Customer Reviews

The Two Marys: The Hidden History of the Mother and Wife of Jesus

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

Sylvia Browne's book titled The Two Marys undoubtedly deals with a controversial topic- that Mary, Jesus' mother, and Mary Magdalene who became Jesus' wife and mother of his children - were two women who played a significant part in his life and in religious history when women were thought to be illiterate and only good for bearing children and keeping the house. According to Browne's account, Jesus respected and honored the women in his life and involved them in his teaching about God the Father who is loving, compassionate, and kind rather than the vengeful God of the Old Testament.

For those who follow the Bible religiously, Browne's book will challenge them to think and perhaps even anger them as she questions the origins of Christianity and how much impact the Council of Nicaea in 325 had in shaping the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Browne questions whether other gospels once existed and were destroyed to perpetuate a religion which controls through fear and intimidation.

Browne suggests that people today should live their lives with good intentions as they seek spirituality and not be intimidated by religious dogma and man-made rules. She states that "God doesn't care about what religion you practice or whether or not you practice any religion at all, as long as it makes you happy and more spiritual" (p. 168).

How does all of this relate specifically to the two Marys? Browne makes it perfectly clear that through her research she has determined that Jesus' mother was his protector who listened for information that could harm him and interrupt his teachings. Magdalene, on the other hand, was Jesus' confidante, wife, and the one destined to carry on his teachings when his job had ended.

Rather than a scathing assault on Christianity, Browne requests that the reader think and not judge. Is everything in any historical document absolutely correct? Is there any way we can validate stories that originated in the oral traditions and were only written in later years?

Reading this book will either reinforce your current beliefs in the teachings about Christianity or challenge you to look at new evidence and make your own decisions. Either way, Browne suggests that the choice is yours. Jesus said to his disciples, "He who has ears to hear let him hear" (p. 186). The same is true for readers who have to come to terms with their beliefs and either refute or accept what Browne purports. Either way, this book is exceptional reading because in 7 chapters the reader walks through religious history and perhaps learns answers to questions that were always left to interpretation.

Read the book first, and then make your own conclusions about the validity of what's written in religious history. Contemporary man is blessed with the right to free choice and independent thought. Rather than spending time debating whether the information presented in this book is true or false, work on becoming the best person you can be in your "thoughts, actions, and deeds" (p. 168) which is the path to Godliness and eternal glory. If this book doesn't answer your questions, move on to another. Rather than spend time with negative thoughts, read what reinforces your beliefs and makes you stronger in your faith.

I found this an interesting book. It is fairly quick reading and speaks about how information on both Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene have been surpressed by the church over the years and some of that information which, although cannot be proven as yet, it cannot be disproven as yet. It provides some insight on the teachings and life of Jesus and the 2 Marys, based on other material, based on interpretation of some bible passages, and filled in by Francine (Sylvia's Guide). Part of the information provided is that Jesus was married to Mary and they had children. It also speaks to the crucifiction and events preceeding and following the crucifiction. It vindicates Judas and speaks highly of Joseph of Aramethia. It speaks of Peter as a tad jealous of Jesus' attention to Magdalene. I don't think that anyone would disagree that the church's focus on the importance of men over women is highly bias toward men, even today--but especially back in the time of Jesus. That could certainly be a viable reason why the important involvement of the 2 Marys would be deminished or completely hidden. Obviously, I cannot tell you if the information provided is all truth, or even some truth. You must search within yourself for the answers. What I can say is that it sounds reasonably logical to me. It makes sense to me. I enjoyed it and I will be sharing the book with some friends. Have you ever asked yourself so many times, "Where is the rest?" "What did Jesus do in between about age 13 and 33?" "Why don't you ever hear anything about Mother Mary and Joseph?" "Was Mary Magdalene really a wxxxx?" "Why would Judas betray Jesus?--for money? That doesn't make sense." Well, this book is an attempt to plug up some of the information holes.

Now if you are a devout Catholic and do not want to hear something different than you have been told over the years, do NOT get this book. On the other hand, if you are searching for answers, and are open to other possibilities than those which the church has historically taught, you may be interested in this book.

