All we know is all they did...

Hello EVERYONE!

What is up with me these days? Look at this, I am still alive my followers! All hope is not lost! How long did I go without a new post...? A full week EXACTLY! Never, again. Anyhow, here I am -- just be prepared -- this post is not about a certain topic, I just wanted to share some thoughts about the matter... so ye never know what might happen, haha.
Let's open with a quote, shall we not? 

 "Every man's memory is his own private literature." -Aldous Hexley

 So, while I've been given this week of non-blogging, I've had time while working to think about this topic a whole lot, so much that I can scrounge an entire post out of it. Alright, so you know how we were talking about the Gospel JOHN a whole bunch over here and right here?  Well, as most of you reading my blog know, the Gospel of John is addressed to "the Disciple whom Jesus Loved" (go and click those links for an adventure), meaning that it was written by someone who knew, and loved, Jesus, not just some dude 300 years off - but that is what is so cool, none of them were. Historians believe that "Mark" was the earliest gospel, and that surprisingly "John" is the latest. You see, all of the Gospels *had* to of been written by people who knew Jesus, had memories with Him and of Him, but there is one thing consisting between all of them -- none of them are the same. It is bizarre, John, supposedly closest to our Lord, has been proved most historically incorrect of all four Gospels! So why did I open with that random quote? Because what I'm trying to say here is, they were (the Gospels) all written in memory. No one actually came home and wrote each evening after being with Him all day, no, once He was long in Heaven and they were all in the place they'd spend for the rest of their life, (for some that was Europe, some stayed in Israel) then and only then did they start writing!  What the heck does this have to do with Mary Magdalene? Think about it -- (on the topic we're talking... no pun intended-ish) this is why we no info on her, or her "relationship status" with the Lord. It is astonishing that they (the Apostles and Disciples who wrote "John" "Mark" "Matthew" and "Luke") remember every detail that they do (but how could they forget THAT), but certainly they wouldn't remember her and Jesus' sexual/romantic relationship, if there was one in the first place! Plus, we must remember that if there indeed was, it would not be as in the public as modern relationships nowadays are. Can everyone go recall the Samaritan woman incident over in John 4? So in this scene, Jesus is taking to a Samaritan woman, who is confused for two reasons: 1, Jews and Samaritans hated each other, and never, ever crossed paths. 2, men and women back in the day treated each other like a different species. Here, let good ol' Timothy teach ya' a good ol' lesson or two:       

" ¹¹ Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.¹² But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.¹³ For Adam was first formed, then Eve.¹⁴ And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."  

Sorry if I offended anyone, but I'm a woman here, so it's all cool. So my point is, that imagine you're John- for a small part of a random Tuesday, Mary Magdalene gos and "excuses" herself to be with Jesus for a little while instead of talking to you like normal. By dinner that night you don't remember that. And certainly you don't 30 years later when you're writing the Story of Christ down! See what I mean? Unless it was Magdalene herself writing a gospel herself, we do not expect any of the apostles/disciples to remember anything about their relationship! *deep breathes* Well, I had to put that out there. Alright! It's Monday! Time for some MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL! 

Thank you for reading! I hope you enjoyed, and see you next post. Feel free to email or comment about anything that you read here today. Thank you! 

  ~~Clarabelle

Jesus as an Essene... is this further proof of Mary Magdalene?

Hello followers!

What is up? Or, what's shakin'? (Only kidding) So, today I was watching a video about the Essenes called, "Mysteries of the Essenes - Tedd Nottinham". He had some great points, I do suggest it to those of you who have a very open mind, and some time! It totals to around 50 minutes in length, but I found that the beginning half was the best part anyway.  Before I start this post, I'll just give those of you not familiar with the "Essenes" a quick over-view of them (for the people who already know a fair amount about them, you can skip this):

The Essenes are a Jewish sect originating from long before Jesus, 

spectating it's origin may have been Enoch. They were known for there healing 

powers, they could do miraculous things! They practiced Gnosism, 

(silent "g", pronounced "Nosism") 

a religion rare but still alive (heck, I'm Gnostic!) believing in four Gods,

appose to just One, such as in Judaism. 

They lived in Qumran, Mt. Carmel, and the City of Salt. 

They wore white, and astoundingly were WAY ahead of their time, they were the 

first and only for quite some time to demise against slavery of any kind,

no matter what race. They also held equality to men and woman very importantly,

and yet no other religious groups or sects did this. 

They had no rules of marrige, not even to the Rabbis. You married if you 

wished, and some thought very highly of marriage and children, 

while others thought of it as dirty. 

So that is the basics! Alright, let's move on.

Flavius Josephus was a first century historian, politician and solider. He lived with the Essenes for three years (though he was not one himself) and wrote about them constantly. But, before we go and study them, let's first ponder this: Some historians have come to the conclusion that there actually was no real town called "Nazareth", and that the closest thing to Nazareth was a group of Essenes called the "Nazarenes". Suspisously, the Essenes took it upon themselves to prepare for the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ (or, as the Gnostics refer to Him by His Hebrew Yeshua or even Jeshua), they predicted this amazing event 103 years before it actually happened. They helped Mother Mary and prepared a place for her, so obviously she, and He, were familiar with these people. John the Baptist has also been long debated by scholars to be an Essene, most of whom agree and recognize that he was. So, it does beg the question whether Jesus was an Essene or not. Alright, so now, despite the evidence, let's go into a fantasy void where He was! OK? There yet? Great. Let's begin! 

    

 The Essenes

 Some things Flavius Josephus had written had contradicted each other. Some verses he states that the Essenes only used marriage for reproduction, and the other it was the meaning of life itself! So we have truly no idea what the Essenes real say on marriage may have been! Josephus records "The Essenes consider that everybody who does not marry, hereby affects the propagation and destination of mankind, as men would soon cease to exist otherwise." They believed you should marry, "not from lust, but to fulfill the command of Jehovah, 'Be fruitful, increase and fill the earth'." If this statement is true, and if Jesus really was an Essene, ... would He be instantly married? Moreover, did the Essenes, when they were preparing the way for Christ, did they expect the Messiah to be married Himself? Even if He didn't marry, if He ignored the "law" or social norm as He most certainly has before, ("The purpose of the law is to bind the demiurgos and archons and to destroy the hold of the devil, not to bind the soul of the human one."), would He of been thought to? I just don't know if we'll ever know. 

