Rowan Williams says no to the Da Vinci Code

[xxintergirlxxy]

Please note there have been threads not of my origin but a cruel hoax.

The board have been very understanding and cooperative in helping me sort it out. he culprit has been identified and banned from the forum.

I am non-violent and would never advocate the use of violence under any circumstances. Please ignore any thread which appears to come from me, but which has lewd, violent, racist or offensive overtones

Thank you for your kind understanding

[xxintergirlxxy]

St Philip never wrote a gospel it is a hoax.

[xxintergirlxxy]

It was written 5000-years ago:

In the latter days, The mountain of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains.

Many peoples will say: 'come let us go up to the mountain of the Lord'. That He may teach us His ways and that we may walk in His paths For from this mountains shall go forth the law and the word of God.

He shall judge between the nations and shall decide ofor many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation nighter shlal they learn or train for war anymore'. Is 2:2-5

It was actually one of Jesus great great great grandfathers who wrote this.

So, you see, my analogy does actually have some basis.

It is my belief that anyone of any nationality or creed or faith or social group, who are mystical, searching for the final mystery and empowered by love will have permanent dwelling place on the mountain and there to live for all eternity.

There will be Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Jews and many more of all nationalities. The rule of law will be neighbourly love and love for all creatures. I do not think on the mountain we will live off the meat of other animals because it is written: 'the lion and the lamb will lay down together'. There will be no more predator-prey. All will love, serve and protect each other.

Authority on the mountain will not be like earthly authority where kings lord it over others, authority will be servant-authority where the greatest will be the greatest servant of all. The greatest will be no greater than the least.

The only law which will prevail will be the law of love.

The mountain may appear just a mountain but once on it, it will contain more space, plant life and all good things, greater than the entire earth. Now that is a mystery on which I am still meditating.

_________________
pax

[mogadishu]

"If you read Christ, what He has said is so tremendous that for everything He said. For example, He said, "They say there should not be any adultery." But He says even you should not have adulterous eyes and it should not even come into your mind. Can you imagine what He said? Now tell Me about Christian nations where women are becoming nude, naked? These men are looking at them and it’s a nonsense going on everywhere. Can you believe that these are Christians? And then on Sunday, wear your hat and go to church. How can you call them Christians? There is no Dharma at all.

Going to church is another hypocrisy. And the amount of licentiousness that has come in the Western countries is the limit that one can reach. They do it in such a way that even animals won't do. The whole, whole lifestyle is such how to find our destruction. They want to destroy themselves."

Shri Nirguna Devi
The Base Of Dharma, Paris, France — July 13, 1994

[Guest]

Karl Glogauer had a traumatic history of bullying and abuse but follows his messianic destiny and finds himself hailed as a magus by John the Baptist and the Essene sect ...

Glogauer is a failed lover, a questing but forever unsatisfied mystic, a repeated faker of suicide attempts. In first-century Judaea these shortcomings are echoed in terrible ironies, and his destiny emerges as inevitable from the moment he visits a certain carpenter's workshop to find the misshapen idiot boy called Jesus.

Behold the Man!

Forget what you believe and begin anew

This is interesting. I vaguely remember reading about Glogauer many years ago. As I recall he had to undergo several moral ‘conundrums’ before his destiny was fulfilled. Are you still there WW? Can you explain?

[Guest]

Are you still there WW? Can you explain?

I guess not.

[mogadishu]

Karl Glogauer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Karl Glogauer is the protagonist of two novels by Michael Moorcock, and a secondary character in additional novels and short stories. In Behold the Man, he acts as a surrogate Christ after travelling to 28 AD in a time machine. The novel Breakfast in the Ruins contains a somewhat different Glogauer, centering on a homosexual love affair between him and an unnamed man from Nigeria. The chapters of the novel are interspersed with detailed, though fiction, fantasies about Glogauer's past lives.

Some of the aspects of Glogauer's childhood as described in Behold the Man are based on Moorcock's own childhood, though he says "I had such a happy childhood I had a hard time finding material, especially for the novel version". Likewise, Glogaeur's frequent headaches were also inspired by migraines that Moorcock suffered from, although these were later discovered to be caused by a adverse reaction to nicotine rather than any psychological causes as in Glogauer's case. (http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showpost.php?p=33228&postcount=20)

In Behold the Man, and at the start of Breakfast in the Ruins, Glogauer is white but by the end of Breakfast he has become black. (Similarly, Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius is white in The Final Programme but black in A Cure For Cancer.)

