Milestones

[poem21045]

There actually is an apocryphal Gospel according to Mary Magdalen:

The Gospel of Mary
from https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/marymagdalene.shtml#h7

The reason why she is not [recognised as an apostle] perhaps lies in another long lost apocryphal text. In a Cairo bazaar in 1896, a German scholar happened to come across a curious papyrus book. Bound in leather and written in Coptic, this was the Gospel of Mary.

Like the books found at Nag Hammadi, the Gospel according to Mary Magdalene is also considered an apocryphal text. The story it contains begins some time after the resurrection. The disciples have just had a vision of Jesus.

Jesus has encouraged his disciples to go out and preach his teachings to the world, but they are afraid to do so because he was killed for it, and they say "if they killed him, they are going to kill us too". It's Mary who steps forward and says: don't be worried, he promised he would be with us to protect us. It says she turns their hearts toward the good and they begin to discuss the words of the Saviour.

In texts like the Gospel of Philip, Mary was presented as a symbol of wisdom. However in the Gospel of Mary, she is the one in charge, telling the disciples about Jesus' teachings.

At this point Peter asks Mary to tell them some things that she might have heard, but which the other disciples haven't. She says "Yes, I will tell you what has been hidden from you". She talks about a vision she had of Jesus and a conversation that she had with him. As the Gospel tells it, Mary then relates the details of this conversation, which is to do with spiritual development the soul's lifelong battle with evil.

At this point controversy arises, and Andrew steps in and says "well, I don't know what the rest of you think, but these things seem very strange to me, and it seems that she's telling us teachings that are different from the Saviour." Peter then chimes in and he says, "Are we supposed to now all turn around and listen to her? Would Jesus have spoken privately with a woman rather than openly to us? Did he prefer her to us?"

Matthew defends Mary and quells Peter's attack on her. In the text, Peter's problem seems to be that Jesus selected Mary above the other disciples to interpret his teachings. Peter sees Mary as a rival for the leadership of the group itself.

Peter need not have feared. Most people think of Peter as the rock upon which the church was established. He is the main or major disciple figure, and Mary Magdalene is a kind of side figure in the cast of characters.

One of the absolutely fascinating things about the Gospel of Mary is it really asks us to rethink that story about Christian history: did all the disciples get it? Did they really understand and preach the truth?

Perhaps the Gospel of Mary was just too radical. It presents Mary as a teacher and spiritual guide to the other disciples. She's not just a disciple; she's the apostle to the apostles.

[Eul note: it's a papyrus codex probably of the 5th century (a fragment in Greek has also been found), the text probably dates from some time in the 2nd century. Although discovered in 1896 it wasn't published until 1955 - not because of any malicious conspiracy, rather a chapter of accidents ranging from a burst water-pipe to a couple of world wars]

I wonder if there isn't a great deal of male prejudice (even downright misogyny) in the Catholic Church that motivated the hierarchy to suppress the Mary gospel. I'll bet if they found long-lost epistles from John they'd jump on them as a great revelation.

 

[Frank Petrexa]

I wonder if there isn't a great deal of male prejudice (even downright misogyny) in the Catholic Church that motivated the hierarchy to suppress the Mary gospel. I'll bet if they found long-lost epistles from John they'd jump on them as a great revelation.

