Yet another book on Mary Magdalene hits the shops, people’s private bookshelves and libraries (only the third such book by the same “populist” author) – without even asking the central question about Mary Magdalene.
Why was Paul misogynistic? More to the point, he wasn't simply misogynistic but that misogyny was a central tenet within the Catholic Religion. Why? What was the reason behind it all?
Surely the tenet of sexual abstinence as the driving force behind a religion is far worse then normal and secular male-female relations.
What was the origin behind this very serious and obvious anomaly?
The question is never even asked. More to the point, it is generally taken for granted that the view of Mary Magdalene as a “liberated prostitute” was something “invented” by Pope Gregory The Great – and that before that she was something else, which is quite bizarre. Surely Pope Gregory the Great was merely re-enforcing something that had already long been in existence.
One prominent Church Father even threatened to castrate himself “in the triumph of Christianity”. Why?
This is one of the very many questions not even asked about Christianity. Certainly not even asked by the atheists, humanists and sceptics – who seem to be equally in the dark about Christian Origins like the Faithful (and still holding fanciful theories that Christianity owes its existence to the Mystery Religions of other countries).
Indeed, if you add up all the sceptical books about Christianity they are equally silent about the facts about Christian origins as are the Faithful. Not only are explanations missing – but also a whole host of questions are not even asked – are not even considered.
Christianity is certainly completely different today to what it originally was during the first century – without even knowing what was the set of circumstances were that brought about the origin and creation of the religion. Using a well-known quote (from a different take): “Christianity was not a sudden and miraculous transformation, springing, forth full grown as Athene sprang from the head of Zeus, but it is a composite of slow and laborious growth”.
The Divinity of Jesus Christ is certainly the embodiment of a collective psychology that people cherished and valued.
The Dualists – Gnostics, Manicheans, Cathars and Bogomils – they all believed in the denial of the flesh and regarded matter as evil. They all denied the existence of the physical Christ.
This is not stated in “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail” but the origin of a belief in a Christ as just another prophet finds its origins in segments of the French Gnostic Catholic Church during the Nineteenth Century within figures like Josephin Péladan lacking any any roots within true historical references.
The influence of this distorted reasoning lasted for decades despite the obvious fact (that for example) the figure of Mary Magdalene within the “Gospel of Philip” championed the obliteration of the physical. Basilides believed that Jesus wasn't crucified simply because he was a phantom – not because of some hidden dynasty.
We have had “experts” in the “historical Christ” for the past few decades not because of being drawn to historical enquiry – but because merely being parrots of Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln.
The explanation to all these questions is not anything special or anything earth-shattering – but it's notable how flimsy certain parts of the population are and how easy it is for them to seriously believe in any old rubbish.
Today, in 2024, the factual explanation of Christianity no longer matters because it is no longer a major concern by the general public as a whole – and if you told them anything they would not care. “Oh yes?” they would say, shrug their shoulders and walk away. The only reason now why Christianity is a major concern is because of the Heads of State that are “married” to the religious primates of their respective countries. That's all. That's only tradition. They are as equally in the dark when it comes to crucial explanations for Christianity.
