Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
July 1991 -> July 27
Apollo BBS Archive - July 27, 1991
Apollo 8.0 300/1200/2400
What is your first name:PETER
What is your last name:PETRISKO
Hello, Peter Petrisko
Is your name correct:Yes
Password:$$$$$
Caller # 162349 (4 today)
It is now 07/29/91 02:03:14
Last on @ 07/27/91 02:49:03
Last message read was (77175)
Message range is (76972-77223)
You have logged in 1701 times
*=* Main Menu entered *=*
Main Menu command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Zak's FILm & Video Bulletin Board entered *=*
Zak's FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:$
Message: 1737
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Review
Subject: Rosencrantz&Guilden-
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 11:53:58
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Zak's FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Late Night Bulletin Board entered *=*
Late Night Bulletin Board command:$
Message: 2058
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: songs
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 23:26:21
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
I hardly get on here so sorry I haven't replied. I think I will go ahead
and buy the record anyway. Thanks for the info!
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 2059
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Question?
Subject: Engaged
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 23:27:00
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 2060
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Lasta
Date: 07/29/91 Time: 01:24:12
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Late Night Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*
Public Bulletin Board command:$
Message: 77176
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie/road work
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 05:17:34
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77177
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Gordon
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 05:21:33
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77178
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Porno
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 09:34:59
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
I agree with Peter. Our country's obsession with violence and death is the
true pornography.
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77179
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Jesus
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 09:37:12
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77180
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/mags
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 11:17:17
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
You should check out gay men's magazines.
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77181
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jesus/marriage
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 11:21:39
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77182
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Religion
Subject: Mary Magdalene
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 11:36:45
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77183
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Religion
Subject: Jesus/marriage
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 11:44:18
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77184
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Thad on porn
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 12:12:30
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Re: your .... "there is nothing 'uplifting' about it"!
Oh? I don't know about that! Ha ha. *]]] ANN O. [[[*
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77185
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley on Roadwork
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 12:15:01
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77186
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Doggy on mags.
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 12:17:25
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77188
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Thad on porn again
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 12:30:46
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Back
Message: 77186
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Doggy on mags.
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 12:17:25
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
You can see men in 'ALL their glory' in gay's magazines????
*]]] ANN O. [[[*
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77188
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Thad on porn again
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 12:30:46
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
I never understood why some people were so against other people getting
turned on!!! It isn't nasty - it isn't against our nature, so what's the big
deal?
*]]] ANN O. [[[*
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77189
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Religion
Subject: Mary/Thad
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 12:43:03
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77190
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rebellion
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 15:10:44
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Ok, so it's been ages since this discussion was going on (and even longer
since I've been able to log on, due to severe computer difficulties, i.e.,
not having one), but I must say that I feel that a certain amount of
rebellion is necessary to keep authority (whether it be a government, a
family, whatever) in line. An unopposed authority will wander into tyranny,
a situation which is far worse than the trivial types of rebellion (long
hair, etc) which were being mentioned. Just because an authority is an
authority does not necessarily make it correct, a fact which often does not
seem to occur particularly to those of a religious bent who seem to believe
that authority in its every manifestation is de facto correct on all
matters.
(This, of course, does not address the fact that there is no definite
rightness or wrongness on most topics, but that's a whole 'nother argument.)
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77191
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: cruisers on central
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 15:14:43
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
? Has anyone sighted any cruising on Central (at least, north Central)
lately? Speaking as an occasional one time cruiser, Central has looked
pretty well dead for many, many months now, leading me to believe that
either A) people aren't cruising as much or B) they picked up and went
elsewhere.
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77192
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: islam/christianity
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 15:23:28
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77193
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: paul/goals
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 15:34:28
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77194
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 16:27:41
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Welcome back.
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77195
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: Burkett/divide
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 16:28:04
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77196
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mary & Jesus
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 16:29:57
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77197
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Porno
Date: 07/27/91 Time: 16:32:32
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Peter is correct, porno is Bush and Rambo. Ever see a picture of a naked
dog? Does that turn you on?
What about a naked pig? Oink, oink.
Humans are only ashamed because we have been taught to be.
