By Day of Greenleaf, the Founding Yaiyr
The Rejection of Magdalene and theDivine Feminine by Peter, Paul, and Their Mainstream Form of Christianity
Although the earliest and most authentic form of Christianity – Nasarean Christianity – believed in both God and Goddess and also believed in both the Lord Christ (Jahday comes as Yahshua/Jesus) and Lady Christ (Jahnah come as Miriam/Magdalene), the leaders of what became mainstream Christianity – Peter and Paul – opposed the inclusion of the Divine Feminine and also threw out other important Nasarean teachings.
Commentary On Doctrine Eight
This extensive commentary on this Doctrine Eight will describe the rejection of the Magdalene and the Divine Feminine by the non-Nasarean men – especially Peter and Paul – who essentially founded what became mainstream Christianity. You will learn that her rejection by Peter began even before the crucifixion of her husband and Nasarean Co-Messiah, Yahshua (Jesus). You will also learn what became of the Magdalene after the crucifixion, including her escape to Gaul [France] with her baby by Yahshua, a baby that has come to be called The Grail Child.
As a young adult, Miriam was sent to the land of her birth – Ethiopia – by the Nasarean leaders to study with a renowned Ethiopian Nasarean Prophetess named Nebiyah. While there for some years, Miriam accepted seven disciples, all of them women. Meanwhile, Yahshua, having studied in India and then returning to Jerusalem and other parts of “Israel/Judea,” had accepted twelve disciples, a mix of men and women (not all of whom are mentioned in the mainstream version of The New Testament). Finally, sensing that the time had come for them – Miriam and Yahshua – to combine their ministries (they had not yet been traveling together and had not yet been wedded), Miriam and Yahshua went to meet each other at a place near where the Jordan River empties into the Dead Sea, a place called Halajah Ford. I provide below that account from the Nasarean Bible because it leads directly to the first instance of Peter rejecting the Magdalene.
The astute reader will also notice that the excerpt below provides an alternative version of the mainstream New Testament’s assertion that “Jesus” cast seven demons out of the Magdalene. In this Nasarean version, Yahshua (“Jesus”) cast seven demonically possessed men off of the Magdalene. What a big difference one word – out instead of off – makes!
1. Yahshua said to His twelve disciples, “The Yoke of Discipleship is not from without.
2. The Yoke of Discipleship is from within.
3. Wherefore I say, think not that I place My yoke on anyone other than Myself.
4. Any who take My yoke take it willingly, by choice.
5. Any other yoke is not My yoke….
38. “Yea, I go to meet My Lady.
39. I perceive a foul wind over the desert where She will cross into this land.
40. I go to Her aid.
41. I go alone….
42. This deed is for Me alone.
43. When I return, receive Her in the manner that you receive Me.44. “I tell you truly, any who reject My Eternal Wife are far from Me!
45. Miriam is My Eternal Wife and will soon be My wife even in this world!
46. For, behold: in Cana I will wed Miriam!
47. Reject Her, and you reject Me!
48. For, Miriam and I are one in Yah, bound in Love.
49. Our disciples dwell in Us, and We in them, bound in Love in Yah, willingly, for the uplift of all….”52. Then Yahshua left to meet Miriam.
53. And the disciples waited by the holy spring of light for the return of the Lord with His Lady.
54. For, lo: none of His first twelve ever rejected Miriam.
Now comes the part where Yahshua first meets Peter. Peter not only was not one of Yahshua’s first twelve disciples, the Nasarean Bible makes clear that Peter was never accepted as an initiated disciple of the Lord; instead, Peter led a schism against Yahshua’s Nasarean Christianity. In the Nasarean Bible, the following section has a heading that reads, “The First Meeting of Yahshua and Peter the Ebionite.” It includes important information about the differentiation between Nasarean Essenes and another Dead Sea group of Essenes. It also shows that Peter was thrown out of the non-Nasarean Dead Sea Essenes even before he first approached Yahshua. This portion is also noteworthy in that it is one of the few times that the authorized Scribe of the Lord Christ and Lady Christ, “Sarah” later known as “Jahleel,” who was given the sacred duty of writing down the words that became the Nasarean New Testament, shifts to a first-person narrative style and briefly identifies herself so that she can insert her viewpoint on Peter.
1. Nestled amongst a network of caves near the shore of the Dead Sea, not far from Halajah Ford, was a settlement that called itself ‘Essene’ but was not Nasarean.
2. Behold: several different groups at this time used the name ‘Essene’, for the name simply means ‘healers’ and any can claim that name.
3. As Yahshua walked to meet Miriam beyond Halajah Ford, he met Peter, who had previously been called ‘Simon the Zealot’….
5. Simon the Zealot, who named himself Peter, had been cast out of the Aaronite Essenes.
6. At his expulsion it was noted that though Simon had disciplined his personal habits to create an appearance of holiness, his motives were unholy and vain.
7. One elder of the sect said to Simon at his expulsion, “Your personal discipline is rendered mute by your lack of humility.”
8. Another elder, noted for rarely speaking, remarked: “Simon, I support your expulsion.
9. You are such an egotist that none of us can stand to live with you anymore.
10. Not only because of your claim to be the successor of our founder, The Righteous Teacher, are you expelled, but also because your entire demeanor is unseemly. ” ….
12. When Simon was thrown out of the Aaronite Essene sect, he abandoned the name Simon, that name being dead.
13. At that time he took the name Peter, which means firstborn.14. Peter, on his way to Halajah Ford on a journey to see John the Baptist – for the Baptist was gaining fame and Peter wanted that sort of fame himself – stopped to spend the night in the desert at a shared camp fire of a band of disparate travelers that included, this one night, Yahshua. [Day: that word “disparate” means “different types”; it is not related to the word “desperate.”]
15. Peter listened to Yahshua preach to the assembled travelers.
16. He was impressed with Yahshua’s ability to hold the attention of the crowd and desired that gift himself.
17. Within Peter a voice spoke, saying, “Peter, this man is the key to your own future power.
18. For, you, Peter, will be His interpreter, and will thus be the heir to His throne.”
19. Peter believed that this voice – the same voice that had inspired him to confront the leaders of the Aaronite Essenes – was the voice of God.