So go check out Mr. Nottinham! Surely, he will make you think more on this subject (if I have not already killed you with suspense). Well, with that I say goodnight, I wish you all the best! Please feel free to share your thoughts, via email or comments as always!
  ~~Clarabelle

Are historians laughing at us? No, we know what they don't.

Hello dearest followers!

I have been sick all week, my goodness! I'm all better now, and very eager to post -- Just, now what? If you read/watch anything on the topic about anything, usually the person talking/typing is either not paying attention to the facts, or it yelling about something we think is stupid. Kay kay, who here still references this verse, found in "The Gospel of Philip" (a Nag Hammadi gospel) when we want to prove the Jesus x Mary Magdalene marriage?  "And the companion of the [savior was] Mary Magdalene. [He] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" " 
   Show of hands? OK, if you are, then let's bust it: 1. "And the companion" . "Companion", in no way shape or form references to anything sexual, and let's not pretend it does. Peter Simon or John could of also been named "companion"s, and unless you want to go impaling exactly what you think I mean, let's end it there. 2. "[He] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth." Kissing? Yea, well, this can be explained real easily. Take Judas Iscariot. Remember that? In any Bible anywhere there will be verse after verse describing how they kissed! If you have not read it, look up Juda's name on Google or whatever you use. I guarantee that the top "suggestion" is "judas iscariot kiss"!
 Alright, that was a fair fight. Now to bring two new things in this post about this ever-so-famous verse and we will see just how good it is! Starting with, let's bust whatever the heck I just said! Shall we?   "[He] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth." As I said previously, kissing doesn't signify sexual anything what-so-ever -- *cough cough*, let's reference John 4, okay? In this scene, Jesus is taking to a Samaritan woman, which she is confused for two reasons: 1, Jews and Samaritans hated each other, and never, ever crossed paths. 2, men and women back in the day treated each other like a different species. She asks Him why He is talking to her, and He replies in a way which has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say here! Does anyone get why I brought this up? OK, bottom line: the 1st century was nothing like today. Men and women did not touch, and most of all the bottom line of the society, especially in the Middle East, was, hate to say it, sexism. So, that being said, we go back to the "kissing" scene--it was not a social norm for men and women to kiss back in the first century unless married. So, the two possible answers: They were indeed married, or that since Jesus kissed His male apostles/disciples, He was making her equal to them by kissing her also, in the most least-sexual way. What do you think? It could go either way.

Before I said: Now to bring two new things in this post about this ever-so-famous verse and we will see just how good it is! Alright, so time for seconds!
  Not a lot of people no that this verse is not alone on it's section (it is not a CODEX, remember for that reason I did not say PAGE) this is the entire verse: "As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They 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 who sees are both together in 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.""
Wanna thank me? Do it now! Seriously, no one puts this online. Why is that, man? Well, anyway, now I don't know what to think about it -- other than the fact that I honestly love that parable! I also do, of course love it when He "talks back" to His disciples. I just assumed that I should post that, I guess no one does. If anyone cares to further research, click right here for a link to the Gospel of Philip, in which this verse belongs to. If anyone finds anything or has any hunches, please email me about them! Or I guess you could hit it up in the comments ;) Whatever, I do hope you enjoyed!

As you can see, I'm very tired, it's 9:30 PM already! So, yeah, please excuse my bad grammar, take it as a sign of my tiredness, but also feel free to correct it via the comments or Google +.
Well, that's it! Goodnight folks, and with that I say goodbye!
  ~~Clarabelle

The lost years: did Mary Magdalene appear in them?

Hello everyone!

I hope we're all familiar with the term, "Lost years of Jesus" -- this time generally refers to the time of Jesus between His age of 12 and when He started his ministry at 30. We have absolutely NO scriptural evidence at that time of his life -- no, not even the rap-scallion GNOSTIC Gospels! Nothing, I tell you. The only thing that we're quite sure of - Jesus traveled, somewhere. When He returned to His homeland (Nazareth) when He was 30, the people there (according to the New Testament) don't recognize Him, nor do they like Him -- but these people should of liked/known Him best! That is, if He grew up with them! So that is where the mystery is -- where was He? Some popular theories are, India, Tibet, and my favorite... England! Why? Well, here's a theory: Remember that time in Oct, when I posted about this? (Brides Mound) If you don't remember it, go read it! I'm just going to copy some of what I said here to back my theory:

When Mary arrived in southern France, after freeing from Israel, she quickly set forth to England. Somerset, Glastonbury, is very south England.

It was here, Mary started up a church. It is called, "The Brides Mound" now, what remains of it anyway-- but the church had it's day. It is said King Aurthur traveled there, and had a vision of The Virgin Mary and Jesus, also it is said to once home Saint Brigid of Kildare (my favorite saint, besides MM). More on this below.
In one corner of the almost-fallen church, is an inscription translating to: "Jesus Maria"

All caught up? Uhm-kay. So, basically -- Church. In a English town called Glastonbury. Inscription on it says, "Jesus Maria". Annnnd we're done! 

  So, previously, I thought that Mary Magdalene had started the church, she practiced early Christianity and honored her Master. But -- I'm rethinking things over here -- what if this was a church Mary and Jesus started together, Him being -- like, 14? Maybe older (cos' Mary at the time would of been 11. She's not that rebellious!), but think about it -- if Mary Magdalene was a Brit, then... heh, maybe she would of actually had red hair ? (Not like that matters) OR -- This is a church that Jesus and His (earthly) mother started together. They are both named Mary. And He loved both of them (I believe). Odds are, probably His mother, right? Just for the sake of it, I'll label it this way: "Theory 1" is that it was Him and His mother -- "Theory 2" is Him and Magdalene. On the side of theory 2, this could help explain the name "Magdalene". As I posted about here, "Magdalene" probably isn't referring to her "hometown" Magdalena. As I stated there, 

"Magdalene" might be a nickname -- Jesus gave nicknames to his closest apostles. Noting the most famous one, Simon called Peter, "Peter" meaning "Rock", maybe referring to his strong or harsh attitude. James the "less" because of his short of stature or young age. The two fisherman brothers, James and John, sons of Zebedee, were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning “sons of Thunder,” ... Maybe they were loud (like thunder?)? Simon, another of the Twelve apostles was called “Simon the Zealot,” either referring to his militant bent or to his zeal for a cause. So then, "Magdalene" might come from the Hebrew or Aramaic word migdal—meaning tower.

