Please print off for easier reading and reference

IN Supreme Court matter 2011/327194, previously 1443/64


ABOUT MARY MAGDALENEa new revelation for the third millennium. -

Fault it or follow it: Is it not scriptural and corrected doctrine? If it is so then the good news of the Gospel of Love is to make love as an act of worship with all “one another”s with whom the Spirit makes you mutually responsive and if it is ordained spiritual worship, warship, then it is right in the eyes of the God.dess of Love and so we are free to so worship in the inner temples with other believers mutually and lovingly infilled by the Spirit so that our “joy may be full” and God.dess glorified in loving, having love “to”, one another, not one other, as we are designed, created, equipped, commended, commanded and in honesty made to quite like to do with one another, not one other. We should not judge and settle on one, as to commit to one is to deny others, so we should love all the ones the Spirit of Love would have us, in worship, want to do that God.dess may be glorified in love, not contract. So help us God to love one another, not one other. This is the way, walk ye in it, Is 30.21, Prov 3:6.


Mary Magdalene, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, the first and to this day sole doctrinal leader with authority of the true Church of Jesus being herself the original chosen body and church (def: “of the Lord”) of Jesus.

Fault her teachings on “loving one another” not one other or follow them and “come unto me ... and I will give you rest”.

Honest, open women and upright men will admit they enjoy coming with other true believers who believe making vicarious love as unto the God.dess of Love with, to and through one another, not one other, is an acceptable act of worship presenting your body as a living sacrifice and as instruments of (up)righteous worship glorifying God in your body that your joy may be full.

* “A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you, that ye love one another, (not one other). By this shall all know that you are my disciples if you have love one to another.” John 13:35

* Making love is an act of worship, the fulfillment of Jesus’ two great commandments, love God.dess vicariously by and through loving your neighbour (various), not a spouse.

* Love is the fulfillment of the law, Rom 13:10.

* Be ye filled with the Spirit, Eph 5:18. It is God.dess who gives the growth, 1 Cor 3:17

* Love and orgasms are free gifts from the God.dess of Love for worship and fellowship and are not subject to contract as in marriage or relationships in series as to seek to bind love and orgasms by contract is to seek to bind God’s power and limit Heris commandment on earth.

* Live in love 1 John 4:16, asking anything that your joy may be full, John 16:4, 15:11.

* S.he who by grace makes Spirit infilled love does not sin. That which proceeds from faith is not sin. Rom 14:23.

* Keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins so be hospitable to one another without complaint (1 Peter 4:9), that your reward in Heaven may be great.

* Ye have been bought with a price, therefore be infilled with the Spirit and glorify God.dess in your bodies (1 Cor 6:19-20) and rejoice with all that is within you (Psalm103:1), submitting to Love.

* Worshiping by believers should be by making love from the heart with all your heart, mind and strength which is acceptable worship, Rom 12:1, (do everything in love, 1 Cor 16:14, and acknowledge God.dess in all your ways, Prov 3:6, and rejoice with all that is within you that your joy may be really full, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength (physically - by making love as one to, with and through another, and hence the second commandment serves to fulfill the first commandment).

* Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.dess with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength, Luke 10:27, etc as we are designed, created, equipped, commanded, commended and if we are truly honest quite like to do as one to another with one another with whom the Spirit makes us mutually responsive to want to come together in worship and ongoing fe/illowship.

* The three major acts of making love, the taking of the living water and the worship of the Queen of Heaven and the “breaking” of the body, are the three great secretly commanded sacraments of Christomagdalenic church worship (“forbidden acts”, 591, recanted as implicitly admittedly or agreeably “more praiseworthy”, 1969) to be done when two or three believers are gathered in Jesus’ name in remembrance of Him till He comes again.

* Loving one another is all worship and we should not be jealous if our foldmates (John 10:16, foldmates = forever orgasming loving disciple mates) , like us, love one another with those God alone has brought to them and made them to be responsive to for Heris glory. It is all worship and acceptable whoreship and God.dess rewards those who do Heris will. We should all be making love to one another and not rejecting an opportunity to show true love to those whom God brings our way whom SHe makes us like. God gives us the power and opportunities to make worshiping love with Heris creations and we should do and enjoy it as it is how we are designed and made and is our purpose to please God and one another.

* “If you love me you will keep my commandments”, John 14:15, to love and make love to one another, not one other again and again so they will know they are truly and deeply loved. Against such there is no law, Gal 5:23.

*** If we accept that Mary Magdalene was:

* the disciple whom Jesus loved, John 19:25-27, called “the church”, Eph 5:25, (the temple),

* the disciple Jesus loved more than all the others including more than he loved the other women, Gospel of Mary of Magdala, Text from the Papyrus Berolinensis,

* the beloved disciple with a special and different role who wrote the fourth gospel, John 21:20-24, that came to be ascribed to John, which it is generally agreed John did not write (click here or here), as befits and marks out the only valid contender with accepted authority, standing and doctrine to lead the church,

then considering that this “John”, being Mary Magdalene, is the writer of the gospel and the three letters of “John”, (cf. 2 John 1:13), evidently written by one who had an extremely intimate knowledge of Jesus as a only a special woman would, who speaks of loving one another as Jesus had loved her more than any disciple and more than he loved any of the other women, Gospel of Mary of Magdala, Text from the Papyrus Berolinensis,

then this commandment to “love one another as I have loved you” John 13:34 is being / has been said to Mary M, and the other assembled disciples along with whom there may also presumably have been women as patronesses in the upper room, as a woman and she is later writing it down, for all of us as directed by the Holy Spirit.

The new commandment to love one another, plural, is repeated a number of times in her, “John’s”, gospel (4x) and letters (12x, and mirrored by Peter 2x) so presumably it had been said a number of times by Jesus to her and came to be repeated a few times in writing as a recurring central theme and foundation for their teaching. It is the manner of love we should have for one another as man to woman, woman to man, and that is active “heart, soul, strength and mind”, Mark 12:30,33 + Luke 10:27, loving and can only mean making heartfelt God given love as real concrete Holy Spirit infilled worship as in Orgasmianity, the naturally resulting religion of Jesus and Mary where all people would know that such loving believer worshipers are truly Jesus and Mary’s only disciples, John 13:35, because of their very visible expressed demonstrative unrepressed unrestrained (“with all thy heart, soul, strength and mind”) love for one another and vicariously by loving one another, not one other (having ordained brought together never ending foldmateships in parallel not temporal in series relationships), as unto the God.dess of Love as a sweet savour.

That is not happening or being said of any followers of Jesus, and Mary M, at the moment so something is missing – and that is the practice of making love as ongoing worship between Spirit infilled mutually responsive called together foldmate believers in commitment to Jesus’ new commandment to love one another, not one other, as recorded by Mary M.

As Mary was a wealthy high priestess of the worship in the temples of the God.dess of Love whom we today may call Orgasma, previously then regionally known as Astarte, Ashtoreth, Diana, Artemis, Venus, Aphrodite and as God is love, 1 John 4:16, then the Goddess of Love is of course God Herimself and the Supreme being. There is no difference as God is one, Mark 12:29 etc. The Goddess of Love is God alone and as well the God of justice and the creator of everything and lord of all flesh Jer 32:27 and we are created, female and male, in Heris own image to come together in differing bodies in joyful (orgasmic) worship. Mary M was a servant of the Most High in the tradition of the high priestesses and believed that God is love and that we should love one another, not one other, as Jesus had loved her, and that making love is a devotional act of worship as unto Herim and that love covers a multitude of sins, 1 Pet 4:8, and s.he who loves does not sin, 1 John 3:14, 4:12, Gal 5:22-23.

Mary M was a suitable and most qualified chosen companion and co-shepherd foldmate of Jesus who himself was the God of Love on earth and she, as a High Priestess of the God.dess of Love, was his consort, companion and love mate as the God of Love would not be on earth and not be commanding us to love one another and not be making love to one another, as Jesus would have surely practiced what He preached, and most specially loved and, being God, He could truly love Mary and any other women as He wished and certainly out of contract and she was and we are called to so love and follow His, and her, example, 1 Peter 2:21-22, and follow in his anointed footsteps.

*** Mary M was the one who introduced dynamic vicarious reciprocal non-platitudinous in parallel physical loving as worship into her (“John’s”) gospel (the new commandment of loving one another, not one other, which summarizes and satisfies all the law) and into her letters. As the preferred co-leader along with Jesus and chief patroness of the early church, leading to later enmity, she later had a falling out with Peter and Judas at least, who had seemingly other ambitions, as to direction leading to her seemingly being branded a harlot in discreditation of her religious “forbidden acts” of vicarious worship later on, as if she had been living off an indiscriminate unbelieving secular prostitute’s contractual earnings rather than being a temple priestess of the worship of the God.dess of Love living off volunteered tribute, gifts, offerings and tithes from worshipful believers.

