Mary Magdalene - sister wife of Jesus

Dear All,


Never mind 'The Da Vinci Code', the biggest secret of the New Testament is not that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. No, the real explosive secret is that she was not only his wife but also his sister. '' She was Mary of Bethany, and thus the 'loved disciple', Lazarus, was Jesus' brother. (Lazarus was probably Judus, Jesus' brother - as in James, Jude, Joset and Simon.)

So why marry a sister, surely this is against the law in Leviticus? Perhaps, but Abraham married his sister and Lot married his daughters. King David also possibly married a daughter - Bathsheba, but the evidence here is complicated.

The reason for Jesus consumating a sister marriage is that he was from the line of Judah, and the line of Judah was the line of the Hyksos pharaohs of Egypt, as has been explained in another posting. The marriage of a pharaoh to a sister or a daughter was usual practice (even compulsory) among the Egyptian royalty, because the royal inheritance was through the female line (as it is in Judaism).


In Egyptian tradition the elder princess became God's Wife, and was also known as the Handmaiden of God. This was a very prestigious position. She served the god Atum by masturbating him with her hand, and thus ensuring the creation and regeneration of the world - hence the strange title of Handmaiden (sometimes more graphically called God's Hand). Because no sex was involved (as President Clinton claimed) the Egyptian princess was also called a Virgin.

This was the position of both New Testament Marys. Mary (Jesus' mother) was called the Handmaiden and Virgin because she was a Gods Wife, as in the ancient Egyptian tradition. Similarly, Mary Magdalene's name is actually an Egyptian name - Maktal, meaning 'tower'. But this name did not refer to a 'tower', as such, but a phallic symbol - as in the worship of the Old Testament Queen Maachah 1Ki 15:13. Hence Mary Magdalene was actually called Mary of the Penis (Atum's penis), and her role in the Temple was to masturbate the god Atum. This is perhaps confirmed by the reverse of Magdalene (the tower), which is Lingam, meaning penis.

This is also why Mary Magdalene was sometimes called a prostitute (pro-stitute). The term comes from the Latin 'pro statuere', meaning 'before the statue'. This describes her function precisely, because she stood before the statue of Atum and masturbated it to ensure the regeneration of the world.

You can imagine that the 'modern' Jewish / Christian priesthood (and Saul in particular) were appalled by all these 'pagan' rites, and sought to bury them in any way they could. Thus Mary Magdalene became a despised common prostitute and her marriage to Jesus was denied in every way possible. But married she was, and she therefore became the 'Grail', the bloodline holder and the 'vessel' for that bloodline's transmission. But this was not simply the line of Judah and King David, it was the royal line of the Egyptian pharaohs themselves that she was holding.

By denying and persecuting this royal line the Christian Church sought to destroy it - because it was a direct threat to the power of the Pope. Had a bloodline descendant of Jesus been able to stand up and be counted, they would have taken over the role and position of the Popes. By all means they had to be destroyed. But they were not destroyed, and it is more than likely that this Egyptian (and Jesus') royal blood flows through many of the modern European royal lines.

I bet Dan Brown won't use this material in his next book....


Regards
Ralph Ellis
Edfu Books




[edit on 29-8-2005 by ralphellis2]

ralphellis2
I am basing this posting on the name that you have decided to use as well as the signature that you have provided. My question to you is can you provide any proof of your claims? I do not mean the books that you have authored but other sources.
Since your reported background is being an airline pilot, I have serious misgivings in giving any of your claims any credence. Any prrof that you can provide to back up your theories would be greatly appreciated

Here is the information that I have been able to gather on you:



The Ralph Ellis Site

About Ralph Ellis by World Mysteries

[edit on 29-8-2005 by kenshiro2012]

By denying and persecuting this royal line the Christian Church sought to destroy it - because it was a direct threat to the power of the Pope.

Then why is there no such myth prior to there being a pope? And why is it that areas where the pope held no influence, like eastern europe, or the far eastern churches in iran and india, have no such myth either?

1. Sarah was not Abraham's sister. He SAID she was his sister, to keep Pharaoh from sleeping with her.

2. Sibling incest was/is extremely taboo in semitic society, partly because a marriage represents an economic alliance as well as the family unit. Fathers and brothers would be deprived of the bride-price traditionally paid during the ceremony. In Jewish parlance, allowing someone to sleep with your sister or daughter "uncovers the nakedness" of all the male relatives. It is inconceivable that a Semitic male would do this to himself.