20. But as revealed by the Spirit of Truth… Peter heard not the voice of Jah….
21. For, lo: the voice that spoke to Peter was that of the false glory, the glory that speaks to the vanity of our ego….
Here is the part where Sarah/Jahleel reveals her own viewpoint in regard to Peter. The forthcoming reference to “Migdanah” is to Sarah’s birth-mother. Migdanah had been the Scribe of The Lord Christ and Lady Christ until she was martyred just after the crucifixion. After Midganah’s death, Miriam adopted Sarah and escaped with her – and with Yahshua’s newly conceived son who would be named Gebiyah (“Gebiyah” is Nasarean Hebrew for “Goblet”; thus he was the “Goblet” – “Grail” – that quite literally “held the blood of the Lord Christ after the crucifixion”) – to Gaul/France. Sarah, after being adopted by Miriam when Migdanah was martyred on the heels of the crucifixion of Yahshua, was chosen by Miriam to replace Migdanah as the authorized Scribe of the Lord Christ and Lady Christ. Sarah is writing these words later in life and so knows what both Peter and Paul ended up doing.
23. I, the daughter of Migdanah, scribe of the Lord and Lady, would not have the reader think unkindly of Peter, though I report his encounters with the Lord and Lady in a manner that exposes the false glory that guided him….
32. Peter, as will be seen in my report, claimed to be the successor of Yahshua.
33. Peter claimed that he had come to interpret and improve the teachings of the Lord.
34. And he openly rejected Miriam, the Divine Feminine, and The Holy Megillah.
35. Though he embraced some of Yahshua’s doctrine and established a messianic church in His name – a church that was later hijacked by Paul – Peter never became a Nasarean but instead remained an Aaronite.
36. Lo: Peter did not understand true succession in the Kingdom of Heaven! ….
41. Peter’s belief that he could claim the role of spiritual successor to Christ was wrong.
42. Neither was Peter appointed by Yahshua to be His successor to any religious office or title. ….46. But know this from the scribe who walked with the Lord and Lady: Peter never was a disciple of the Lord and was not His true successor.
47. Now I, Jahleel [at birth named Sarah; Jahleel is her initiatic name], birth daughter of Migdanah, adopted daughter of Miriam, continue my report on Peter’s first meeting with the Lord Christ.
Sarah/Jahleel then continues her report on the first meeting of Yahshua and Peter. Remember, this meeting occurred while Yahshua was traveling alone, having left his disciples to wait for him, while he went to meet-up with Miriam to unite their ministries into one co-ministry. Yahshua had intuited that Miriam was going to meet with some trouble and so, rather than wait for her to arrive at the agreed upon meeting place to unite their ministries and disciples into one group, he left to go help her. It was on the first night of that journey that Yahshua had come upon a group of travelers – one of whom was Peter – and shared a camp fire and conversation with them. Sarah/Jahleel continues the account from that point:
48. As Peter beheld the Lord discourse with the travelers around the shared fire and food, Peter said to himself, “Never before have I heard such a skilled orator.”49. Peter also said to himself, “Never have I seen a man with so much charisma.
50. Lo: I must have that gift for myself!
51. And I now admit – which proves what a humble man I am – that the Aaronite Essene elders were right when they denied my claim to be the successor of their long dead Righteous Teacher.
52. For, lo: I now realize that I am much greater than that; I am the successor of the Christ.
53. The Christ will be crucified, as prophesied in the Psalm of David.
54. Yea, let Him fulfill the scripture and cry, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ [Psalm 22 of mainstream Bible]
55. Then I will be His successor and improver, for, behold: the successor of a prophet is always greater than his predecessor.
56. And that is according to my doctrine on Pairs of Prophets.57. “But in my profound humility – a humility that is fast becoming famous – I will give Yahshua the glory of being the crucified Christ!
58. Then, in His name I will interpret and improve His doctrine, making it palatable for the Aaronites.
59. None will succeed me as His successor; for, I will be the Seal of the Prophets.
60. Those that hold my office after my death will rule by my authority and in my name, but will not interpret the crucified Christ.
61. Wherefore, they will be my inferiors.
62. For, I am the rock that interprets the blood of the slain Lamb.
63. And I will be His word.
64. And even now, before He is slain, I will be His corrector.
65. For one prophet succeeds another by improving on the predecessor’s doctrine and claiming His throne.
66. And I will close the door behind me and will be the Seal of the Prophets.”
Peter will next directly address Yahshua for the first time, and then Yahshua will reply in a very powerful manner. I will share those verses but first want to call your attention to important information in the above verses that, unless you are a scholar of early “Jewish Christianity” and thus aware of the doctrines of “Ebionite Christianity” – a form of early Jewish Christianity that was based on the teachings of Peter – will otherwise not be understood.
You will recall that previously the Megillah referred to Peter – at the time he was first introduced – as “Peter the Ebionite.” The significance of that identification is understood when we realize that the description by Peter of his doctrine called Pairs of Prophets – given in the verses above – matches up with what is known about the beliefs of a particular sect of early Jewish Christianity called Ebonites or Ebionites. That sect was based on a collection of the teachings of Peter that is now known as The Clementina and consists of two surviving documents: 1) The Recognitions of Clement and, 2) a similar document called The Clementine Homilies. The titles of those documents stem from the fact that they were written by a disciple of Peter named Clement. Because everything that Sarah/Jahleel reports about Peter’s doctrines has obvious links to the doctrines of Ebionite Christianity – including several italicized terms in her following excerpt from The Holy Megillah: Nasarean Bible of The Essene Way – we are able to identify Peter as the founder of Ebionite Christianity which, after Peter’s death, continued to evolve and eventually was absorbed and supplanted by the more Pauline version of Christianity that became Orthodox-Catholic Christianity and later gave birth to all of the denominations of mainstream Christianity. These verses from Sarah/Jahleel demonstrate that, though Peter’s Ebionite Jewish Christianity pre-dated the advent of the Catholic Church, the Catholic doctrine that Peter was the first Pope and many of its beliefs about the significance of Peter were carried over from Ebionite Christianity and the false teachings of Peter being here first reported by Sarah/Jahleel. Those false teachings of Peter that were assimilated by, and still influence, the Catholic Church include the doctrine about to be described by Peter: the doctrine of the superiority of the masculine principle over the feminine principle. Sarah continues her report in The Holy Megillah:
67. Peter said to Yahshua, “My name was Simon.
68. But because of You I now call myself Peter.
69. For I will pair myself with You and we will be one set of prophets.
70. And I will be the second of the set and thus the improver.
71. For this is my doctrine on Pairs of Prophets and Succession.72. “Yahshua, You are indeed a prophet.
73. For, I heard you speak to the travelers by the fire.
74. And two things became clear: You are the Messiah who will be crucified and I am the Ha Yacob, the Successor.
75. And I will be the Seal of the Prophets.
76. And I will organize Your church and interpret Your words.77. “Be proud, Yahshua!
78. For, lo: You shall have the glory of being proclaimed the crucified Messiah of the Psalm of David.
79. I will be proclaimed as Your first spokesperson, the foundation stone of Your church.
80. Indeed, You and I are great in different ways.
81. Consider my humility.
82. Although by rights I am to be greater – for that is the right of succession – I will rule in Your name and give You the glory due the crucified Lamb of David’s psalm.