Mary’s religion, the original other non-Peter, non-Orthodox, non-protestant branch of Christianity, quite unknown today, was one so joyful that those of Peter’s ilk are afraid of it as it is the opposite of all they promote. Such is their concern that they are highly sensitive on the issue of authority, their weak point, as Mary M had and has the more compelling claim to authority and leadership of the original, and present day, church which they hijacked and remains hijacked (although that is changing).

Mary M’s religion was centred around the ceremonial worship of the God.dess of Love, who is God, by making love, as Jesus had to her, John 13:34, outside of contract, and this was the manner in which all believers were and are to worship, as being c.literally infilled by the Spirit of Love making love to one another, not just to one other, out of contract, and so have circles / folds, John 10:16, as Jesus and Mary had.

The primary sacrament she introduced in her gospel was the one Jesus introduced prior to his betrayal and denials by both Judas (who ironically elevated MM in our eyes by disclosing her priestess standing John 12:3-8, Mark 14:3-9) and Peter, being that of the wine and bread, taking of the living water which he was able to give, John 4:10, 7:38, i.e. taking of living water, sperm, being oral sex as communion and breaking of the body, making love with orgasm (“breaking” of the body (no bones were broken upon the cross)) as communion and worship and coming together in remembrance of Jesus until He comes again upon the earth, as when two or three are gathered and even come together in His name, twosomes or threesomes, there he is in the midst of them, Matt 18:20. Hence we are commanded to make love as true active believers with one another with whom the Spirit mutually infills as fulfillment of the two great commandments: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, (spirit is left out compared as God supplies Heris Spirit) via loving your neighbour (not spouse) as yourself, Matt 22:39. That is just as you either masturbate in spirit and in truth as prayerful meditation to hear God speaking to you, so you make love to your neighbour to show love to them and bring them into the fold as new believers and go on to fillowship/share with them.

Her message in her gospel goes beyond Jesus being loaded up with the sins of the world, 1 John 2, to be a sacrifice for the sins of the world which now find their resting place elsewhere. For her salvation, now comes by loving one to another and ritual love making with those whom you love as was her background upbringing as a high priestess chosen by Jesus to be his special attendant one. These were much more feminine God.dess of Love like ideas and ones incumbent upon all true believers opposed to those who keep ranting about Jesus’ death and celibating rather than celebrating when it is over and He is risen and that matter is finished. Hence we should now all be moving on and making lots of love as natural loving adorational vicarious worship of God in the same way Jesus loved the church Eph 5:25, meaning to Mary herself, as one to another not to just one other, and not be seeking to bind love and orgasms in contract.

As Jesus said “if you love me you will keep my commandments” John 14:15, 21, 23 and “love one another as I have loved you” John 13:34. Just as Jesus was the Son of the God.dess so Mary was the daughter or high spokeslady of Orgasma, the God.dess of Love (also God) in the local temple in Jerusalem or in Magdala and both were of royal lineage: Jesus teacher and rabbi of the line of David and Mary Magdalene as a high and royal priestess reputedly of the tribe of Benjamin. Mary initiated or celebrated their holy foldmateship, not marriage, by her approach and coming on to him at a special ceremonial dinner held in Jesus’ honour and pouring expensive nard ointment oil onto his feet, John 12:3, Luke 7:38, and head, Matt 26:7, Mark 14:3, and wiping his feet with her hair so the nard would be combined on both his feet and in her hair together in unity ceremoniously thus anointing him as either initiation or confirmation into her temple goddess order (“a beautiful thing” Matt 26:10, Mark 14:6 as Jesus said), or she into his or the two as one. As a well connected high priestess she had at her personal ceremonial disposal a big commercial temple sized tub of fragranced nard oil, hers enough to sell per Judas who let on, John 12:5, costing a year’s wage used in ceremonial love making temple ceremonies for worship of the Goddess of love by ceremonial application and filling the temple with fragrance. When Judas saw what was going on he decided to put a stop to it and betray Jesus for money in an attempt to make good on his investment of time he had put into his venture as money man.

Mary M, as such a one holding such an office in the worship of the God.dess of love and the disciple Jesus loved and “apostle to the apostles”, went on to become and was even at the time the leader of the first church, the chief patroness, of what we call early Orgasmianity, the original Christianity of the love school, not the sin and guilt school, as depicted in her writings, coming from the doctrines and theology of the Goddess of Love, now all quite scriptural and binding upon us who believe to love one another as Jesus loved her, as holey everloving shepherdfoldmates, and not one other.

Though the disciples present were mystified as to the significance of the ritual and said “what a waste” Judas had an idea of what it meant and Jesus totally approved of her actions saying she had done “a beautiful thing to him” meaning she had taken the holy Communion of Jesus as per the rites of the Church of Mary Magdalene viz. making love as a sacrament of worship unto Her God.dess of Love, who is God – as she wrote we are commanded to do as one to another as Jesus had loved her.

It was specially noted, Matt 21:17, that Jesus lodged at Bethany on at least one occasion without the disciples and stayed overnight. Why would such events be noted in their own verse and left in there if not highly significant and indicative of something?

Hence due to her privileged position and knowledge there was a falling out later with Peter as to issues of leadership, authority, teaching, revelation and sacraments as fortified by his successor, Pope Gregory, later on insinuating her to be a harlot in denigration of her acts purportedly opposed to those of Peter.

Her writings show she was was well schooled, erudite and well learned and she is the patroness saint, if you could call her that, as an expositor and mouthpiece of early Orgasmianity cum the Christianity of love covers a multitude of sins, 1 Peter 4:8, school.

*** Mary’s Blockbuster Appearances

Mary Magdalene did not have many appearances in the gospels but due to the adversarial nature of the composition of the gospels those appearances where she did feature were blockbusters, outstandingly significant and meaningful and no one else, apart from Jesus, is as significant in the gospels.

Just as there were twelve disciples and twelve tribes of Israel so God.dess caused there to be in in the gospels that there were twelve confirmatory blockbuster appearances for Mary Magdalene, the great darlin’, the lene one, to put Heris seal of approval upon Mary M.

Firstly: is her being expressly called by Jesus, her upping and coming to him John, 11:28-29.

Secondly: was her mutually approbational agreement with Jesus, presumably pursuant to an offer, where Jesus says she has made the best choice possible choosing for herself the best part or role and it will never be taken from her, Luke 10:42, and that makes her the important one.

Thirdly: is her initiation of Jesus to the annoyance of the other men who did not understand who saw it as a waste of time and money, refs given above. This initiation was the symbolization of her and Jesus’ union in the service of the God.dess of Love (God) and she was clearly acting as a priestess, even a high priestess. Of this double mutual anointment of herself (hair, which had sexual overtones) and Jesus (head and feet, hence her submission to love, to Jesus) at the initiation Jesus said it was a beautiful thing which she had done to him. It was Mary M who anointed Jesus and thus marked him out as the Christus, the anointed one (Dan 9:25), as she was the priestess who anointed him at the mutual anointing to the consternation of the male disciples.

Fourthly: there was the attestation at the foot of the cross in “John’s” gospel which was written by “the disciple that Jesus loved” that she, Mary Magdalene, was clearly enough that disciple that Jesus loved writing it, not referring to Mother Mary, or John who wasn’t listed as there.

Fifthly: she was the one in pride of place resting her head on Jesus’ bosom at the last supper to whom Peter had to defer to to get information. As “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, per herself as the disciple Jesus loved writing John’s pseudonymed gospel, she wrote this to make it clear it was she as a woman who rested her head on his bosom as neither John nor Jesus were gay. The pharisees would have been on to them both if they were, just as they would also have been on to Jesus and his followers if Jesus included prostitutes amongst his entourage.

Sixthly: Mary M was most presumably the disciple well known to the High Priest, as a High Priestess of course would be, as she writes in her (“John’s”) gospel, John 18:15-16, who along with Jesus had temple courtyard access, could speak to the girl on duty and was required to let Peter in so he could make his three denials of Jesus who was there too.

Seventhly: when Mary visited the tomb, John 20, as she did first before light and then went and fetched Peter and anyone else who would come and Peter entered and looked into the tomb the angels did not reveal themselves to him but after he had left and she looked in the angels revealed themselves to her and so straightaway did Jesus thus indicating her higher spirituality and standing and further endorsement putting her once again as the original head of the church at that time. She was the first and only one to whom Jesus appeared to and had a conversation with while clinging to him, John 20:17, (attesting to their intimacy) at the tomb after the resurrection and the only one to whom also the angel appeared to and spoke to to the exclusion of the others.

Eighthly: she was the “apostle to the apostles” being the one given the task of being primary messenger and telling the others John 20:17.

Ninthly: she was the one of which Jesus said to Peter his plans for Mary, the disciple Jesus loved, were none of Peter’s business i.e. she was set apart and he had no dominion over her or hers or her body, her church, (although it does appear he had somehow gotten her into a boat in which he was naked John 21:7 although in v2 she did not wish to admit outright to it) was naked.