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77198
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Sandi
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:30:10
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77199
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (1/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:32:10
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77200
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (2/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:33:13
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77201
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (3/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:34:15
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77202
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (4/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:35:37
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77203
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (5/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:36:47
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77204
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (6/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:37:42
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77205
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (7/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:40:16
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77206
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (8/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:41:01
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77207
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: odd couples
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 05:15:29
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Roger Mann and Peter Petrisko. Rather odd couple, to say the least.
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77208
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Roger Lantern/77179
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 05:19:02
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
You have slipped further than I ever thought possible with a comment like
that, Mr. Mann. In the words of the Master Himself: "By thy words thou shalt
be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Better be a bit
more careful how you speak, for one day you WILL give an account for every
idle word you speak.
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77209
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi/cruising
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 05:24:19
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77210
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi Marlin
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 05:32:29
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77211
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Gordon/last 8
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 05:47:00
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77212
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Glory be to Annie!
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 08:00:45
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
And, Ann, as I've told you in the past, you can buy magazines showing men
in, as you put it, "ALL their glory" at your neighborhood Circle K.
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77213
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill on glory
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 08:50:37
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Uhhhh .. I don't think you know what I mean when I say -in all their glory!
Let me put it this way - not just naked in full view, but full blown in full
view! Got it? *]]] ANN O. [[[*
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77214
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Full Blown for Ann
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 10:07:45
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Yes, I DO understand. A specific suggestion awaits you in mail.
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77215
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Religion
Subject: Gordon/Jesus
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 11:29:01
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77216
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Jesus&Mary
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 11:42:16
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77217
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Joke
Subject: Speaking of members
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 14:13:58
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
I guess we know where Paul Rubens got his nickname, now.
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77218
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul Reubens
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 15:59:10
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
His attorney couldn't figure out why he gave is stage name. Perhaps he was
looking for an excuse to stop doing the character?
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77219
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Pornography
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 19:24:05
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Getting 'turned on' is part of our physical nature, that is quite
true. However, Human beings are not like animals who have (and need)
no sense of intelligent responsibility toward the welfare of others.
They have no need to exercise restraint and moderation in their
sexual behavior. Human beings, not having inborn restraints against
any particular form of behavior, must largely substitute intelligence
for instinct. I outlined some of my objections in the original message.
There is NOTHING in pornography that promotes anything besides
selfish irresponibility.
I read a quote one time that said "sex is nice, but love is nicer".
Getting 'turned on' in itself is not necessarily evil-- but violence,
murder, burning buildings, and small children are what turn some people on.
Is that kind of thing healthy?
On the other hand, if you happen to get 'turned on' by your husband or
wife-- There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. (Calvinists and
ancient Catholic theologians to the contrary.)
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77220
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Porno
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 19:26:56
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
If I were a pig or a dog, I would very likely be turned on by a pig or a
dog, especially at certain times of the year. How many dogs or pigs get
turned on by humans?
[A]bort, [B]ack, [C]ontinue or [E]nter reply:Continue
Message: 77221
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Religion
Subject: Gordon/Carpenter
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 20:03:30
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77222
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Religion
Subject: Jesus' marriage.
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 20:14:36
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Message: 77223
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: In search of
Subject: Everyone
Date: 07/29/91 Time: 01:25:33
[A]bort, [B]ack, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
God got your tongue?
Public Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
No more new messages
Journey to which SIG:G
Goodbye, Peter Petrisko
You were on 04:28
Please hang up now
=xp+?
b6bS%8bJJ=
NO CARRIER
ATDT2461432
A/ RINGING
CONNECT 1200
Type [CR]
Apollo 8.0 300/1200/2400
What is your first name:ROD
What is your last name:WILLIAMS
Hello, Rod Williams
Is your name correct:Yes
Password:
Password:$$$$$$$
Caller # 162350 (5 today)
It is now 07/29/91 02:17:00
Last on @ 07/28/91 01:36:01
Last message read was (77197)
Message range is (76972-77223)
You have logged in 1714 times
*=* You have 1 letter *=*
*=* Main Menu entered *=*
Main Menu command:U
$ Rod Williams 02:16:59 (1200)
$ Peter Petrisko 02:03:11 (1200)
$ James Hawley 01:22:59 (2400)
David Palko 00:45:38 (2400)
Ron Davis 00:17:29 ( 300)
Main Menu command:P
*=* Post Office entered *=*
Mail to Nick Ianuzzi
Date: 07/09/91 Time: 23:30:31
[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Mail to Todd Reese
Date: 07/19/91 Time: 00:32:10
[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Skip
Mail from Melissa Dee
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 23:18:53
[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
How was the birthday bash? Did he have an open mike there?
