First off, congratulations on becoming the Politics moderator. I was ofered the job by TMT some time ago, but turned it down. I wish you success and satisfaction in your efforts.

As to my questions...
I do not know you, Ben, outside of your posts here in the forum, but what I do know about you, is that as you've written a number of reviews, you obviously have no qualms about providers; from your recent posts I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise you are also a Christian of some Born-Again, or Evangelical point of view.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a non-Jewish Zionist who also believes in the Second Coming seems to be a pretty believable marker.

My question - According to some theories, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, but was actually the pregnant wife of Yeshua ben Yosef, and after the Cruxifiction escaped to the South of France where she bore a son and continued the line until at least the 5th century and the rise of the Merovingian line. This is of course, a compilaed synopsis of several varied and related theories.

What's your take on the whole notion? I'm not looking for an argument, merely a better understanding of a perspective that differs from mine. (don't worry, i'll cause plenty of trouble eventually)

Congrats Ben on becoming the politics mod and thanks for taking this thankless job.  Of course the job of herding cats is best left to a laissez faire libertarian from Minnesota.

As for the rest of you, good luck!  Check out the Minnesota, Texas, and Reviewers boards to find out what's coming.  This will be an interesting treat and I'm popping some popcorn right now and getting ready to watch the show.  Ben has probably hobbied more than the rest of us combined.

Doc, although your question was not meant for me, I'm Catholic and believe that Saint Mary Magdalene (she most certainly is a Catholic saint) was the pregnant wife of Jesus and managed to find her way to Gaul(France) to escape a bloody demise in the holy land.  That may explain her cult-like following in France that still exists today.  And her connection to easter eggs is pretty fascinating too.

More info:

(One of my fetishes is doing "thankless jobs"... I really get off on it! lol!)

I'm currently not hobbying, I made my quota early this month when I passed the 100 girl mark for the year out in Vegas... But that new little Mid-Eastern girl I just posted about on the Mn board might cause me to go for extra credit points! (She's so adorable sitting there with such poise and dignity,,, I just want to eat her up! YUM!)

This is just the calm before the storm, I respect Dr. Gonzo and intend to give him a well thought out answer... (Unlike Jumpin'-Jack-Shit, to whom I only answer in the same spirit in which he asks!) But it will take me a bit more time to pull it all together, I've got to dig out my gnostic gospels before I can get into the finer details of the Magdalene issue...

The French-Catholic-cult following can easly be explained by understanding the blending of the old-world Celtic/Druid "Lord and Lady" influences with the newer message that the Catholic missionaries brought to the region when "The Message" spread out of Rome... But that's a long and dull post I'll save for another day...

Thanks for the props BT, these poor fools have no idea how impossible I am to reason with yet, do they? ROTFL!

"Born-Again" is a whole topic onto it's self, I'll save that for a future post...

First, let me start with the "Yeshua ben Yosef" name, which of course isn't his name at all... His name would be "Yeshua ben YHWH" (pronounced "Yahweh") "Jesus - son of - God" for those who are already lost...

Yosef did have two sons, Yeshua was not his son, he was concieved of by the Holy Spirit of YHWH(God) to the virgin Mary before Yosef took her as his wife.

Jesus didn't spread his Holy seed on this earth and left no off-spring.

But the true understanding of the origin of this mythology come from understanding the history of the Gnostics...
It is a little-known fact, but the Gnostic occultish religion predates Christianity by over 300 years, and is was an religion of oral-tradition until at least 200 years post the Resurection. They are a patch-quilt of mistical beliefs which also include some pieces of Christianity, which merely filtered into their culture over time and added fodder to their mythical ramblings...

The common figure of a "lady with child" (Goddess Sophia) goes back to ancient Babylon, hence it's woven into the thread of many occultic/pagan beliefs. (including Catholicism! I imagine I made some more enemies with that statement! lol!)