83. I will improve Your teachings according to the will of the voice from the dark cloud, but in Your own name, thereby demonstrating the highest humility which is to my everlasting glory.
84. For the voice that speaks from the cloud insists that I found Your church on the Aaronite gospel, not the Megillah, and that I throw out Your false Goddess.85. “Listen, Yahshua.
86. There is a sure reason that You will be crucified, with or without my help!
87. For, behold: The majority of people will not embrace Your Nasarean beliefs or the scriptures from whence they come.
88. They will never accept the belief that the feminine is equal with the masculine!
89. Surely You see that!
90. Neither will I accept that absurd notion!
91. For, it is evident that the male is superior to the female in every way.
92. And what good is a Goddess that nobody will accept?
93. To build a church, one must be practical.
94. I am practical.
95. And in that my greatness far exceeds Yours!96. “You preach from a Gospel that the majority despises.
97. But I will preach solely from the scripture that the majority accepts.
98. In this land, that is the Torah of the Aaronites, not Your Holy Megillah.
99. Wherefore I will interpret Your teachings in the guiding light of the Torah.
100. But my own light is above that of the Torah.
101. For, I agree with the Nasareans in their belief that the Torah of Moses has been tampered with, yea, that words have been subtracted and added.
102. My doctrine on Scriptural Interpretation and False Pericopes deals with that issue….
106. Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, I use the Torah but throw out the false pericopes.
107. That way I am still preaching from the scripture embraced by the majority.
108. That is why You get crucified and I succeed You!
109. I am more practical!”
In language very similar to that of the Ebionite Clementina, Peter continues to denigrate the feminine principle; Sarah reports in the Megillah:
110. “Besides practicality, I fundamentally reject on philosophical grounds the assertion of Your Bible that the female principle is equal to the male.
111. Just look at nature and You can see that the superiority of the masculine over the feminine is obvious
112. For, just as the Aaronite Torah is wrong in asserting that God is a violent tyrant, so is The Holy Megillah wrong in asserting that the feminine principle is equal to the masculine.
113. The Aaronite scripture needs only a bandage.
114. But Your Bible is fundamentally flawed, claiming throughout that there is a Goddess.
115. The Torah teaches that the first woman was made from the rib of Adam and was created to serve him, and thus it should be in every household!
116. Yet, behold: You would have us believe that men and women are equal and that there is a Jahlah as well as a Jah!
117. You Nasareans even permit women in the priesthood!
118. That is an abomination of all that is holy!119. “I do grant that Your Bible is correct about the vegetarian diet.
120. That was the original diet given by God in the beginning.
121. I will take the vegetarian doctrine to the Aaronites.
122. However, I will improve on the vegetarianism of Your Bible.
123. I proclaim that fish are ‘sea vegetables’ and include them in my vegetarian diet, for they have not the breath of life.
124. Again, I am more practical than You!125. “Have no fear, I will not forbid You the beneficence of my company!
126. Neither will I deny myself the opportunity to exercise humility and humble myself to learn public speaking from You.
127. For, lo: Though I humble myself, my Heavenly Father will exalt me!
128. Wherefore, I will accompany You on Your journey so that I can learn Your speaking skills.
129. In exchange, I will provide You with spiritual guidance and correction.”
Finally, Sarah treats us to Yahshua’s response to the outrageious words of Peter. Yashua affirms his ownembrace of the Divine Feminie:
130. Yahshua replied, “Those who would guide must first be well-guided.
131. Also: Where I go now, you may not follow.
132. For, lo: I go to embrace the Divine Feminine that you steadfastly deny.”133. Peter replied, “After that, where will You go?”
134. Yahshua replied, “My beloved and I will go to Halajah Ford.”
135. Peter exclaimed, “Good!
136. For, behold: I am on a journey to see John the Baptist at Halajah Ford in order to observe how he achieved his fame.
137. For, I would have his fame for myself, even as I desire Your gift for leaving Your listeners spellbound!”138. Yahshua replied, “The only spell by which I bind is the holy enchantment: ‘Let there be light!’
139. Even then the bound are self-bound by willing studentship in the Golden Spiral that is the universal mystery school, within and without, now in forever in Yah, amen!”140. Yahshua continued his journey to Miriam, and Peter departed to go see John the Baptizer at Halajah Ford.
Now comes the promised part where the Nasarean New Testament provides a much more pro-Magdalene version of Yahshua’s throwing “off” of her “seven demonically-possessed men” – as opposed to the mainstream New Testament’s version where he casts seven demons “out” of her.
Yahshua Casts Seven Demonically Possessed Men Off of Miriam the Magdalene
1. On the path from Ethiopia to Halajah Ford was a mount with a spring of fresh water.
2. Miriam needed to fill her water bags and so She climbed the mount and walked to the spring.
3. Seven men with demonic eyes emerged from the brush and attacked Her.
4. Miriam, using the Nasarean martial art of Zahyen, knocked three of the attackers to the ground but a fourth hit Her in the head with a rock, knocking Her unconscious.
5. One of the men began ripping Miriam’s robe from Her body while the other six tied Her down with a rope.6. Then, behold, Yahshua came upon the scene.
7. He threw the seven demonically possessed men off of Miriam.
8. Lo, in a fight of very short duration, Yahshua defeated all seven attackers.9. As the defeated men limped away, Yahshua commanded the seven demons to exit the bodies of the men they had possessed.
10. As dark whirlwinds, the seven demons departed from the men.
11. The demons took over the bodies of seven vultures, for that was their former form.
12. For, lo: these seven demonic entities served the dark forces as spies while in the form of birds of prey.
13. When they took the form of humans, they served their masters as assassins.
14. For, had Yahshua not intervened, these seven would have assassinated Miriam, for such had been their orders.
15. For the dark forces had identified Her and wished to end Her incarnation before She accomplished whatever might be Her mission.16. As Miriam became conscious and opened Her eyes, behold, Yahshua was doing combat with the seven.