Yeah, the humidity's got me real cranky, too. All these wedding plans and
issues aren't helping either. I swear, we've never had a fight but the
tention is getting higher these days.
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:Just an even alone can produce stress. Summertime stress may tend to be
2:worse than wintertime stress, especially here in Phoenix. Don't let it get
3:to you, accept Jesus and let Him handle all the stress, I didn't.
4:
5:Pete's show was nice with about 75 people showing up. I was tired but I
6:heard the Seemen were really good. They didn't have open mike and I was
7:pretty much down anyway. Too bad about Pee Wee, eh?
8:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
As for the message to which you replied...
[A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap
Post Office command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Zak's FILm & Video Bulletin Board entered *=*
Zak's FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:$C
Press [A] to abort
Message: 1737
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Review
Subject: Rosencrantz&Guilden-
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 11:53:58
stern are dead.
This is movie written and directed by Tom Stoppard, who wrote the play in
the mid-sixties. It turned theatre on its ear.
The setting is Denmark in the time of Hamlet, and our heroes are trying to
figure out what is going on. There is also the Player, played magnificently
by Richard Dreyfuss, a band of actors, and the usual band of characters from
Hamlet. Most scenes center around R&G, or what they are watching or
overhearing.
The pace is usually quick. I enjoyed Stoppard's arrangement of "The
Question Game" in a badminton court. Anybody else seen the Flying Karamozov
Brothers do that routine while juggling?
Go see it! Playing at the Harkins Camelview.
Zak's FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit-Chat
Subject:movie/last
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:A friend of mine dropped oven and said he'd seen this movie and he wanted me
2:to go see it with him. Said it was real good.
3:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 1738
Zak's FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Late Night Bulletin Board entered *=*
Late Night Bulletin Board command:$C
Press [A] to abort
Message: 2058
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: songs
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 23:26:21
I hardly get on here so sorry I haven't replied. I think I will go ahead
and buy the record anyway. Thanks for the info!
Message: 2059
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Question?
Subject: Engaged
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 23:27:00
Anyone notice that within the word engaged, is "gag"?
Message: 2060
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Lasta
Date: 07/29/91 Time: 01:24:12
And also, AGED.
Late Night Bulletin Board command:PEC
You chose Chit-Chat
Subject:Gag
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:Yes, the word engaged broken down literally means to have a gag placed over
2:one's mouth. What does married mean?
3:end
Edit command:A
Message entry aborted
Late Night Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*
Public Bulletin Board command:$C
Press [A] to abort
Message: 77198
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Sandi
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:30:10
SM]]Current Islamic culture is not all that different from a
SM]]fundamentalistic version of any of the Judeao-christian religions. The
SM]]same violence and intolerance is latent in Christianity as well...
Latent in some people who call themselves Christians, certainly. I think
there's a big difference when you consider the message of Christ *himself*,
which properly speaking is the core of Christianity, and the fact that Islam
relegates Jesus to the status of a mere "prophet", thus also burying the
supreme importance of the message.
Message: 77199
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (1/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:32:10
"God is dead" sounds like crackpot theology to me. To propose that God is
dead, they would have to assume that He existed in the first place, which
would be a denial of the atheism they were presumably advancing. Anyway, it
doesn't sound like the same guys.
These were three fellows associated with the BBC who wrote a book called
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail". It's a long and involved story that starts with a
mystery (never satisfactorily solved) in the village of Rennes-le-Chateau up
in the Haut-Languedoc. It's a charming little place in the middle of Cathar
country, which has age-old associations with the Templars and so forth.
They did years of digging through various historical records, mysterious
manuscripts from a strange organization based in Switzerland called the
"Prieure' de Sion", and lots of other stuff. All of that need not concern
us here, because the theory that Jesus was married could well be examined in
isolation from the rest.