3. "Magdalene" is a Hellenization of "Migdal" or tower in Aramaic. It is a Hebrew/Aramaic word that means a fortress which had a central tower. You use this as a launching pad for speculation about Egyptian religion. If the Magdalene were an Egyptian priestess, surely she'd have a name either in classical (Hametic) Egyptian, or the Colloquial Koine (Greek) of Ptolemaid Egypt. Ancient Egyptian was a Hametic language, and Koine was an Indo-European language, so why would this "priestess" have a Semitic patronymic.

4. It would be interesting to discover a Jewish woman would would be willing to masturbate an Egyptian God. One wonders what the other disciples would have thought, since the as Josephus writes, the Jews are a people apart, and will not even eat with the people of other nations . . . Why were all these jews following this dude who was doinking his egyptian apostate sister?

5. The idea that Jesus was married at all has been addressed at length in other threads here on ATS. Many who have read the gospels (whether believers or not) find that the texts do not portray Jesus as married; much less that he was married to a priestess of another religion, or even further that he married his own sister!

6. It is hard to imagine how open-minded those ancient pharisees were, letting a man married to an Egyptian priestess teach in the courts of the temple itself! More than Mary, it must be the Pharisees who are the victims of Christianity, since they are the paragon of narrow-minded-ness, and are portrayed by many as trying to have Jesus killed. And yet you say they let this incestuous idolater teach in the temple and teach in their synagogues. And here all this time we thought they were narrow-minded interpreters of Leviticus!

If the traditional texts are so untrustworthy in their accounts of Jesus' "real" life and teaching, then they can hardly be used as evidence in your own arguments. You'd be better off making your own myths out of whole cloth, instead of trying to twist a myriad of ancient documents to say the opposite of what they actually communicate.

If you want to do that, then go right ahead, and power to you. But your deconstructionist attempts to make the texts say whatever you want are unappealing to anyone who actually studies them and attempts to take them seriously as historical documents in their own right. You have to deny too much evidence, and make up too many myths of your own.

Originally posted by ralphellis2
. . .In Egyptian tradition the elder princess became God's Wife, and was also known as the Handmaiden of God. This was a very prestigious position. She served the god Atum by masturbating him with her hand, and thus ensuring the creation and regeneration of the world - hence the strange title of Handmaiden (sometimes more graphically called God's Hand). Because no sex was involved (as President Clinton claimed) the Egyptian princess was also called a Virgin.

emphasis added.

I was going to refute your stuff line by line, but you saved me the trouble. This one paragraph shows what is wrong with your whole line of "reasoning."

You amazing person, don't you realize that "Handmaid" is an artifact of King James' English?????

The Hebrew term (Psalms 86:16, 116:16, Proverbs 30:23 et al) is from the tri-consonantal root "A-M-H" and simply means any female slave. The semitic root for "hand" is "Y-D." The letters Yod and Dalet do not occur in the word translated by the KJV as "handmaid." Your handmaid doesn't in fact have any hands.

The King James "handmaid " refers to any female house-servant, as opposed to a "field-hand," (another english term.) The context of Proverbs 30:23 alone should have taught you that much.

But then your mind is off on a wild goose-chase; you don't seem to care a fig about the truth-value of any or your statements, as long as it exposes some "long supressed facts."

What a joke. The tragedy is that on this here infoweb, some well-meaning people will assume your ideas have equal merit with anyone else's, merely because you try to present your views authoritatively. Sadly, many of them will develop the same oblivious-to-the-truth attitude that inspires so much gnosticism today.



[edit on 29-8-2005 by dr_strangecraft]

...more effort to make Jesus look bad...all this effort really makes me think that 'the time is near'!!!

>>Then why is there no such myth prior to there being a pope? And why is it
>>that areas where the pope held no influence, have no such myth either?

If it makes it easier to understand, delete 'Pope' and replace this with 'Church'. The main problem in the early Church was Saul, the inventor of Christianity. He was the persecutor of the Church of Jesus and James and sought to destroy it even while he promoted his own version of it.




>>1. Sarah was not Abraham's sister. He SAID she was his sister, to
>>keep Pharaoh from sleeping with her.

Yes she was his sister. Read Gen 20:12 'And yet indeed she is my sister...'
She was said to be a half-sister (which was also taboo), but since she looked so much like Abraham, it is likely that she was his full sister.