17. Before Miriam could join the battle, Yahshua had defeated the seven.
18. After the seven fled, Miriam embraced Her Lion, Yahshua.19. For seven days and nights, Miriam and Yahshua camped on the mount.
20. For, on the first night, while in embrace by the fire, Yahshua said to Miriam, “Soon enough We will again give Ourselves to saving this world from the hands of the spoilers.
21. But let Us enjoy a special time together, here, on this mount.”
22. Miriam agreed, saying, “I have longed for this moment.
23. Jahnah longs to hold Jahday in Her arms.”
Obviously, based on the last verses above, Yahshua and Miriam knew that they were the incarnations of the Lord Christ Jahday and the Lady Christ Jahnah.
In other sections of The Holy Megillah, Peter’s anti-feminine bias is aimed directly at the Magdalene. Here is one example.
Peter Verbally Attacks the Magdalene
43. Peter said to Miriam, “Woman, be silent!
44. When You discourse as though You had the authority of a man, You disgrace Yourself!
45. Behold: Every time You speak on spiritual matters, You take away the opportunity of a man to discourse.
46. That is unseemly and You are disgraced.”47. Then Peter addressed the Lord: “Send this woman and the other women away.
48. For, lo: it is unseemly for holy men to travel with unmarried women; You have made Her no better than a harlot!
49. She even wears the oil of the harlots; for, behold: She smells of lavender.”
Peter was right about one thing (only one thing): Miriam did love lavender oil! I will explain why in our later chapter on her herbal teachings on essential oils for health and massage.
Yahshua Defends Miriam from Peter’s Verbal Abuse and Calls Her His “Eternal Wife” While Also Announcing Their Plan to Be Legally Married in Cana
Once again, in the next verses of Sarah’s report on Peter’s verbal abuse, Yahshua comes to the defense of Miriam.
50. Yahshua replied to Peter, “Miriam of Magdala is the Dove of Jahlah, My Jahnah, My eternal wife.
51. She is My eternal lover!
52. Miriam and I were wedded long before this world came into being.
53. Behold: Miriam and I are forever wed, without a pause, even when We come to a new world.
54. For, lo: Why would a happy couple like Us let anything harm Our pre-existing, never-to-be-severed marriage vows?
55. Taking a new incarnation does not sever Our marriage vows, even if We are unusual in that marriage agreement.
56. Nevertheless, We plan on being wed in human manner at Cana.”
That wedding at Cana, and more information on Peter’s leading the first schism off of Yahshua and Miriam’s Nasarean Christianity, are provided in my (Day of Greenleaf) book Magdalene and Essene Jesus: A Cosmic Love Story Introducing Magdalene’s Teachings on Tantra.
Historical Information That Supports the Nasarean Version of the Life of Miriam of Magdala and Peter’s Persecution of Her
There is historical evidence in support of many of the things that The Holy Megillah: Nasarean Bible of The Essene Way reports about Magdalene, including that the Magdalene was married to Yahshua, experienced much persecution by Peter, and was of black skin (i.e. Ethiopian).
Along with the Nasarean Bible, several other ancient manuscripts attributed to Gnostic Christians echo that theme of persecution by Peter. A few examples follow.
In the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Peter declares:
“This life we are living [traveling spiritual teachers] is not for women. Send Mary [Magdalene] away.”
In the Gnostic Pistis Sophia, we again hear from Peter on the topic of Mary Magdalene:
And Peter started forward and said unto Jesus, “My Lord, we will not endure this woman, for she taketh the opportunity of speaking from us by discoursing many times.”
Peter expresses anti-Magdalene views in the Gnostic version of The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. The few verses that survived are part of the Nag Hammadi Scrolls discovered in Egypt in 1945. There we read:
[After the crucifixion of Jesus] the disciples were gathered. A disciple asked Mary Magdalene, “We know the Savior loved you more than any other. Tell us the words of the Savior that you know, but we do not know.” Mary answered, “What is hidden from you, I will reveal.” And she began to reveal great mysteries…. After Mary had spoken, Andrew said: “I do not believe that her words are from the Lord. Her teachings are nonsense.” Likewise, Peter said: “Are we to believe that she knows more about spiritual things than we do? Are we to believe that the Lord commissioned a woman to take forth his mysteries unto the world? Are we now to turn to her and listen to her as we did the Lord? Did he really prefer her for that role over us?”
Then Mary wept and said, “My Brother Peter, do you think I made these things up? Do you think I would lie to you about the Lord?” Levi came to her defense saying, “Peter, you have always been hot tempered. Now you are contending with Mary as though she were the adversary. But if the Lord gave her this role who are you to reject her? It is because he truly knows her that he loved her….”
Similar information is preserved in another Gnostic manuscript called The Gospel of Philip. This excerpt includes a reference to Jesus having had a habit of “often kissing” the Magdalene – in public – “on her lips!” There we read:
As for Sophia [Greek for ‘Holy Wisdom’/‘Holy Spirit’], she is the Mother of the Angels and the Consort of the Lord, Mary Magdalene. The Lord loved her more than all the others and used to kiss her often on her lips. A disciple asked, “Why do you love her in a different manner than you love us?” The Savior answered: “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 the one who is blind will remain in darkness…. If one goes down into the water of baptism and comes up without having received anything and says ‘I am a Christian’, he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he receives the holy spirit, he has the name as a gift…. And that is a Great Mystery. Even greater is the Mystery of Marriage; for without it the world would not exist!”
In the above verses, several things are asserted:
The “Holy Spirit” is the Mother of the Angels and the consort of the Lord, Mary Magdalene.
Jesus loved Mary Magdalene in a “different manner” than he loved others, often “kissing her on her lips.”
Jesus asserts, in the form of a mystical saying, that only those with eyes that can see the light – advanced initiates – truly understand his relationship with Mary Magdalene.
Jesus asserts that those with the eyes to see the light are those who have received the Holy Spirit, and that many who think they have done that – via baptism – actually have not. They have gone through the motions of baptism, but have not actually experienced the mystery of baptism that involves receiving the Holy Spirit. For, if they had, they would certainly know who Mary Magdalene is, since she is the Holy Spirit.
His relationship with Mary Magdalene is that of marriage; but not only in the traditional sense, but also the cosmic sense.
In another verse from The Gospel of Philip, this teaching of the Holy Spirit being female is again given:
“Some say that Mother Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit. They are in error. For, when did a woman ever conceive of a woman?”
In that verse the “Mary” referenced is Jesus’ Mother. The verse is pointing out that the idea of some Christians that Mother Mary conceived – was made pregnant – by the Holy Spirit is wrong, because one woman can not make another woman pregnant! In other words, the Holy Spirit is female!