Beau mentioned that it would be highly unusual, and disapproved of, for a
Teacher, a Rabbi, to be unmarried in Jesus' time; and Roger mentioned the
suggestion that the wedding at Cana was Jesus' own wedding. Both of these
bits of evidence were cited in the book, where they pointed out that Jesus'
action in replenishing the wine, at his mother's insistence, suggest the
responsibilities of the host and hostess. Later: "the governor of the feast
called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, [...] "Thou hast kept the good
wine until now". (John 2:9-10)
Message: 77200
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (2/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:33:13
A possible inference is that these words were addressed to Jesus himself.
There is a great deal more, but in addition the authors tackle the question
of who Jesus' wife might have been, if he was married. Two likely
candidates come up: "Mary Magdalene", and "Mary of Bethany", the sister of
Martha and Lazarus. If the latter was the case, then Lazarus was Jesus'
brother-in-law.
As Thad says, the interesting thing is that *nowhere* in the Gospels does it
say that Mary Magdalene was ever a prostitute. She seems to have gotten
this reputation from elsewhere. What evidence is there to even suggest it
in the Gospels?
The Gospels mention three women of interest: Mary Magdalene, Mary of
Bethany, and a third, unnamed woman described as "a sinner". It does not
say she was a prostitute, though one might infer that. Luke 7:36-50 tells
of her washing Jesus' feet with her tears, wiping his feet with her hair,
and anointing them with ointment from an alabaster box as he dines in the
house of a Pharisee.
Mary Magdalene, as Thad pointed out, is said to have had "seven devils" cast
out of her (Luke 8:2). One could perhaps *infer* that this had something to
do with sin, but it could also be a physical illness or more likely a mental
one that Jesus cured.
Message: 77201
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (3/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:34:15
A key question is, were any two of these women -- or even all three -- one
and the same? There are, of course, three possibilities for pairing them.
They could all be different; or two of them could be the same. But if any
two pairings could be proven, then all three women are the same. The
authors note that Matthew, Mark and John all say Mary Magdalene was present
at the Crucifixion, but fail to mention Mary of Bethany -- which is curious
if she was a close follower of Jesus. But if these two were the same woman,
the absence of "Mary of Bethany" would be explained. She was there really.
I don't know of any evidence that Mary Magdalene was the same as the unnamed
"sinner" who washed and anointed Jesus' feet. The only thing I noticed to
suggest it is juxtaposition: Mary just happens to be mentioned at the
beginning of Luke 8, right after the anointing episode. But she is
introduced in quite a different context.
The authors suggest that this unnamed "sinner" was in fact Mary of Bethany,
who oddly enough is also described as anointing Jesus' feet with ointment of
spikenard, and wiping them with her hair -- this time in John 12:1-8.
Another interesting, though confusing, thing is that early Church tradition
seems to have regarded all three women as being different, as apparently the
Eastern church still holds today. (I have a friend who is Greek Orthodox.
I'll have to ask her if she knows anything about this the next time I talk
to her.)
Message: 77202
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (4/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:35:37
But in the sixth century, Pope Gregory I (inventor of the Gregorian chant)
declared that they were all one and the same. If this is the case, then the
anointing described by Luke is presumably identical with the anointing
described by John. Yet the latter took place in the house of Mary of
Bethany, Martha, and Lazarus, not that of a Pharisee; and the words
attributed to Jesus are different on each occasion. So if the same event is
being described, we would have to admit that the account in one of the
Gospels, at least, is not precisely true in every detail. (Unless, of
course, Lazarus was also a Pharisee!)
Whatever the truth of the matter is, there is no proof in the canonical
Gospels that Mary Magdalene was ever a prostitute. We take an awful lot for
granted that is simply tradition, perhaps introduced at a later time.
For that matter, I can't find anything in the Gospels to say that either
Jesus or Joseph was a carpenter. But we all "know" they were, so I suppose
it should be there somewhere. Does anybody know where?
The suggestion that Jesus was married does seem to strike people as
astounding, even blasphemous. Why should this be? There are two reasons.
The first seems to be the curious double standard about sex promulgated by
the Church. One half of the standard says that sex is perfectly all right
really; at least, it isn't a sin within the context of marriage.
