Today he said Jerusalem O Jerusalem

Hail all ye initiates of the Esoteric Christian Mystery School, and friends of the School, too.  Today is the day Yeshua, Magdalene and their group arrived at the outskirts of the holy city in preparation for the End Time.  At sunset they camped on the Mount of Olives and Yeshua sat looking down upon the golden city in the fading golden light.  “Jerusalem, O Jerusalem,” he said in one of his most poignant moments.   Follow along our Mystery School’s Easter Cycle observances (and see a nice painting of this moment) here:

Katia, Adepta Kristyana

Easter: Christian Pagan Resurrection of Nature & God

My eight year old daughter (I have five children at home) looked out at our willow tree three weeks ago when all the many other trees were still “dead” and cried out  excitedly, “Look Mama!  The willow tree came back to life!” She was so amazed, and my three year old with her.  Out the door they went to investigate.

My children love that tree (we planted it after the baby was born last year) and were so sad it had “died” over the winter.  Her sudden lightbulb moment realization made me realize why the ancients loved spring so much.  It was thus vitally important for Jesus / Yeshua / Adonis / Tammuz / Osiris to “die” and then come back to life in the Spring.  Ancient people must have been very afraid all winter long that Nature was dead for good, and might not resurrect. Since Nature was feminine, it made sense that a male god would come and “fertilize” her with his “blood.”    Then again, there is the Greek Demeter/Persephone story, where the annually resurrected one (comes up from her descent into hell) is a goddess.

Anyway, that’s why we love Spring — and Easter!

Went out yesterday hunting for palm branches or decorations.  I wanted to put up all the bunnies and eggs, yes, but also add some palms, lilys and white donkey colts, maybe some rolling tomb stones, etc.  No crosses, though.  Not going there yet, my girls don’t need to dwell on that symbol.  I just read yesterday how the early Christians despised the cross as a symbol and used the Ichthys “Jesus fish” and the anchor instead.  Then came the Chi Rho, and only 400 years later, the crucifix.  Yuck. 

But we didn’t find any of these “alternative” easter decorations.  Got a bunch of cling to the window bunnies, eggs and chicks.  Might have to hit the larger Christian bookstores in Fort Worth or Dallas for such non-pagan Easter decorations.  Our local shop didn’t have anything, although the florist will be getting real palm leaves and lily flowers the end of this week.  My little girls did find a God’s Little Princess Bible.  So cute.  Says all little girls are princesses because they are the daughter of a King.  “Who is the King?” they asked and I said Creator-God.  El aka Yah, aka God-the-Father.  Jesus being King of Kings notwithstanding.  I really think they mean God-the-Creator/Father when they say all girls are daughters of the King.  The Princess Bible is full of charming activities of a princess-y nature and I look forward to using it in our home esoteric Sunday School.

Official name is God’s Little Princess Devotional Bible by Sheila Walsh.  Click above to see the cute hard-back cover and read about it — it’s only $11.



Esoteric Meaning of Easter

Don’t forget to follow along with our Mystery School’s esoteric Easter cycle observances!

This is the greatest mystery in all Christianity.  Initiations (baptisms, etc.) used to all be scheduled for Easter.  A powerful spiritual energy is released upon the world, be sure to download your share of it!

Our observances start the Thursday before Palm Sunday when Jesus, Magdalene and their group of friends, relatives and students would’ve set off on foot for Jerusalem for Passover.  The anointing with oil from the alabaster jar is covered, and the teaching on the Temple steps, overturning the tables, the passover dinner held in Mary of Jerusalem’s house (upper room).  We try to interpret the whole “why does God demand a blood sacrifice?” conundrum from an esoteric view.

Check it out here:


Not Magdalene’s Ossuary

Here I am in a hotel outside Disney World where daughter Rhea just had her fourth birthday today.  I found this Magdalene ossuary update in my inbox.  — Katia

Associated Press, March 13, 2007

JERUSALEM – A prominent scholar looking into the factual basis of a popular
but widely criticized documentary film that claims to have located the tomb
of Jesus said Tuesday that a crucial piece of evidence filmmakers used to
support their claim is a mistake.

Stephen Pfann, a textual scholar and paleographer at the University of the
Holy Land in Jerusalem, said he has released a paper claiming the makers of
“The Lost Tomb of Jesus” were mistaken when they identified an ancient
ossuary from the cave as belonging to the New Testament’s Mary Magdalene:

Produced by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and directed by Simcha
Jacobovici, the documentary has drawn intense media coverage for its claims
challenging accepted Christian dogma.