Note: please be sure to read the 3rd and 4th post (from Jeri) on this review and my comments. Jeri makes some excellent comments in Jeri's review.

By the way, on the same subject matter of Mary Magdalene, I liked the book "St. Mary Magdalene: The Gnostic Tradition of the Holy Bride by Tau Malachi" better than Sylvia's book.

Sylvia Brown is not a good writer. Her book is rambling and often off topic (which she apologizes for). There are too many personal references and comparisons of her own experiences with that of Jesus and Mary. And, the insertion of her own church information reads as a recruitment ad for her religion in the midst of a book about the two Mary's. She even includes a list of 23 tenets of her religion in the appendix. I expected more "channeled" info from her guide, Francine, but instead it's a bunch of hypothesizing by Sylvia Brown on what she thinks based on her reading of the bible and the codices from the Nag Hammadi Library.

The author tries to recreate a new side to the life of Mary.
Both Mary and Joseph were royals from the Davidian lineage.
Contrary to Church teachings, Jesus and Magdalene were wed
at Cana. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is understood to be
Christ's teachings through the brilliance of its author.
The book explains how Christ taught Mary the complicated
area of prophecy.

A section contrasts how Gnostics believed in a G-d of light and
darkness. Theologically, the Council of Nicea affirmed that
Jesus was created by G-d and not G-d. The concept of death is
seen as a return to home.

Lastly, the author rejects the theory of an Apocalypse.
This is better news than the prophecies of Nostradamus or
Edgar Cayce. Overall, the book is interesting reading for a wide constituency of readers. It does not comport with Church teachings
in a number of areas. Nonetheless, the book is a good starting
point for a debate among biblical scholars.

This is a must read for anyone who is seeking the truth. I always had a feeling that what we have all been taught just did not seem right. After reading many of Sylvia's books and especially the two marys, the information feels right. It greatly helps with my spiritual growth.

I have never written a review and have always liked Sylvia Browne very much so I found writing this difficult. I have read so very many of her books and enjoyed seeing her on TV. I have read quite a bit about the Dead Sea Scrolls, Naj Hammadi Library and the Essene people and am aware that there is a wealth of new knowledge that is coming out now that we have been unaware of that was not in our original Bible in the past 1700 years. And other authors have put it into print showing the differences of the texts and indicating that it could be rather controversial with the way most of our traditional Christian teachings taught us.

It should be no surprise that early civilizations were patriarchial in nature which would explain why the two Mary's had so little said about them, and which was why I was so curious to read this book. Much of what I'd read before pointed out that both Mary's were raised as Essenes which were one of the few Jewish sects to treat women as equals, unlike the more Orthodox sects.

Ms. Browne pointed out that both Mary's were very close and loved Jesus very much and stuck by his side at all times. But the point that kept coming over over and over and over, that she seemed to have a hard time letting of, was what appeared to be a true ANGER relating to "RELIGIOUS DOGMA" as she said so often, especially that of the Christians. I found that anger also in her book about the Secret Societies too.

I am the first to admit that it's true that many have been killed senselessly in the name of God...as they have been for politics, skin color, influence, race etc....but I found myself saying outloud while listening to this audio book "COME ON AND GET TO THE POINT! CUT TO THE CHASE!!!! ENOUGH WITH THIS!!!!! THIS IS ONE BIG EDITORIAL ON YOUR FEELINGS OF ANGER AGAINST CHRISTIAN DOGMA! I want to hear about Mary and Mary....not how you think the Catholic Church has destroyed the world in 1700 years!!!!! "

If she was trying to point out the perfection of Marys and Jesus, her anger against the flaws of Christianity clouded the entire meaning and made me stop listening before it was over! I have NEVER DONE THAT WITH ANY OTHER AUDIO BOOK!

Maybe Ms. Browne should look a little further into Jesus's teachings...about JUDGE NOT LEST SHE BE JUDGED!

Sylvia Browne fans....do yourself a favor...Skip this one...

Human mind hates emptiness. Often, when there is not enough information, some gladly make up some fantasies. Some can spin tales better than the others.