In regard to the reference to Mary Magdalene being the consort of the Lord, that is again mentioned in another verse from the Gospel of Philip:
There were three who walked with the Lord at all times: his Mother, her sister, and the Magdalene, whom they called his consort.
Notice that the Magdalene is not simply referred to as his disciple, apostle, or even as his most devoted follower; rather, she is referred to as his consort. I researched that and discovered that the Greek word being translated here as consort always implies a romantic relationship but is just as accurately translated by the English word wife. And we saw that Jesus himself, when asked about his relationship with the Magdalene, gave a long, mystical response, and then summed it up as marriage.
Having shown that there is historical data to support the Nasarean Bible’s assertions that Jesus and Magdalene had a romantic relationship that culminated in marriage and that Miriam was persecuted by Peter, I move on to show historical support for the Nasarean assertion that Magdalene was a black woman.
While the Nasarean Bible boldly declares that Miriam was a black woman who, having been born in a Nasarean village in Ethiopia, migrated to Magdala, a village on the shore of Lake Galilee, the historical support is a bit subtler: artwork in France that portrays a black woman that history has named: THE BLACK MADONNA. Though the Catholic Church has asserted that the artworks are of Mother Mary, other historical information links them with the arrival in Gaul (France) of Mary Magdalene and The Holy Grail Child.
Magdalene As the Historical “Black Madonna” and Mother of “the Holy Grail Child”
What is The Legend of The Black Madonna? It is a legend – supported by physical artifacts (mostly artworks and some written references) – that supports the assertion of the Nasarean Bible that, after the crucifixion, the Magdalene – a black woman – sailed to Gaul (a portion of what is nowadays called France) carrying The Holy Grail Child. It is a fact that, in first century France, a secret sect devoted to Mary Magdalene arose. That sect venerated both Yahshua and the Magdalene. Starting in first century France and then spreading into other parts of Europe, shrines were dedicated to The Black Madonna. Although the Catholic Church later painted some of these statues white and said they were supposed to represent the Mother Mary, they were actually representations of the black (Ethiopian) wife of Yahshua: Mary Magdalene. We read in Lawrence Gardner’s book, Bloodline of the Holy Grail:
It is also a fact that in parallel with the early reverence for Mary Magdalene, a cult [Day: that word here simply means “mysterious sect”] known as that of the “Black Madonna” emanated from Ferrieres in AD 44. Among the many Black Madonna representations that still exist, one of the finest statues is displayed at Verviers, Liege: she is totally black, with a golden scepter and crown, surmounted by Sophia’s halo of stars. Her infant child also wears a golden crown of royalty….
Some 450 representations have now been discovered worldwide…. The image of the Black Madonna and her child has presented a constant dilemma for the Church – particularly those statues at notable churches and shrines in continental Europe. In some cases they are black all over, but many have only black faces, hands and feet. It is not a question of discoloration, as some disconcerted clerics have suggested. A few have been overpainted in pale flesh tones to conform with the standard Madonna representation; some have simply been removed from the public gaze altogether….
The Black Madonna is thus also representative of the Magdalene who, according to the Alexandrian doctrine, “transmitted the true secret of Jesus.” The long-standing Magdalene cult was in fact particularly associated with Black Madonna locations…. Sophia [Day: Holy Spirit of Divine Feminine Wisdom] was held to be incarnate as the Holy Spirit in Queen Mary Magdalene….
According to The Holy Megillah: Nasarean Bible of The Essene Way, as part of a plan created with Yahshua in advance of his death, Miriam escaped to Gaul (France) pregnant with his child, a boy to be named Gebiyah (Gebiyah is the Nasarean Hebrew word for Goblet). It was in France that the legend of the Black Madonna arose, and it is in France where artifacts and textual references link the Black Madonna to Magdalene, and link her marriage to Yahshua/Jesus to a baby known as The Holy Grail Child. According to the Nasarean Bible, Yahshua and his wife/co-worker Miriam, realizing that he was going to be killed, chose to conceive a child. In fact, according to the Nasarean Bible, this was one of the reasons that Jahday and Jahnah chose to incarnate as human beings: to enter and bless the human genetic stream. One way that they blessed the human genetic stream was by leaving their DNA in it: they made a baby!
When did they do that? Do you remember the New Testament story about the last night in the garden at Gethsemane? That was the last night before Jesus’ arrest and subsequent trial. Jesus is reported to have asked the disciples to stay up and pray with him. But try as they might, none of them could stay awake. They all fell asleep and left him to pray by himself. Well, in the Nasarean Bible, there was one who did stay up with him that night: Miriam the Magdalene. In profound love, that night they conceived a child. This child was the very vessel of the blood of Christ…. The Grail Child!
On the night that Yahshua (“Jesus”) and Miriam (“Mary Magdalene”) conceived their baby – The Holy Grail Child – he gifted her with her favorite flower: a Blue Rose. Before his arrest (the night they conceived the holy Grail Child), he told her:
“The Blue Rose is rare and greatly prized. Likewise a Loyal Friend is rare and is greatly prized. Wherefore, within our school, the Blue Rose symbolizes ‘Loyal Friend’. But I now give this rose to you, Miriam, not only because you are My most loyal friend, but because I wish to please you. For, lo: blue is your favorite color, and roses are your favorite flower. And in this life you are a woman and I am a man, and I desire to please you in every way. For, truly, I love you in every way. This flower will look lovely in your hair.” Then Yahshua put the flower in Miriam’s hair, beside Her ear. And Miriam reached for Her man and embraced Him.
And from that embrace came the conception of The Grail Child. The Magdalene wore the Blue Rose in her hair when she conceived the Grail Child. The next morning, Yahshua was arrested and, three days later, crucified. Soon after the crucifixion, Miriam, pregnant with the Grail Child – and accompanied by her newly adopted fourteen-year-old daughter Sarah/Jahleel (daughter of her first disciple, the martyred scribe Migdanah) – fled to France (Gaul). As pre-arranged by Yahshua, Joseph the Ari-Mattitya – the leader of the Nasarean martial artists called The Lions of Zahyen – went along as her guardian.