Tenthly: she has the arguable authorship of a gospel as befits a leader of the church being the argued and evident author of John’s gospel which could not be authoritatively be named after her as a leader being a women although there seemed to be an inclusive policy that one account be by one or more males and one be by a female as Jesus had seemingly two sets of followers, the men and the women, so there resulted a gospel and sets of letters from each gender.

Eleventhly: she is the only apostle with a triple authorship of letters being 1 John, 2 John and 3 John which carry on the themes of living in love to be found in the so called gospel of John and reading them one can easily accept they are written by a most erudite and expressive woman who intimately knows her subject, cf 2 John 1:13.

Twelfthly: in her gospel she is the one who outlines Jesus central message of love being his new commandments and the message to love one another, not one other, i.e. make love to one another, not one other. The word marriage is only used (marry is not used and the word married is not particularly supportive) twice in her gospel (to convey the message that if you were going to get married at least have good wine) and none of them ever used in her letters on love so there is no support for the contentions that love, and orgasms (that your joy may be full (having orgasms together) simply for the asking if you are a mutually responsive infilled believer), should be subject to contract. Furthermore she is the only one who espouses making love as an act of worship as she records Jesus’ new commandment to love one another (not one other, nor your spouse) as “I have loved you”. Making love as an act of worship (as admitted adequately enough by Pope Gregory) was part of her “forbidden” religion as a High Priestess of the worship of a semi female deity being the God.dess of Love, being a temple herself with various foldmate worshipers as part of her temple duties then of orgasmic intercession, love sacraments and orgasmic ritual worship. She was the one of whom Jesus said “for she loved much” and her many here so called sins of love could be and were of course forgiven, Luke 7:47, and in her, and God.dess’s, own words as co-authors: 1 John 4: 7, 8, 12, 16, 20 as she loved for God.dess and not just for herself or man nor for gain, so she, as said, first coming last and the last coming first, Matt 19:30, 20:16, got the top position due to her greater love and loyalty, never to be taken away from her, Luke 10:42.

So there is little doubt she is the most prominent of all the apostles, the “apostle to the apostles” and is the one referred to as the Church (def: “of the lord”), as Christ loved the church, Eph 5:25, which was Mary M as a high priestess of the devotional worship of the Goddess of Love, she chose the best, forever, initiated Jesus into her order or vice versa and had a key role and part to play in the coming of the kingdom (these twelve points are generally only in her gospel) of his kingdom which has no end and was the chosen apostle to the apostles and of course she was the disciple Jesus loved above all the other women and his number one, to the consternation of Peter, who disavowed any leadership aspirations, and the one whose joint teachings on love found their way into adoption even in Peter’s first epistle.

Peter’s followers hold strongly to emphasizing the authority of the Church, good point, as its strong point, therefore their authority may be their weak point of exposure which needs a defence.

***Jesus given all authority - put after as Jesus loved the church

Jesus confirmed that he had all authority saying in Matthew 28:18 “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth”. He did not say he had given or shared any authority with Peter who had triply knocked any offers back and disentitled himself to any claim leaving it to the other promoted disciple whom Jesus loved, Mary M, to exercise in his physical absence. It is from the union of Jesus and Mary M in their joint central commandment of loving one another as Jesus had loved her (confirmed by Paul) that we have issuing the signs of displayed loving by which we shall know who are truly their disciples.

*** Mary M was the original church and the disciple Jesus loved and hence the writer of John containing her gospel teachings.

* In Eph 5:25 Paul says that when Jesus was upon the earth he loved the church, not ecclesia. The church of true believers did not quite exist at the time Jesus was upon the earth. But for Mary M and the other women, His disciples were not great believers nor had great understanding and the only disciple Jesus loved or was greatly impressed with was Mary M. The word church is only to be found in Matthew three times and in no other gospel. Church was not a noun and meant “of the Lord” and the one who was of the Lord who belonged to him was Mary M; she was the body of Christ’s the true believer, the first church and the first steadfast leader and the one particular disciple Jesus quite loved – and being God He could love her as He liked and as she wanted him to with no qualms and no contract and no children if He wished.

* Mary M was the disciple whom Jesus particularly loved John 19:25-26 and John’s gospel is the only one where she obliquely, due to being a woman, describes herself as such and is the one who very femininely rested upon Jesus’ bosom at John 13:23 (not saying so of a male himself so not John, nor were Jesus and John gay) and is the one whom Peter deferred to, John 13:24, and whom Peter saw as a threat to his authority and limited worldly leadership possibilities, John 21:20. She was closer and beyond Peter’s influence and closer to Jesus and the one of whom, and to whom it had been said “love one another, as I have loved you...”, as Jesus had loved her, being the church (of the lord’s) and hence the one with the authority and in her gospel as opposed to the other synoptic three is the true message of love, Jesus and the new commandment to love one another not one other as Jesus had loved her i.e. with all his heart and strength, i.e physical. In conformation Paul says “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church”. Husbands are to love their woman just as Jesus loved the church i.e. his woman Mary M, the High Priestess wedded to the worship of the God.dess of Love.

* If John had been the disciple Jesus loved Jesus would have groomed him for leadership and succession and there would be clear scriptures in support rather than begging insinuations that Jesus was gay. It just could not be said that, though not married due to their respective vows, He was as one with Mary M, Him the head and she the body of the church, and it was covered over.

*** Mary writer of “John’s” gospel

And who was the one who wrote Johns’ gospel? We know it wasn’t the person who wrote this verse attesting to the veracity of him, or her, as the pronoun is also used for her, and as it says we know, not I know. The writer of the gospel was the other disciple who had pride of place to write a gospel which was the one later regarded in the early church as the truer gospel, so it seems to say, as it was she who wrote it and she was not to be answerable ever to Peter. But Peter and his followers were to Jesus.

*** Which leader contender had a blueprint ready for the church? Mary or Peter?

** Did MM ever make a stand as being the leader, the temporal head of the church with a teaching of her own, different to that adopted by Peter and his spin-offs? Is there a distinctly differing tradition? Importantly Peter never produced any blueprint for a church like Mary’s sure fire winner in “John’s” gospel as a leader would be expected to do and Mary’s blueprint of “living in love” went hand in hand and was part and parcel with Jesus and so was imbued with authority. The alternate view, if there be one, is Paul’s vision for the church to the gentiles, which Mary M already had embraced from the beginning, but he did not claim to be a leader - and nor, upon inspection, did Peter. The vision for the very early church was set out in “John’s” gospel and letters based upon love is the answer as opposed to salvation from the jewish law which was a jewish male idea. Peter’s mission was to the jews and they were interested in law and not so much love which was an idea foreign to jewish law although it existed in the Psalms and the Song of Solomon but in his letters he can be seen, as just another elder and no professed leader, to have gone along with Mary M’s position and to have not replaced it with anything else.

*** In what ways are the doctrines or MM quite the opposite to the attitude of Peter and/or rather of Peter’s later followers such that there would be friction leading to a later in evidence detraction against Mary M?

* Freedom from personal intimacy contracts,

* freedom from the law of sin and death as love covers a multitude of sins,

* be foldmates loving one another, not one other,

* making love is an act of worship (warship even),

* by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another,

* different sacraments of love making,

* scripturally MM is still the leader of the church, her church, the only church, the church of love and making love,

* no ritual except ritual making love as one to another with foldmates,

* healing through making love i.e. orgasm therapy and law therapy,

* infilling of the Holy Spirit to make love as unto God with your favourite infilled believers,

* God.dess wants us to worship and love Herim through loving and making love with one another as we are commanded and designed and equipped,

* not a gospel of sin and salvation nor something vague and wishy washy but of loving and healing and commitment and submission,

* making love as an act of worship and not just as a lateral off limits to God.dess cul-de-sac exercise between two people,

* love and orgasms are not subject to contract as opposed to using contract to bind love and orgasms and so seek to bind God on earth and so in heaven,

* a religion based on doing the right thing and fucking (filling up the coffers of the King) as divinely designed worship instead of piety and self denial and abstaining or rigidity of contact and rigidity of contract between two parties,

* seeking and bringing the Kingdom of God.dess to being here on earth,

* variety of worship partners,

* free unlimited sex for all true studying and approved (by one another) believers over and over that your joy may really be full as requested, as opposed to unscriptural serial contract monogamy till the bitter end,

* making love as worship no limit instead of dreary, mindless, boring, sexless, controlling ritual and tradition,

* loving not guilt recycling,

* creates a more honest, less distorted more “praiseworthy” version of Christianity as it was meant to be more attractive to unbelievers,

* sex being used for the prolific purpose for which it was created apart from having been perhaps for the occasional baby: unlimited worship between mutually responsive infilled more communicative loving believers and not being used to deny God the credit, glory and worship in spirit and in truth that is rightfully Heris,