This book has problems with simple facts. Mary the mother of Jesus is venerated as co-savior (the other savior is Jesus)in the Catholic church. Mary Magdalene was and is the most prominent saint there. Also Mary Magdalene in the Orthodox church was venerated as a virtuous woman from the very beginning, and still is very treated as such. So, why to speak about Christianity "covering up their virtues?" Is Christianity Protestant, Catholic and Gnostic only?

This book claims historical accuracy.The "facts", the author claims were handed down by her so-called "spirit guide," therefor they must be true, right?

The author doesn't know enough about the traditions of the other churches. Can't expect Sylvia Browne to know Greek, or Slavonic? Of course not, but some basics about the church itself, or other less prominent churches? Surely she could do some research. Orthodox tradition is a black hole for her, as for the most writers writing about Mary Magdalene. Or what about Mary Magdalene and the Gnostic tradition? As another reviewer, Jeri, already pointed out, sacred sex and gnosticism in Southern France doesn't make sense. Or even sex among the prominent Gnostics.The very idea of Mary Magdalene having sexual union and the offspring could shock the Gnostics in Southern France during times when Cathars were flourishing there, as sexuality and procreation was a disgusting thing for them. This is historical fact, folks. I am not the only one who claims it, knows it.Not much effort to find this out.

Is author conscious about theories and legends that Mary Magdalene moved and lived and died in Greece? (Or England). The tradition dealing with Greece is the most plausible from all three. (But I don't care). Or why Sylvia Browne does know so little about Council of Nicaea? Too many mistakes in this book to be taken seriously.

This is just another book which claims historical accuracy, which goes so: believe me, because I had visions/my spirit told me so. It is just too much to ask a reader fully capable of his/ her own logical thinking to believe in any writer's own perceptions of reality:that what he/she perceives as logical facts based on his/her perceptions of inner reality must be really true. Inner realities, like night dreams, are unreal and shouldn't be forced upon others to believe as truth just because one believes them to be true for some personal reason.

You can ask readers to be open minded, but it is not fair to ask them to be gullible.Asking for gullibility it is just asking too much, it is just a sophist's greed to take away some bits of free judging ability we all posses as human ebings. And this book blatantly expects readers not as much to be open minded, but to be straight gullible.What a shame.

This book is is also an ad for Sylvia Bowne's own church. She advertises for it openly, the church of Novus Spiritus, at the end of the book. Nothing better than than the old story: bashing the other churches in order to promote ones own.

If Browne wants to start her own religion, fine. Why does she have to do it by lying about other people's religion?

Browne says both Mary and Magdalene "were wealthy" (p3). This is untrue. The emperor Domitian had Jesus' family dragged to Rome and examined. They were all very poor. Also, the gospels insist Jesus' family was poor.

Browne said their house "was furnished with lovely handmade furniture" (p 9). Jewish homes of the time had almost no furniture.

Jesus and Magdalene were married at Cana (p 11). So why didn't John mention this in his gospel? Browne says "Early church fathers thought that if Jesus was married it would somehow take away or question his divinity" (p 12). Why? Jewish priests married. All the pagan gods married.

"The Church removed and added to the New Testament..." (p 12). Untrue, and easy to disprove. We have many fragments of the gospels dating throughout the early centuries and not a single one differs in any way from the gospels we have now. So there weren't any changes.

Browne says the early Christians HAD to claim Jesus was God because "Without that divinity, they would have had no church and no religion" (p 12). A ridiculous claim. The early Christians were persecuted. So why would they agree to persecution and death if they didn't think Jesus was God? Nero had them lit like torches to burn to death while people watched. And Christians were forbidden to lie, cheat, see the theater or visit the notorious games, they were told to live chaste lives and plus they had to give money to the poor (read the "Didache"). So Browne is claiming early Christians had to claim Jesus was God so they would have a church and a religion and all to be murdered and asked to lead a difficult life. Makes no sense at all.


"Many passages were added (especially the Book of Matthew)" (p 12). All the evidence proves this is untrue. And why pick on the gospel of Matthew? Very strange.