The biblical account does not make much sense in its current format. What is more likely is that Abraham did not want the (Theban) pharaoh to know that Sarah was his wife and his sister - for this would give the game away that he was a pharaoh himself (northern Hyksos pharaoh). Abra-ham may have been the Hyksos Pharaoh Mam-Aybre.





>>2. Sibling incest was/is extremely taboo in semitic society.

Among the plebians perhaps, but as I have demonstrated, it was not so taboo for the 'royalty'. It has also become taboo in later Christianity, but much of this is due to opposition parties. The easiest way to kill off a royal family that must practice incest (according to Egyptian traditions) is to outlaw incest.



>>3. "Magdalene" is a Hellenization of "Migdal" or tower in Aramaic. Ancient
>>Egyptian was a Hametic language, and Koine was an Indo-European language,
>>so why would this "priestess" have a Semitic patronymic.

And the Aramaic and Hebrew word migdal was derived from the ancient Egyptian word maktal, also meaning 'tower'. The Egyptian princess was using a 'Semitic' title because Hebrew is a daughter language of Egyptian. Naturally, most Semitic names would have an Egyptian ancestry.





>>4. It would be interesting to discover a Jewish woman would would be
>>willing to masturbate an Egyptian God.

Err, I think you have missed the point. The Jews were originally Egyptians (see thread on the Hyksos and Israelites). Thus during the first century AD, some sects within Judaism were still clinging to the original Egyptian belief systems, but in secret. This is not so dissimilar to modern Freemasonry, where many temples are overtly Egyptian in character, decoration and content of the ritual, and the brothers still conduct their ceremonies in secret.

Jesus was probably an Egyptian prince in exile. He was of royal blood, and educated in Egypt. His title of Carpenter was possibly based upon the pharaonic title of Setepenre, meaning God's Carpenter. It is also likely that he was the Egyptian False Prophet mentioned in the Bible and Josephus.




>>Many who have read the gospels (whether believers or not) find
>>that the texts do not portray Jesus as married.

The marriage at Cana was clearly Jesus' wedding.




>>It is hard to imagine how open-minded those ancient pharisees were, letting
>>a man married to an Egyptian priestess teach in the courts of the temple itself!

Much as we will allow senior Freemasons to move from an Egyptian-style temple to a Christian church and conduct a service. Some senior clerics are Freemasons.




>>If the traditional texts are so untrustworthy in their accounts of Jesus' "real"
>>life and teaching, then they can hardly be used as evidence in your own arguments.

It is not so much that they are untrustworthy, more misinterpreted.




>>You amazing person, don't you realize that "Handmaid" is an
>>artifact of King James' English?

Of course it was, and a fine job they made of it too. Your comparison with field-hand is incorrect, for 'hand' in this context means 'person'. Under your argument 'handmaid' would become 'young lady person', which means nothing. In fact, the similes to handmaid are actually: milkmaid, housemaid, nursemaid, and lady'smaid. So what was the hand in handmaid used for?



>>The Hebrew term (Psalms 86:16, 116:16, Proverbs 30:23 et al) is
>>from the tri-consonantal root "A-M-H" and simply means any female slave.

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. The Greek used 'doulos'.





>>more effort to make jesus look bad...

Look bad?? He was a prince of Egypt, the head of one of the most illustrious royal families on the planet; a holder of arcane secrets and traditions that have endured through the millennia. In what way is that bad??



Cheers
Ralph Ellis
Edfu Books
www.edfu-books.com

Originally posted by ralphellis2The main problem in the early Church was Saul, the inventor of Christianity. He was the persecutor of the Church of Jesus and James and sought to destroy it even while he promoted his own version of it.

I don't see there being a 'problem' at all with the very early and true church--it was replaced by those who did promote their own version--but these were not Paul.

She was said to be a half-sister (which was also taboo), but since she looked so much like Abraham, it is likely that she was his full sister.

What does that have to do with your theory about Jesus and the Magdalene? How can you prove your own theory with something found in scripture--which is a theory totally unfounded according to scripture in the first place?

You can write all the books you want, but it won't get any closer to making your circular logic into a straight line.

The biblical account does not make much sense in its current format.

What you are offering is not any better --in fact even more far out than the actual truth (which is deeper than the pages of any book or human mind)

Abra-ham may have been the Hyksos Pharaoh Mam-Aybre.

And the Priest Ezra might have been Alexander the Great--they died the same year, after all!!

The Egyptian princess was using a 'Semitic' title because Hebrew is a daughter language of Egyptian.