* much more relaxing and healing than monogamous in series stressful relationships,

* eternal vertical foldmateships rather than terminating lateral relationships,

* based upon Mary M’s authority as the leader of the church rather than Peter’s usurped and/or later installed position,

* more direct communications from and to God through making love and communion,

* God.dess’s temple or rod of God within you becomes your barometer rather than being a ship without a rudder,

* more relaxing, excited, therapeutic orgasms rather than impotence and non spiritual non arousal,

* total communication between your spiritual and sexual and loving existences,

* greater spontaneity for love making and worship rather than denial,

* more committed fillowship between believers,

* puts the fun back into evaginalization and outreach to a whole new untouched audience,

* your joy is not truly full otherwise,

* Jesus said to ask for whatever you wish and this is it, pressed down, shaken together and running over and poured into your lap, Luke 6:38,

* a challenge to those who would hijack or deny the God.dess of Love her due worship and glory from believers being the making of love as one to another in compliance with the new commandment,

* a challenge to those who would seek to deny others by restraining a believer in defiance of the new commandment to love one another not one other,

* a challenge to those whose purported loving is all talk no action,

* the best God.dess designed way to take the time to make a fellow believer feel loved through loving God with and through them repeatedly,

* loving and rejoicing as per scripture with all that is within you, Psalms 103:1, rather than just the tongue, but with the parts specifically designed for loving and rejoicing and orgasming and worshiping,

* becoming knit into the body of Christ, point and loop, the ultimate networking religion,

* puts God.dess in Heris rightful place as the God.dess of all flesh, “is there anything I cannot do”, ref Jer 32:27, and therefore the God.dess of the orgasm and sex created for Heris worship for true believers to again * worship in spirit and in truth with other true believers as that time is now again coming John 4:23-24,

* renders to God that which is God’s for the first time in a long time unlike any other religion since the God.dess of Love religions of long ago,

* restores women to being goddess priestesses again,

* makes atheism and humanism with their devotion to pro Peter lateral monogamy or asceticism, Col 2:18+23, look positively boring and perverse.

* It’s free, no tithing or fees, why pay for God.dess’s free gifts?

Pursuant to the foregoing, it is the case, is it not, that we have we all been subjects of the biggest con of all time and in all of creation, all for someone else’s gain by pulling the wool over our eyes and cheating all of us of our birthrights?

If not, then why not?

*** Mary M takes top spot, is impossibly and invidiously excommunicated and later reinstated and her competing worship practices implicitly rendered the “more praiseworthy”.

* Jesus said to Martha that only one thing is needful and Mary M had chosen that which is important, the best part, good portion, best role, Luke 10:42, and it would never be taken away from her. Mary had made a choice as to the most important thing signifying proper understanding rendering her a volunteered leader who understood such truths as

- making love is an act of worship and

- love is the answer to the law and

- we should love one another not one other such that

- her choice would not be taken away from her so

she remains the one with the doctrinal line of authority which will not be taken away from her as was improperly attempted in 591 and a position recanted from without fanfare in 1969 returning her to her (never really at law impugned/impacted) pride of place position meaning that Vatican II in 1962-65 would and will eventually lead to a revolution within Peter’s church as it transforms into Mary M’s church and embraces her and Jesus’ combined (and Peter’s adopted) teachings altogether, and not selectively, along with the abandonment of other contradictory non biblical teachings and dreary dispirited practices unfoundedly and mistakenly instituted during the excommunication period of Mary M.

* Peter never asked to be a leader and never said he was but did recognize and ask after Jesus’ preference for Mary on a number of occasions. Mary was beyond and above any authority he may have arrogated for himself or been allocated later on by others seeking a line of succession, power, position, prestige and money and he noted and commented upon it and nothing he or his followers could do could ever diminish her position and the promise given to her by her Lord, friend and lover, Jesus.

* Jesus was no stickler for the law saying love is the answer to the law and that was Mary’s natural position as a high priestess so both she and her feminine love doctrines were the natural doctrinal successors which role would not be taken away from her. Hence, despite efforts to the contrary by her opponent’s successors, spin offs and proxies, Mary M, as one with Jesus, remains the head of the church and we should make ongoing love to one another, not one other as under contract, as making love in spirit and truth is true worship so that all people will know that we are truly their disciples.

*** Pope Gregory says it all

What here is really being found offensive was her “forbidden acts”, forbidden by the church of Peter as those acts were acts of ritually making love as worship with perfumed unguents outside marriage or contract. She is not being criticized here as a harlot as being such was not one of the recognized vices and such professionals were in common usage by members and hierarchy of the church even then and tacitly approvingly. Even lust which is god inspired attraction was never said to be wrong for women. Thus her “forbidden acts” were those of her doctrine and faith (harlots have none such being purely commercial) as a priestess of the God.dess of Love (not recognized by Peter’s church so therefore the old love priestesses were all harlots) going about her votary work. What was being denounced here was her faith and doctrine and practices and acts being acts of worship of God by making love with believers out of contract under the doctrine that as love and orgasms are free gifts from God for worship they hence should not be subject to contract. She herself is not being so much maligned but was so by association and misunderstandings that she was a common but penitent prostitute arose.

Pope Gregory admits the demons had been ejected, she was pure, and so she could no longer be classed as a harlot but the acts were still classified as “forbidden”, though prostitutes were then in 591 quietly accepted by the church but not acknowledged openly. Pope Gregory did not say prostitution or harlotry but he didn’t say what they otherwise were because they were worship i.e offered to God in a “more (comparative) praiseworthy manner”. The use of the word previously does not preclude her from still using the unguent in the course of her loving duties in her church. Since Mary M was a High Priestess of the Most High he can be seen to cautiously and respectfully not be stepping across the threshold of blasphemy by carefully measuring his words and putting it back to the listener – he knew what he was saying, how and why. He renders it a question, not for him to say but for the listener to fill in, a request to admit that I am now answering, coupled with two veiled admissions, all said and written in religious legalese giving a modicum of reverence where reverence was due and this reverence and its underlying reality finally came to fruition in 1969 with Mary M’s re-elevation to that of at least a claimed saint without accompanying beatification, sanctification, explanation or fanfare.

There is a marvelous propensity in commentators to make some of the women mentioned in the Sacred Writings appear as women of ill fame; therefore Rahab must be a harlot; and Mary Magdalene, a prostitute: and yet nothing of the kind can be proved either in the former or in the latter case; nor in that mentioned Luke 7:36, etc., where see the notes. Poor Mary Magdalene is made the patroness of penitent prostitutes, both by Papists and Protestants; and to the scandal of her name, and the reproach of the Gospel, houses fitted up for the reception of such are termed Magdalene hospitals! and the persons themselves Magdalenes! There is not only no proof that this person was such as commentators represent her, but there is the strongest presumptive proof against it: for, if she ever had been such, it would have been contrary to every rule of prudence, and every dictate of wisdom, for Christ and his apostles to have permitted such a person to associate with them, however fully she might have been converted to God, and however exemplary her life, at that time, might have been. As the world, who had seen her conduct, and knew her character, (had she been such as is insinuated), could not see the inward change, and as they sought to overwhelm Christ and his disciples with obloquy and reproach on every occasion, they would certainly have availed themselves of so favorable an opportunity to subject the character and ministry of Christ to the blackest censure, had he permitted even a converted prostitute to minister to him and his disciples. They were ready enough to say that he was the friend of publicans and sinners, because he conversed with them in order to instruct and save their souls; but they could never say he was a friend of prostitutes, because it does not appear that such persons ever came to Christ; or that he, in the way of his ministry, ever went to them. I conclude therefore that the common opinion is a vile slander on the character of one of the best women mentioned in the Gospel of God; and a reproach cast on the character and conduct of Christ and his disciples. From the whole account of Mary Magdalene, it is highly probable that she was a person of great respectability in that place; such a person as the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, could associate with, and a person on whose conduct or character the calumniating Jews could cast no aspersions.” -

Clarke’s Commentary of the Bible

*** To do with the initiation quantity of spikenard

In John Mary points out that the house was filled with the fragrance of the spikenard. It was more than enough for a house being for the filling of temples in “forbidden” temple “acts” (as Peter’s later followers classified Mary M’s eastern religion’s making-love-as-worship of a seeming, but scriptural, foreign semi female (and semi male)) deity being votary love worship to the fe/male God.dess of Love. It is doubtful Mary M would have poured an industrial quantity of the fragrance oil over Jesus’ head or feet and made a mess of him so what required quantity she used in the initiation of themselves, his feet and her hair, as an item in or into her order in not using it all was still enough to cause a fragrance to easily fill a house in the highly emotionally charged for both dual ceremony which certain other male disciples found far removed from their objectives.

*** Restoration and deemed reinstatement of Mary M to her former position - of undiminished authority after hiatus (30 – 591 - 1969) of lacking Church authority or capacity.