"The Gnostic way was to gather in groups of devoted followers, and Christ certainly had Gnostic leanings" (p 14). Untrue. This is a claim Browne makes again and again, and it's nonsense. The first gnostic school began a hundred years after the death of Jesus. Pretty hard for Jesus to have had gnostic leanings before any school of gnosticism existed. Browne needs to read "A Separate God" the best book on gnosticsm.

"Mary and Magdalene were also beautifully dressed" (p 21). Again, we have proof Jesus came from a poor family. And how much sense does it make for Christ to tell everyone the poor will inherit the earth when his mother and "wife" were swanking around in ritzy clothes?

Mary had many friends and relatives...many of these friends and relatives were Gnostics, and as Christ's teachings were of a Gnostic nature, they were welcomed in not only Orthodox Jewish households but also in communities like Qumran" (p 23). All nonsense. There were no gnostics at that time. Plus, no believing Jew of the period would have "welcomed" anyone who believed in the dual gnostic gods. The Jews of the time were fierce monotheists and 1,300,000 died in the Jewish war against the Romans in 70 AD as proof.

"Jesus appealed to a wide range of the Jewish community" (p 23). Funny thing about their killing him then.

"Many people think Jesus was illiterate because he didn't go to a formal school" (p 27). Nonsense. The Jews had been ordered to give all young men schooling about 100 years before Jesus. Francine needs to pick up a copy of "Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus".

Francine, Browne spirit guide says (p 28) Jesus wrote many books. Untrue, or we would have heard of them.

"Take note that Jesus never publicly professed he was the Messiah except for his talk with the Samaritan woman" (p 28). Untrue. Francine needs to pick up a biblical commentary.

"In truth, the Catholic church was very slow in its recognition of Mary" (p 34) before the 1900s. Funny thing about there being all those churches named after her then.

"As fragmentary as the Gospel of Mary is, it...has brought some new insights into our view of the apostles, the teachings of Jesus and of course Mary Magdalene" (p 38). Untrue. It was written 2-300 years after the death of Christ. Why would something written centuries after these people lived have "insight"? Scholars are interested, of course, but only because these fragments enlighten us as to the cults of the late Roman empire.

"All the Marian visions attributed to Mary were in actuality visions of Anza" (p 39). Untrue. Mary said she was Mary.

Francine says that Jesus didn't die on the cross. "Pilate had met with Joseph, Jesus and Judas" (p 46) to plot it out. Untrue. Browne gives no clue as to why Pilate would want to save Jesus, and I love imagining Pilate explaining in Rome why he didn't kill a man who claimed to be a king.

"The soldiers who nailed him to the cross made sure that no arteries were pierced" (p 47)--since Roman soldiers were so medically acute--"and gave him a footrest so that he could breathe." Browne doesn't realize that there were at least three types of Roman crucifixion, and that recent scholarship casts doubt on the suffocation theory. The only type you could survive for days was the type where you were tied to the cross with ropes. When they used the five inch nails you died quickly.

"Most people believe that Jesus met his disciples in his glorified body...If that was the case, why did he still have his wounds" (p 49)? If Jesus were pierced by five inch nails he couldn't have met anyone 3 days later and convinced them he had risen in a glorified body. Without proper antibiotics, he would have festering wounds. His back would be blistered and bleeding from the scourging. He couldn't have walked at all.

"As most researchers take the position at the present time that there is no incontrovertible proof that Jesus married Magdalene" (p 65). A very strange way of putting it. There is not a single reputable scholar anywhere in the world who believes Jesus married anyone. I defy Browne to find one.

"I take the position that there is certainly circumstantial proof that Jesus was married to Magdalene" (p 66). There is no proof, circumstantial or otherwise, period.

"Most scholars believe that the Old Testament was not put together in its entirety until about 400-200 BC" (p 67). Untrue. There was no set canon of Jewish scriptures until after about 80 AD, and many scholars argue not even then.

"You must study the various belief systems and pick the one that feels right to you" (p 70). Better to find the one with the truth.

"Sin is nothing more than being ignorant of spirituality" (p 71). Or doing something wrong.