We have all heard of The Holy Grail. Most of us think of the grail as a cup that held the blood of Christ. Legend tells us that “Joseph of Arimathea” filled a cup with the blood that Jesus shed upon the cross. That cup, the Holy Grail, held the blood and presence of Christ and had mystical powers. But consider the following: would not a child of Jesus and the Magdalene be a vessel filled with the blood of Christ? Might not that child hold the presence of the Christ? And might not that child, the vessel of Christ, have profound mystical powers? The child Gebiya – son of Lord Christ Yahshua and Lady Christ Miriam – was The Holy Goblet/Cup that held the blood of Christ in his very veins! [The Nasarean Hebrew name Gebiyah means Goblet.]
The Holy Megillah includes teachings of Gebiya, teachings given by him as an adult. A main theme of Gebiya in his writings is that, though he is blessed to be the child of Yahshua and Miriam, all of us – regardless of our parentage – can experience Christ within. His other main theme is the significance of forgiveness, that it is truly blessed to forgive and be forgiven. Hey, that sounds like what his dad would say! Like father, like son!
The early historical Grail legends refer to “the Grail Family.” In an ancient text called the Perlesvaus, as reported in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the Grail consists of a changing sequence of images, the first being a crowned king crucified, the second being a child. In their book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, researchers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln write:
Could the Grail be something more than pure fantasy? Could it actually have existed in some sense? Could there really have been such a thing as the Holy Grail? Or something concrete, at any rate, for which the Holy Grail was employed as a symbol?… It is generally assumed that the Holy Grail relates in some way to Jesus. According to some traditions it was the cup from which Jesus and his disciples drank at the Last Supper. According to other traditions it was the cup in which Joseph of Arimathea caught Jesus’ blood as he hung on the cross. According to other traditions the grail was both of these….
According to certain accounts the Grail was brought by Joseph of Arimathea to England…. According to other accounts it was brought by the Magdalen to France. As early as the fourth century legends described the Magdalen [Day: an alternative spelling] fleeing the Holy Land and being set ashore near Marseilles [Day: in France] – where, for that matter, her reputed relics are still venerated. According to medieval legends she carried with her to Marseilles the Holy Grail.
But the early legends say that the Magdalen brought the Grail into France, not a cup. In other words, the simple association of Grail and Cup was a relatively late development…. In these original sources the Grail is something much more than a cup….
… the Grail in the Perlesvaus [Day: an ancient text] consists of a changing sequence of images or visions. The first of these is a crowned king crucified. The second is a child.
Above we see that the Holy Grail was originally not identified as a literal cup; that was a later legend. Originally the Holy Grail was a vessel of the bloodline of Christ, brought to France by Mary Magdalene. We read in Gardner’s Bloodline of the Holy Grail:
The Grail has been symbolized by many things…. Either way, it has a genuine purpose, and a heritage that prevails with the Grail Family…. Its powers include those of rejuvenation, knowledge and provision; just as Jesus was a healer, teacher and provider, so too is the Grail…. The Grail legacy is a relic of early Judaic Christianity, but the Christian Church has never recognized the fact. Despite a background that is both romantic and sacred, Grail lore remains an unproclaimed heresy…. Moreover, the Roman Church has openly condemned the Grail because of its strong female associations [Day: they preach a celibate Jesus, not one that married and fathered a child]….
Medieval tradition related that Joseph of Arimathea brought the Holy Grail to Britain. Even earlier European lore told how Mary Magdalene originally brought the Sangreal into Provence [Day: France]….
In the original Grail legends there were constant references to the Grail Family, the Grail dynasty, and the custodians (or guardians) of the Grail…. Cups and stones aside, the importance of the Grail exists in its definition as the San Greal = San Graal = Saint Grail = Holy Grail. More correctly it was the Sang Real – the Blood Royal, carried by the uterine Chalice of Mary Magdalene….The Holy Grail became likened to a vessel because it was said to carry the sacred blood of Jesus. But it was the Chalice (V) of Mary Magdalene which carried the Sangreal in utero. It was she who inspired the Dompna (Great Lady) of the Troubadours, who were so callously treated by the Inquisition – and they called her the ‘Grail of the World’. In Parzival, it is said of the Grail Queen that ‘she bore… the perfection of earthly paradise, both roots and branches.’
We see above that both the Magdalene and her child were referred to as the Holy Grail. She was the “Grail Queen” because she carried the Sangreal [Royal/Sacred Blood] within the chalice of her womb (the womb is shaped like a chalice: V). Her child was also the Holy Grail not only due to his name – Gebiyah/Goblet – but also because the Sacred Blood of Christ flowed within the veins of the child of Yahshua and Miriam. And the reference to the Grail Child as “the perfection of earthly paradise, both roots and branches,” seems a declaration that this child was a perfected human being, an embodiment of all seven root forces and all seven branch forces of the Essene Tree of Life. (The Essene Tree of Life is described in The Holy Megillah: Nasarean Bible of The Essene Way).
The journey of Mary Magdalene and her companions to France is commemorated in various forms of early French art. Gardner writes:
The most important example… is perhaps that which has been exhibited at the 9th century church of Les Saintes Maries: a painting by Henri de Guadermaris. It depicts… Mary’s arrival in a boat off the coast of Provence…. Another famous picture on similar lines is The Sea Voyage by Lukas Moser.
Clearly, the fact that Mary Magdalene and her “Grail Child” arrived in France by boat was commemorated by the people of France/Gaul long before the Catholic Church attempted to cover it up. After the cover-up began, some unknown protester apparently attempted to remind the people of the truth. Gardner reports:
In 633 a mysterious little boat sailed into the harbour of Boulogne-sur-Mer in Northern France. There was no one aboard, just a 3-foot statuette of the Black Madonna and child, together with a copy of the Gospels in Syriac. Wherever the boat had come from, it caused quite a stir on its arrival. The strange Madonna known as Our Lady of the Holy Blood – became the insignia of the cathedral of Notre Dame, an object of considerable veneration until it was destroyed….
A cave in France where Mary Magdalene often went to meditate (its called Mary’s Cave of Solitude) became a venerated spot. It is located at La Sainte Baume. She is said to have lived near that cave for many years. Gardener references a legend that she died in 63 AD in Aix-en-Provence. However, Nasarean sources indicate that she died on a missionary trip outside of France. It is entirely possible that, having been killed outside of France, her remains may have been brought back to France.
The Catholic Church discovered that the belief in the divine feminine was so strong in some of the Pagan lands they conquered that they needed to provide some sort of replacement for the Pagan Goddesses. Thus they turned the Mother of Jesus – Mother Mary – into an object of devotion. There were two reasons: 1) They could provide a feminine figure to be worshipped without having to acknowledge the existence of any Goddess. (Thus, God and the entire Trinity could remain exclusively male.) 2) By shifting the devotional focus away from the Magdalene toward Mother Mary they could better hide the fact that Jesus had a wife who was a Priestess. The Catholic Church forbids women to enter the priesthood and requires priests to be unmarried; thus, if it were known that Jesus’ wife was a Nasarean priestess, it would be hard to justify their anti-priestess and anti-marriage rules.