The lady-with-child was already a familar figure of worship to the Gnostic pagans, so writing Jesus into the script was an easy thing for them to do during the time their traditions were passed orally, then 300+ years later, while under persicution by Orthodox Christians(partly decieved in their own right!) They scribed their Mythical beliefs and further mixed it with their Christian teachings and WROTE FROM SCRATCH the Gnostic Gospels, which are more ticklish to the ears of pagan cultures than the flee-from-sin-embrace-manogomy message of the Orthidox Church.
Thus the Pagan/occultic culture of ancient France which had a very sexually based system of beliefs was eager to blend these gospels into their worship of fertility and Eros, which is obviously still woven into French culture today!


As far as my thoughts on Da vinci... Just as with many savant-genius people throughout history, he was a pervert, a sexual deviant, and an internally tortured man, the trouble with IQs over 200 is that the extra "Illumination" that they bring often drives the person mad as well.....  

YOU are the one in the moral conundrum over how the pure and the impure can co-exist... Sadly though you lie to yourself about sin and guilt and would rather change moral-law to fit your behavior than accept your behavior as sin and seek forgivness... Self-justification is close to the unforgivable sin, but not quite... tread lightly when you lay awake at night tormented by your delusions of grandeur, thinking that you can somehow justify yourself! YOU FOOL! Your efforts are like filthy rags in the eyes God! Repent! And accept his free gift before you cross that line and find yourself damned for all eternity by your self-rightous and pompus self-deception that you can somehow pay your own way into Heaven!

Ben, it's simple.   Your religion is a license to sin and sin and sin and sin over and over again, and the effort you are obliged to make to fix your sad ass is fucking zero.  It's a rationalization for hypocrisy, to tell others to do as you say, not as you do.  

You don't even have to push your keyboard away.  You have no obligation to make any effort to change your behavior.

Then you have the chutzpah to talk about anybody else's 'moral compass'; to talk about "liberals" restricting anybody else's behavior.


And you don't even know how weak, how pathetic that is.

Ben, I don't even want to be in the same company of pukes like that.

Save the drama, buddy, I ain't impressed.

I haven't listened to him since... Sorry, I couldn't "rip him off" if I wanted to, I have no idea what one of his sermons sounds like...

but yes, you are right in that it can be used over and over again... (the premium don't even increase! LOL!)

that would, morally at least, make you one of the laziest, cheapest-assed motherfuckers on the 'net.  That, pal, is a license.

Not to mention, "the wages of sin is death"! (Notice the Bible doesn't say: "the wages of sin is eternal damnation"!!)
 The lifestyle has certainly cost me a great deal over the years,,, probably years off my life as well, but then, we all die someday, lol!



Romans 6:23(NIV)
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."


-- Modified on 11/29/2006 2:30:04 PM

offer anybody else any advice?  Or carping about anybody else's "moral compass"?   A printed photo would be better than what you're offering.

OK, I remember.  Hypocrisy is one of the ongoing sins you're forgiven for.  

I'm just amazed at your brilliance here.   Of course, you shouldn't figure anybody else is gonna be so impressed.   Your sort of plan usually lasts about 20 seconds before the cashier figures you're broke and tells you to move along.

... Maybe you could go back to night-school... That is unless your cashier's job is an evening shift... Maybe then try for your on-line GED....

(If you're going to throw labels around like a monkey slinging his own shit, at least pick ones that you know the meaning of!)


Hypocrisy [definition]
"The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness."

if you can't adhere to your own moral code - ie, your moral code requires nothing of you - then you have NO FUCKING ROOM to be carping about anybody else.

and it doesn't require you to do anything.  Well, nothing except spout shit.

Ben, that's a really good deal.  Congratulations!   Don't let me tell you anything like, you get what you pay for.  NosirreeBob!!  That's for suckers.   There is not only free lunch, but free fire insurance too.

Ben, you're believing this because you want to.  Not because of any other reason.  You believe that wanting something makes it so.

Good for you, Ben!!  Responsibility is for assholes.

According to legend [which probably means it's BS] St. augustine used to pray [before he was a Saint], "Lord, make me chaste.  But not yet."

Just because it doen't line up with your self-imposed "fairness doctrine" doen't mean I can't do it, kiss my ass!  ;>

But that's just legend and BS, (I should know,I just made it up, LOL!)

Actually Augustine was probably a great man, I've suffered through reading alot of his droll writings... (I wish I could get a refund on my time spent at that!)