Do you think, tower, was referring to this church? As you can see in the picture I included below, almost nothing remains of the "Bride's Mound" (the name for the area surrounding the church), so how tall it stood or for how long is limitless.

Excuse that random table - I couldn't find a table-less picture 

that showed THE ACTUAL CHURCH REMAINS 

I guess it would be kind of weird to nickname your girlfriend "tower", after the building you helped/built for her. But then again, calling your best friend, "Thunder", "Rock", or "Less", seems kind of weird too. So I guess you can't take it too seriously. Additionally, not related to Bride's Mound of the Lost years whatsoever, I found out that "Magdal" can also mean "Child of Light", so I guess that is also a possibility. Certainly more understandable than tower!

SO! Back to the whole reason I started this post - "The lost years: did Mary Magdalene appear in them?", and the answer? First, let's look at the evidence -- oh, wait, there is none. There is Gnostic theories, passed down through Gnostic church fathers, about Magdalene's childhood (As I posted about here), but 100% nothing about Jesus', past 12.  So, was Mary present during those years of His teen and young adulthood? Well, think about it: The Bible pretty much mentions nothing about Mary Magdalene, but don't you think that it is a tiny bit suspicious, that His first miracle was supplying wine at a wedding? Hm, as I mention HERE, 

Jesus and all of his apostles (also including his mother!) are "invited" to a wedding, and at the wedding everyone gets so drunk before the ceremony that they have no wine left. Jesus' mother told Jesus, "They have no wine," and Jesus replied, "O Woman, ("woman" was the equal for "lady" in English) what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come." His mother then said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you" So He tells them to fill the containers with water, and then long story short He makes water into wine. Well, in the first century, it was the groom's responsibility to bring the wine, drinks and food for the wedding -- a defense is that obviously the "groom" didn't bring enough wine, and that Jesus was doing it as a favor -- but if that is so, why would His mom ask Him to fix it? She wouldn't know of His "ability" (yet), so why would she even think to ask Him? Unless, of course, it was His responsibility in the first place!

The Wedding at Cana might be the secret marriage between our Lord and His bride. Wouldn't it make since for Him to arrive back in Israel, to wed and then start His ministry? Sorta makes since, anyway.

Gosh, I need to rap it up now. Did I actually cover anything? The truth is that no one can actually, or will actually, ever be sure. That kinda sucks.
  Than you for reading, I hope you enjoyed wanting to punch mwah as always ;)
  ~~Clarabelle  

   

   

NEW: Mary Magdalene's future is looking VERY bright

Ahhhh! I have waited for this moment. I do not even have time to do my traditional "hello dearest followers" and what not! I am competing with tons of bloggers to get this post out fast enough for up to be at the top of search engines! Ok, ok... *takes deep breath*.

Guess what?! NEW EVIDENCE has been discovered that woman, back in the first century, WERE in deed PRIESTS!! Don't believe me? Take a deep breath -- us feminist history geeks cannot bear such exciting news. It's true -- the "Catacombs of Priscilla" in Rome, Italy, are now open to the public, after a five-year project that included laser technology to clean some of the ancient frescoes and a new museum to house restored marble fragments of sarcophagi. The "Catacombs" are like a underground labyrinth, FILLED to the brim with pictures, after pictures or women preaching, some of which have male followers. I attached pictures to satisfy your excitement, I will talk more about it
below. 

My my my! Am I right? OK, so back to the facts -- (I'm sorry, I just could not control myself) The Catacombs were built somewhere between the 1st century to the 4th century. In a room called the "Cubiculum of the Veiled Woman," shows a woman whose arms are outstretched like those of a priest saying Mass. She wears what the catacombs' Italian website calls "a rich liturgical garment". The word "liturgical" does not appear in the English version.She also wears what appears to be a stole, a vestment worn by priests. Another fresco, in a room known as "The Greek Chapel," shows a group of women sitting around a table, their arms outstretched like those of priests celebrating Mass.
Now, of course, the pope say that it is just a "fairy tale", because "there was a reason Jesus choose only male disciples" and I'm all, "Oh, yeah, right. There is also a reason that you never read any gospels outside of the new testament. Because, oh, how silly, Jesus actually interacts with a woman! *ladylike gasp* Oh, but that is forbidden! Is it not?" Let's be honest here: Not only do canonical gospels outside the new testament have woman apostles in them, openly, even the gospels in the new testament have DEAD giveaways! Man... I really LOVE pope Francis, but I guess everyone has a downside, right? Well, I still love that man.
That is really all there is to know. I better publish this thang, and if you see my post at the top of your search engine, comment on this post or somehow lmk so that I may die in vain. Thanks.

THANK YA' for reading! I hope you do continue to wish for a priest someday, I sure do ;) Remember, each day we are one step closer.
  ~~Clarabelle

Parts above may have been referenced from Philip Pullella on Yahoo!

All rights reserved. 

"Most Beloved Disciple" Part 2

Hello, dearest followers and viewers!