* With the lifting of the caveat against MM in 1969 by her inclusion in the Missal, Peter’s people restored her in their eyes and to the faithful as an early church leader who had both a formidable level of conferred authority as well as a highly refined love doctrine of her own recording in her own pseudonymed gospel that neither Peter, nor Paul, could match. They did both borrow from it as it came directly from Jesus in endorsement of loving one another, not one other, as the answer to the jewish law.

* Peter’s church’s recantation and restoration of Mary to pride of place now confirms that her formerly “forbidden acts” are now “more praiseworthy” being no longer forbidden and so her separate worship doctrines are reinstated as pre-eminent and over Peter’s temporally intervening ones. So if her acts, once forbidden, and now in vogue we should again make love as worship as one to another. Evidently the church of Peter wants change and has been preparing for this event but may be surprized to find what the formal nature of true worship and sacraments is as Mary’s formerly “forbidden”, and free, “acts” of worship have now been now rendered more praiseworthy - however many of Peter’s followers have have been doing it for a long time as we are designed and made for worshiping together.

*** Mary M not a subject saint but as one with the mantle of authority.

However Mary Magdalene is and was not a saint of the church according to the New Testament as that would make her subject to the church of Peter or its spinoffs who have that subordinate office and they would not seriously have denigrated or excommunicated a supposed saint - although a contender could have been deemed worthy of such sanction. As the leader she was not a saint as she was a High Priestess and the leader of the whole church overall though from a separate long lost female branch of Christendom and Peter was much later installed by the contending male branch of the church. Even Paul would have more claim than Peter and he did not claim as such but said he was a slave of Christ. There was no idea that Mary M was a slave of Christ (there was the bride of Christ (who would of course have sole conferred or shared authority) idea as befitting the High Priestess wedded to the worship of the God.dess of Love Who could love her as SHe wished).

*** Mary addressed as a leader

And was Mary regarded as a leader, a church leader? Luke 8:2 says that she was actually "called Magdalene." In Hebrew Migdal means "tower", "fortress"; in Aramaic, "Magdala" means "tower" or "elevated, great, magnificent" so in Aramaic she was given a highly elevated address as certainly befits a leader but Peter never was. She was the leader designate.

*** Mary M the serious contender

We may say the great commission was given to all of the disciples and according to history they generally all carried it out. It doesn’t mean they were all doctrinal leaders. There were or are only three contenders for that role. The first is the Holy Spirit who will lead into all truth, John 16:13, the second would be one of either Peter or Mary who exhibited the fruits of the Spirit rather than those of the flesh and self interest and that points again to Mary.

*** Jesus and angel select Mary M as first trusted apostle

The first commission given by the angel in Mark 16 was given to the women to go and tell the disciples and Peter, in particular as he had denied everything and said he never knew Jesus and so is estopped from any claim. Mary M and her team were commissioned to go and tell the men, the others and it was Mary M who was the first one Jesus spoke and revealed himself to after the resurrection, not the others en masse in one place but to her alone. The rest came later. When Peter heard it from Mary he alone had reason to go to the tomb to see for himself but saw nothing but linen wrappings only. No one appeared to him, he had to be content to hear it from Mary M who was the human messenger and the leader of her team of women as per Luke and the apostle to the apostles and most importantly the one who recorded the gospel and doctrines of love as opposed to sin and eternal confessing. Once we have been bought we a price and our bodies become living sacrifices for Heris glory Mary M tells us what to move on to as far as worship, healing and eternal intimate fe/illowship as one believer with another, not one other. Of course if we haven’t truly been bought with a price such that we are prepared to submit to being channels of God/dess’s love with other believers we do no such thing and there is no love in us and are not part of the vine, the vagine network.

*** Peter, by later reversed name change and costless profession of faith, not really the rock upon which any church was built.

Mary M in John 1:42 says nothing about Simon’s name change to Cephas, Peter in Greek, having anything to do with any declaration that Jesus was the Christ that he may have made. Mary M and mother Mary and the other women were of the same opinion too, even moreso as they put their money where their mouth was. v 41 says it was Andrew who made the declaration to Simon. Jesus did decide to call him Cephas, Peter, rock, probably because of impetuousness and obstinacy and he only came to Jesus through his brother and may have seen an opportunity in it but Jesus later took the name change back John 21:15, 16, 17. To say that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built is just opportunistic casting around for support for an argument in support of an unbroken line of authority down a particular line, like a genealogy, as opposed to and in the face of an argument arising from any other serious contender such as Mary M.

*** Peter had no dominion over Mary M and her church or her teachings etc

Jesus reserved a special place for Mary who wrote in her gospel that He told Peter that if Jesus wanted her to remain on to the end what is that to him? Peter was just told to follow Jesus and was being told that he had no authority over that disciple whose arrangement, teaching and practices with Jesus was outside any discipleship he was being told to again have. After all he had just been given a fishless night, he was on the outer and Mary the inner winner, till he again listened to Jesus and he knew or suspected that, hence his question concerning Mary. No doubt Peter wanted to be the leader as he was of his fishing business so he asked about Mary as she had been the leader of the female team and he was told she was off limits to him and if Jesus wanted her to remain to the very end (now) it was none of his business. Either her church was separate to him or it was over him and he had never really acted as a leader of anything except a fishing business. Any story to the contrary is just a concoction to tendentiously prove a line of authority to Peter’s people via Peter rather than through Mary M, whom they could switch over to if they were to embrace in full her scriptural teachings (adopted and underscored by Peter), underlying sacraments and religion and abandon contract in love worship and admit that love and love making alone is the answer to the law and sin.

*** Peter would not get the job

As a last say on the matter look at Mark 8:33 where Jesus called Peter Satan and told him to get behind him, to fall in line as his thinking was all screwed up and wordly and not interested in God. Also in Matt 16:23 Jesus calls Peter Satan and a stumbling block, a dangerous trap, a hindrance and an offence to Jesus. No way Jesus would have given Peter any authority to run the Church when Mary was doing a good job and Peter didn’t seem suited or reliable at all, like a fisherman being asked to tend sheep.

In fact Jesus said he had called them all and one had a devil, not referring to Judas as it was said later that that the devil entered into him. The one who at that point had the devil was Peter who had his own aims, Mark 8:33. Judas, before the devil entered into him, was the one that gave the evidence that Mary M was a High Priestess and the devil might not have done that except in his role of prosecutor, detractor and competitor.

*** Why would Jesus give Peter a new job?

Why would Jesus give over leadership of His church to some impetuous devil possessed hothead who didn’t seem to exhibit great interest in learning doctrine and had to be asked three times for a straight answer and didn’t respect all people such as women as Mary M did, who respected men too? Why would Jesus give over care of sheep to a fisherman who fetched some of his doctrine from Mary and perhaps Paul and James? It seems incongruous. He was like a fish out of water with his own all male team different to Mary’s female team whom she led and shepherded as the preferred ever listening ever learning ever loving disciple. How could anyone seriously argue, but for gain, that Jesus would give Peter a management position with authority over others ahead of Mary or even on a par with Mary?

Mary had a little lament, her acts were white a snow (MM’s defence to 591 being put, a second book of acts of Mary and her church claimed to exist but perhaps not, no wonder she was excluded from the first book of Acts and only seemingly referred to in the epistles once as she who is in Babylon). If she were a harlot it would have said her acts were as red as the blood shed for the sins of the world but her acts were white as snow. This rhyme also at the time had the more obvious double religious meaning that Mother Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow, being baby Jesus. The second more controversial underground meaning was the political against Peter’s church and the lament over the leadership squabble where she was pushed aside. Even Peter admits to her having been likewise chosen: She (unnamed as adversary) who is at Babylon (Mary M), who is likewise chosen (John 11:28, Luke 10:42), sends you greetings... 1 Peter 5:13. The even deeper religious meaning was that her acts were white as snow. Snow White came later, and there was no longer a fleece or covering as her acts were acts of making love as worship requiring nakedness before God.dess as that is how God.dess sees us anyway, by our acts and not by our clothes and she was pure white as was her doctrine of loving one another not one other etc. Hail Mary M winner, of the race.

Just as Mary had a little lamb has a number of deeper meanings so has “be filled with the spirit speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” Eph 5:18-19 a hidden meaning in the realms of the spiritual design for worship as are designed, created, equipped, commended and commanded and quite like to do.

*** To those who love to worship by making love:
* Mary had a little lament, her acts were white as snow.
Mary had a little lament with lame Peter but now she's back on top where She belongs - no more are her blessed devotional "acts" "forbidden" (as of 1969).
* Fishy Peter and his spin offs never did get the job after all.
* Hail Mary M, winner of the race. MM ... mmmm!!
* Hers is the true religion and doctrine and all Her.is
templesses are again Priestesses of Love to rescue and
worship with hapless lucky men, as we are designed, created, equipped, commended, commanded and, if honest, quite like to do with all those with whom we are made mutually responsive.
* Everybody loves all those they quite like who like them giving them nice feelings and making love to them. Love one another, not one other. To contract commit to one is to deny others. Love and orgasms are a free gift of God.dess and are not subject to contract.
* No more false morality. Fault it or follow it.