[edit]
Other Appearences
Karl Galgauer also makes appearences - or is mentioned - in the following books/short stories:

The English Assassin (appears)
The End of All Songs (appears)
The Adventures of Jerry Cornelius (comic strip) (appears - where he bears a remarkable similarity to Moorcock)
The Adventures of Una Persson and Catherine Cornelius in the Twentieth Century (mentioned)
The Peking Junction (mentioned)
The Eternal Champion (mentioned)
The Condition of Muzak (reported that he was at the party with just about everyone else)

[Guest]

Karl Glogauer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Karl Glogauer is the protagonist of two novels by Michael Moorcock, and a secondary character in additional novels and short stories. In Behold the Man, he acts as a surrogate Christ after travelling to 28 AD in a time machine. The novel Breakfast in the Ruins contains a somewhat different Glogauer, centering on a homosexual love affair between him and an unnamed man from Nigeria. The chapters of the novel are interspersed with detailed, though fiction, fantasies about Glogauer's past lives.

Some of the aspects of Glogauer's childhood as described in Behold the Man are based on Moorcock's own childhood, though he says "I had such a happy childhood I had a hard time finding material, especially for the novel version". Likewise, Glogaeur's frequent headaches were also inspired by migraines that Moorcock suffered from, although these were later discovered to be caused by a adverse reaction to nicotine rather than any psychological causes as in Glogauer's case. (http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showpost.php?p=33228&postcount=20)

In Behold the Man, and at the start of Breakfast in the Ruins, Glogauer is white but by the end of Breakfast he has become black. (Similarly, Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius is white in The Final Programme but black in A Cure For Cancer.)

[edit]
Other Appearences
Karl Galgauer also makes appearences - or is mentioned - in the following books/short stories:

The English Assassin (appears)
The End of All Songs (appears)
The Adventures of Jerry Cornelius (comic strip) (appears - where he bears a remarkable similarity to Moorcock)
The Adventures of Una Persson and Catherine Cornelius in the Twentieth Century (mentioned)
The Peking Junction (mentioned)
The Eternal Champion (mentioned)
The Condition of Muzak (reported that he was at the party with just about everyone else)

Thanks! This is just the info I was looking for. I'm sure it was Breakfast in the Ruins I read years ago.

[Guest]

Mogadishu,

read your comments with interest. Think you are winding poor intergirl up. that isnt fair as she is taking you very seriously

you seem to know your bible in which case you know that Joseph wasn't married to Mary, he was her custodian, as was the custom for consecrated virgins beneath a certain age, they were looked after by a much older [usually] widow who was well known for his piety. thats how Jesus came to have brothers, they were actually his step-brothers, but of course you know all that.

Reference Mary Magdalen from God knows where, you do not mention th e Da Vinci Code Hoax directly, why is that? Is that part of the windup of intergirl?

Actually the records held in the Vatican show Peter was the driving force behind the church but it was his disciples Clement and Linus. Not sure where Ingatious of Antioch fits into the equation, he was around that time and he was well quoted by the earlier texts.

Is interesting when they discoved the burial box of James the younger [Jesus step brother], you ought to read it.

What I cant work out is how Dan Brown managed to plagiarise holy blood and holy grail and win the law suit against him?

I hae been doing some research myself for a magazine article and I discovered that the Temple of Zion was founded in 1957. Dan f*cked up on that one!! Spoke to the guy who founded it. I also uncovered the 'ancient' documents in the French library are not catalogued. That means the library did not know they existed, which means they had been planted and it transpired that they were the work of a well known TV actor who specialises in fakes and forgeries for fun. He admitted he put them there but is anxious not to be identified as he says he did not intend them to be taken so literally.

Just goes to show, Brown based his book on material from the second century that turned out to be a forgery from 1961 and the Temple of Zion which didn't exist before 1957. Yet he is a multi-millionare. Wish I had his inginuity.