Despite widespread ridicule from scholars, it drew more than 4 million
viewers when it aired on the Discovery Channel on March 4. A companion book,
“The Jesus Family Tomb,” has rocketed to sixth place on the New York Times
nonfiction best-seller list.

The film and book suggest that a first-century ossuary found in a south
Jerusalem cave in 1980 contained the remains of Jesus, contradicting the
Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. Ossuaries
are stone boxes used at the time to store the bones of the dead.

The filmmakers also suggest that Mary Magdalene was buried in the tomb, that
she and Jesus were married, and that an ossuary labeled “Judah son of Jesus”
belonged to their son.

The scholars who analyzed the Greek inscription on one of the ossuaries
after its discovery read it as “Mariamene e Mara,” meaning “Mary the
teacher” or “Mary the master.”

Before the movie was screened, Jacobovici said that particular inscription
provided crucial support for his claim. The name Mariamene is rare, and in
some early Christian texts it is believed to refer to Mary Magdalene.

But having analyzed the inscription, Pfann, who made a brief appearance in
the film as an ossuary expert, published a detailed article on his
university’s Web site asserting that it doesn’t read “Mariamene” at all.

The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two
different hands: the first, “Mariame,” was inscribed in a formal Greek
script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box,
another scribe using a different cursive script added the words “kai Mara,”
meaning “and Mara.” Mara is a different form of the name Martha.

According to Pfann’s reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of “Mary
the teacher,” but rather of two women, “Mary and Martha.”

“In view of the above, there is no longer any reason to be tempted to link
this ossuary…to Mary Magdalene or any other person in Biblical,
non-Biblical or church tradition,” Pfann wrote.

In the interest of telling a good story, Pfann said, the documentary engaged
in some “fudging” of the facts.

“James Cameron is a great guru of science fiction, and he’s taking it to a
new level with Simcha Jacobovici. You take a little bit of science, spin a
good yarn out of it and you get another Terminator or Life of Brian,” Pfann

In Israel Tuesday for a screening of the film, the Toronto-based Jacobovici
welcomed Pfann’s criticism, saying “every inscription should be

But Jacobovici said scholars who researched the ossuary in the past agreed
with the film’s reading. “Anyone who looks at it can see that the script was
written by the same hand,” Jacobovici said.

Jacobovici has faced criticism much tougher than Pfann’s academic critique. The film has been termed “archeo-porn,” and Jacobovici has been accused of “pimping the Bible.”

Jacobovici attributes most of the criticism to scholars’ discomfort with journalists “casting light into their ossuary monopoly.”

“What we’re doing is democratizing this knowledge, and this is driving some people crazy,” Jacobovici said.


Scholars Doubtful & Unhappy About Jesus Lost Tomb

Just got this in. So they only scraped a little DNA from two ossuaries, the ones labelled Joshua ben Yosef and Mariamene e Mara (supposedly belonging to Jesus and Magdalene). Why the heck didn’t they compare the supposedly Jesus one to the supposedly Mother Mary one — or the one who is supposed to be Jesus’s son??  Because, I think, they wanted to be able to say, “we’ve got DNA evidence!” and were afraid the answers would be no, no, no.  The only no answer that would be provocative and thus permitted, would be a no to whether Jesus and Magdalene were biologically related.  Some science this is.  At the end, I include a Laurence Gardner reaction to it all. 


By Christopher Mims, Scientific American
March 2, 2007

In researching our special report on the upcoming Jesus Tomb documentary, fronted by James Cameron (of Titanic fame), I encountered more than a few angry scholars and archaeologists.

Of special note was Tal Ilan, whose Lexicon of Jewish Names was essential to the statistical calculation made by Andrey Feuerverger, the U. of Toronto professor of statistics and mathematics who is quoted in the documentary as saying that the odds that any family other than that of the historical Jesus family would have the same names as that family, and be buried in the Tomb the documentary covers, are 600 to 1. In other words, that number argues, the odds are slim that this isn’t the tomb of Jesus.

You’d be forgiven for finding such claims far-fetched, and with the exception of the historian, James Tabor, who was consulted for the film, the professionals in the field appear to find these claims no less incredible.

In an interview I conducted this morning, the scholar Tal Ilan, without whose work these calculations would have been impossible, expressed outrage over the film and its use of her work — she’s the source of the quotation in the headline of this post.

