Mary Magdalene update

[roscoe]

Some of you may be interested in this, I've updated this

Mary Magdalene

[BERNHARD]

Dear ROSCOE, interesting well made website, and a good font, easy to read, even under a weak lamplight ! i like this ! regarding the "OTTO RAHN" topic, i want to point to an actual interview by the german "O. RAHN"-expert, Mr. Hans-Juergen LANGE, with an old man, Peter Meier, who is one of the two children ( at that time living at Soell, tirol - near Kufstein, Austria ) , who once found the dead Otto Rahn in May 1939, about two month later after Rahn's suicide in the midth of march 1939. well, recently the old Mr. Meier informed the author H-J. LANGE about the circumstances of that discovery. will say: there still lives one person, who saw the body, still in strong decay, of Otto RAHN. interestingly Peter Meier added, that Otto Rahn was found at a hidden location, one could only reach by walking and climbing up over several hundred meters in the "bed" or bulrush of a small wild brook. often messing around there, the children or few adult persons, living there and familar with this area of mountaneous region, would normally have noticed any bigger group of foreign persons, moving or climbing around there, with the (assumed) pourpose to kill Rahn, or to force him directly to commit suicide, or to transport the dead body to this location. but that assumption is grotesque and total unlogic: a mighty organization like the SS under H. Himmler won't have any problems to kill a man, who was fallen in disgrace, including the discrete dissapear of the body ! why such a superflluous mountaneous campaign. no no ! it was Rahn's own decision taken in total personal dispair to commit suicide, hoping nobody would find his body in the near future. but Peter Meier and his friend found him a short time later ! --- so far for today : Bernie -- P.S. -- will have some days of absence !! back on 25. of september or even later !! have a nice week !! GREETINGS to all here ! .... and CIAO !

[julia]

Hi roscoe,

Regarding the marriage at Cana; if this event does indeed refer to the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, how do you explain the wording "..and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.."?
Why would the groom have to be invited to his own wedding?

Julia

[Charlotte]

Good question Julia.

Hi again Roscoe,

I read the updated version of Mary Magdalene. As to the Abbe Sauniere and his church, and the rest of this involved story I can say nothing because I know next to nothing about it, so I'll respond to a few other things in your article, according to my understanding.

The quote by Dr. Barbara is one interpretaion of the writ. It doesn't matter how long one studies a given subject, the conclusion one comes to depends on teachings received, information gathered yet from others, the premise one begins with, and from these one interprets to one's natural inclination.

Your theory presupposes that a man named Jesus and a women named Magdalene actually lived at the time, whereas I lean toward St. Paul's: the Christ in us the hope of glory, meaning Christ consciousness or our own divine nature crucified on the cross of matter, for short as the Philosophers teach.

"And the companion of the {Savior was} Mary Magdalene. He loved her more than all the diciples {and used to} kiss her often on the {mouth}. The rest of the disciples {were offended and} said to him: "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The savior answered and said to them: "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one that sees are both together in the darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

The quote interpreted as or with an "erotic element" doesn't make sense. The kissing on the mouth means to me that "sweet" knowledge was imparted, and "when the light comes" the flash of comprehension comes spontaneous and by itself, "then he who sees will see the light" and he who isn't ready remains in the dark for the time being. In such writings, by a companion is usually meant the feminine or masculine counterpart respectively, of our nature which is double: the vital nature in man is feminine, and the vital part in women is masculine. Moreover it says "Savior" not Jesus.

In the Gospel of Thomas we are told to "make the one and make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside and the above as the below, and make the male and the female to be one and the same . . ." etc., (can't find the exact quote) to enter the kingdom of heaven when our whole being lights up.

Which brings us to the wedding in Cana. Turning water into wine is a transformational, magical act. "Dear women, why do you involve me? My time has not yet come" says Jesus to his mother these meangful words. There is "choice wine", "cheaper wine" and the best is always saved for last. It was his first miracle, and the reason we are not told whose wedding it was is because it sort of signifies the first step of a transformational process, which includes the excruciating way up to Golgotha, the head and Nous (where the Nous is there I am), the crucifixion or death of the worldly nature, resurrection upon which Magdalene was the first to see him because the two were made One, and asked her not to touch or taint the union, ascention and transfiguration. Then it is possible to walk on water, chaos, or anything you desire to walk on in sandals. The child Jesus born of a virgin has nothing to do with a women called Mary, everyone knows that is not possible. The root of Mary is "mara" the bitter sea, but that another story.

You write:

One of the arguments against Jesus and The Magdalene's wedding is that there appears to be no mention of a wedding. But Jesus did attend a wedding." It is a metaphor, Christ or cross consciousness attends every alchemical marriage. Purety is required, 7 devils went out of Magdalene, the feminine. Look at Sir Galahad, the purest of Knights and only one to see Christ and the Holy Grail.

You write:

At the very least an explanation as to why Jesus, King of the Jews (INRI) chose not to marry would have been given."

Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews, is the exoteric version for the yet blind. Esoteric, INRI is the Rosicrucian motto: Igne Natura Renovator Integra. Jesus is shown on the cross with a livingly healthy, beautiful and perfect masculine body, looking down at the mineral kingdom. To each side of his waist is written: Lapis - Animales. From behind his feet grow two healthy grapevines, which ripe grapes surround his upper body and outstreched arms, and from the wounds in his hands drips blood on a sphere of matter below causing it to ignite. Above his head, his hair distinctly parted, two hemispheres, is written: Vegitabilis. It is an integral or with integrity renovation of nature by fire. When you are near the fire you are near me.

You write:

The disciples also called Jesus Rabbi on five occasions. For a person living in first century Judea a Rabbi has to be married under Jewish law."

St. John 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith onto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwelleth thou?

They asked where the "Master" dwells, if it was to be understood literally, they wouldn't have to ask where he "dwells", but would see him standing in front of them.

Somewhat disjointed, these are some of my thoughts.

Charlotte