having sex, it means restraint from infidelity! You make up all these capitalized words, but you don't even know what they mean! You have personal issues with your own sexuality, and it's quite obvious that you are an impotent old man who is transferring his fears of failure to the hatred of sex, because you see everyone else who has sex as degenerates! I suggest that you quit being so anal-retentive and go get yourself laid.
 
Dear Medicine Woman,

The Catholic Church has always had enemies who would be glad to make up stories that would discredit accepted Doctrine -- the Arians who interpretted Christ as being an ordinary but well-developed self-made man; the Jews of Jerusalem who resented the slaughter of Jerusalem in the First Crusade; and the Knights Templar who resented the Church shutting them down for usury. These groups could easily have circulated all the stories you now collect regarding Mary Magdaline.

Then there are the simply purient stories that had no other motive than the urge to pornography. What dirtier though can be imagined than The Pure Christ getting it one with the First Nun, famous for her penance.

It is extremely silly that anybody should believe these sordid romances. It would equate to some future Researcher thinking that a X-Rated Skin Flick was a News Documentary.
 
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: Leo, ...As far as the Masons destroying catholicism -- more power to them! In whatever capacity I can avail toward this endeavor, I will be there to see it fall!
*************
Leo Volont: Catholicism can no longer be a True Religion if Jesus is nothing more than a predatory Playboy.
*************
M*W: Your words, not mine.
*************
Click to expand...

This seems to be an admission that you are contriving to turn Jesus into a Playboy, and Mary Magdaline into a Sex Toy simply so you can be of assistance to the Masons in destroying the Catholic Church.

But why?

Why would you destroy Christ as a Moral Force in the World, and why would you wish to destroy Mary Magdaline as a symbol of Sin turning to Moral Conversion?

Oh!

You are haunted by your own moral shortcomings and you are now in the state of denial concerning them. There is no need to offer penance, after all, for purely 'natural' urges... urges that, I need to remind you, define you entirely as an animal.

The Real Christ and the Real Mary Magdaline would point you toward the Transcendent, but that would take some work and some moral effort. Also, you have probably gained quite a reputation locally, which, for whatever reasons, you have decided to be proud of, and to see Mary Magdaline and Christ in their True Light would turn your Pride into a Disgrace, and so, of course, you would resist that.

But it all seems like it should be temporary. I can't imagine that anybody can persist in such thinking for more than a year or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top