Jodi Magness, a professor of archaeology and Jewish history of that period at UNC Chapel Hill, had this to say in an interview conducted yesterday:

“Let me tell you what I think. So first of all if you’re writing for Scientific American, so it’s important to point out that this debate is taking place in a most unscientific of manners.

“Archaeology is a scientific and academic discipline and there are proper fora for these discussions — if you’re a scholar and you have something you want to present to the larger world, there are proper ways of doing that, specifically publishing papers in peer reviewed journals or at meetings, so your colleagues can respond to it.

“If after that you can go ahead and announce that and people can say ‘Well I’ve responded to this,’ then that’s fine. But I’ve been slammed with [interviews for] this now — it was announced in the public media.

“I’m reacting to something that has not been published or peer reviewed and I haven’t even seen the film — the entire way this has been done has been an injustice to the entire discipline and also to the public.

“I think it’s a very important point to make — that this is almost a wikipedia form of scholarship. They’re presenting it or setting it up as though we have a discovery and you can react and it’s all legitimate and valid which it’s not.”

I also spoke to James Tabor, the biblical historian who consulted on the documentary who has, by his own account, excavated over five hundred tombs in Jerusalem. He was very sure of himself and was quite knowledgeable, even though some of what he said is obviously still up for debate, judging by how many of his peers have directly contradicted some of the things he has said publicly.

In Tabor’s defense, I will say that though he is in many respects the nexus of the debate on this documentary, at least scientifically, the credit (or blame) probably can’t be laid at his feet. This project was put together by Simcha Jacobovici, a filmmaker and investigative journalist. The reason all this data was ever synthesized at all is probably largely, or even entirely, due to his efforts.

When I asked Tabor why this was brought into the public eye in the form of a documentary and not in peer-reviewed journals, he said this:

“I could publish something on the names and someone else on the stats and the DNA and over four or five years you could finally have enough scholarly articles to see what’s going on. I couldn’t do that myself, I could do something on the names and the history, one article, then I would need someone else to do the statistics article and a DNA report and on and on.

“Now that it’s come out, Gibson (Shimon) and I are going to write a comprehensive academic article on the question. It’s like the dead sea scrolls and so much came out and over fifty years, and people sorted it out slowly.

“Another thing I’d say in Simcha’s defense, he felt for ten years this was important (it surfaced in 1996) everyone said it’s not important. He felt if anyone was going to do it, then they should do it, but they were all dismissing it.

“He’s a facilitator — no one had ever contacted a statistician or a DNA person. There’s a sense in which one reason he did this is that I wasn’t thinking of doing this, and the DNA guy wasn’t thinking about it — it almost needed a single person to say ‘This is what I want to do.’ Then it just began to skyrocket because Cameron came in and it became high profile and that gave us the budget. If we were just talking about one subject, the names, then I think it would be correct that we would not say let’s have a documentary on that — we’d publish first.

“The publicity of it all was then picked up by Discovery, but that’s their decision — they’ve taken a lot of heat for it. I don’t want to be critical of that — I’m not paid by them in any way. I and about four other people were brought in as consultants — Shimon Gibson for archaeology, me for history etc. Nobody was paid — they paid our expenses, but no stipends and we have no stake in the film.”

Finally, Carney Matheson, whose titles include everything from mortuary archaeologist to forensic examiner, conducted the DNA examination the film cites. Basically, the filmmakers scraped a tiny amount of biological material out of the ossuary (or bone box) labeled Jesus, and a tiny amount out of the one that they think belonged to Mary Magdalene. Matheson then sequenced the mitochondrial DNA in both samples in order to establish that whoever those two boxes once contained was not related on their mother’s side–in other words, they’re not family. It’s a negative result that doesn’t say much (and it begs the question – if you were gathering material for testing, why not test the boxes that you believed belonged to related people, such as Jesus and his mother, as well?)

Matheson had this to say:

“The only conclusions we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing.”

So the experts have weighed in — but don’t expect that to end the spotlight on this controversy any time soon. Even if scholars conclude the whole thing is bunk, I have a feeling this will become a permanent part of the our culture’s conspiracy lore, like the JFK conspiracy, the staging of the moon landing, the Turin Shroud, and all the rest before it.

* * * * * * * *

Laurence Gardner (regarding the recent discovery of the Jesus Ossuaries) writes on 2-27-2007:
In December 2004, four Israelis and a Palestinian (led by antiques dealer Oded Golan of Tel-Aviv) were indicted by the Israel State authorities on charges of having run a lucrative forgery ring for several decades. The Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israeli police claimed that the defendants had created a series of biblically-related fakes, some of which had been bought for very high prices and placed in the prestigious Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
Since then, numerous well-known items have now been officially declared as fakes, and among those under current investigation (since it originated with Oded Golan and features in the ongoing court case) is the James ossuary. It is fully expected that the Jesus tomb ossuaries (which have absolutely no archaeological provenance) will also fall into the same Golan team category.