You are correct about misogyny, but it happened long ago. You can see it in Paul's epistles (women shouldn't speak in church, women should be shaven if they wear their hair short). Some people claim that because Paul praises female apostles elsewhere, and gives them their due, that the offending passages aren't Paul's at all, but were added by copyists either in antiquity or later. Who knows? If you read "New Testament scholarship", you get into thick books (700+ pages) which take one or two sentences (or even one or two words) and beat them to death to support all kinds of theories. That's because the assumption is that all of this has deep meaning, and it isn't just people making it up as they go along (not to be pejorative--they are also trying to understand) or persuade others.
Anyway, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene is what is called a "gnostic gospel". I have really tried to get into this, but it's so vague and slippery that it's hard to maintain interest. Basically, as I understand it, the "gnostics" claimed that the world was made by an evil god (the demiurg), and that the good God was on a higher plain. Jesus was a being from this plain "clothed" (the gospel of Judas has Jesus telling Judas that he will free Jesus from the "man who clothes me" by betraying him) in a human nature. There is secret knowledge ("gnosis") that only those chosen who transcend the evil world are privvy to. Jesus is not a true man, he did not suffer on the cross, only his human form did. In short, those who aren't clued in are losers. You can see why this view was opposed, and it didn't make it into the canon. (There is a Gospel of Peter--a fragment--which was used in churches until a bishop pointed out it that it implied Christ did not really suffer. It fell out of use, and was suppressed. It is from the 100's, but as one guy says it was clearly written by somebody who has fragmentary knowledge of what happened or what earlier accounts said. For example, it implies that Herod runs the show, and Pilate goes along.)
This "two natures" business is fraught. He was god and man. Or he was both god and man mixed together, and they couldn't be separated. It's really unclear (and apparently was to them as well) what the hell they mean exactly. Well, that's philosophy.
You get the same thing in the trinity. You can't have polytheism. So, some "heresies" (and Jesus himself) say Jesus is not equal to the father (in John). This was fought out (sometimes literally) over hundreds of years, and finally settled in the third century or so. What does "three persons in one god" mean? "It's a great mystery", says Aquinus. You bet--it makes no sense. You are not even sure what a person is if he (she) has the exact same "nature" as someone else. The beginning of John (in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God) indicates that Christ is God in every sense--and the world was made "through" him (God pressing keys on a device? God giving orders to a co-equal? Somebody signing off on God's ideas?). So, it's kind of like the old "phlogiston" theory of heat, where a fluid separates and is found in different places but is always the same? It's not clear at all. Especially since John elsewhere in the very same gospel has Jesus say "the father is greater than I". Is this Jesus the man talking? Does the human nature corrupt the divine one? Are the gnostics really right?
Forgive my irreverence. Physics has all kinds of weird stuff, but the theories are accepted only if they make correct predictions. All the speculation still has mathematics that say that so-and-so must happen. Here, there is nothing at all--just people using words to spout vague ideas. I certainly don't deny that we don't know everything and that there might be things we can never know, but it seems pretty futile (like a shaman chanting to the sky) to worry about something you have no evidence for and can't even describe clearly.

 

[Crux-Emperor Baracus X]

According to our,(former) contributer,a "certain" Gentleman....*
Crucified Women.com is 20 years old.
Nice of him to mention it elsewhere, and not on here (!!)
To commemorate the wonderous event,he has now launched a gallery,whereupon you can view selected video clips....
(Which are mainly from PornHub.....)
So,I would like to wish C.W. a Happy Anniversary and thanks for the inspiration.
*(edited for legal reasons)

 

[montycrusto]