Today, I bring a sequel to my post " "Most Beloved Disciple" ? ". If you have not read it, I suggest you do so first because I don't really feel like explaining the entire thing again. Go knock yourself out! Anyway, for those of us whom have read it before, *cough*thecoolones*cough*, let me just start off by saying that, the beloved disciple, whomever he might be, isn't the greatest writer in the world. (Might wanna consort J.K. Rowling about that. Imagine, one day, she opens up her inbox to find an email that reads: "Dear Ms. Rowling, I am the beloved disciple of Christ, and before I go and record all of His life, such as all of the 'cool' apostles are doing, I need your help. My email is, jesuslovesme@gmail.com, Thanks." OKK that was random and I accept that.) John has said many things that the other gospels (in the New Testament) have not, some [most] of which have been proved completely wrong. That being said, one of the most remarkable things about the New Testament is that all four Gospels have totally different interpretations of the resurrection -- but John, is the only one that mentions the "beloved disciple".  In all of the others, it is either just the two Marys, (Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene) or Mary (Magdalene) runs and gets Peter. "The beloved disciple", or John, doesn't appear. Get what I'm saying? This is the only verse in the Bible that really differences Mary Magdalene from the beloved disciple. So, if "John" is written by the disciple who was dropped on his head when he was a baby, does this instantly make Mary Magdalene the beloved disciple? Heck no! We still have to puzzle upon Jesus calling the beloved apostle a "him", or "son". (I.e., "Later at the crucifixion, Jesus tells his mother, "Woman, here is your son", and to the Beloved Disciple he says, "Here is your mother.")

Son. Son. Really? If He'd only addressed "her" by daughter, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, since we are, I've got to ask -- what do you think? I want to say, being the author of a blog about this sort of thing, "And here is why I know Mary Magdalene is the beloved disciple!" But no. The honest answer, is I have no idea. BUT -- now let's venture past the new testament and get into the Gospel of Philip. I present to you the most epic burn of all time! (Kidding.) 

  

And the companion of the saviour was Mary Magdalene. Christ loved Mary more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her?"

Hmmmmm... is that a good burn or what? Anyway, what do you think? Of course, this is not the statement we're all looking for : "And Mary Magdalene was the mysterious beloved disciple, yo." But who knows? Maybe we'll find a gospel that states the same thing in a few years! New Biblical evidence is always being discovered, constantly. That is why you cannot stand by one thing and make it your final stand -- you have to be open to new things! SUCH as Mary Magdalene, the possibility that Jesus was gay, Gnosisim, etc.! I know y'all are, my readers are A-W-E-S-O-M-E! ;)
  Well, that is it. Thank you for viewing, and again, feel free to comment and share your thoughts.
  ~~Clarabelle 
   

"Most Beloved Disciple" ?

Hello everyone!

I told you in my last post, we have some pretty "sweet" things coming up!! Here we are. Did you know? The term "beloved disciple" is used in John five times, but in no other New Testament Gospel? Actually, the gospel of John is addressed to be written by the "beloved disciple", and yet he (or she) is never once mentioned by name! i.e., "And John, the Beloved Disciple"... nope. It is believed by most to be John, but here is why I am really confused.
  When Jesus is on the cross, John states: " Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. 26When Jesus saw his mother^* and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”ⁿ 27Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. "
Now, only are the females mentioned to be standing at the cross, so why would we jump to the conclusion that now, suddenly, John appears? When Jesus notices "the disciple there whom he loved", remember this is a different paragraph, and now it gets better! He says, " "Woman, behold, your son." [27]Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." ", doesn't it sound like he is meaning to "introduce" in-laws? That He wants His mother to treat His wife like her own child? And, of course, we have to throw *son* in there. Now, all women are here. Son? Really? Read the verse again. (And again.) Try to get your mind around it! Impossible! We come to *two* conclusions: (1). John was joining the females, but for some reason the author forgot to add that. (2) He called his wife "son", which cannot be changed whether in Hebrew or English. ? So ?
Putting that aside, we have something that might make you lean towards 2. In John 13:23-25, this is what it states:  ²³ Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

²⁴ Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
²⁵ He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? 

Now, if you were on the side of 1, imagine two men laying on each other. Sorta weird, right? (I mean, *unless* they were in a sexual relationship... I guess it's a possibility, right? Anything can happen!) Of course, "he" comes into play here. Is it a guy? Or is the author covering up something? Then again, "the beloved disciple" is the AUTHOR of the Gospel!  So, "The Gospel of John", dead giveaway? Hmm... maybe... OK: Now, we're going over to side "1" for a minute, while we read this passage:  "When Mary Magdalene discovers the empty tomb, she runs to tell the Beloved Disciple and Peter. The two men rush to the empty tomb and the Beloved Disciple is the first to reach the empty tomb. However, Peter is the first to enter." 

All aboard the *first* train! This should prove that "the beloved disciple" and Mary are two different persons, but of course I must point out something else (Clarabelle Elizabeth is not responsible for any brain aches you might develop while reading this article): "beloved" does not refer to a sexual relationship whatsoever, but in the context it is used it seems to. So, therefore, why do we not believe Jesus was gay? If He was, that would be A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. You, dear readers don't even know this yet (I don't think), but your author is gayyyy. ohhhhhh! So, TRUST ME, I would not mind one bit! But, there are reasons to think not -- Many people were cut out of the New Testament simply for being gay -- what makes us think that they would not do the same to Jesus? They were never rejected for being married, just for the basis of being married to a person of the same gender. So... ? Any ideas? I've got nothing! I guess the main purpose of this post was to give you something to think about until your brain EXPLODES! Ugh! Gospels! *sassy eye roll!*

Well, thank you thank you, for viewing! Please feel free to comment about your beliefs, and I will try my best to reply/answer! :) 

  ~~Clarabelle

  

Our Lady in Art

Hello everyone --

I have seen some of the best art featuring our lady lately! And I'm not talking about stuff painted by some guy 300 years ago, I mean modern art! I thought I'd do an entire post featuring some of my favorite art, scattered from across the internet, featuring Mary Magdalene! Time to get started. (In no particular order, of corse!)

I really like this one. She looks so dirty, tired, and yet the artiest *still* 

made her look beautiful! By stueplante on DeviantArt

 By fridede on DeviantArt 

I love the technique used here. By 

Springergirl07 on DeviantArt 

This one is my absolute favorite. So much 

emotion. By Orzesezek on DeviantArt 

I don't usually like this type of painting, 

but this one I really adore. By dashinvaine 

I've always like this one. By jasminetoad on DeviantArt 

Ohhh, this is a cool one! I need to stop soon. By Bear48 on

DeviantArt 

So, the artiest posted, "Just a Dreamworks-like 

Mary Magdalene~" and that made me post it. 