Message: 77203
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (5/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:36:47
On this basis, what is sinful about Jesus being married?
But the other half of the standard suggests strongly, though not explicitly,
that sex is somehow tainted with more than a suggestion of "sin". Sex is
all right within marriage, yes; but only as long as it's intended for
procreation; or at least, as long as you do nothing to actively interfere
with the possibility of procreation. What we get out of that is that the
*primary* purpose of sex is not enjoyment. That is easily extended to the
notion that while sex itself is not sinful, *enjoyment* of sex is.
And it goes farther, because priests and nuns are not allowed to be married.
This sends a strong message that while sex is not *exactly* sinful, if you
want to be truly Godly, you had better abstain from it. If this is really
true, then being married would ruin Jesus' image.
Yet nowhere in the Bible does it say such things about sex, about the
enjoyment of sex, or about contraceptive practices. It is possible to infer
God's wish for us to "be fruitful and multiply"; but is this truly a
commandment, or is it simply an invitation? And the Bible does not command
anyone to celibacy. These are not Scriptural teachings, or the words of
Jesus. These teachings are added by the Church on the basis of weak and
dubious inferences from Scripture. If people feel the idea of Jesus being
married is blasphemous, it certainly isn't because Jesus would have been
contradicting his own message. The idea of blasphemy comes from elsewhere.
Message: 77204
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (6/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:37:42
The second reason people would be astonished -- shocked, even -- is the
obvious one: why on earth didn't the Gospels tell us? We don't know what
Jesus looked like physically, because the Gospels don't bother to tell us.
If we discovered evidence that Jesus had a scar on his face or a mole on his
arm, we wouldn't be surprised, merely fascinated. We wouldn't criticise the
Gospels for omitting such details. But being married is hardly a trivial
detail.
We could argue that the Gospels were forgetfully written, or clumsily
edited; that the writers took it for granted that everybody knew Jesus was
married and didn't need telling. They were written some time after Jesus'
life, many of the events having to be recalled from memory. There are other
places where the Gospels are vague, or inconsistent. All the same, I think
this is a feeble excuse for such a glaring omission.
I think there is evidence for a good deal of editing and rewriting of the
Gospels in early times. It it widely held that the first three "synoptic"
Gospels were partly constructed from an earlier, common source which is now
lost. We might ask why, and how, such a precious writing came to be lost.
The authors of the book also cite documentary evidence of a portion of the
Gospel of Mark that was deliberately suppressed.
Message: 77205
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (7/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:40:16
We know that a lot of selection went on in the fourth century when the Bible
as we know it today was compiled. It's not at all unreasonable to suppose
that the Church didn't confine its attention to omitting whole books, but
did a little editing on a smaller scale as well, to make the picture of
Jesus conform a little better to some of their prejudices about celibacy.
And also, incidentally, to avoid blaming the Romans for the Crucifixion and
dump all of the blame on the Jews. Some of this editing could account for
the vagueness in parts of the Gospels that give rise to the questions we
have today.
When I toured the Vatican, I saw the Sistine Chapel and all the usual
things. But I would love to have known what secrets might be hidden away in
vaults and archives only a couple of hundred feet away from where I stood.
Did Mary Magdalene have questionable morals? Possibly. But whether or not
she was the wife of Jesus, it is just as possible that she was a blameless
woman who has been unfairly slandered for fourteen hundred years or more.
If she was slandered, why do it? This is sheer speculation. If Jesus was
married, perhaps to brand her as a woman who was not fit to be Jesus' wife
and thus cast doubt on any belief in such a marriage. Or to portray her as
a temptress who destroyed (in the Church's eyes) the perfection of the
perfect Man, a kind of latter-day Eve.
Message: 77206
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Magdalene (8/8)
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 04:41:01
I have to add that there was a great deal more in the book that I can't
possibly go into here. Yet it is odd that the authors came under the most
vehement criticism, not from the Catholic church, but from the Protestant
church, Anglicans in particular. In contrast, the authors said that "an
important exfunctionary in the Catholic Church confided to us personally
that the upper echelons of his hierarchy (although they would never make a
public statement on the matter) privately acknowledged the plausibility, if
not the veracity, of our conclusions." And a person who *was* named -- Dr.