This is absolute conjecture--a look into linguistics would prove this . There seems to be three roots of language--one of which gave rise to Hebrew, one becoming Egyptian heiroglyphics, and the third becoming sanskrit.

Hebrew and Egyptian are far more different than similar. Hence the Rosetta Stone's value as the key to ancient languages.

Err, I think you have missed the point. The Jews were originally Egyptians (see thread on the Hyksos and Israelites).

You cannot present one of your own theories as proof for another one of your own theories.

It is not so much that they are untrustworthy, more misinterpreted.

Good point. Did you hear it?

>>You amazing person, don't you realize that "Handmaid" is an
>>artifact of King James' English?

Of course it was, and a fine job they made of it too. Your comparison with field-hand is incorrect, for 'hand' in this context means 'person'. Under your argument 'handmaid' would become 'young lady person', which means nothing. In fact, the similes to handmaid are actually: milkmaid, housemaid, nursemaid, and lady'smaid. So what was the hand in handmaid used for?



>>The Hebrew term (Psalms 86:16, 116:16, Proverbs 30:23 et al) is
>>from the tri-consonantal root "A-M-H" and simply means any female slave.

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. The Greek used 'doulos'.



Again, neither "amah" (Hebrew) nor "doulos"(Greek) contain the word for hand.

Hand in Hebrew is "yod." In Greek it's chieros. Neither appears for the word "Handmaiden." which is an English word.

You butcher of etymology, you.

Read Genesis 20:13 (the next verse after your cite) where Abram tells how he begged Sarah to lie and PRETEND to be his sister.

Butcher of context as well.

Jesus was never married. His sole purpose was to sacrifice Himself, and somehow I don't think marriage was in His plans.

My understanding is that the royals like to claim that they're descended from Jesus and therefore from David so as to legitimize their "divine right" claim. I found this out while studying genealogy (I'm descended from the Plantagenet kings).

Fritz Springmeier calls them the Merovingian bloodline, because they're descended from a French king, Merovee. Legend has it that Merovee had two fathers (obviously that's a load of hooey).

As much as that sounds somewhat nifty, I'm not descended from Jesus. No one is.

Have any of you posters and members seen Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ?
It offers even the most devout or agnostic something to think about..

Originally posted by siriuslyone
Have any of you posters and members seen Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ?
It offers even the most devout or agnostic something to think about..

Ugh. No. Just no way.

Personally, I think that movie helped pave the way for the "Jesus married Mary" heresy. Like we're being conditioned or something.

If you are a Christian - and I am - you believe that God the Son, the Word of the Lord - was born as a man to suffer and die to redeem us all from sin.

If you are a agnostic, humanist, or atheist, you might argue that Christ was a radical Essene, bent on reforming a corrupt and worldly Jewish society.

Theory one indicates that Christ lived as a man so that His sacrifice might have meaning - in that God so loved us that He was willing to suffer for us. While we don't know what happened in Christ's life for a significant span of time, I see no indication that marriage was likely. Think about it. Why would God subject a wife and child to the Passion? To found an earthly line descended from the Divine? Please. The Old Testament is the story of how God influenced the line of Man that would be worthy of producing the Mother of the Lamb. After the Passion, Christ created a line of God's true children - the congregation of believers of the Word.

Theory two also disposes with the concept of marriage. Essenes were acetics who frowned upon human entanglements like marriage. They were celibate and chaste. Humanist intepretations of the New Testament focus on Christ's injunction to His followers to 'leave your families' and to place the family of God over the family of one's birth.

I am the heir of Christ. All those who believe in His Word and embrace the Faith are His heirs. He has no use for heirs of His body. That is not what He came here for.

Could Christ have had neices and nephews? Likely. I cannot understand why Mary and Joseph wouldn't have had children. There are many who believe that th apostle John was likely a brother. Assuming this is true ... so what?

Thanks for reading ....

So why marry a sister, surely this is against the law in Leviticus? Perhaps, but Abraham married his sister and Lot married his daughters. King David also possibly married a daughter - Bathsheba, but the evidence here is complicated.

Uhh...I've read several different versions of the Bible, and can't seem to verify any of this. Lot's daughters even said amongst themselves that they needed to carry on the family name. In the absense of any men to marry, they each took turns seducing their father while he was asleep. Sorry, that doesn't constitute a marriage. As previously posted, Abraham said his wife was his sister to keep the Pharoah away from her.