Last one of the day. By
KaitouSamurai2 on DeviantArt 

I hope you enjoyed the list I put together :) I guess it wasn't very educational, but you know me, I have to break from serious posts every once-and-awhile and do a nice fluffy one instead. We have good things coming up next time!! 

 Thank you for viewing, I dearly hope you enjoyed, 

  ~~Clarabelle 

 

I try my best to answer 10 FAQs!

Hi everyone!

So, I decided to complie a bunch of FAQs about our lady (Mary Magdalene) and try to answer them my best! Sounds like fun? Let's begin! 

Q. How much is the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown historically correct? 
A. Pretty much none of it. The only thing is that Mary and Jesus were probably married, but other than that, there is NOTHING historically correct in that entire thing! 'Tis rubbish!

Q. What is the Gospel of Mary? 
A. The Gospel of Mary is a gospel (but I'm temped to call it a codex) that belongs to the Nag Hammadi gospels. It is a list of sayings, similar to The Gospel of Thomas, (also a Nag Hammadi gospel) unlike LUKE, JOHN, MATTHEW or MARK, which tell stories. 

Q. Did Mary really have red hair?
A.  No. Chances of that are about 0%. Red is the color representing sin, so you can see how she is always portrayed with red hair. 

Q. On that note, how did Mary sin? Was she really a prostitute? 
A. Yes. She was a single lady (put your hands up!) and back in the first century, women could not work. Therefore, she needed a way to support her daughter and herself! 

Q. If Jesus was married, why wasn't it (His marriage) included in the New Testament?
A. You know, there is no true answer. Dan Brown states that it was because of "a male-dominated church", but many men in the new and old testament were married, to multiple wives in fact. But, think about it: sexuality just isn't a very big part of religion. There is no where in the ENTIRE new testament that states that Jesus WASN'T married.

Q. Is Mary the scared feminine? 
A. No. In Gnosism, we have two prominent female Gods: Elohim, and Sophia. Mary is believed by only some of us to be the wife of Jesus, so therefore she is certainly not Holy... in Jesus' seance, anyway. 

Q. Why are people so intrigued by Mary Magdalene?
A. I don't know. She's a bad girl! Who got redeemed! What's not to love? 

Q. Was The Da Vinci Code the first book to suggest the union between Mary and our Lord? 
A. No! Before that, there was a interesting book called, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Dan Brown actually got SUED because his book was so much like this one! Side note: he won the sue. 

Q. Many people believe Mary fled to France after the crucifixion. Why France? 
A. Well, take out your globes for a second (Don't worry, I've got you:) 

OK, find Israel. (You geographic geeks already found it! Good job!) It's right below Syria, (the blue square under TURKEY you guys -.-) OK now, pretend you lead a rudderless boat out off the sea there: where do you land? Italy! Orrrr, you could stop at Italy, and continue to France. My real answer: I don't know. Hit it up in the comments if you have any guesses! 
  
Q. 10th question! You know what this means! Were Jesus and Mary Magdalene married after all? 
A. Yes! And we've got lots of gospels to prove it! Try "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife" and "The Gospel of Mary" for a start. I'm not going to compile everything I know about Biblical History into this one question, but if you're a new viewer, I suggest you check out my other posts! 

Yayy, they end here! It's 8:10 PM now, so it's time to stop. I hope you enjoyed it.
Thank you for reading! 
   ~~Clarabelle  

 

  

Let's talk about things: Dr. Darrell Bock

Hi everyone,

Gosh, I've been so caught up in other things I almost forgot about my wonderful blog I have here! Nevermind that now, I will be talking about a interview on the topic of The Da Vinci Code I watched recently. (It's about an hour and 25 minutes, so you might want to start it once you have some time!) I have provided the link for those who want to hit it up, but only about the first quarter of it is on the topic of our lady, Mary Magdalene, and that is the part I will be talking about.  (LINK:)
     https://www.biblicaltraining.org/breaking-da-vinci-code/breaking-da-vinci-code
I have my notes here, but before I start, here is a little more about Dr. Bock, 

__________________________________________________________

Darrell Bock has earned international recognition as a Humboldt Scholar (Tübingen University in Germany) and for his work in Luke-Acts and in Jesus’ examination before the Jews. He was president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) for 2000–2001, and serves as corresponding editor at large for Christianity Today. His articles appear in leading journals and periodicals, including many secular publications such as the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas Morning News. He has been a New York Times best-selling author in nonfiction, and is elder emeritus at Trinity Fellowship Church in Dallas. 

___________________________________________________________

Dr. Bock is quite a admired scholar and I mean no offense, I just felt I wanted to share my thoughts about his remarks.  

   Bock makes quite interesting remarks, he believes Mary and Jesus were not married, and had no connection what-so-ever, and while he states, "In all 25 gospels, and, wait, 10 other scriptures (he is referring to codexs) we have not one verse to state that Jesus was married. Don't you think, someone would of even dropped a hint? Nevertheless, actually mentioned it?" Hmmmm... yes, it is indeed a good point, but we also do not have any gospels (or codexs) that actually state Him as single, or unmarried, actually these gospels go out of their never mentioning His sexuality. *cough*actuallythereisone*cough* and I *cough*amstudyingit*cough*.  So, what is it? The Gospel of Pistis Sophia. I am studying it on my free time, a book with commentary by J. J. Hurtak. The Gospel is a Nag Hammadi gospel, (such as the Gospel of Thomas and countless others) basing off Jesus after His resurection, channeling Pistis Sophia (The female Christos in Gnosisim), on the mount of Olives, with his disiples. Mary Magdalene, is talking way too much and despite Peter consistently "telling" her to let him have a turn, she never does. At one point, she looks to Jesus and tells Him, "My Lord, my mind is always with the understanding to come forward each time with the solution of words, but I am apprehensive of Peter because he threatens me and despises of OUR sex." So. How are you going to explain that? This is, the only time in any gospel OR codex that we know of today, where Mary talks openly about sexuality like this, and further to point out she says, "our sex", not, "and despises of sex" (in general). Does this mean they were necessarily married? Well, depends on how you twist it. This is just ONE gospel out of 25, and it happens ONE TIME, so should this be over-looked? If it were kissing, I would say yes, but since of course Mary pointed out the ONE thing Jesus said NOT to do unless married... "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." Hebrews, 13:4 

Woo, back to Dr. Bock. I guess I went on a limb there, right? Heh, heh... 