Why did Miriam leave Israel/Judea and move to France/Gaul after the crucifixion? The Roman government and Jewish officials wanted to kill her, and she wanted her unborn baby – the Goblet (Gebiya) that held the blood of Yahshua – to survive.
The Nasarean Church in France, the product of the missionary activities of Mary Magdalene, was mostly exterminated by the Catholic Church. A little bit of her teachings may have been picked-up by the later Cathar/Albigensian movement in France (that movement was itself exterminated by the Catholic Church), but only a little bit. Nasarean Christianity has survived through the centuries only as an underground religion, with secret meeting places and secret scriptures. Until Now! However, as prophesied in The Holy Megillah, at the cusp between ages – which we recently entered – the Nasarean scriptures and church will again be made available to the world.
An important term in Nasarean Hebrew is: Sha’ar Yahshuwb! It means: A Remnant Will Return! … and we have! (SMILE!)
The title of this doctrine includes the following words: The Rejection of Magdalene and The Divine Feminine by Peter, Paul, and Their Mainstream Form of Christianity. Why are we focusing on these two men? Because, other than the heavily-edited version of “Jesus” that they put forward, the two men that are the closest thing to being ‘founders’ of mainstream Christianity are Peter and Paul. Peter is the most important “apostle” of Catholic Christianity – they consider him to be “The First Pope” and “the foundation stone” that Jesus built his church on – and, certainly, Paul is the most important “apostle” of all the other denominations of mainstream Christianity. We have already covered the anti-Magdalene and anti-feminine bias of Peter, and now we will conclude this chapter with a look at Paul.
Though Paul never met the Magdalene and thus, unlike Peter, did not have verbal confrontations with her that we can quote, it is easy to demonstrate that Paul had a strong anti-feminine bias. Paul’s anti-feminine-principle teachings gained an even wider audience than Peter’s for the following reason: Peter’s anti-feminine-principle sayings survived mostly in non-canonical gospels (such as Gnostic and Ebionite texts) but Paul’s were even incorporated into the mainstream New Testament. In fact, the Epistles of Paul – the word “Epistle” means “Letter” – are the largest portion of that New Testament. Get this: THERE ARE MORE WORDS OF PAUL IN THE MAINSTREAM NEW TESTAMENT THAN WORDS OF JESUS!
The fact that there are more words in the mainstream Bible from Paul than Jesus might not matter so much if Paul’s words/teachings were similar to Jesus’ words/teachings. But they are not, as I am about to demonstrate.
Many great thinkers throughout history have noticed that the teachings of Paul are very different than the teachings of Jesus. One of those great thinkers was Thomas Jefferson; he wrote:
Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus!
Well, Thomas Jefferson was close! Actually, as explained previously, the first major corrupter of the doctrines of Yahshua (“Jesus”) was Peter. After the crucifixion Peter refused to follow the Lord’s appointed successor, Mary Magdalene, because she was a woman. Not only that, apparently – as revealed in the Megillah – Peter never was a true follower of Yahshua, though he claimed to be his successor. In fact, the Megillah reveals that Peter was secretly part of the plot to have Yahshua crucified. Peter led the first schism off the original Nasarean Christianity, throwing out the Divine Feminine, founding what became known as Ebionite Christianity. Paul led the second major schism in Christianity, founding the Christianity that evolved into “Modern Mainstream Christianity.” Since that religion is based more on the teachings of Paul than Jesus, I call it “Paulianity.” Paul, who came on the scene twenty years after the crucifixion and never met Yahshua, infiltrated and then led a schism off of Peter’s Ebionite Christianity, which at that time was the only form of Christianity large enough in Israel/Judea to bother infiltrating. The Nasarean form of Christianity was much smaller, most of its leaders already having been killed and the Magdalene having fled to France (Gaul).
Rather than criticize Thomas Jefferson for being a bit off in his assertion that “Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus,” we commend Jefferson for having noticed the fact that Paul had, indeed, changed Jesus’ doctrine. Jefferson, without any of the recently discovered scrolls or scholarly works that we have access to, simply noticed that the teachings of Jesus – even in the mainstream New Testament – were very different from the teachings of Paul. What did he do about it? Besides exposing that truth by writing about it, Jefferson took a pair of scissors and cut all of the words of Paul out of his Bible!
Thomas Jefferson is not the only great thinker to notice that, even when we confine our observations to the mainstream New Testament, the teachings of Paul differ radically from the teachings of Jesus. Some of the other thinkers that noticed this and wrote about it include the following.
The Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore, in his book Christ or Paul, wrote:
Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught…. For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message…. That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world…. The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ… were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness.
The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard, writing in The Journals, echoes the above sentiment:
In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ the Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.
The brilliant theologian Ernest Renan, in his book Saint Paul, wrote:
True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology.
Will Durant, in his Caesar and Christ, wrote:
Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ…. Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known…. Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change.
Robert Frost, winner of the Pulitzer prize for poetry in 1924, 1931, 1937 and 1943, in his A Masque of Mercy, wrote:
Paul, he’s in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him.
James Baldwin, in his book The Fire Next Time, declared:
The real architect of the Christian church was not the disreputable, sunbaked Hebrew (Jesus Christ) who gave it its name but rather the mercilessly fanatical and self-righteous Paul.
Martin Buber, the most respected Jewish philosopher of the last century, wrote in Two Types of Faith:
The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul.
The famous mystic, poet and author, Kahlil Gibran, declared in Jesus the Son of Man:
This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name of One whom he does not know.
Above, the great Gibran, accurately reported something that I noticed when I first read the epistles of Paul as a youngster: Paul does not quote from the words of Jesus! (Even before the gospels were written, all initiated Christians were instructed in the sayings of Jesus.) When you read the epistles of Paul, the Father of mainstream Christianity, all you get is Paul’s own ideas; he does not quote the wise sayings of Jesus more than once or twice and never in a manner that implies relying on it, neither does he report on the life of Jesus. That point is also made by the famous theologian Helmut Koester, as follows.