"The core of Christianity through Christian Gnostics keeps coming back and rising up to tell the truth" (104). No it doesn't. Gnostics taught a gloomy belief system which was anti-flesh, anti-sex, anti-humanity, taught that the world was bad and so were women.

At last Browne does admit, "in most respects the beliefs of modern day Gnostics do not go along with the earlier Gnostic theories or teachings" ( p 105). Finally!! A glint of actual truth!! But even here Browne can't stick to the truth (which would be that she has no more gnostic core than did any group of early Christians). She still wants to call herself "a Gnostic Christian" (p109) even though she admits to no gnostic beliefs and no Christian beliefs.

"Humankind has always leaned toward overanalysis" (p 109) she complains. Go figure, some of us actually want to hear the truth.

Jesus, whom Browne claims to admire even though she claims he was a con man and a liar, leaves his apostles to be persecuted and sets "up residence in the south of France" (p 113). Apparently no one has told Browne that the south of France had recently been overrun by the Roman army under Julius Caesar and trying to set up residence among the burned villages and sullen peasants would be most unpleasant.

"What most of the other apostles did, however, is vague. That's why the gospels of Thomas and James and Magdalene were so important, because they helped to fill the gaps of Jesus's teachings" (p 120). Francine needs to explain to Browne that the gnostic gospels were written long, long after Jesus lived and have as much chance of passing on Jesus' beliefs as the publication of "Peter Pan" did with the American constitution. And the only reason the gnostics called them the "Gospel of such and such apostle" was because Christianity--the real, the early Christianity--had become such a powerful force in society.

"While in Ephesus, Jesus..." (p 128). Ephesus was a major city and we know Christians--not to mention Paul--lived there. And what, nobody noticed the real Jesus still alive??

If Browne wants to start her own religion, fine. Why does she have to do it by lying about other people's religion?

Ever since the Da Vinci Code came out (actually even earlier than that with "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"), more and more people have begun to question the roles of Mary and Mary Magdalene (especially the latter). More and more evidence seems to suggest that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and played an important role within the small band of disciples who traveled with him.

For me, what makes this read so interesting is learning about the personality make-ups of these two women. I'm sure everyone has wondered what they were like. Ironically, this isn't the first time that a Master has surrounded himself with male and female disciples (usually the women being given seemingly higher duties/roles/functions while the men tend to quibble about where they stand).

With the help of Sylvia's spirit guide, Francine, she is able to see what and how these two women interacted, not only with themselves, but with Jesus and the other disciples. For example, we learn the Magdalene had a keen interest in learning things spiritual. It seems, that among the disciples she may have had the most open mind as she is said to have spent long hours into the night talking with Jesus and asking him questions. And Mary was deeply intuitive (not surprising at all given her spiritual advancement), had a vast knowledge of healing practices, and was usually the mediator in settling arguments among the disciples.

However, while the book is fascinating, Sylvia Browne has a tendency to digress a bit too much and stray way off point before coming back. In a few cases this is a bit frustrating because she leaves the reader "hanging" and waiting for her to reveal new information that she's discussed, only to find yourself traveling down a brand new path without any explanation. Some of her tangents are interesting as well, but others simply don't do anything to help with the story that she's trying to tell. If she had spent more time editing her work, I feel you'd find a much more powerful and cohesive book.

The only other thing that I question is her reliance upon her spirit guide for information. Spirit guides do not always have the correct/accurate information. As with everything, it is open to interpretation, and the reader should be aware of this when reading this book. I feel that Sylvia relies too much on her guide and not enough on her own judgement. Eventually, a person has to rely on themselves for uncovering information. Continued interaction with someone who appears to have more information can become crippling because it can eventually strip away the faith in one's own ability to think and perceive for oneself rather than depend on someone else. A true teacher encourages the "student" to find out for themselves with a teacher acting as a guide.