I'd say he was a man so Heavenly minded he was of little earthly good!



-- Modified on 11/29/2006 7:37:28 PM

and turnabout isn't fair play.  Whatever you can get away with is kosher.  

So I guess those are the rules we play by with you.  

Ben, those rules won't work well for you once you leave your keyboard.  Because there are really people out there who are badder than even you think you are, and it behooves you to reach a mutual understanding with them, that does not involve doing unto others first.  Not because you would get your ass kicked by those rules, but because you would get your ass killed.

-- Modified on 11/29/2006 10:54:08 PM

Anglo-american common law has been hammered out for about a thousand years, and it pretty well reflects what we have found works - including some basic ideas of fairness that have had a lot to do with the anglos & americans being major powers thtoughout the world for a couple hundred years - at least until the Bushes came along.

So if there is an idea stuck in the common law - an idea like say due process - it's pretty well proven and accepted throughout the anglo-american civilization.  And for an ignorant fuck like yourself, ideas like turnabout is fair play is an essential aspect of due process.

If you want to put yourself outside those rules, and call it artificial and self-imposed, suit yourself.  Just don't be thinking you're talking to anybody but yourself.

to rationalize any sort of shithead idea you might have; and if you can't, who's got any standing to challenge you?   It's anything you say it is.

Ben, if you can't figure this out, you are truly a simpleton.

The common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, during various wars throughout ancient England it was continually reformed and blended with Christian principles as "The Message" came with the conquerors...

 It was mostly an oral tradition, but written down by various Nobles over time (often worded in a way that advantaged them over the common class!)

It's as flawed as your fucked up ability to reason is, and if you're a student of common law without any Biblical knowledge wich you appear to be, then it's easy to see wy you're suck a miserable fucking person!
 
Common law is fine as a guide to civil behavior and dispute settlement, but it is without structure and foundation which makes it susceptible  to being twisted and re-formed by whatever "ruling class" prevails!

YOU ARE THE FOOL OF ALL FOOLS IF YOU BASE YOUR MORALS AND SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ON ENGLISH COMMON LAW!!

I suspose if you were in the Middle-east you would conduct yourself under sharia law... Seeing how that's a clusterfuck of tribal traditions cobbled together by a war-lord mad-man! (just like how your presious "Common law" came into existance!)

YOU ARE THE FOOL TO END ALL FOOLS!  

Anglo-american civilization is pretty much settled on the common law.  It may not be right, but it's what most of us agree on.   That includes the idea that turnabout is fair play, which you have specifically rejected, along with your cheap assed, no effort morality, two-faced morality.

My point is that your (a)morality specifically undermines anglo-american civilization.  Yes, I realize you think that's RIGHT, and I don't.  

You're the Fred Phelps of TER.  Don't be surprised when decent people slam you.

I'm not saying the common law is right or wrong; I'm saying you are undermining the basis of anglo-american civilization in your unyielding opposition to concepts like "turnabout is fair play" which is a basic idea of due process (ie equal protection).  

So you're un-American.  You're still entitled, by virtue of US citizenship, to walk around free and spew crazy shit, as long as you pay your taxes and stay pretty much within the law.

Just because your moral code involves nothing but your entitlement to avoid responsibility for the consequences of your choices, doesn't mean you don't have a useful social function, ie a road marker for the path to perdition and insanity.

You are WRONG in what you THINK America was founded on.

AND HOW DARE YOU CALL ME UN-AMERICAN?? YOU ARE THE FLAMING PIECE OF SHIT THAT WANTS TO SELL US BACK TO OUR PAGAN/EURO-TRASH ROOTS AND PRACTICES JUST SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO FEEL THE GUILT OF YOUR OWN SIN!! YOU'D RATHER CHANGE THE RULES THAN FACE THE SHAME THAT YOU CANNOT PLAY BY THEM!! FUCK YOU!!!

If America was founded purely on "Pagan common-law"/secular common-law/anglo-american like you claim it was, then the founding fathers should have been hung for treason, because our nation was founded as a DEPARTURE from the bondage we were under to the British due to such laws!
America was founded on CHRISTIAN principles!
(English-common-law has crept back into our culture through the legal system, and NOT by the design of our founders!)