It is astonishing to see so many press entries which relate to ‘bones’ and/or ‘disintegrated bones’ in the ossuaries. There are no bones. There never were any bones. It is a felony under Israel State law to own or keep ossuaries containing bones or bone residue (even for museums). Any ossuary unearthed containing bone remnants must be thoroughly emptied and brushed out, with the items and residue re-buried in precisely the same location as the discovery. Only after that, and a sanctification of the site, can the ossuary be removed. We saw on TV back in 1996 that all of these ossuaries were completely empty and inwardly cleaned. So, if there are any bone remnants there now, then someone has put them there for the sake of the documentary and the supposed DNA testing by Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron.

* * * * * * * *

What Gardner may not have realized when he posted the above is that they didn’t use bones for their DNA testing but rather scrapings of human organic deposits from the insides of the ossuary box. Such deposits they say, form during decomposition.

I did hear Simcha say on television, “We have the bones.”  Does he mean bone residue? He needs to be less sensationalist, but that’s asking a bit much, they are having such a good time with this.

Magdalene & Jesus Painting, meeting of souls, minds

Mary Magdalene wife of Jesus paintingLook at this! A painting of Jesus and Magdalene together in a posture of mystical unity. Also, note the Asherah headband Yeshua is wearing. And the strings, ropes, what are they all about do you think? And the blue bottle behind Magdalene — is that supposed to be her anointing jar? It isn’t made of alabaster. My daughters are looking at this painting with me now (ages three and eight) and my oldest says, “Jesus walked and pregnant Magdalene rode on the donkey.”

I had to tell them, no, that was Mother Mary in the Christmas story, this donkey apparently is carrying furniture and other gear. Three-year-old Rhea pronounces after looking at the way their hands are touching, “He loves her.” And then a long pause.

Rhea ponders. “She was married to him. She is our Queen and he is the King.”

Sketch print given to me by Margaret Starbird originally titled Forgiveness by unreadable woman artist's nameIn our Order of Mary Magdalene we have a lesson exercise in which members are asked to design in their mind a painting of Mary Magdalene and Jesus/Yeshua in unity, as equals, etc.

Several years ago Margaret Starbird gave me the print / sketch pictured at left showing Magdalene and Yeshua in a nice posture as though in love, married, etc.  It was drawn by a woman artist whose name we cannot make out.

But be sure to study the new Frank Thomas painting at the top of this post, it is gorgeous and full of symbols we could decipher together.

What catches your eye?

I just ordered a copy of it to hang in our house chapel (aka the old living room parlor). My husband decided he’d better look at it since I just paid $400 for a painting. He said the bottle behind Magdalene looks to him like a wine bottle, so together she’s got the bread and wine of the eucharist. That’s interesting the eucharist is on her side, and the beast of burden and what looks like household goods are on Yeshua’s side. Hawk added that with her back to us we don’t have to worry about whether she’s pregnant or not. This painting is not about that tired old subject.

I thought Magdalene is rather plain looking, not the beautiful “sex object” others have painted her as, a pleasant change. We don’t have to worry about beauty distracting us. Distractions about Magdalene’s body neutralized, we can focus on their two hands in union, the first thing that caught my three year old’s eye, and I imagine the first thing that most people see. I saw their hands first, too, and then his Asherah headband got my attention. Such headbands symbolized goddess-men in the ancient holy land and during King Josiah’s reign were used to identify Asherah worshippers (and priests and priestesses) who had groves and altars to Her “in the high places” on hilltops and mountains. Women may have worn the headbands, too.

Magdalene is wearing blue and white which are Madonna colors. But in New Age reckoning, blue is the color of mental strength, perhaps indicating Magdalene has a mind, she is not just a body, not a sex object. This painting illustrates a meeting of the minds, too, therefore.

Above their hands in union is the Mount of Transfiguration aka Mount Tabor, a “high place” where once God-ess was worshipped, no doubt. Below their hands in union is a well, bringing to mind Jesus being the living water but yet the living water is obtained thru imaging them together in union.

