Re: extropians-digest V2 #507

Michael Lorrey (
Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:27:38 -0400 wrote:

> Michael,
> As someone with an intense historical interest in the development of the
> Christian faith, I'm intrigued by some of the points you've made.
> <<
> b) while the East has had a long tradition of very pacifistic spiritual
> development prior to Buddha, there was none such (except for small groups
> like
> the Essenes) in the Middle East or Europe at the time of Jesus, he was a
> bit of
> a pioneer in the region for what he had to say.
> >>
> Actually, from my reading, I have the impression that almost nothing he
> purportedly said or did was original with him. What do you think is unique
> about his teaching?

He culled much from different sources. What made him different to the original
Jewish followers was he had a royal pedigree. Just as people are more likely to
listen to JFK, Jr. than Nutty Joe Wingnut, those who followed him were more
likely to listen to him due to his family heritage than the hundreds or
thousands of other run of the mill street corner prophets that were around at
the time.

The other thing that was different about early Christianity was its openness to
non-Jews. Most other similar sects that had similar teachings as Jesus typically
restricted themselves to the ethnic group they originated in. Any spread was
usually by that ethnic group forcing it on people they conquered. Thus the
franchising potential for this new sect was much greater than other sects. As to
why this is different from India, I can say that while India had its long Hindu
tradition before Buddha, that was in many ways much much more pacifistic than
the strict totalitarian Solar worship of the Roman Empire.

Another thing which aided its spread in the Roman Empire amongst Gentiles was
that the Bible was edited to exclude any texts that put Jews in a positive
light, and included those texts which actually put the majority of the blame for
Christs crucifiction on the Jews, rather than on the Romans, even though he was
so obviously punished in the Roman way.

> <<
> c) keep in mind that the Bible as we know it is only a small part of all of
> the
> biographical texts, and that the two gospels which were actually written by
> actual disciples of Jesus were left out of the Bible because they weren't
> conducive to a stern autocratic Church. The four gospels that are in the
> Bible
> were written 70-150 years after the death of Jesus, and are thus open to
> significant debate as to whether the quotes attributed to Jesus are
> actually
> what he said. The Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene can be
> found in the Nag Hammadi, along with a number of other texts which paint a
> much
> different picture of Jesus.
> >>
> I'm with you on this, except I never heard of a Gospel of Mary Magdalene. I
> thought I knew of all of the NT apocrypha. Can you point me to a reference?

The Nag Hammadi is known also as the Gnostic Gospels. There is a Gospel of Mary
in it. Many people assume that this Mary is Christs mother, however the scene
where Jesus berates Mary Magdalene's sister Martha exposes that the author is
Mary Magdalene. Due to losses through time, the gospel of Mary is very small.
While you can say this might also be a form of historical editing, it is more
remarkable by its inclusion than by its exclusion.

> <<
> d) keep in mind also that Jesus was more of a political figure than the
> Bible
> lets on. Since the marriage of his two parents reunited the two Houses of
> David
> (and his purported marriage at Cana to Mary Magdalene would have united the
> House of David with the House of Saul) he was a royal figure in Isreal,
> [...]
> >>
> What's this about the two Houses of David? I don't find such in my studies
> of ancient literature (not that I'm anything like an erudite scholar). And
> what's the basis for asserting that Jesus married the Magdalene? I've seen
> speculation on this, and it titllates my fancy, but I know of no actual
> confirming evidence. I'd be greatly in your debt if you could provide
> references for these contentions.

In one gospel of the Bible, Jesus's family lineage to David is traced through
his mother Mary, and in another, through his father Joseph, through different
branches of Davids house, one through Solomon, and the other through Davids
other wife.

I've found a number of discrepancies in the Bible, as well as the Nag Hammadi,
which others have also commented on, which, when I checked with my Jewish
relatives, I found seem to indicate that Jesus was most probably married, and
that he was most likely married to Mary Magdalene.

a) Jesus is frequently called 'rabbi' in many places in many texts, in quotes of
other Jewish characters in the texts. In traditional Jewish society, a man can
only be a rabbi if he is married, because a rabbi can only be expected to be
able to advise, console, and judge his fellow Jew if he is experienced in all
aspects of life.

b) The wedding at Cana: When the servants run out of wine, they are told to seek
out Jesus for a solution. In Jewish weddings, it is the grooms family that
traditionally paid for the wedding, I am told, so the guy who provided the wine
is the obvious person to go to if you run out, eh???? Jesus being a teen ager
was the right age for an arranged marriage, since Jewish boys become men
traditionally at age 13.

c) In Jewish law, if a wife commits adultery, it is her husband who must press
charges. This is why the adulteress (who it turns out through more serious
scholarship is in fact Mary Magdalene) is brought before Jesus for judgement,
she is his wife.

d) In the scene where Jesus berates Martha for complaining about Mary's rapt
focus on the words of Jesus, while ignoring household chores that Martha is so
busy with. In traditional Jewish families, spinster sisters that are brought
into the household are typically expected to perform a large measure of the
housework, and in large households is in charge of the servants. In the Gospel
of Mary, Jesus is quoted as saying that Mary holds 'the favored place', and that
Martha should not berate her for her good fortune.

e) Mary Magdalene, according so some sources I have heard of, is descended from
King Saul, the first Isreali King.

Thus it is rather obvious as to why the Romans were so keen on stringing Jesus
up, eh? Reuniting all of the houses and tribes of Isreal under one man (who
would probably have been Jesus, or possibly his son by Mary Magdalene) would
seem to me to spell a serious threat to Roman control of Palestine through the
rule of King Herod, their lackey. This also explains why King Herod was so keen
on killing every child born on or around the prophesied day in Bethlehem. In
order to fulfill the prophesy, the people who worked to bring this breeding plan
to fruition would have to arrange that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem on or
around the right day. That Mary's cousin, who became pregnant before Mary, was
also seen as giving birth to a religious leader (John the Baptist), he may have
been merely a failed attempt at getting a kid on the right day to fulfill the
prophesy. I think that it might be interesting to find out how many other
relatives of Joseph and Mary were intermarried from the deposed royal families
and had kids in relative proximity to the fateful day.

   Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------ Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?