Malachi Martin, a former member of the Vatican's Pontifical Institute,
publicly conceded that "there was ultimately no real theological objection
to a married Jesus".
Message: 77207
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: odd couples
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 05:15:29
Roger Mann and Peter Petrisko. Rather odd couple, to say the least.
Message: 77208
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Roger Lantern/77179
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 05:19:02
You have slipped further than I ever thought possible with a comment like
that, Mr. Mann. In the words of the Master Himself: "By thy words thou shalt
be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Better be a bit
more careful how you speak, for one day you WILL give an account for every
idle word you speak.
Message: 77209
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi/cruising
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 05:24:19
According to last nights newscast, the grand prix garages on Washington St.
have been opened up to the cruisers for 4 weekends, and that's where they're
gathering to show off their cars and stereos. I think that the city has
blocked off southbound traffic on Central for that period also, which would
account for the lack of cars there.
Good to see you back, by the way.
Message: 77210
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi Marlin
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 05:32:29
Either you missed some of my messages and got a wrong impression, or you
just misread the ones you did read, or you have the wrong person.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone, male or female, pursuing a career
with al the success that their ability will permit them to achieve.
I do feel, however, that, should a couple decide to become a family, some
consideration must be given as to the proper rearing of the children. One of
the major problems with our youth today is the benign neglect that they
suffer through the lack of family strength and unity. Day care centers and
latchkey programs will never take the place of a secure home with at least
one parent available for instruction, discipline and love at all times. If
following motherhood as a fulltime, rewarding and productive career is
synonomous with being "doomed" to you, then please don't ever consider
becoming a parent, for the sake of any offspring you may produce. We have
all the kids without foundation, purpose or hope that we can handle now.
Message: 77211
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Gordon/last 8
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 05:47:00
You are obviously very well read, and have no doubt researched this topic
much more in detail than any of us here. I can respect that, and appreciate
your posts.
Having said that, though, I must say that my faith is grounded in th Word
of GOd, the Bible, and I do feel that, if Jesus was ever married, such an
important fact would not have been overlooked or ignored, nor would it have
been hidden in mysticism, such as is suggested in the questions concerning
the wedding feast at Caanan. According to Scripture, Jesus is never depicted
as the governor of the feast, but an attendee as a friend.
While it may be true that depicting Mary Magdalene as a prostitute may be
more tradition than Scripture, the supposition is certainly present in
Scripture.
I thank you for your presentation of the result of your study, but I think
it may point out the danger of allowing other writings to explain Scripture,
when all we really need is Scripture and faith to explain Scripture.
Message: 77212
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Glory be to Annie!
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 08:00:45
And, Ann, as I've told you in the past, you can buy magazines showing men
in, as you put it, "ALL their glory" at your neighborhood Circle K.
Message: 77213
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bill on glory
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 08:50:37
Uhhhh .. I don't think you know what I mean when I say -in all their glory!
Let me put it this way - not just naked in full view, but full blown in full
view! Got it? *]]] ANN O. [[[*
Message: 77214
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Full Blown for Ann
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 10:07:45
Yes, I DO understand. A specific suggestion awaits you in mail.
Message: 77215
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Religion
Subject: Gordon/Jesus
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 11:29:01
You are right, the subject of the bachelorhood of Jesus could be taken up on
its own. Check out the book _Was Jesus Married?_ (author forgotten)
Holy Blood, Holy Grail was an interesting, tortured conspiracy theory about
secret rulers of Europe and plots to place certain bloodlines onto certain
European thrones, as well as to put one onto the throne of Jerusalem as well
(therefor being part of the cause of the Crusades). As I recall, the "Jesus
was married" bit was used to say that he had a child, and that Joseph and
Mary traveled to England to keep it safe (being, as it was, the offspring of
royal Jewish blood (either through Mary or Jesus, depending upon which
Gospel you believe...) They also say that *this* was the Holy Grail - the
bloodline of Abraham and King David.
Message: 77216
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul/Jesus&Mary
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 11:42:16
Perhaps I should leave Gordon to take up the lance, but...
I thought Gordon did a good job of presenting the evidence about marriage
and the nature of Mary. Yet you dismiss them without addressing them.