May 20, 1775 - North Carolina passes the Mecklenburg County Resolutions:
 "We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of a right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing association, under control of no other power than that of our God and the general government of Congress."

Summer 12, 1775 - Continental Congress issues a call to all citizens to fast and pray and confess their sin that the Lord might bless the land:
 "And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and to abstain from servile labor and recreation on said day."

Summer 2-4, 1776 - Declaration of Independence written and signed:
 "We hold these truths ... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world ... And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."

September 17, 1787 - The Constitution of the United States is finishedand at least 50 out of the 55 men who framed the Constitution of the United States were professing Christians.

Eleven of the first 13 States required faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible as qualification for holding public office.

The Constitution of each of the 50 States acknowledges and calls upon the Providence of God for the blessings of freedom.

1787 - James Madison, the "architect" of the federal Constitution and fourth president:
 "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future .. upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God."

April 30, 1789 - Washington gives his First Inaugural Address:
 "My fervent supplications to that Almighty Being Who rules over the universe, Who presides in the council of nations, and Whose providential aid can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by Himself for these essential purposes."

The core of the way America gets along as a nation is the 14th amendment, ie, due process and equal protection of all persons born or naturalized in the USA, and extended to the states as well as the Federal govt.

I have described in detail how your moral code is  unalterably opposed to that.

In a single and compelling example, you don't believe turnabout is fair play.  That is a key example of your UN-AMERICAN religion.

I expect you would be happier if we could back up before the Civil War, but the core of those ideas of fair play go back in the Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta before then.

You deride fair play, which necessarily means you have no respect for democracy as practiced in America.

How much more un-American can you get?  You hate the basic American principles.  (shrug)  What can I say?  Would you lay down your life for this nation?  Hell, the only reason you believe in your religion is because everything's free, and won't take any effort or committment on your part.  You just use it to bludgeon other people.

Free lunches for your cronies and tribesmen may be your idea of America.  Ain't mine, buddy.

I'll tell you how I dare, asshole:  I've paid my dues, and would do it all over again.  You're just here for the freebies - you'd go to Somalia the minute they offered a better deal.

You've pretty much got the traditional 7 deadly sins all covered, and in spades.  

I'm American, I believe in fair play.

-- Modified on 11/30/2006 2:56:34 PM

I flipped the switch on you so you'd stay the FUCK out of the Noah's Ark thread! You're perfectly within your rights to say anything you want to me or about me in this or any other thread... But as far as the Noah/Gonzo thread goes, I am exercising good old AMERICAN censorship against you! ROTFL!

(By the way, you're unmoderated again, just stay out of the Noah thead or at least bring some FACTS to the table if you do post a response!)

at least from a Bible thumper.

NOW WHY could anybody not take you seriously?  How could they possibly think you're a DOUCHE-BAG?   I can't imagine why.

And I can't imagine why somebody might get the idea that you're just a hypocritical puke looking for an easy way out.

Sorry it took so long to get to this thread.  In a matter of total contradiction, I believe Jesus never existed.  He wasn't Jesus ben anything.  The reason why I concluded he never existed (which I concluded last year after 12 years of atheism) the details of his life got filled in 100-200 years after he purportedly died.  There are *no* contemporary records of his having lived,  Including by well-educated people living in Judea at the time.  That includes Philo of Judea who wrote on every topic imaginable and was well connected to the priesthood.  The charismatic Christ seems to seems to have passed without notice of people at the time.  

Some secularists might believe that Jesus was a man who was promoted by legend to Godhood.  I believe he was more like a God who became man.  

For Jewish sources, the Rabbinical writings never mention the name Jesus.  There are characters in them with names that have been taken to be pseudonyms for Jesus.  These "comparisons" are easily debunked, and say more about the desperation of scholars to find something more or less contemporary about him.

Moreover, the Talmuds, of which there are two: one the Palestine Talmud written in the 3rd century CE does not mention Jesus at all.  The Babylonian Talmud, written 500 years later, does have details about Jesus.  Again, the further away in time and space you go, the more details about Jesus's life are filled in.  