*** Brief but essential early history of Church of MM + JC

The Church of MM + JC only existed for a very short time, a matter of some months, till Judas, and Peter, a seeming accomplice soon embarking upon his anticipated denial role, broke it up.

It began when

Jesus called for Mary M and Mary chose the best opportunity concerning which Jesus said would not be taken from her Luke 10:42. Then came

the expensive annunciatory portentious shared and confirmed and recognized anointment of both of them into each others’ orders and commandments to the consternation and confusion of the disciples. Then shortly afterwards came

the meetings in the upper room in the week before the crucifixion with the delivery by her record of the new commandments and the parable of the sacraments after which Judas who had disclosed her position did a betrayal. Then came

the crucifixion and Mary M was there as the most revered disciple, the one Jesus loved and

afterwards after the resurrection she was honoured by Jesus and the angel at the annunciation as the only one spoken to and appeared to and later

she penned under a pseudonym her own somewhat differing doctrine and gospel and three letters included in the canon as authoritative as befits a, arguably the, leader of the early church, the only one with something to say who went about saying it.

So throughout she was in a privileged position being accorded the essentials of leadership and authority of position and her shared recorded doctrine in her own gospel which still stands to this day.

*** Peter and Judas’s interests at odds with Jesus and Mary’s

There were two seemingly well connected leadership type people amongst the disciples who Jesus and the / Mary said were or came to be possessed by Satan and that was Judas and Peter. It is said they were only interested in money and material earthly gain and not interested in matters of the spirit or heaven or anything but their own immediate self promoting interests. These two had common purposes and acted them out. Peter is recorded as having come good later but he never was the one who got the top job and authority, that was for Mary M alone and her choice was never to be taken away from her so she got to write a gospel and have it named after someone else. Her interests were very different from anyone else’s but Jesus and could never be represented by Peter and his people who termed her acts forbidden acts, diametrically opposed to the teaching of Peter’s people who find her confusing not being aware of her different perspective, now no longer forbidden!

*** Promoters cannot sustain claims to leadership, doctrinal IP and informal subordinate arrangements with discontinued abandoned personages.

Even if Peter were the promoter (Luke 22:31) and organizer of the addresses to the masses and Judas the, his even, money man and fund raiser, they did not have any intellectual property or ideas of their own but to gain materially. That which they picked up to support the organized set up crucifixion of their star performer was that one should die for the masses, whom Peter was the organizer of. The true doctrine of love was coming from Mary M as a high priestess of the God.dess of Love and from Jesus, hence a growing split in the ranks and the separation of two church groupings, one based on Peters’ masses and one on Mary and Jesus’s teachings and different material aims from Peter and Judas’s.

Of course Mary M could not get married in the normal jewish sense to Jesus as she was married to the worship of the Goddess of Love but since Jesus was God they, or more He, could love as they liked and as many as they liked and they could have an understanding, union even, celebrated in the twin anointment initiations, following upon Jesus’ accepted offer of the top spot for Mary M, which got Judas stirred up to make an interesting admission as to her considerable monied status, as said, and to want to quickly move the show on to the next stage, the getting rid of the star and inserting a martyr.

Mary M was soon moved aside and Jesus’ and her centrepiece doctrines to be found in her gospel became highjacked and renamed after one of the disciples, John. What we are left with is the feminine non jewish law doctrines of Mary as said, love one another, not one other and love and orgasms should be free of contract, the opposite of what Peter’s people finally decided on leading to the denunciation till of late of Mary M as one who committed forbidden devotional acts out of contract of marriage which Peter’s people and their mates promote to ensnare the unwary and unlearned.

So now we promote M+J’s gospel of love that love is the answer to the law rather than Peter and Paul’s that one should die for the sins of many and expiation of guilt. We say love is the answer to the law and follow what is in John’s, Mary’s, gospel and letters that we should live in love and love covers a multitude of sins and he who loves commits no sin as love covers a multitude of sins, and believers should love their foldmates orgasmically, one to another not just one with one other as in contract. We should live in love. So in all of this the one who is the still the chosen one of Jesus with the true doctrine, remains Mary as Peter had none of his own but was an organizer of the masses but his (rather than Jesus +/or Mary M’s) followers cannot say he headed up any resulting church by being a promoter as Mary M always had the status of a double initiated High Priestess of the Way movement, misrepresented and rejected by Peter’s male followers till 1969.

Only by our unrestrained scriptural spirit-filled love for one another in free expression will all people know who are Jesus and Mary’s disciples and that’s not happening anywhere at the moment and there is no reason why we shouldn’t love and make love with and to all those we quite like who quite like us without restraint or contract in worship of the God.dess of Love as we are designed to do. After all no one believer has contract relationship expectations or is demanding possession as all are seeking the Kingdom of God and it is all acceptable worship no matter which mutually made responsive believer it is with so there should be no fear, inhibition or restraint.

The true leader is the more humble and is to be exalted.

*** “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.” Matt 23:9-12. “But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant.” Luke 22:26. Mary M seems to have qualified here as the greatest amongst the apostles who was the servant who is now in these times to be exalted. No one who calls themselves father, pope, is the leader so Peter’s followers are out and Mary M is in and the true worshipers should transfer allegiances.

Peter’s church more commercial and no Mary’s succession

*** It must be remembered that Jesus and Mary were jewish but the church of Peter was roman and not jewish nor run by jews nor by those sympathetic to the teachings and gospel of Mary but for the reasons of Peter, for more commercial worldly aims. So there was apart from Mary, never any jewish succession as there is only Peter’s church and similar traditional orthodox rites but no Mary’s rites based on former “forbidden acts” of worship. For Mary’s church to now come into her own there would need to be the modern invention of contraception to maintain public order as unrestrained spontaneous Goddess of Love worship in the past could and would lead to babies and social order problems. That is no longer the case.

*** Mary M the choice for a church incorruptible

A church based upon making love as worship between all believers with all other mutually responsive believers where love, fellowship and worship are free should not be open to being corrupted by money. A church or religion which is based on sin and guilt and expiation and purported exclusivity of keys to heaven is open to corruption and exploitation which despoils and corrupts it. This may well be another reason why Jesus chose Mary ahead of Peter as she came from a different doctrinal background being that of making love, the free gift of God, as worship of the God.dess of Love who of course, since God is love is of course the same God Almightly, law and love giver, creator of the universe and in the womb. Religions based upon penance payments means someone somewhere has worked out how to make money and is getting rich if not giving it all back out to the faithful. In fact why take it? Furthermore she was a giver, Luke 8:2,3, and along with the other women ministered to Him unlike the men, Peter and Judas.

*** The emotional making love as worship healing of the seven demons of Mary M

Love covers a multitude of sins” – Peter per 1 Peter 4:8, Prov 10:12. The ejecting of the seven “demons/devils”, as they were then termed, afflicting Mary M as an impacted person of great importance was quite conceivably effected by as many as seven doses of natural God.dess of Love designed and prescribed love healing in the form of orgasm therapy. A mutually responsive male believer priest’s magic orgasm wand can, with therapeutic application and repetition along with law therapy and counselling, effectively and naturally assist in emotional healing and clearing out the cobwebs through the act of making love as worship in a believing foldmate afflictee’s inner temple. Such were most likely all administered by Jesus, as many as seven times, for the ejection of the seven “demons” or torments of anxiety, depression, fear, guilt, grief, unbelief/doubt, timidity replacing them with the nine fruits of the spirit: Gal 5:22.

It is noteworthy in contrast that Jesus said two of his disciples either had or came to have devils (not demons which are torments, or tortmeants) as devils imply intent.

*** Mary’s gospel and sacraments

There were only ever two gospels, the Matthew/Mark/Luke synoptic original and Mary’s called John’s gospel. The former was more patriarchal forming the basis for Peter’s church and the latter more spiritual and feminine forming the basis for Mary’s church. Mary was the only church leader who wrote a gospel who had conferred authority while Peter wrote none but drew his teachings as to love worship from hers and Mary’s only sacraments were at their core the “forbidden acts” of making love as worship with your foldmates, which became the representational and watered down for public general consumption and marketing breaking of the bread and the libation of the wine for the remission of sins overlaying or going alongside the sacramental acts of making of love as covering a multitude of sins. With her restoration to the missal in 1969 Mary’s M’s sacraments, the once “forbidden acts” of worship, emotional healing and fe/illowship, can once again be officially practised in their purest forms before the God.dess of Love with other foldmate believers or for outreach evaginalization and seductive conversion to the faith either as an order either within Peter’s church or, of course, as the original Mary M’s church: the Orgasmic Internet Church of Mary Magdalene + Jesus the Christ link which is designed by God for universal natural appeal for all men and women.