Now, here is something I thoughtfully agree with. In the Gospel of Thomas, there is a verse where it states that, "The Lord loved her more than the others", and he pointed out that, "Because the Gospel said the savior loved Mary more than the others, means that he must be married to her." In a mocking manner, of course. If this were talking about, say, Peter, everyone would just accept that Peter was the favorite and nothing more than that. Right? Now, this doesn't put up much argument because of what I just touched up on. Sorry. I seriously need to organize my posts more :-)

Also -- one last thing - he taught me what "PDA"s are. He said, "all the youngsters know what I'm talking about", ... where has my life gone? Anyway, PDA stands for, "Public Display of Affection" - bet you didn't know that! HAH! Fun fact for the day. (Oh, over-looking everything I just talked about... PDAs prevail.)  

Thank you SO for reading! 

   ~~Clarabelle 

Two interesting theories about Mary Magdalene...

Over time, our lady has undergone so many theories about her. The key factor is to find which are real, and provide actual historic significance, and which are just gutter trash. Here are two theories about Mary Magdalene that caught my eye in particular.
   Mary Magdalene is the author of The Gospel of JOHN? 
      Unlike the other gospels that make up the New Testament, (MATTHEW, LUKE, MARK) JOHN is by far the most mysterious -- and, of course, the author identifies himself/herself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", which is generally referred to Magdalene. Also, JOHN gives us a very descriptive account of Mary Magdalene after during the Resurrection, while the others focus on the male apostles and state such as, "The two Marys went to the tomb" as appose to,  
"Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb  and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” " 

Jesus later comes to her, saying, "He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!”

("Rabboni" is a more inanimate form of "Teacher") See?
   "The diciple whom Jesus loved" opens up questions. Most scholars believe that the four New Testament gospels were written long after Jesus had died, around 300 CE. But, if the gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus, does that mean the others were, too? Initially, I assumed this theory was wrong, but it is very interesting, but right now I will rest on that no. 
   
    The wedding at Cana was actually the secret union between Mary and Jesus? 
       I learned about this some time ago now, and I am only now bringing it up! So, in JOHN, Jesus and all of his apostles (also including his mother!) are "invited" to a wedding, and at the wedding everyone gets so drunk before the ceremony that they have no wine left. Jesus' mother told Jesus, "They have no wine," and Jesus replied, "O Woman, ("woman" was the equal for "lady" in English) what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come." His mother then said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you" So He tells them to fill the containers with water, and then long story short He makes water into wine. Well, in the first century, it was the groom's responsibility to bring the wine, drinks and food for the wedding -- a defense is that obviously the "groom" didn't bring enough wine, and that Jesus was doing it as a favor -- but if that is so, why would His mom ask Him to fix it? She wouldn't know of His "ability" (yet), so why would she even think to ask Him? Unless, of course, it was His responsibility in the first place! The only holes to the theory is:

• It is usually agreed that Jesus and Mary met after Jesus had all of His apostles with Him (at this point He does not), and since this is placed in the beginning of the New Testament, we assume that if this is true that they would of had a relationship before the New Testament even starts - plot hole for that (below) : 
• From about 12 to 30, Jesus' life is pretty much a mystery. No one has recorded any of it. So, that means, anything could of filled the gap, so we just don't know -- but I know a pretty convincing theory is that Jesus and His mother traveled to India, and learned from the elders there -- when He was in His upper 20's returning for His ministry. If this is true, then He wouldn't of met Mary until at least late 30. (Unless she was Indian herself... I have never heard anyone suggest that though).   

Really, to be honest, that is all we have against it. 
Pretty captivating, if I do say so myself. 

Anyway, I should of taken both theories and made them into TWO DIFFERENT posts, but as I like to joke (all of those cool kids) "lol naw!" I will kick myself later when I have nothing to post about. (That's what you get for ALLOWING YOUR FORMAL SELF TO POST AT 80:30 AT NIGHT)  

Thanks for reading!!! 
  ~~Clarabelle

         

16 little known facts about Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and the 12 Apostles

So I am still so interested in "The Shroud of Turin" as I posted last! I suggest watching the "discovery channel" special on it, it was highly entertaining and I loved it! (Ye can find it on Youtube) So I wanted to do a fluffy post this time. (To my previous blog readers: I will re-state some things from previous posts for the new viewers. I will, though, of course include new facts too.)