I, personally, am not convinced that either Sylvia or Francine are completely aware of just what a Master is and what a Master is capable of doing. They seem unwilling or unable to believe that a person can have more than one physical body. There are many stories of such beings who seem to be in two places at once (see "Autobiography of a Yogi for several such accounts). She argues that Jesus could not have died on the cross and come back in a physical body because spirits do not have physical bodies. She's correct. Souls who manifest themselves in spirit form do not have physical bodies. However, a Master is easily able to manipulate matter and energy to create for himself/herself a second physical form. Perhaps Jesus died on the cross, perhaps he didn't. But I found her explanation lacking in insight and understanding.

In any case, this is a book that is a very interesting read. But it is important to trust your own intuition about what you are reading. If nothing else, I think the reader will come away with a glimpse into the lives of Mary and Mary Magdalene, and if that is your goal for reading this book, you won't be disappointed.

If Browne wants to start her own religion, fine. Why does she have to do it by lying about other people's religion?

Browne says both Mary and Magdalene "were wealthy" (p3). This is untrue. The emperor Domitian had Jesus' family dragged to Rome and examined. They were all very poor. Also, the gospels insist Jesus' family was poor.

Browne said their house "was furnished with lovely handmade furniture" (p 9). Jewish homes of the time had almost no furniture.

Jesus and Magdalene were married at Cana (p 11). So why didn't John mention this in his gospel? Browne says "Early church fathers thought that if Jesus was married it would somehow take away or question his divinity" (p 12). Why? Jewish priests married. All the pagan gods married.

"The Church removed and added to the New Testament..." (p 12). Untrue, and easy to disprove. We have many fragments of the gospels dating throughout the early centuries and not a single one differs in any way from the gospels we have now. So there weren't any changes.

Browne says the early Christians HAD to claim Jesus was God because "Without that divinity, they would have had no church and no religion" (p 12). A ridiculous claim. The early Christians were persecuted. So why would they agree to persecution and death if they didn't think Jesus was God? Nero had them lit like torches to burn to death while people watched. And Christians were forbidden to lie, cheat, see the theater or visit the notorious games, they were told to live chaste lives and plus they had to give money to the poor (read the "Didache"). So Browne is claiming early Christians had to claim Jesus was God so they would have a church and a religion and all to be murdered and asked to lead a difficult life. Makes no sense at all.


"Many passages were added (especially the Book of Matthew)" (p 12). All the evidence proves this is untrue. And why pick on the gospel of Matthew? Very strange.

"The Gnostic way was to gather in groups of devoted followers, and Christ certainly had Gnostic leanings" (p 14). Untrue. This is a claim Browne makes again and again, and it's nonsense. The first gnostic school began a hundred years after the death of Jesus. Pretty hard for Jesus to have had gnostic leanings before any school of gnosticism existed. Browne needs to read "A Separate God" the best book on gnosticsm.

"Mary and Magdalene were also beautifully dressed" (p 21). Again, we have proof Jesus came from a poor family. And how much sense does it make for Christ to tell everyone the poor will inherit the earth when his mother and "wife" were swanking around in ritzy clothes?

Mary had many friends and relatives...many of these friends and relatives were Gnostics, and as Christ's teachings were of a Gnostic nature, they were welcomed in not only Orthodox Jewish households but also in communities like Qumran" (p 23). All nonsense. There were no gnostics at that time. Plus, no believing Jew of the period would have "welcomed" anyone who believed in the dual gnostic gods. The Jews of the time were fierce monotheists and 1,300,000 died in the Jewish war against the Romans in 70 AD as proof.

"Jesus appealed to a wide range of the Jewish community" (p 23). Funny thing about their killing him then.

"Many people think Jesus was illiterate because he didn't go to a formal school" (p 27). Nonsense. The Jews had been ordered to give all young men schooling about 100 years before Jesus. Francine needs to pick up a copy of "Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus".

Francine, Browne spirit guide says (p 28) Jesus wrote many books. Untrue, or we would have heard of them.

"Take note that Jesus never publicly professed he was the Messiah except for his talk with the Samaritan woman" (p 28). Untrue. Francine needs to pick up a biblical commentary.

"In truth, the Catholic church was very slow in its recognition of Mary" (p 34) before the 1900s. Funny thing about there being all those churches named after her then.