*** Peter’s letter supports Christomagdaleneian gospel

In 1 Pet 4 Peter wrote “8 Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without complaint. 10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

If we take a close look at what Peter himself said we find he wrote that which supports the Christomagdaleneian gospel of love as being above all rather than cyclic sinning, guilt, expiation, damnation as those who later came in his name promote, and it falls to us to again take up what even he said and keep his current followers at all levels back on track such that they come back to the original gospel of Jesus and Mary M of love and making love as worship.

Peter never wrote a gospel as a senior first church leader might be expected to do thus diminishing any claim to authority (as compared to Mary’s act of doing so as an act of leadership greatly accentuating her claim to authority) but only penned two short letters in which he adopted and acknowledged what Mary had said in her gospel (John’s) that above all, 1 Peter 4:8, the major teaching was for all

to keep fervent (unrestrained) in your love for one another,

love one another deeply, because love covers a multitude of sins and

be hospitable without complaint and

speak to and serve one another in love with all your strength for the glory of God(.dess).

Also note 1 Peter 4 in its entirity.

Thus Peter (and Paul also) took the major point of his teaching from MM+JC’s teachings in her gospel which came from Jesus’ love to her as “the church” so she was looked up to in the early community as the associated authority. She had the authority and was the first leader with the authority directly from Jesus, Matthew 20:26, and was in an initiated union with Jesus, Luke 10:42. Peter never obtained such authority nor teachings in his own right nor as far as we know ever got to writing many sheep feeding letters etc and the authority, teaching and doctrine of loving one another, not one other, with strength, is still there and hers and upheld by Peter.

*** Mary M is the stone that the builders rejected and her teaching now is become the very corner stone

And again speaking of either Mary M and Jesus’s teaching “the stone which the builders rejected, this has become the very corner stone,” and, Peter speaking again plainly of a union of both Mary M and Jesus and their teaching and commandments: “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” 1 Pet 2:7-8

Mary and her doctrine are the stone that the builders rejected and so it is notable that any congregations and followers of the Way have no buildings in her own right for their own use. She has had no buildings since the ancient temples of love of the God.dess of Love. She is now becoming the very corner stone, a stone of stumbling together with a rock of offence.

Loving one another, by way of physical God.dess given strength and not just word alone, was the basis of Mary and Jesus’ gospel and new commandment, and in his letters Peter can now be seen to have come into line in his lifetime but his followers have watered down his writings to something non committal, actionless, empty and unloving – just talk. Peter exposited that Mary M, as first leader, the stone which the builders rejected up to 591 and beyond and as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense due to her teaching / “forbidden acts” up until 591 and beyond to 1969 is, with her teaching and formerly forbidden acts of a High Priestess of Love becoming, as of 1969 (around the time of contraception), the very timely corner stone. That means she is replacing what corner stone (contract) there has till now been which should not be there, necessitating a new rebuilding from the ground up and the removal of the old or a few old corner and foundation stones, as implicitly predicted by even Peter, yielding finally to Mary M and passing back to her any keys to the kingdom she may not have had in the first place, Matthew 16:19, and Song of Solomon 5:4.

Being in the life and way and traditions and teaching of and office of a High Priestess it has been put that Mary was a love child, always second best, an affront in her culture and so only suited to be a priestess of the worship of the God.dess of Love. A child of her faith that did not promote marriage as a path of oneness with God and who was not worthy of secular righteous men nor to lead them and so a stumbling block which the builders had rejected but whom God chose, but still a leader at least for the time being of women and men of good faith. She was married to the physical worship of the Most High God.dess of Love and not to man. She was very deeply in love with Jesus who was God to whom she was, by her priestessly vows, “wedded” and being God Jesus could love her as He wished and was not bound by contract of marriage or engagement as is the case with unbelievers. And of course her God, the God.dess of Love and the God of the pharisees and the disciples who despised her were the same God as there is only one God but her path to her God.dess was the path of love and making ritual love as worship with her inner circle of accepted adherent initiates and foldmates, not law nor honour nor human approval nor dry ritual nor cyclic repentance and atonement nor inner secrets and secret knowledge meant to confuse, bind and control nor things the conventional religious bigwigs would make money out of per se. God prefers those who will submit to the ways of Love to work through but will use others as well whether they may like it or not.

*** Peter did not lay claim to leadership

Peter in his two letters did not claim to be the leader of the church or himself claim to be any manner of stumbling block which the builders had rejected as he was not and had not been. Nor did he claim that he or his acknowledgment that Jesus was the Christ was his foundation for his church nor did he say he was able to bind things or had any keys (cf knock and it shall be opened to (any of) you, Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9, i.e. the Kingdom of God.dess is not padlocked) or was the one shepherd of the one flock, 1 Pet 5:1, as a leader might be expected to say.

*** Mary M the writer of John’s gospel, generally accepted as not written by him, and a letter as would be expected of the original church leader.

In 1 John 2:13:14 the writer is clearly writing to fathers and if taken one way as church fathers it strongly suggests the first letter of John to be written by the church leader of the fathers who are of that Church leader’s following and distinctive teachings such as love one another. If taken another way it suggests it is being written by a woman addressing fathers of children and to young strong men who are overcoming. Interestingly this a rare example of the verse 13 being repeated in verse 14 for double emphasis so a woman writer who is leader is seemingly doubly disclosed or at least deductively inferred.

As further evidence that Mary Magdalene was the writer of 1st John’s and hence John’s gospel a concordance study reveals that they were all evidently written by the same person by their style. Furthermore in 1 John 1:1 the writer mentions in most more versions “we handled him”, some versions say “touched him”. There is no record in the gospels of John ever handling or touching Jesus but the ones, to whom the “we” could apply, who are said to have handled or touched him are are the two Mary’s, mother Mary when Jesus was a baby and Mary Magdalene in the double initiation, feet and hair, which riled Judas and some others, and when leaning on his chest as the “disciple whom Jesus loved at the last supper, this time leading Judas go on to leave early in order to betray, and at her private encounter as the first disciple at the tomb when she clung to Jesus, so 1 John 1:1 makes out fairly strongly to the exclusion of any other contenders at the outset it is secretly a suppressed woman who as writer had a very intimate knowledge of Jesus recalling various pivotal events saying we, meaning the women, or herself and the other women, and not any man.

Even further suggestive evidence that 1st John was written by a woman is that the readers were referred to as “little children” and “dear children”, presumably perhaps her children but the letter was in John’s name either because she either could not publish or write in her own name to reach her audience or gain wider acceptance or was proscribed by Simon’s faction or needed to protect a blood line descending from herself and Jesus.

*** Mary has the stumbling block cum corner stone claim to authority

Mary had more prior claim to that based upon her being a fairly acknowledged acting priestess of love and her loving one another so all would notice (as they appeared to) to be later maligned and denigrated so as not to be a threat. Nor was Jesus, as a stumbling block or cornerstone relative to any other stones, rejected by any builders (the jews could not be contended as “builders” but the early church elders were the builders) nor was he himself particularly offensive. Mary, as a cornerstone, was rejected by those who built the early church and her doctrines were an admitted “stumbling block” and rejected by the early builders but she has now been put back in her rightful place as co-head of the church along with her doctrines of loving one another, not one other, as Christ had loved her, the church, as well as her vicarious acts of worship (requiring contraception) and recommencement of the broken line of authority for her and her gospel teaching emanating from Christ.

Hence for those who follow her teaching and formerly “forbidden” acts of unbridled loving one another, not one other, the Holy Spirit, the seal of God, should again flow, bless and infill so that we may love the God.dess of Love together when coming together in love as worship as that is how and why we are made: to freely give love and receive love with one another free of expectation. This “desire of ages” is the sign that the pharisees sought, the noticeable infilling of the Spirit to facilitate and bring on loving – the ultimate aphrodisiac with other similarly infilled believers now becoming noticeably available in latter times for those who truly believe and who submit to loving.

Peter did say there was a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time “who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” 1 Pet 1:5 cf 5:1 and he did not live in the last time but we can make claim to that now, a last time that never ends, and so make claim to that new salvation based upon loving one another, not one other, and so love covering a multitude of sins as the only dispensation being revealed in the last times.

*** Peter opposed any claim to authority by Mary only because she was a woman

In fact, the Gospel of Mary implies through the words of Levi, which repeat the words of Jesus himself, that Peter’s opposition to the authority of women amounts to establishing a rule within the community other than what the Savior said -- a clear sign of unrepentant attachment to the perverse ways of the material world. Ultimately, the Gospel of Mary champions Mary as the representative of an alternative, but authentic, understanding of Christian authority. It claims that a clearly demonstrated spiritual character, rather the physical criteria of (male) apostolic witness, is the best sign of a legitimate Christian prophet and teacher. The Gospel of Mary: Alternative Authority in Early Christian History by Eric Thurman, PhD Candidate, Drew University, Madison, NJ.