This is not the woman at the well, that takes place in Samaria and Frank Thomas the painter says this is Magdalene and Jesus. His exact phrasing is: “JESUS and the MAGDALENE” (…Evening in the City of Nazareth…) Original 35″ x 48″ (12 sq. ft.) Acrylic/Canvas Painting by Artist Frank Thomas of Holden, Utah Artist comment: “My New Testament painting of the Christ, for women.” … Frank Thomas

See a larger version of the painting here as part of our God Has a Wife! slide show

Sophie2Uagain writes:

What about Jesus’ right hand in gesture? A hand sign?

Yeah, I was wondering about that, thinking of “occult” sign language hand signs I know.  This one seems to be a combination of two.  The painter is a Mormon so he may be depicting more “modern” sign language, even masonic since the LDS Church uses some of the masonic hand signs and grips.

If modern is what the painter is after, see how Jesus’ hand is clearly making a capital L, perhaps saying I am the Life, or water of Life.

It also looks like he’s about to wrap the rope around their wrists to do a hand-fasting.  This is fun, fun — deciphering a painter’s code.

Anyone else? C’mon!


Magdalene: Dresser of Women’s Hair, Yeshu

I have been reading a Wikipedia article about a Jewish character named Yeshu who lived around 100 BC.  He is mentioned in ancient Hebrew writings and a medieval Pope made the Jews remove all such Yeshu references from their books.  Luckily the Jews hid away uncensored copies of the Babylonian Talmud and other writings so we know about this Yeshu dude who pre-dates Christ, has a mother named Miriam, is born out of wedlock and gets executed for apostasy or magic or both.

Here is an excerpt that has Jesus’ mother Mary called “magdalene”.  Confusing, but most fascinating.

The character of Miriam the dresser of woman’s hair is of interest. (Her name is also mentioned briefly in Chagigah 4b in the Babylonian Talmud where it is used together with Miriam the teacher of children simply as an arbitrary choice of names in illustrating a point.) Some suggest that the expression “dresser of women’s hair” is a euphemism for a woman of ill repute. The original Aramiac for her name is Miriam megadela neshaya in which many see Mary Magdalene. Some have thus identified her with Mary Magdalene while others are more cautious merely suggesting dresser of women’s hair as a possible meaning of Magdalene alternate to the traditional understanding of the name as a toponymic surname. -  from the Talmud,

* * * * * * * * * * *

The above is from the Talmud and is calling Mother Mary “magdala” meaning dresser of women’s hair.  Mary is also referred to in one place in the Babylonian Talmud as “Miriam, teacher of children”.  So maybe the Miriam e mara in the supposed Jesus family tomb was a “master” teacher.  We are told “e mara” means “known as a master”.  Then there is the other Mary buried there, too, the one who is supposed to be Jesus’ mother and spells her name Maria in the Greek fashion. 

Some scholars think one of those Marys is Mary Salome, Jesus’ aunt.

Why oh why are so many of them named Mary?– we can’t sort ’em all out!    The first Miriam in recorded history, sister of Moses was a teacher of the Children of Israel, right? She even taught their messiah, Moses.  A teacher of the Messiah.  And prophetess, seeress, songstress…  I have a cool tome called The Five Books of Miriam, meaning the Torah as if SHE had written it, not her brother. Here is the first sentence: “TORAH SPEAKS: In the beginning, Shekhinah, the Holy-One-Who-Dwells-in-This-World, spins the world into being: light, water, earth, heavenly bodies, seed-bearing plants, sea creatures, birds, animals-and Adam…”

Anyway, the dresser of women’s hair title is partially explained in the Wiki excerpt above.  The word was supposedly a euphemism for whoredom.  Of course, what else could it mean!  Women in the ancient world were virgins or prostitutes, nothing in between. Yeah, right.  Dubiousness aside, the fact that hairdressers were supposedly whores is probably why a woman with the epithet Magdalene got labelled a prostitute. 

Jewish scholars who read the New Testament and encounter Mary Magdalene know that Magdalene is Greek for Magdala (Aramaic) and that it means dresser of women’s hair.  They have no problem therefore seeing why she was called a prostitute.

* * * * * * * * * * *

All of this is from a search I was doing about the Yeshu of 100 BC:

Now don’t let the stuff on the page above about Yeshu shake your faith.  Yeshua “bore” a lot of archetypes. He embodied them just as Magdalene embodied Sophia, Isis, Inana. 
Yeshua/Jesus was Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysius and the Son of God/ess.  Some
Moses-like tales were added to his life (slaughter of babies) and transfiguration on
a mountain.  These tales of Yeshu were also added to him or attributed to him.