You are correct about misogyny, but it happened long ago. You can see it in Paul's epistles (women shouldn't speak in church, women should be shaven if they wear their hair short). Some people claim that because Paul praises female apostles elsewhere, and gives them their due, that the offending passages aren't Paul's at all, but were added by copyists either in antiquity or later. Who knows? If you read "New Testament scholarship", you get into thick books (700+ pages) which take one or two sentences (or even one or two words) and beat them to death to support all kinds of theories. That's because the assumption is that all of this has deep meaning, and it isn't just people making it up as they go along (not to be pejorative--they are also trying to understand) or persuade others.
Anyway, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene is what is called a "gnostic gospel". I have really tried to get into this, but it's so vague and slippery that it's hard to maintain interest. Basically, as I understand it, the "gnostics" claimed that the world was made by an evil god (the demiurg), and that the good God was on a higher plain. Jesus was a being from this plain "clothed" (the gospel of Judas has Jesus telling Judas that he will free Jesus from the "man who clothes me" by betraying him) in a human nature. There is secret knowledge ("gnosis") that only those chosen who transcend the evil world are privvy to. Jesus is not a true man, he did not suffer on the cross, only his human form did. In short, those who aren't clued in are losers. You can see why this view was opposed, and it didn't make it into the canon. (There is a Gospel of Peter--a fragment--which was used in churches until a bishop pointed out it that it implied Christ did not really suffer. It fell out of use, and was suppressed. It is from the 100's, but as one guy says it was clearly written by somebody who has fragmentary knowledge of what happened or what earlier accounts said. For example, it implies that Herod runs the show, and Pilate goes along.)
This "two natures" business is fraught. He was god and man. Or he was both god and man mixed together, and they couldn't be separated. It's really unclear (and apparently was to them as well) what the hell they mean exactly. Well, that's philosophy.
You get the same thing in the trinity. You can't have polytheism. So, some "heresies" (and Jesus himself) say Jesus is not equal to the father (in John). This was fought out (sometimes literally) over hundreds of years, and finally settled in the third century or so. What does "three persons in one god" mean? "It's a great mystery", says Aquinus. You bet--it makes no sense. You are not even sure what a person is if he (she) has the exact same "nature" as someone else. The beginning of John (in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God) indicates that Christ is God in every sense--and the world was made "through" him (God pressing keys on a device? God giving orders to a co-equal? Somebody signing off on God's ideas?). So, it's kind of like the old "phlogiston" theory of heat, where a fluid separates and is found in different places but is always the same? It's not clear at all. Especially since John elsewhere in the very same gospel has Jesus say "the father is greater than I". Is this Jesus the man talking? Does the human nature corrupt the divine one? Are the gnostics really right?
Forgive my irreverence. Physics has all kinds of weird stuff, but the theories are accepted only if they make correct predictions. All the speculation still has mathematics that say that so-and-so must happen. Here, there is nothing at all--just people using words to spout vague ideas. I certainly don't deny that we don't know everything and that there might be things we can never know, but it seems pretty futile (like a shaman chanting to the sky) to worry about something you have no evidence for and can't even describe clearly.

Yes.. if it isn’t falsifiable or testable, such theological sophistry is just “not even wrong”.

Not even wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Eulalia]

THE MICROBE

by: Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953)

The Microbe is so very small
You cannot make him out at all,
But many sanguine people hope
To see him through a microscope.
His jointed tongue that lies beneath
A hundred curious rows of teeth;
His seven tufted tails with lots
Of lovely pink and purple spots,
On each of which a pattern stands,
Composed of forty separate bands;
His eyebrows of a tender green;
All these have never yet been seen--
But Scientists, who ought to know,
Assure us that is must be so...
Oh! let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about!

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

On this day in 1867, Laura Ingalls (later Laura Ingalls Wilder) was born in Wisconsin. She penned the nine books of the Little House on the Prairie series, which told the fictionalized tale of her family's life in the Midwest and on the frontier.

 

[Migoz2]

75 years ago today: the bombing of Dresden

Dresden: The World War Two bombing 75 years on

A firestorm caused by Allied bombers destroyed the historic centre of Dresden in February 1945.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[twonines]

75 years ago today: the bombing of Dresden

Dresden: The World War Two bombing 75 years on

A firestorm caused by Allied bombers destroyed the historic centre of Dresden in February 1945.

www.bbc.co.uk

Arthur "Bomber" Harris was a slightly plump rather insignificant looking man who was utterly ruthless. Whether or not he really believed his often stated opinion that the War would be won by bombardment from the air will never be truly known. His statement after the London Blitz and the destruction of Coventry will always be remembered, "They have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind"

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

On this day in 1633, Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei (my personal choice for the most important scientist of the last 1,000 years) arrived in Rome to face trial for heresy. Galileo was put on trial for his belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, and the controversy became infamous as a manifestation of the rift between science and religion.

 

[twonines]

On this day in 1633, Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei (my personal choice for the most important scientist of the last 1,000 years) arrived in Rome to face trial for heresy. Galileo was put on trial for his belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, and the controversy became infamous as a manifestation of the rift between science and religion.

It also demonstrates that the Establishment and so called mainstream scientists are not infallible.

 

[Loxuru]

It also demonstrates that the Establishment and so called mainstream scientists are not infallible.

Scholars putting their knowledge and skills available for the interests of the rulers and the mighty, that's from all times, sadly.