• Mary Magdalene hated religion until she met Jesus.  It's true -- her abusive father was a rabbi, and she hated religion of any kind because of him. (In her early teens she practiced Shamanism though.) 
• Jesus' teachers hated Him. You know, everyone expected Him to be a straight A's, but His teachers hated Him, and He was expelled from two schools alone. He was not allowed to go back until he was 11. Reason? When His teacher was teaching Him about the alphabet, (He was 6 years old at the time) He already knew everything. He told him that He was getting bored and wanted to "move on"! He was expelled from two schools for talking back. 
• Apostle John the Beloved was extremely fem. He is the one sitting next to Jesus in the Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci! He always also preferred to hang out with the female apostles of Jesus. One night, all the men stayed at Jesus' house and prayed, while the woman went into the woods, lit a bonfire and did chanting and dancing. You can only guess who John went with -- the girls of course! Assuming John, often called "The Virgin John" is homosexual, he has been a huge gay inspiration! (He is only Jesus' favorite {or second, putting Peter first} male apostle!) 
• If Jesus was a true rabbi, He would of been required to be married. Actually, this is true. He would of been required to be married by 20... and His ministry started when He was 30. Unless Jesus broke the law, He would've been married.   
• The Virgin Mary traveled with Jesus all of His life. She was actually a disciple of His.
• Both Mary Magdalene's and Jesus' father died when they were 12. But, it was not the same year -- Mary was 3 years younger than Jesus -- pretty ironic though. 
• Jesus wore nice clothes (fabulous, darling!). As JOHN states:   "They said therefore among themselves, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: “They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots.” Therefore the soldiers did these things." (John 19:24) 
• Mary Magdalene had apostles of her own, after Jesus died. She began to have a following while in France and England. Fun fact: her "favorite" was a girl named Ruth. 
• Jesus appeared privately to Mary Magdalene later on. Not only as it states in the Bible, but also in her older years. He only ever reviled Himself again to John the Beloved and Mary Magdalene after His resurrection. 
• Jesus was fond of Mary Magdalene's wedlock daughter, Tamar. (Note: She was impregnated by rape, but I couldn't think of another word for that besides "wedlock".)
• Mary x Jesus' son was a hermaphrodite. (For those who don't know, that is a person who is neither/of both genders.) Reason is? People only generally back in the 1st century lived to an average of 44 years old. Mary was 30 at time, she was probably (AT THE TIME) too *old* to get pregnant. (30 years old?!?! Just beginning life! Not old at all! *Ladylike eyeroll*) 
• Apostle Peter Simon was married, and had a daughter. His wife was named "Feberonia", and his daughter was "Petronella", a female version of the name Peter. Here is something interesting (sorta off subject): The Bible states that all of Jesus' apostles went celibate when they started following Him, as Jesus supposedly had instructed them to. But, Petronella is a female form of Peter, and as most of us know, "Peter" was Jesus' nickname for him, his original name being Simon. So, you really think that Peter Simon just randomly named his daughter a female form of a male's name? Hmm? No. Yet more evidence that Jesus was indeed married, and most likely not celibate.  
•   Nazareth was the backwater town to Galilee. Seriously, it was where all the poor people lived. 
• Mary Magdalene funded all of the 12 apostles, and Jesus on their travels. No wonder He had nice clothes! 
• Mary also loved to dance, as well as sing. 
• Jesus could fore-tell His crucifixion as soon as He learned to talk. Also, as a child, He preformed many other miracles, not included in the Bible. He saved His half-brother James' life, by healing his venomous snake bite, and killing the snake, He turned dirty water into clean water, and one of His "friends" (I guess more like ex-friend) pushed Him off of the top of a two-story building, and He glided down, thus, surviving the fall. Etc. (This is in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, only my favoritest gospel ever!) 

Well, that is it. I searched "facts about mary magdalene" on the internet, to see who I'm competing with, and no one offers any substantial facts about our lady. I should do this more often. (Easy too!)
  Thanks for reading,
  ~~Clarabelle    

The Shroud of Turin... how crazy is THIS?

Hi everyone,

I'm going to skip off topic from Mary just a little bit for today's post, umh-kay? Great.
   Jesus, is pretty much the basis of this blog. And now, I am going to blog about something called "The Shroud of Turin". It is a 6-foot long piece of linen cloth, bearing the image of a man, who appears to have suffered physical trauma -- I mean, the whole thing is stained in blood. (Anyone already nauseous with me?) It is believed by most to be burial cloth of Jesus Christ -- now before we analyze it anymore you have to see a picture of it.

This is the original sepia cloth -- look closely. 

And here is the front-and-back pictures in black and white. 

 

The two blood splatters near the face and then again to the knees are said to be the heavy bleeding from Christ's hands and feet, after he was crucified. As former Nature editor Philip Ball said, "it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling", and he is true. This piece of cloth has undergone many, many tests, each leaving the physiologists and historians much more puzzled than ever. For example, in 1978, a detailed examination carried out by a team of American scientists, called the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), found no reliable evidence of how the image was produced. 

Here are some interesting facts (copied from the Wikipedia) about the interpretation of the "blood" markings on the cloth:

• one wrist bears a large, round wound, apparently from piercing (the second wrist is hidden by the folding of the hands)
• upward gouge in the side penetrating into the thoracic cavity. Proponents say this was a post-mortem event and there are separate components of red blood cells and serum draining from the lesion
• small punctures around the forehead and scalp
• scores of linear wounds on the torso and legs. Proponents aver that the wounds are consistent with the distinctive dumbbell wounds of a Roman flagrum.
• swelling of the face from severe beatings
• streams of blood down both arms. Proponents state that the blood drippings from the main flow occurred in response to gravity at an angle that would occur during crucifixion.
• large puncture wounds in the feet as if pierced by a single spike

 ...what do you think? Nauseous yet?
No one can seem to figure out just what it is made of, and how it was made! Just like I was saying in my previous post (Entitled: "And He said, 'wife' ")   pretty much everyone hates each other in this field. It's either wood powder or it's the Son of God's blood, no one can quite formally agree on anything! But, hey, let's look at the evidence, before I decipher just what I think it is.
  In the 1970s, they did a test for DNA (How exciting would THAT be!?!) but only found submicrometre pigment particles... gosh I have no idea what the heck those are. I looked it up but found NOTHING (Hey, if any of y'all are doctors who read my blog... mind shooting me a email or comment describing these things?). All I know -- they were not very happy about the results. Mark Anderson, a scientist working for the program, was so dis-pleased with the results, he admitted to pretending it was painted on, with something called Hematite, a form of iron. Joseph Kohlbeck, from the Hercules Aerospace Company in Utah, and Richard Levi-Setti, did a study on the dirt particles found on the cloth. Surprisingly, they found they were small substances of limestone! Limestone is a rock, of course "native" to the middle east - heck, limestone is what the great pyramids of Giza are made of!  Back on the blood subject, (don't you just love me?) working independently, forensic pathologist Pier Luigi Baima Bollone concurred with Heller and Adler's findings and identified the blood as the AB blood group! Quite a find indeed. Blood comes in "+"s and "-"s, so it is not specified which of these it was.
  Now, like everything, there is always equally true facts against it. Nickell, in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. Like I said! Something new to ponder.