[Guest]

Intergirl, can't you see, they are taking the piss out of you. Don't be so sensitive. Before you 'jump-in' next time, look a little closer and you may see [then again you may not!].

It's all a bit of fun, no one is really taking the piss out of the Christ.

I do believe you believe that the Christ said 'the gates of death shall never overpower your [or His] church. If that is so [and it is amazing it has survived 2000-years, in 25-years time this will all have blown over.
In 100 years it will be completely forgotten about.

Mogadishu, read St Augustine: 'love and do what you will'. That appears to be the essence of the Christian message. Quite a nice idea I suppose

Mogadishu, tell us about your religion. Is it a Deity? A philosophy? What is it? Tell us

[mogadishu]

Mogadishu,

read your comments with interest. Think you are winding poor intergirl up. that isnt fair as she is taking you very seriously

no. her brother was winding her up by impersonating her.

you seem to know your bible in which case you know that Joseph wasn't married to Mary, he was her custodian, as was the custom for consecrated virgins beneath a certain age, they were looked after by a much older [usually] widow who was well known for his piety. thats how Jesus came to have brothers, they were actually his step-brothers, but of course you know all that.

Reference Mary Magdalen from God knows where, you do not mention th e Da Vinci Code Hoax directly, why is that? Is that part of the windup of intergirl?

what are you talking about? there has been no wind up, only mutual respect and expression of two incompatible opinons. whether mary was a virgin (and it's rather difficult to be one when you're pregnant) and other things are precisly the points in contention.


What I cant work out is how Dan Brown managed to plagiarise holy blood and holy grail and win the law suit against him? yep. that's pretty bizarre.

I hae been doing some research myself for a magazine article and I discovered that the Temple of Zion was founded in 1957. Dan f*cked up on that one!! Spoke to the guy who founded it. I also uncovered the 'ancient' documents in the French library are not catalogued. That means the library did not know they existed, which means they had been planted and it transpired that they were the work of a well known TV actor who specialises in fakes and forgeries for fun. He admitted he put them there but is anxious not to be identified as he says he did not intend them to be taken so literally. apparently plantard's stuff was a forgery. it doesn't follow therefore that the priory definitely did not exist.

Just goes to show, Brown based his book on material from the second century that turned out to be a forgery from 1961 and the Temple of Zion which didn't exist before 1957. Yet he is a multi-millionare. Wish I had his inginuity. no - plantard's source is not the only one. i believe the gospels of Mary & Thomas and the dead sea scrolls have been proved genuine.

[xxintergirlxxy]

Guest

Thank you for your comments. I had not considered it was a wind-up!

But generally speaking, one finds that some people are so naive of the facts that their arguements fall apart at the first fence. But like any subject, knowldge is acquired over a period of time through a lot of reading, reflecting and meditating. You just cannot assimilate all that information to correct error.

For example: the number of times Chris is mis-quoted, often by people who do not read the bible. The number of times I have been told that Christ said 'do to others what they do to you' whereas the actual text is: 'do to others what you would want them to do to you'! That is 100% different from the popular quote.

The other fact is that as you know Christ often spoke in parables but then explained to His diciples what the parables meant. Folk often interpret the parable without checking the explanation He gave to His diciples. That is very hard if not impossible to argue against.

Of the Da Vinci Code Hoax, I find it incredulous that anyone should believe it, yet they do without checking the facts for themselves. The classic in my view is that Dan Brown don't even know his name. Da means 'from' Vinci is a small village in Italy. To say 'Da Vinci' is to say 'from Vinci'. That is nonsence. His name is Leonardo. Why don't Brown call him by his name? Why refer to him by the village where he comes from? It just does not make sense! You might as well say 'The From London Code'! Leonardo has a surname so why don't Dan Brown use it!

I bet the average person who quotes him doens't even know his surname!! He is also called a painter even though he only did a handful of paintings and only one for the Vatican though Brown cites him as having done dozens.