In his The Theological Aspects of Primitive Christian Heresy, Helmut Koester writes:
Paul himself stands in the twilight zone of heresy. In reading Paul, one immediately encounters a major difficulty. Whatever Jesus had preached did not become the content of the missionary proclamation of Paul…. Sayings of Jesus do not play a role in Paul ‘s understanding of the event of salvation…. Paul did not care at all what Jesus had said…. Had Paul been completely successful very little of the sayings of Jesus would have survived.
The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, in his Not Paul But Jesus, declared:
It rests with every professor of the religion of Jesus to settle within himself to which of the two religions, that of Jesus or that of Paul, he will adhere.
The eminent theologian Ferdinand Christian Baur, in his Church History of the First Three Centuries, wrote:
What kind of authority can there be for an ‘apostle’ who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus’ own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis of his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus…. He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears.
The great Mahatma Gandhi, the prophet of nonviolence who won freedom from England for India, in an essay titled Discussion on Fellowship, wrote:
I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus and the Letters of Paul. Paul’s Letters are a graft on Christ’s teachings, Paul’s own gloss apart from Christ’s own experience.
Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, wrote in his essay A Psychological Approach to Dogma:
Saul’s [Day: Paul’s name before his conversion was Saul] fanatical resistance to Christianity… was never entirely overcome. It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in.
As you can see, I am quoting from the intellectual cream of humanity. A few more and I will consider my point to be made. Let us continue with George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925; in his Androcles and the Lion, we read:
There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus…. There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the soul of Jesus…. It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus… was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith.
Let us follow that Nobel Prize winner with another. Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, has been called “one of the greatest Christians of his time.” He was a philosopher, physician, musician, clergyman, missionary, and theologian. In his The Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul, Schweitzer writes:
Paul… did not desire to know Christ…. Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded…. What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus? …. The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.
William Wrede, in his book Paul, informs us:
The obvious contradictions in the three accounts given by Paul in regard to his conversion are enough to arouse distrust…. The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for Paul’s Christology nothing whatever…. The name ‘disciple of Jesus’ has little applicability to Paul…. Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the present day.
Rudolf Bultman, one of the most respected theologians of this century, wrote in his Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul:
It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his… views. When the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus’ teaching is – to all intents and purposes – irrelevant for Paul.
My point has been made. Many great thinkers join Thomas Jefferson in declaring that Paul replaced the teachings of Jesus with his own very different teachings. Now let us focus on Paul’s anti-feminine-equality teachings that have so influenced the Christianity of the past two thousand years. We will do that by quoting Paul’s own words on that topic. In his Epistle (Letter) titled First Corinthians, Paul writes:
Be imitators of me…. I commend you because you remember me in everything…. But I want you to understand that while the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is her husband…. And any woman who prays with her head uncovered dishonors her husband; if a woman will not cover her head with a veil, then her hair should be shaved off…. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man…. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, as a sign of submission to her husband that all men and angels will see…. And if anyone disagrees with me about this, they must be told to obey; for nothing else is acceptable in churches of God.
Similarly, Paul declares in Chapter 5 of Ephesians:
Wives be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church. As the church is subject to Christ, so must wives be subject to their husbands in everything.
If you think the above words of Paul brand him as a male chauvinist, hold onto your hats (especially you women in church!); it gets worse! In Chapter 14 of First Corinthians, Paul writes:
In all Christian churches, the women should keep silent whenever in church. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate…. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church…. If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, he must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is true and from the Lord God.
Having now demonstrated that both Peter and Paul altered the original teachings of Yahshua/Jesus and caused a very different form of Christianity to sweep much of the world – very different from the original Nasarean Christianity taught by Yahshua and Magdalene – the question must be asked: Did the Lord Christ and Lady Christ “lose” – get defeated by – lesser beings like Peter and Paul? My answer: No, not if we take A LARGER VIEW. Since it is a commonly accepted axiom that “All things eventually work out to the greater glory of God/Goddess” – all things by definition must include even Peter and Paul’s egotistical actions. By taking a “LARGER VIEW,” we can accurately assert the following:
1. By launching a watered-down version of Christianity that did not require vegetarianism and threw out the divine feminine, a form of Christianity that the relatively low group-consciousness could accept swept much of the world, as Peter predicted and Paul fulfilled.
2. But the LARGER VIEW – which Peter and the voice from the darkness did not predict – is that Peter’s actions would indeed eventually assist the work of Yahshua/Jesus in this world by making him – and at least some of his teachings – known and beloved by millions. Now, because of that preparation, at the cusp of this new age that we are entering, we are finding a friendlier audience for the ‘higher’ teachings of Nasarean Christianity than would have otherwise been the case. In this sense – which I call “the Larger View” – Peter (and the “voice from darkness”) and Paul did not “out-maneuver” the Lord Christ and Lady Christ! They – the Lord and Lady –have such a large view that they can see the eventual outcome that a lower consciousness – like Peter or Paul or even Lucifer – cannot see.
Perhaps NOW – this era of human development – more people will be ready to receive both the Divine Feminine Christ (Magdalene) and the Divine Masculine Christ (Yahshua/Jesus). The fact that you are reading this book lends support to that belief.
APPENDIX TO COMMENTARY ON DOCTRINE EIGHT: CHART OF COMPARISON OF PAULIANITY VERSUS NASAREAN CHRISTIANITY
| Topics of Comparison | Nasarean Christianty | Teachings of Paul |
| Women permitted to speak in church | YES | NO |
| Women required to wear head covering as sign of submission to their husbands | NO | YES |
| Women required to submit to the authority of their husbands as if their husbands were Jesus Christ | NO | YES |
| Women were created for men; Men were not created for women | NO | YES |
| Women and men have equal rights | YES | NO |
| God is both Father and Mother | YES | NO |
| God is only Father, not Mother | NO | YES |
| Okay to eat meat | NO | YES |
| Okay to eat meat that has been sacrificed to demonic idols | NO | YES |
| Slavery is permitted | NO | YES |
| Christians can even own other Christians as slaves | NO | YES |
| Topics of Comparison | Nasarean Christianty | Teachings of Paul |
| Salvation is dependent on following the saving teachings of Christ | YES | NO |
| Salvation is dependent on belief in the sacrificial death of Jesus on the Cross | NO | YES |
| Belief in reincarnation in the context of a cosmic school system | YES | NO |
| Based on this life only, you will either go to heaven (if you believe in Jesus’s sacrificial death) or will burn in hell for eternity | NO | YES |
| Teachings based on the words of Christ | YES | NO |
| Teachings based on the ideas of Paul | NO | YES |
| Use a New Testament with many more words of Paul than Jesus | NO | YES |
| Christians slaves must work extra hard if their slave master is a Christian | NO | YES |