Sorry for not writing about Mary Magdalene this time around... I got so excited when I found out about this thing! I thought, "I will have to post this on my blog! Oh - wait. Oh well, I'm publishing anyway!" So yeah, sorry faithful followers of mine. :)
   ~~Clarabelle

 

And He said, 'My wife'

Hello everyone,
I feel like writing. And though I have things a really should be doing, I don't care -- I want to write! (I'm sure you know that feeling, don't you?)
Today let's discuss The Gospel of Jesus' wife. The title says it all. This is what the eggheads at Harvard called it... remember when you were younger and thought this was an ideal collage? Yeah.
 In this "gospel" (which is about the side of a credit card), Jesus calls Mary, (not by name) "wife". As it reads:

1] not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe] ...
2] the disciples said to Jesus, "...
3] Mary is worthy of it ...
4] ....." Jesus said to them, "My wife ...
5] ...... she will be able to be my disciple .....
6] let wicked people swell up .....
7] As for me, I dwell with her in order to .....
8] an image 

So isn't that crazy? 
It is written in Coptic, the form in which the Egyptian language was written and used by Christians in Egypt beginning in the Roman imperial period (second to fifth centuries CE), when Egypt was increasingly becoming a vital center of early Christian activity. It was most likely found in the early 1980s, but kept a secret, only now is it coming to the surface.  And although the newly found material fragment of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife dates to the fourth century, it is a copy of an earlier copy which had probably been translated from a Greek copy. This means that the date of the material fragment is unlikely to be the date when the gospel was first composed; rather, it indicates that the gospel could not have been composed later than the fourth century. How much earlier might the Gospel of Jesus' Wife have been composed? Since it refers to Jesus and Mary, it had to have been written after the first century CE. This gospel likely dates to the second half of the second century, because it shows close connections to other gospels which were written during that time, in particular the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Philip.
    It is a shame, I'm sure it had an entire *real* gospel attached to it, but the harsh hot weather in Egypt, not to mention the ants, disposed of it. Man, if only THAT was included into the New testament... even Him standing up to her would be amazing! Not to mention WIFE!
 
ALTHOUGH... It only begs the question, is it fake? Andrew Brown made a point that it could be copied from the Gospel of Thomas, and it would be pretty easy to make a fade gospel at this point... I mean, anyone at this day in age can learn the Coptic language, here is a picture from google: (easy as that)

See? I could make one. 

 So the whole thing really is up in the air. Some historians argue, "It's real! Because of, *points out true fact*!" but then some, "It's fake! Reasons are, *points out equally true point*!" So it's up to you. What do you think? Real or fake? Hmm? (Hit it up in the comments if you feel like it!) 

Well, that's it for today! Thanks for reading, but how am I EVER going to sleep tonight? My mind right now: "Real. Fake. Real. Fake. Real. Fake. REAL. FAKE. REAL!! FAKE!!!" And so forth. It's blowing up.

Thank ya, 

  ~~Clarabelle  

(PS: I attached some pictures of it below:) 

parts above may have been referenced from "Harvard Divinity School"

All rights reserved. 

Conflict between Mary, and her rivals.

Hi everyone! 

First off, let's start with Peter - In the New Testament, Peter is the favorite apostle (maybe besides John), and he later receives the keys to heaven, Peter becomes the first pope, so forth and so forth. He is portrayed in the Bible completely wrong, it is horrible! (Similar to someone I'M WRITING AN ENTIRE BLOG ABOUT) But not in a good way. Peter, to start with, is the only one of the 11 Apostles (excluding Judas obviously) to "deny" or "fail" Jesus in some way. Peter is the one who denies he knows Jesus, three times. Jesus, beforehand, had already "warned" him, but...

Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same. 

Later that night, Jesus was arrested. The first denial to a servant girl in Luke 22:54-57 is as follows: 

Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house. Peter followed at a distance and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them. A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, "This man was with him." But he denied it. "Woman, I don't know him," he said. 

 
The second denial to the same girl in Mark 14:69-70 is: 

When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, "This fellow is one of them." Again he denied it. 

The third denial to a number of people, is emphatic as he curses according to Matthew 26:73-75:

After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away." Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: "Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly.

See? OK, going back a little, Peter is always the one to pick on Magdalene, picking her apart for being a woman, or for simply being married to Our Lord. I was watching documentary once, and the man speaking (about this subject)  said the truest thing:  
"It's like, anything that makes Peter Simon sound good, at all, makes Mary Magdalene sound bad... and, vist versa. Say something in defense for Magdalene, it makes Peter look bad!"  
Gosh is that true. But, I will now pick him apart, because this is a blog all about Mary, right?

  Mary Magdalene and Saint Peter

In the Gospel of Pistis Sophia, I actually found Peter had legit reasons to be mad at Mary, for once. Just to start off, let's say Jesus, channeling Pistis Sophia, only speaks 26 times. Peter only speaks 5. Now, Mary, blabbers up the entire Gospels with her questions. Mostly they go like this, 

  *Jesus: Great question, Mary, beloved. 

  *Mary: Yes, but, ... 

And then gos off into yet another question. About halfway through the Gospel, no one has ever had the slightest chance to ever speak a darn word, Peter bursts out, yelling, "My Lord, we will not endure this woman, for she has taketh the opportunity from us, and hath let none of us speak, but she discoursed many times." 

Let alone, Mary spoke 83 times total. No one (Besides maybe JESUS) even got into the double digits, the closest being John, with a total of 9 times. 

   What is this? I seem to be making fun of Mary Magdalene? Nonsense! 

 Even though Peter was portrayed as the favorite apostle in Jesus' mind, Jesus actually said quite a few things against him. : (example)
    "And the companion of the saviour was Mary Magdalene. Christ loved Mary more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her?"

One time, when Peter was "annoying" Jesus, He shouted: 

   "Satan! Get behind me!" 

Was He referring to Peter as "satan"? *Ladylike gasp* 

Peter, in fact, is one of the reasons Mary and the others ("the others" referring to Sara-la-kali (Tamar), Martha of Bethany, and Lazarus) had to flee to France -- he was the first pope, and by any means necessary did he not want Mary to be in charge -- some people think that indeed Mary was the one Jesus instructed to be the head of the catholic church, but instead Peter stole it and sent her out of the country to cover-up. Actually, a pretty convincing theory. Why wouldn't He want His wife to be the head, and if not her, why not John the virgin or someone a little... nicer?  It would only make sense that Peter stole it from whoever it was in the first place. Right? 

Thanks for reading, that's it for today! 

  ~~Clarabelle