When Leonardo discussed the Last Supper with the then Pope, he proposed doing one apostle as youthful to depict his youth. This is accepted throughout the catholic world. How on earth did Brown come up with the view that it was Mary Magdalene when Christ did not allow any women into the Last Supper or Consecration of the Eucharist? No where did He ever celebrate or commission women to celebrate the Consecration. All His appearances after the Resurrection was to men, all 'Breaking of Bread' was only ever done in the presence of men. We of coures do not know why this was. This is of course the theological reason for C of E not being theologically correct in consecrating female priests and Bishops and why the Catholic Church argues it is powerless to consecrate women as it won't allow any changes to the canonical scriptures that have been handed down to us, as they say the original writings are sacrosanct and cannot be changed or ammended.

That is also why they do not recognise the various hoaxes gospels that emerged in the first second and third centuries. Only the four original canonical gospels as they were written are acceptable. I think John wrote his around AD 90. But by AD 95 they were regarded as 'carved in stone' andy gospels that emerged after the diciples who were known for having written gospels, were discounted on the basis their authenticity could not be proven.

The classic 'gospel according to Philip'. He never wrote a gospel. This is a well known text written for its catechism. It is not a gospel. It is only attributed to Philip because his name is mentioned in it and then only once.

Universities the world over say it was not written by an apostle [which Philip was] due to the language used which is not in the first person. Yet Brown insists on its authenticity even though the evidence clearly demonstrates other wise. Well you cannot argue against Professor emeritus and top academics, but Brown seems to think he can.

My readings of Brown strongly suggest he has never read the bible as his arguements do not tie in with any texts. I have cross referenced him with three copies of bible and concordance and no where does he get even remotely close. If one is going to argue one should at least check one's facts else it is pointless as quotes are entirely wrong and you cant engage in seious debate when the person you are discussing with, does not know what they are talking about.

Thanks for the courtesy of your reply

[mogadishu]

it's extablished that the official version is accepted by the catholic world. it's the outsiders who provide dissent.

[Guest]

Intergirl

I think you are being a bit hard on Dan Brown. Remember his primary interest is to sell books. He is not interested in the facts, as they obviously conflict with his interests. You cannot sell many books on the facts.

All good journalists and journalise exagerate the facts and reinvent new facts. That is what Dan Brown has done. Who in their right mind is going to print the facts knowing no one will bother to read, while sexing up the story sells millions of copies. What would you do? Brown knows he is speaking a load of crap but he is not interested. All that matters is selling books.

Yes, I agree with you about the alleged Gospel of Philip. I am also aware from my own studies that none of the other gospels are authentic apart from as you say the 'four' canonical gospels.

But that is life, people re-write history to suit their own purpose. Everyone knows Christ never married, much less so Mary Magdalene but if that is what people want to believe then they are entitled to their view, no matter how bizzare.

I agree with you about Leonardo. I will not divulge his surname either as I will be interested to see how many Dan Brown enthusiasts actually know it. But again that is up to them.

Chill out Intergirl. Don't take life so seriously else you will only end up offended. Yes lots of people quote the Bible with not a clue what they are talkng about. That is folk. You wont change them, Chill and enjoy and amuse yourself on their ignorance

[xxintergirlxxy]

Hi guest, I do not know who you are. I understand what you are saying but quite frankly it does my head in the crap Brown comes out with. I just cannot take it lightheartedly.

For example: his allegation that the Catholic Church has tried a smear campaign about Mary Magdelene and tried to cover up her involivement and tried to remove her from history. The facts are the very opposite and that does my head in. I have received PM's from people who believe utter rubbish then criticise me because I KNOW the truth!

Take Mary Magdalene for example. The Catholic Church has elevated her by canaonising her to 'Sainthood'. This was done several hundred years ago. She is St Mary Magdalene. She is so honoured and respected by the Catholic Church that they even have a feast day for her. Every July 22nd. Catholics all over the world celebrate HER on this special day! Is that the way to behave if you are trying to smear someone and pretend they don't exist?

The Catholic Church has dedicated no fewer than 20,000 churches worldwide to St Mary Magdalene. She is celebrated with vigor. She is honoured and the gospels are often read in Church which appertains to her. Does that sound like a coverup? Does that sound like a smear campaign? Yet folk read Brown then send me PM's asking why the Catholic Church has tried to write her out of history and tried to pretend she did not exist. It really does my head in.