As for David and Bathseba, I'm still looking into it, but didn't he actually first see her while she was taking a bath, (in a tub on top of her own house no less, away from prying eyes.)

David happened to be on the top floor of his palace when he spied her. and then had to inquire as to who she was, whether or not she was married (She was.) and then had a general send her husband into the heat of battle, insuring his death, so David could have a shot at her?

Sounds like you need to study less and stick to stories as they're written.

Originally posted by ralphellis2
>>You amazing person, don't you realize that "Handmaid" is an
>>artifact of King James' English?

Of course it was, and a fine job they made of it too. Your comparison with field-hand is incorrect, for 'hand' in this context means 'person'. Under your argument 'handmaid' would become 'young lady person', which means nothing. In fact, the similes to handmaid are actually: milkmaid, housemaid, nursemaid, and lady'smaid. So what was the hand in handmaid used for?

Some of your theories are interesting, but this seems way off the mark. I think the accepted definition of "hand" in this context is as an assistant or servant, not a "person". To be "at hand", to wait "at hand", etc.

handmaiden

One entry found for handmaiden.
Main Entry: hand·maid·en
Pronunciation: -"mA-d&n
Variant(s): also hand·maid /-"mAd/
Function: noun
1 : a personal maid or female servant
2 : something whose essential function is to serve or assist


It's simile would be 'handservant'.

I really don't think masturbating statues of gods was in the handmaiden's job description..

[edit on 11/30/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]

Christ didn't come down from heaven to get married and have kids.
He came down for spiritual reasons. Etherial - not carnal.
It makes no sense for Him to have been married. His public life
was three short years. WAY too short to balance a career, family,
kids, apostles, teaching, traveling, etc. etc.

His mission was spiritual, not carnal.

No, the real explosive secret is that she was not only his wife but also his sister. '' She was Mary of Bethany, and thus the 'loved disciple', Lazarus, was Jesus' brother. (Lazarus was probably Judus, Jesus' brother - as in James, Jude, Joset and Simon.)

The term sister-wife, as far as I know, is not to be taken literally. When Christians in the ancient world went abroad to spread the word, they could not travel in packs of men, it would have been very, very bad for relations (they would almost certainly have been taken for bandits).

There was also no chance of a single woman going by herself, for many reasons that should be obvious. So if a woman wanted to spread the word, it behooved her to find a man to take along.

The term sister-wife is in reference to a woman who plays the social role of wife, and also the Christian role of sister. There is no sex, no marriage, only the appearance of a relationship to protect the woman from slander.

This is also why Mary Magdalene was sometimes called a prostitute (pro-stitute). The term comes from the Latin 'pro statuere', meaning 'before the statue'. This describes her function precisely, because she stood before the statue of Atum and masturbated it to ensure the regeneration of the world.

That's pretty far-fetched. Any woman who was unmarried and out in public associating with men would have been called a prostitute, a whore. I think you're way off the deep end on this line of reasoning. Why neglect the explanation that fits and take hold of the ludicrous one?

The social stigma that surrounded unmarried women was something Jesus probably scoffed at. This would explain the nature of his relationship to Mary. She was a disciple, after a fashion, not a lover (I don't think).

I just finished a very well written book called Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, by a guy named Crossan. Check it out, I highly reccomend it.

Maybe you´ll find that Lazarus was his brother in law and Not his brother, and for sure her NOT his sister, there are more clues in the wedding at caanan....

[snip]



[edited out harrassment and baiting of another member -nygdan]

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Nygdan]

LOL! It is funny how people will take the words and turn them to make out some other "truth" than what it says. The concept that Christ was married to begin with is totally conjured falseness. To suggest that He sinned is to deny is Diviness. Of course,that is the total aim in these fictions; to deny His Diviness. Therein lies the continuing conspiracy, and here is yet another member.

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

ralphellis2 i read this and it makes alot of sense.

The original christianity is long gone

Ill try to dig up some facts from another article about the pope. Wich is not in english but ill do my best on translating it partially.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The very first pope (the pope is really just the Bishop of Rome) was Petrus wich Jesus is said to have chosen as a decendant of his workings.

When Petrus several years after the death of Jesus came to Rome, he then becomes the leader of the towns small christian assembly. Since Petrus had personally known Jesus he gets the highest status. The assebly consisted in its beginning mostly of converted juish people. Later on the lions share became people who had abandon the official gods of Rome.