Dr Gonzo's reference to Yeshu ben Yoseph comes from a source called the Toldoth Jeshu.  It was a tract, or literary tradition that started much later.  As the Jews were further and further oppressed by the Christians, they wrote some anti-Christian tracts.  These came much later than the life of Christ and are now known to have any attachment to an historical Jesus.

The argument gets stronger if you read the books that did not make it into the Canon.  Contradictions in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make it look like there certain details of his life were a source of disagreement (simple things like how many disciples he really had and what their names were.)  Having studied it, I think the argument is pretty strong that the guy never existed.  Perhaps the most damning evidence: the name was not originally related to the name Joshua.  It was a title that meant saviour.  It didn't become his proper name until 2 centuries later.

I could go on.  This is just some of it.  

**************

I would like to answer your point about pagan culture: You forget to say how much even the Christian God is pagan himself.  The God, introduces himself to Abraham as El Shaddai. (Gen 17:1) El was really the father of a pantheon of pagan deities widely worshipped in what's now Palestine.  El Shaddai was one of his sons.  Elohim-- a plural name of all the Gods of the pantheon, occurs 1500 times in the first 15 books of the Bible-- in which there's only supposed to be one God.  This has been a source of embarrassment for Jewish and Christian scholars.    

BTW, besides Yahweh, God introduces himself as El Elyon (Most High God), El roi (God of Vision) El Sabaoth (God of Heavenly Host)... and there are plenty of other variants.  Monotheism was forced on the story later.  

Lest you think it was the early stories that were rather confused about the identity of God: Psalm 82 shows God getting quite angry at his brothers and sisters at the council of El.  

The word Israel itself might be a compound of the names of three Egyptian gods: Isis, Ra, and El.  

**************

I have a few comments on what you wrote to Jack concerning having a moral code and failing or bending morality to fit your desire.  

Bending morality to meet your behavior will usually lead to the same results as having a moral code and not following it.  Usually the latter is is worse in terms of results, because you are holding and judging everyone else by the stricter morality while you will live in peace and forgiveness for your own failures.  At least with the former, there's not as much danger of doing that.  

Foremost, what you really mean by "having" a moral code is having adopted one pre-assembled by some other people, such as the ones who wrote the Bible.  In doing so, you also get to "bend" moral law to fit your own life.  I doubt that you follow the kosher laws.  I doubt that you'd marry your brother's widow if he dies childless, or bathe yourself before you pray.  You have, for all intents and purposes, have bent morality to your will.  Rather, you've let other people bend it into a form in which you're willing to buy it.  

I've developed my own moral code.  In many ways, it parallels Judeo Christian morality, but there are some profound differences.  One of them pertaining to sex.  I don't feel I bend my morality to fit my behavior, but I think that any moral code that could be written can not explain it completely. It's more like aesthetics.    

Read my post to Ben for details.  

Yoshua ben Yosef comes from the Taldoth Yeshu literature.  When the Jews were being oppressed, this was their anti-Christian propaganda, which is as poorly disciplined by historical facts as the Gospels, and that's hard to accomplish.  

As for current theories.  There are some problems with the very existence of Mary Magdalen.  Her name written in Greek would imply that she comes from Magdala.  In all the years since the character entered scripture, nobody has any idea where that was.  The only time it ever occurs in ancient literature is with her name.  

By surviving literature, it's impossible to know now what the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalen was supposed to be.

My hypothesis: there were several different competing gnostic cults with their own saviors.  John the Baptist, Mary Magdalen and Jesus were all saviors for competing cults.  I think they were all equally fictitious (Records of John in Josephus, like those briefer ones of Jesus were forged insertions at a later time.)  At the time they were written, the Gospels of Jesus had to show that John the Baptist and Mary Magdalen both approved of and acknowledged Jesus as their spiritual superior.  The cult of Jesus was incorporated into a group called the theraputae.  As the cult of Mary Magdalen faded, much of passages relating to her were excised.  She was largely an embarrassment.

They remain enigmas in the literature because the motivation for putting them in has long since faded.  Why John would baptize Jesus is as weird as the act of baptizing itself, which occurs *nowhere* in the Old Testament.  The word isn't there, it isn't even suggested.