----- Original Message ----- > Perhaps you have followed Chaplin's link to Glastonbury and > the mystical significance of that weird Vesica Pisces
And way beyond there, Frank .... And speaking of religious symbolism, there are a few observers not necessarily from the New Age, who imagine that many features of reality could be loose (or not so loose) metaphors - encoded by either the light-side or the dark-side (trickster) to awaken certain seers, as group consciousness evolves. Perhaps they are just meme-splices. Anyway, this persistent imagery was undoubtedly part of the attraction of "The Da Vinci Code"... Movie forthcoming, starring Tom Hanks. It will be a blockbuster, for sure. Book is addictive for the first 200 pages but on re-read it is almost silly in its use of contrived coincidence and layered, plagiarized BS. This is the kind of novel that always makes you feel violated and manipulated, perhaps months after reading (but definitely enjoying the first read) .... later realizing what ridiculous liberties were taken, at the expense of some fairly crass entertainment. Nevertheless, I wish I had thought of it first, after reading Michael Baigent's "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" ( with Henry Lincoln &Richard Leigh) many years ago, which is essentially what Dan Brown did. His other novels range from poor to terrible. He is probably one of the luckiest writers alive today IMO, in the sense of going so far on so little talent. And yet, this assessment does not mean that I didn't enjoy the first read and even recommend it to others. ...and will probably see the movie many times, if it is decent. In December, the National Geographic channel carried a special about the (borrowed) contention in DVC that Mary Magdalene was really the wife of Jesus. Brown mentions the Vesica and the more common symbol for Jesus, which appears in icon form on millions of bumpers across middle America as a fish shape, and in other less-proselytizing parts of the US as a fish with legs, and a Darwinian smirk. The shape (at 90 degree rotation) is obviously reminiscent of female genitalia, and that is what seems always to be glossed over in these accounts of its popularity as a symbol. If you turn the fish symbol for Christ on its side you essentially have a Vesica Pisces - it is a part of Sacred Geometry, but not any more so than many other shapes and ratios - BTW the fourth image here is interesting for its OU imagery, perhaps: http://www.crystalinks.com/sg.html Biblical Scholars say there is little justification in most of the DVC claims, especially in Dan Brown's not-so-tacit conclusion that Mary Magdalene was really the wife of a less-than-divine Jesus, had a child by him and their descendants walk among us today. What else do you expect them to say? According to Brown's (plagiaristic) accounting of Baigent et al., the truth was suppressed by the Catholic Church, except in its strange worship of the other Mary (for which there is a total of about three sentences in the NT to justify this) but handed down through centuries by a secret society, the Piory of Sion, that included Leonardo da Vinci, and about every other famous European. In the National Geographic Channel documentary, "Unlocking Da Vinci's Code: The Full Story," the surprisingly reclusive author talks about "his" controversial theory... hey, give us a break, Dan, its NOT yours except in your wildest dreams. He says "I began as a skeptic".....Riiiiight, and I began as a single cell, so what? Within microseconds, we were both on our way to gobbling up whatever resources were available, and you kept right on going. He continues, "As I started researching The Da Vinci Code, I really thought I would disprove a lot of this theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a believer." - it should be added, "a believer without giving much credit to his sources." which maybe OK on the internet but not when you are hauling in $50 million bucks based on capitalizing on someone else's sensationalism. I expect either some lawsuits out of this, or at least some under-the-table payoffs by the film companies, probably already taken care of. Many experts concede that the Church suppressed many early Christian writings that may have differed from the official version of events described in the highly edited Bible we have now. They also contend that Mary Magdalene, while not married to Jesus, was probably a lot closer than the Church is comfotable with. Were not the apostles driven into a jealous rage when Jesus kissed her on the lips? Surprised that one got through. Back then, that kiss meant one heck of a lot more than it does today. She has been depicted as a prostitute, though there is no evidence in the Bible for that - and it is probably part of the internecine politics of making the other Mary, the chosen and official "Pagan Goddess" substitue, that is into the Queen-Being, as it were. Hey, this is as natural and magical as birth itself - that humans personify the Feminine role in procreation as Divine... look at the semi-worship of a more recent Diana. It didn't come out of nowhere. While it would have been unusual for a Jewish man like Jesus not to have been married, it was not unheard of among the celibate sects, like the Essenes.... who could, by the way enjoy sex and procreation, but could not marry per se (much like the early Catholic priests). The Essene archaelogical sites show evidence of women being present and children being raised in commune style, not unklike the present day kibbutz. Probably the origin of the famous quip, "why buy the cow when the milk's free?" One of Brown's sources is a controversial text known as the Gospel of Mary, the veracity and importance of which are very much up for debate. I'm sure many men who still dress like women in robes to make their gender more ambiguous, especially in Rome, have an intense fear of an upcoming "outing" such that newer Dead Sea Scrools could one day turn up an authentic version of the Gospel of Mary, one that they cannot ferret away into the catacombs fast enough. Every real scholar agrees that a power struggle raged within the early Christian church for 400 years of more, especially over the role of women... and that our present Bible is far from the word of God in places (although about half of it has proven historically accurate - the half they wanted to keep in). Not that things have changed that much in the intervening time. And BTW, all of this historical controversy should NOT in any way alter or challenge the spirituality of any believer, especially Catholic. If one has not already managed to completely divorce the *true* from the *historically accurate* then your spirituality will someday crumble on its own, or be reinforced once you reach a broader Noetic maturity. Jones ================================================ Two congregants considering a religious vocation were having a conversation. "What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? " one asked. The other replied, "Well, they were both founded by Spaniards -- St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy -- the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants." "What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?" "Met any Albigensians lately?"