The Emperor of Rome did not like this and started hunting down christians. When there was a great fire and a big part of Rome burned to the ground (in year 64), Nero used this fire accusing christians of starting it. And started mass executions of christians. Even thought rumor had it that the fire was really Neros workings.

At this time (most likley in the year 67) Petrus was one of the executed it says the he was crucified upside down, a thing he asked for himself since he felt unworthy dying the same way Jesus had. The exceution took place at Campus Vaticanus, the location where the Vatican is located today. It says that hes buried below the altar in the Peters church.

The christians in Rome was hunted mercilessly, in the year 299 churches was torn appart, books where burned, christians where not to be employed and was to be tortured, imprisoned and finally executed.

The turningpoint for christianity was in the year 311. Cesare (Emperor) Galerius at his deathbed regret his actions and made a law of tolerance wich ended cruelty against christians and supported freedom of beliefs.

The next year Konstantin follows saying that he in a dream sees himself winning under a sign of christ (a cross?). Konstantin won the battle and became ruler of the Western Roman Empire. Licinus is the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire and also gives his support to christianity. In the year 324 the Konstantin once again is in battle and now he conquers the Eastern Roman Empire from Licinus and becomes Cesare over all of Rome.

Konstantin gives the christian church alot of priviliges. He built the Grave(?) Church in Jerusalem and first Peters Church in Rome amd also gives the Lateran Palace to the church. On his deathbead year 337 Knstantin became the first baptised Emperor. He was now also a holy regent and was above the bishop of rome wich later became titled as the pope.

The situation for roms christians had now totally reversed, from a small hunted sect without a church to a worldreligion.

The christian god had changed almost as much from a loving forgiving god, he now becomes alot more demanding and punishing god.
Now mercy was no longer free you had to work for it.

The Pope, Bishops and Prists was starting to feel above the people, wich they where now to judge - even thought Jesus had missioned against the peoples right to judge others.

This new hard line is emphatized even more by Gregorius I (590-604) who *invented* purgatory, where the deceased should now be cleansed from the sins he had not paied for when alive. Later you get the avlatsletters (bad translation??) that you could buy to shorten your time in purgatory.

Gregorious now gets alot of coin for the church this way. And their finances starts looking alot better.

Dead pope on trial
Its a wintersday in 897 and the court is assembled in the Peters Church. A pale thing in a pope dress is getting accusations thrown at him.. Why have you bishop Formosus agreed to be Pope when you are also bishop in Porto ? A bishop was not to accept or buy another office. Formosus does not say one word, he is dead and have been dead for 9 months. The new pope Stefan VI has had him dug up, put on his pope clothing on and put him on trial wich is now going on for 3 days. Hes poply dignity (bad translation?) is now taken from him, all the bishops that he has choosen is now out of office. Then the priests tear the pope clothing from Formosus body chops of his three blessing fingers and finally throws the body into the Tiber.

Year 880-1046
The french kingdom wich protected the pope was in chaos, the same could be said of rome and its church. It was the Nobility that was in charge. The church offices could be bought and sold in these years there was 39 popes. They had apperently a hard time living up to their high status. Every third pope was either inprisoned, banished or killed. A few was only a few weeks in their office. Among the worst is Johannes XII, he not only took his dead fathers wife to his bed but also his sister. And was accused of raping without prejudice. People he didnt like where castraded or got their eyes stuck out. Johannes and the escapeds of popes before him had put the church finances and its reputation was in ruins.

Eventually it was too much for the young king of the German-Roman Empire. Henrik III stood with three bishops who claimed the rights to be pope - everyone of roman nobility. The King decided to start new and choose a pope who should act as Petrus decendant and crown himself as Emperor. Since the pope Leo III in year 800 had crowned Karl the Great in Peters Church it had been the popes legal right to crown the regent of the roman empire. Formally the pope was above the rulers of nations.
The new pope was Clemens II who died the following year.

In 1048 Leo IX starts its reformation popehood, the church was now once again to be governed centrally from Rome. Now its once again forbidden to trade churchly offices....................
-------------------------

There is also the story of how the church gets its own Nation the Vatican.. but now im running out of time before getting to work.. anyway i think ive got most of the history of the pope here if anyone is interessted. Myself i think its mostly a big farce.. and there is probably nothing left of the roots of this religion today, its been used so much for greed and hunger for power that i can't see how anytone that knows its history is willing to submit to something like this and call themself a christian.

Edit: spelling


[edit on 30-11-2005 by SilverSurfer]