"As fragmentary as the Gospel of Mary is, it...has brought some new insights into our view of the apostles, the teachings of Jesus and of course Mary Magdalene" (p 38). Untrue. It was written 2-300 years after the death of Christ. Why would something written centuries after these people lived have "insight"? Scholars are interested, of course, but only because these fragments enlighten us as to the cults of the late Roman empire.

"All the Marian visions attributed to Mary were in actuality visions of Anza" (p 39). Untrue. Mary said she was Mary.

Francine says that Jesus didn't die on the cross. "Pilate had met with Joseph, Jesus and Judas" (p 46) to plot it out. Untrue. Browne gives no clue as to why Pilate would want to save Jesus, and I love imagining Pilate explaining in Rome why he didn't kill a man who claimed to be a king.

"The soldiers who nailed him to the cross made sure that no arteries were pierced" (p 47)--since Roman soldiers were so medically acute--"and gave him a footrest so that he could breathe." Browne doesn't realize that there were at least three types of Roman crucifixion, and that recent scholarship casts doubt on the suffocation theory. The only type you could survive for days was the type where you were tied to the cross with ropes. When they used the five inch nails you died quickly.

"Most people believe that Jesus met his disciples in his glorified body...If that was the case, why did he still have his wounds" (p 49)? If Jesus were pierced by five inch nails he couldn't have met anyone 3 days later and convinced them he had risen in a glorified body. Without proper antibiotics, he would have festering wounds. His back would be blistered and bleeding from the scourging. He couldn't have walked at all.

"As most researchers take the position at the present time that there is no incontrovertible proof that Jesus married Magdalene" (p 65). A very strange way of putting it. There is not a single reputable scholar anywhere in the world who believes Jesus married anyone. I defy Browne to find one.

"I take the position that there is certainly circumstantial proof that Jesus was married to Magdalene" (p 66). There is no proof, circumstantial or otherwise, period.

"Most scholars believe that the Old Testament was not put together in its entirety until about 400-200 BC" (p 67). Untrue. There was no set canon of Jewish scriptures until after about 80 AD, and many scholars argue not even then.

"You must study the various belief systems and pick the one that feels right to you" (p 70). Better to find the one with the truth.

"Sin is nothing more than being ignorant of spirituality" (p 71). Or doing something wrong.

"The core of Christianity through Christian Gnostics keeps coming back and rising up to tell the truth" (104). No it doesn't. Gnostics taught a gloomy belief system which was anti-flesh, anti-sex, anti-humanity, taught that the world was bad and so were women.

At last Browne does admit, "in most respects the beliefs of modern day Gnostics do not go along with the earlier Gnostic theories or teachings" ( p 105). Finally!! A glint of actual truth!! But even here Browne can't stick to the truth (which would be that she has no more gnostic core than did any group of early Christians). She still wants to call herself "a Gnostic Christian" (p109) even though she admits to no gnostic beliefs and no Christian beliefs.

"Humankind has always leaned toward overanalysis" (p 109) she complains. Go figure, some of us actually want to hear the truth.

Jesus, whom Browne claims to admire even though she claims he was a con man and a liar, leaves his apostles to be persecuted and sets "up residence in the south of France" (p 113). Apparently no one has told Browne that the south of France had recently been overrun by the Roman army under Julius Caesar and trying to set up residence among the burned villages and sullen peasants would be most unpleasant.

"What most of the other apostles did, however, is vague. That's why the gospels of Thomas and James and Magdalene were so important, because they helped to fill the gaps of Jesus's teachings" (p 120). Francine needs to explain to Browne that the gnostic gospels were written long, long after Jesus lived and have as much chance of passing on Jesus' beliefs as the publication of "Peter Pan" did with the American constitution. And the only reason the gnostics called them the "Gospel of such and such apostle" was because Christianity--the real, the early Christianity--had become such a powerful force in society.

"While in Ephesus, Jesus..." (p 128). Ephesus was a major city and we know Christians--not to mention Paul--lived there. And what, nobody noticed the real Jesus still alive??

If Browne wants to start her own religion, fine. Why does she have to do it by lying about other people's religion?