 

[poem21045]

On this day in 1633, Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei (my personal choice for the most important scientist of the last 1,000 years) arrived in Rome to face trial for heresy. Galileo was put on trial for his belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, and the controversy became infamous as a manifestation of the rift between science and religion.

"And yet it moves." --Galileo
--according to legend, spoken under his breath after being forced to recant, by the Inquisition, his assertion that the earth revolved around the sun

Unfortunately, there are actually people who still believe the earth to be the center of the universe (http://www.geocentrism.com/).

But then, some Presidents believe they're the center of the universe!

 

[Frank Petrexa]

On this day in 1633, Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei (my personal choice for the most important scientist of the last 1,000 years) arrived in Rome to face trial for heresy. Galileo was put on trial for his belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, and the controversy became infamous as a manifestation of the rift between science and religion.

Well there is Darwin. The same kind of shake-up. Also the same careful grounding in observation. Unlike in Darwin's case, the religious authorities knew Galileo was right, but didn't like the implications for their authority. It was as bad as Luther translating the Bible into German so people could read it.

 

[phlebas]

It also demonstrates that the Establishment and so called mainstream scientists are not infallible.

Exactly. It's often portrayed as science against religion, but it was one theory up against the scientific establishment, which at the time felt that the evidence wasn't there to support it. And the Pope was originally favourable to Galileo, until he published some work which was interpreted as attacking the Pope. I suspect he was a difficult man to get along with.

 

[Loxuru]

Exactly. It's often portrayed as science against religion, but it was one theory up against the scientific establishment, which at the time felt that the evidence wasn't there to support it. And the Pope was originally favourable to Galileo, until he published some work which was interpreted as attacking the Pope. I suspect he was a difficult man to get along with.

Probably, there was 'a consensus among 97% of the scientific community that Ptolomy was right".

In which case I would be interested in what these remaining 3% have to tell about it!

 

[Frank Petrexa]

Arthur "Bomber" Harris was a slightly plump rather insignificant looking man who was utterly ruthless. Whether or not he really believed his often stated opinion that the War would be won by bombardment from the air will never be truly known. His statement after the London Blitz and the destruction of Coventry will always be remembered, "They have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind"

The Nazis were correct to say this was "terror bombing". The American fire bombing of Japanese cities (led by Curtis LeMay) was also "terror bombing". But there is a perspective. The Allies were taking huge casualties (especially the Soviets) in a war they did not start and which the Nazis refused to end. In Japan's case, the United States was reading the Japanese diplomatic codes and through dispatches to the Moscow embassy knew that the cabinet was both divided and deadlocked, with the Japanese army intent on fighting to the death. At this point none of the Allies were all that worried about civilian casualties in either Axis country, but there were clear domestic political considerations in reducing casualties. Bombing seemed a way to force a surrender (and in Japan's case, it did--albeit an atomic bomb was needed: Paul Fussel, an American English professor and combat veteran wrote a book called "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb" since he was spared having to take part in an invasion of Japan which if combat in the Pacific was any indication would have been met with suicidal resistance designed to cause as many Allied casualties as possible). I have read that during Hitler's nonsensical--they couldn't win--Ardennes offensive in the winter of 1944-45, Los Alamos was asked whether the bomb was ready. If it had been, it would likely have been dropped on Berlin.
There is a line in one of Bruce Catton's books on the American Civil War about the Battle of Shiloh in 1862, in which there were 25,000 casualties, far exceeding anything in the fighting to date. "The war started to spin out of control." I have never forgotten that.

 

[Loxuru]

There is a line in one of Bruce Catton's books on the American Civil War about the Battle of Shiloh in 1862, in which there were 25,000 casualties, far exceeding anything in the fighting to date. "The war started to spin out of control." I have never forgotten that.