As to relying on other sources than the Scripture in order to understand it,
where have you been when the apologists have been "interpreting" scripture
for us heathens? Why haven't you been decrying the addition of "historical
background" when all that we "really need is Scripture and faith to
understand Scripture" ? (I guess I'll not understand it anytime soon, eh?)
Reverend Beauregard Jackson Culpeper Dog, Colonel, CSA, retired
Message: 77217
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Joke
Subject: Speaking of members
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 14:13:58
I guess we know where Paul Rubens got his nickname, now.
Message: 77218
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul Reubens
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 15:59:10
His attorney couldn't figure out why he gave is stage name. Perhaps he was
looking for an excuse to stop doing the character?
Message: 77219
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Pornography
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 19:24:05
Getting 'turned on' is part of our physical nature, that is quite
true. However, Human beings are not like animals who have (and need)
no sense of intelligent responsibility toward the welfare of others.
They have no need to exercise restraint and moderation in their
sexual behavior. Human beings, not having inborn restraints against
any particular form of behavior, must largely substitute intelligence
for instinct. I outlined some of my objections in the original message.
There is NOTHING in pornography that promotes anything besides
selfish irresponibility.
I read a quote one time that said "sex is nice, but love is nicer".
Getting 'turned on' in itself is not necessarily evil-- but violence,
murder, burning buildings, and small children are what turn some people on.
Is that kind of thing healthy?
On the other hand, if you happen to get 'turned on' by your husband or
wife-- There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. (Calvinists and
ancient Catholic theologians to the contrary.)
Message: 77220
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Porno
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 19:26:56
If I were a pig or a dog, I would very likely be turned on by a pig or a
dog, especially at certain times of the year. How many dogs or pigs get
turned on by humans?
Message: 77221
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Religion
Subject: Gordon/Carpenter
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 20:03:30
On the occasion of Jesus' return to preach in Nazareth, where he had grown
up, Mattew records (Matt 13:54-56) records that they asked "is this not the
carpenter's son?". Mark (Mark 6:1-3) records that they asked "is this not
the carpenter?". Luke (Luke 4:22) records "Is this not the son of Joseph?".
Message: 77222
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Religion
Subject: Jesus' marriage.
Date: 07/28/91 Time: 20:14:36
The writers of the Gospels cannot be held responsible for recording
or omitting details that WE, centuries later, think important. We know
that Peter was married, because his wife's mother was healed by Jesus.
We infer that Paul was not, because of his advice to the unmarried
(widowers?) and widows. (He may have been widowed himself: He grew up
a 'strict Pharisee', and marriage was considered by them a religious duty.)
But other than that, supposing Jesus to have been married, unless she had
done anything unusual or prominent, or connected to some important event or
teaching, there would have been no reason to mention his wife. Great
portions of Jesus' life and youth are omitted, anyway.
I would be interested in your evidence that part of Mark was deliberately
suppressed, though.
Message: 77223
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: In search of
Subject: Everyone
Date: 07/29/91 Time: 01:25:33
God got your tongue?
Public Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit Chat
Subject:Paul/every last word
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:Gordon just gave us a million dollar education and all you can do is cop
2:out.
3:
4:Remember what happens when pearls are cast.
5:
6:And for your object of worship holding me accountable for "every last word"
7:I say....well good luck.
8:
9: Rod
10:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 77224
Public Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit Chat
Subject:Thad/pigs etc.
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:I don't know the answer to that one. What does the bible say about pigs and
2:goats being turned on by human animals?
3:
4:What about sheep?
5:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 77225
Public Bulletin Board command:RC77224-
Press [A] to abort
Message: 77224
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/every last word
Date: 07/29/91 Time: 02:43:54
Gordon just gave us a million dollar education and all you can do is cop
out.
Remember what happens when pearls are cast.
And for your object of worship holding me accountable for "every last word"
I say....well good luck.
Rod
Message: 77225
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Thad/pigs etc.
Date: 07/29/91 Time: 02:45:02
I don't know the answer to that one. What does the bible say about pigs and
goats being turned on by human animals?
What about sheep?
Public Bulletin Board command:G
Goodbye, Rod Williams
You were on 28:36
Content of this site is ©
Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.