Wasn't it Ulysses Grant, who adopted a tactics of waging relentless attacks, one after another, without giving the Confederates a break? That was against the common combat practices of these times, but it made Grant win battles, and the Union win the war. Of course, these tactics had their costs, with as yet unseen casualty levels, on both sides. The same tactics were also applied later during the Franco-Prussian war (1870), and were adopted by the French army, in a vitalist philosophy, that the will to win makes half the victory. The doctrine of 'l'offensive à l'outrance', attacking to excess, became a real cult among the French military. But in 1914, this doctrine failed, with high casualties, against modern weapons such as the machine gun and quick firing guns.

 

[RacingRodent]

The Nazis were correct to say this was "terror bombing". The American fire bombing of Japanese cities (led by Curtis LeMay) was also "terror bombing". But there is a perspective. The Allies were taking huge casualties (especially the Soviets) in a war they did not start and which the Nazis refused to end. In Japan's case, the United States was reading the Japanese diplomatic codes and through dispatches to the Moscow embassy knew that the cabinet was both divided and deadlocked, with the Japanese army intent on fighting to the death. At this point none of the Allies were all that worried about civilian casualties in either Axis country, but there were clear domestic political considerations in reducing casualties. Bombing seemed a way to force a surrender (and in Japan's case, it did--albeit an atomic bomb was needed: Paul Fussel, an American English professor and combat veteran wrote a book called "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb" since he was spared having to take part in an invasion of Japan which if combat in the Pacific was any indication would have been met with suicidal resistance designed to cause as many Allied casualties as possible). I have read that during Hitler's nonsensical--they couldn't win--Ardennes offensive in the winter of 1944-45, Los Alamos was asked whether the bomb was ready. If it had been, it would likely have been dropped on Berlin.
There is a line in one of Bruce Catton's books on the American Civil War about the Battle of Shiloh in 1862, in which there were 25,000 casualties, far exceeding anything in the fighting to date. "The war started to spin out of control." I have never forgotten that.

Actually operations such as Dresden need to be understood in the context of the Hague Convention of the Laws of War on Land as it was understood at the time.

The rule reads:

Art. 25.

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

However with attacks on places such as Guernica and Rotterdam the German government had established that troops only have to be present somewhere within the environs of a town or city for it to be classed as defended. In fact Guernica is a very good example as the legal pretext was precisely that it was a transport hub. Dresden was a transport hub and more the site of arms manufacturing and was believed (perhaps falsely but given the state of German War diaries this will always be unclear) to hold German reserves which could sally to counter attack the advancing Soviet forces.

Now there were advocates of terror bombing on both sides and Harris was one of them among the Allies but he continually faced push back and legal scrutiny within the British and in particular RAF establishment. Thus he needed a legal cover and the Nazis forged one by establishing precedent and in International Law precedent is hugely important.

Dresden is indisputably a tragedy but it was tragedy in pursuit of a legitimate military objective (the reduction of German resistance in the immediate front around Dresden) and according to the Laws of War as they were understood by all the belligerents at the time.

Wasn't it Ulysses Grant, who adopted a tactics of waging relentless attacks, one after another, without giving the Confederates a break? That was against the common combat practices of these times, but it made Grant win battles, and the Union win the war. Of course, these tactics had their costs, with as yet unseen casualty levels, on both sides. The same tactics were also applied later during the Franco-Prussian war (1870), and were adopted by the French army, in a vitalist philosophy, that the will to win makes half the victory. The doctrine of 'l'offensive à l'outrance', attacking to excess, became a real cult among the French military. But in 1914, this doctrine failed, with high casualties, against modern weapons such as the machine gun and quick firing guns.

I would be really interested to know which of Ulysses Grant's operations were against military practices of the time? I have spent years studying the US Civil War and have yet to find much the Americans did that was actually outside the scope of contemporary military thought. Case in point most military manuals used (I say used in the lightest sense as troop training was abysmal) on both sides were based on French texts and French practices. The Prussian/ German Confederation armies meanwhile had developed their own practices and the French became obsessed with defensive firepower in time for the campaigns of 1870/71 so you may have something specific in mind that I am missing but I am a little unclear here.

 

[Frank Petrexa]

Actually operations such as Dresden need to be understood in the context of the Hague Convention of the Laws of War on Land as it was understood at the time.

The rule reads:

Art. 25.

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

However with attacks on places such as Guernica and Rotterdam the German government had established that troops only have to be present somewhere within the environs of a town or city for it to be classed as defended. In fact Guernica is a very good example as the legal pretext was precisely that it was a transport hub. Dresden was a transport hub and more the site of arms manufacturing and was believed (perhaps falsely but given the state of German War diaries this will always be unclear) to hold German reserves which could sally to counter attack the advancing Soviet forces.

Now there were advocates of terror bombing on both sides and Harris was one of them among the Allies but he continually faced push back and legal scrutiny within the British and in particular RAF establishment. Thus he needed a legal cover and the Nazis forged one by establishing precedent and in International Law precedent is hugely important.

Dresden is indisputably a tragedy but it was tragedy in pursuit of a legitimate military objective (the reduction of German resistance in the immediate front around Dresden) and according to the Laws of War as they were understood by all the belligerents at the time.



I would be really interested to know which of Ulysses Grant's operations were against military practices of the time? I have spent years studying the US Civil War and have yet to find much the Americans did that was actually outside the scope of contemporary military thought. Case in point most military manuals used (I say used in the lightest sense as troop training was abysmal) on both sides were based on French texts and French practices. The Prussian/ German Confederation armies meanwhile had developed their own practices and the French became obsessed with defensive firepower in time for the campaigns of 1870/71 so you may have something specific in mind that I am missing but I am a little unclear here.

I have read that LeMay once said that if the war had been lost he would have been tried as a war criminal. (Nimitz used "unrestricted submarine warfare" against Japan, the same German tactic the United States used as its rationale for declaring war in 1917.) It is true that Japanese industry was scattered throughout residential areas. It is also true that LeMay justified his tactics by saying that it would save lives in the long run by shortening the war and making recovery quicker because there would be less overall destruction and loss of life. The United States refrained from attacking sites with deep cultural significance (like Kyoto) and Truman was very conscious of the civilian toll and hoped to end the war quickly. The atomic bombs were used one at a time, and the Japanese were given time to react. There was a powerful political push in the United States (especially after the Germans surrendered) to bring the war to an end. A blockade to starve Japan out was feasible, but would take a long time (and cause its own civilian suffering). There were callous and vengeful people in high places, but as you point out it is false to say that no one gave a damn at all.

I don't know about military tactics, but I think Grant was an innovator in several senses. First, he was practical and if a tactic didn't work he would change it. Second, he (as Sherman said) "didn't care a damn what the enemy did away from his face"--he was going to fight an offensive war. Third, he wanted to keep the pressure on, and unlike his predecessors was not content to fight a battle and then retire to refit. "I intend to fight it out on this line (Virginia) if it takes all summer." It took longer than that, but for the first time the Army of the Potomac kept at it relentlessly.

 

[RacingRodent]

I have read that LeMay once said that if the war had been lost he would have been tried as a war criminal. (Nimitz used "unrestricted submarine warfare" against Japan, the same German tactic the United States used as its rationale for declaring war in 1917.) It is true that Japanese industry was scattered throughout residential areas. It is also true that LeMay justified his tactics by saying that it would save lives in the long run by shortening the war and making recovery quicker because there would be less overall destruction and loss of life. The United States refrained from attacking sites with deep cultural significance (like Kyoto) and Truman was very conscious of the civilian toll and hoped to end the war quickly. The atomic bombs were used one at a time, and the Japanese were given time to react. There was a powerful political push in the United States (especially after the Germans surrendered) to bring the war to an end. A blockade to starve Japan out was feasible, but would take a long time (and cause its own civilian suffering). There were callous and vengeful people in high places, but as you point out it is false to say that no one gave a damn at all.

A point worth noting is that the Germans and Japanese, not to mention Italians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians, Croats and Thais all lost and to the best of my knowledge none of them were prosecuted for the aerial bombardment of a defended city. So the victors do seem to have concluded it was within the Laws of War. The comments of LeMay need to be understood in context, he felt the endangerment of civilian life involved in his actions met the legal test of sufficient objective, he just assumed the Japanese regime would not see it that way.