The flawed process of the undermining / deofficing / vitiating of authority commenced with Bishop Judas’s denunciatory oral judgment, John 12:4-5, that the use of the spiked nard for the confluential co-anointment of the two lines of royalty indicating designated church leadership (a la Luke 10:42) was but a waste of money, of no value, no effect, to which oral judgment Mary M, as opposing party leader of a long line of Asherah priestess royalty sufficiently replied in her defence, John 12:6, to deprecate and annul the judgment of the hardcore simoneyak Bishop Judas due to his profligacy and recidivism. Thus as first known bishop, prosecutor for and foundation cleric of the later Roman Catholic church, Acts 1:20, which Simon (his father) followed in the tradition of presiding over the drawing of lots for the successor bishop (Simon did not contend leadership to become a successor bishop (successful Matthew wrote him in) Judas denied the value of the significance of the joint anointment signifying Mary M, high priestess of Asherah, female essence of God (as God is both male and female), the Goddess of Sex, Love, Blessings, Wisdom and Guidance, as being leader with the best part, best role, having the best part in, and as, the body of Christ, she and Judas, as with Simon and most of the men, not so with John, were at odds (John 21: 20-22).

And since that day and recorded oral judgment the Judas / Simon grouping has been the dominant faction but, by succession law, Mary M has the authority as Bishop Judas spoke from envy and partisanship as a dissolute simoneyak desperate to annul the significance of the ceremony of union, seeking to confiscate the admittedly expensive nard ointment, John 12:7, and reverse the designation of leadership of the fledgling Magdalene Asheric Cataholic church he had just witnessed, so anathema to him and his Judas/Simon family clan (John 13:2, 26) ilk who headed up the male disciples who conspired to get even which resulted in son Judas doing the betrayal for his priesthood (diotrophes) associates and father Simon (that’s why they call them father) performing the on cue triple denial and the requisite get even tactful autobiographically depicted revenge rape of Mary Magdalene (John 21) with Jesus not around which Jesus, by turning up and providing the fish for Peter to provide tribute, turned by way of a tort to contract swap into an act of attributed whoreship and dominance so MM would be restored with tribute supplied, honour intact, homage paid and her sex worship/blessing generation traditions honoured by her remaining arch nemesis, the thus triple demoted from Peter back to again Simon (John 21:15), father of ex bishop Judas.

As MM was the leader elect (2 John 1:1) since the very day of the decisive and so deprecated ceremony of the joint anointment Mary M has suffered the best part being kept from her meaning that all church history since that day, based upon a partisan oral judgment by corrupt adversary Bishop Judas worthy thereafter of no office whose judgment was rendered of no effect means that all church history descending from the date of disgraced bishop Judas’ oral judgment by that faction is of no authority and represents a fraud upon the Magdalene-Asherah Cataholic contingent and their doctrines of love in action as the answer to the law and physical worship generating blessings and love one another, not one other. Judas was not a true follower of Jesus (John 6:70) yet his oral judgment is still embraced and the Asherah teachings and practices shunned by his catholic faction.

Judas was in the pay of and allied with the temple priesthood (also at odds with the Magdalene/John grouping (diotrophes = priesthood, 3 John 1:9)) who sentenced Jesus to death (Mark 14:64). The result is a fraud by the Iscariots and their all tarred with the same brush followers to this day and all have been led astray like sheep (Rev 18:23). Hence elements of the Gospel and totally contrasting teachings of Mary M have never since been officially nor at all promoted, as Mary M’s Asherah faction were what we would call today a sex (satan EX = SpritE X (= sex trip)) church, a sex love religion generating blessings by the acts of love as physical whoreship between one another. The world is of course now ready. The true disciples were to be fishers of men (Matt 4:19) and the entire process of Asherah evaginalization to be sexual i.e. satan ex u all, by way of love and the making of love to win hearts as fishers of men. Hence we have the mystical word o.r.g.a.s.m., do this in remembrance of me, Our Royal Goddess And Saviour/Sister/Saint/Servant Mary. Hence all unspirited sexless effete ceremonies of the simoneyak judatholic church descended from Judas lack authority and are of no effect as they only promote “cheat love”, costless lipservice love, where no one loves anyone really and no one gets anything. Empty love that gives not, with concessions and people have tried to find the true way but the simoneyaks obstruct.

At law the true church, the true body of Christ is the followers of Mary M and Jesus, not Judas and Simon. All those Catholic statues supposedly of Simon actually represent the first bishop of the Church of Rome being Judas who, akin to Simon’s triple denial xxx, betrayed Jesus, stole money and in John 12 sought as bishop to abnegate the establishment of of the sex love church of Jesus and Mary M which challenged the tradition of marriage and patriarchy.

Fortunately the Vatican does have a statue of Mary M with Jesus, the Pieta, (they’re the same age) ready to go. The Pope should have done homage to that one and not the Judas one which is supposed to be Simon (who raped Mary M in the boat xxx xxx and to whom we have to thank as to what he as a simoneyak judatholic understood loving one another (John 13:35) and presenting our bodies as acceptable worship (Rom 12:1) and glorifying God in our bodies and spirits (1 Cor 6:20) was meant to be: sex in the nude with or between believers of the Magdalene Asheric persuasion designed to generate blessings and bless joint ventures. As his response to their Asheric traditions (the 153 (3x3x17, aec=ace) fish xxx were provided him by Jesus to prove they hadn’t been fishing and doubly to provide Simon a way of paying the Asheric tradition temple tribute dues and reclassifying the rape to an act of submissive Asheric sex intercession for blessings (got him) with the provision of the tribute which with the demotion back to Simon xxx seems to have gotten him some sheep xxx as Jesus, being a shepherd, xxx amongst other things, was leaving the area still being under a Roman sentence of death). Some comments by John in reply noting their opposition to the Diotrophes = priesthood hierarchy xxx set are to be found in 2 and 3 John. This matter is now ready to proceed to Court and settled admissions have been made by the seventh defendant, the Roman Catholic Church originally the Judatholic disciples, in Court proceedings conducted by Messiah in Sydney Supreme Court matter 1443/64, now 2011/327194 on xxx .

Hence we have seen since the 1969 the restoration and ascendancy of Mary Magdalene within the Catholic Church as many of the faithful are horrified by their origins and are repelled by the simoneyak actions of the Judas/Simon Iscariot clan deniers, the Iscariothalics, Iscartholics, Judatholics, and are seeking renewal in line with the now sexually inlaid scriptures – which means times of refreshing as promised (Acts 3:20) and the doing away with the simoneyak jewdatholic yoke of marriage (=grim area), be not unequally yoked (2 Cor 6:14) as Jesus foretold (Matt 22:30, 6:10) would happen in the latter days when Messiah comes as Messiah would tell us all things (John 4:25).

Who would be part of a church based upon a defective value judgment of envy and greed by its first bishop Judas having been bought for money as its basis? Come out of her xxx.

*** Peter’s people can make no authority claim for Peter today

If Peter’s claim to authority over Jesus’ choice of Mary, who also not only declared but also acted out that Jesus was the Christ, is based upon gender and not on doctrine at all then he can lay no claim today to usurping Mary’s authority over the love church whom she initially represented and led and upon whose major points of doctrine he concurred. If it was fine for Peter’s people only to claim authority based upon sex resorting to the unscriptural argument that contrary to Genesis 1:27 God’s image is only male and no part female when the Bible says Heris image is both female and male, male and female, in not specified unequal proportions, then it is fine for Mary M to have lots of formerly forbidden interactive worship sex, and very visible demonstrative spirit filled loving, in her sealed claim to authority and doctrine too.

*** Consequences

In 1969, by way of deemed recantation in a landmark act of restoration to the missal, it was admitted by Peter’s people that Mary M was not and never had been a prostitute and so her religion, church and gospel teachings - and sacraments, her “forbidden acts” were, and are, acceptable and in order as “more praiseworthy”. MM is probably the only saint who since appointment and initiation is still today a leader of a formerly disputed church and discipline, and order even, if you will, diametrically opposed to Peter’s dominant current traditions (themselves askance to his epistle) heading up a different loving-one-another sacraments church, being of the worship of the God.dess of Love, which sacraments caused her to be cast out as a competitor and which sacraments are now implicitly recognized and can now again flourish in the latter endless days with a reverential deemed blessing from her former opponent’s followers.

It was true what Peter had said in his letters concerning Mary M as being considered an offence and the cornerstone stumbling block that the builders (male) had rejected and upon her foundation of love, love one another, not one other, so no marriage, no engagement, no betrothal, no unequal yoking, that Jesus would build his church being upon the foundation of MM who did not disavow, as Peter did in his thrice recanted confessions, that Jesus was the Christ and Lord, and her head, and the anointed and her religion is consistent with Orgasmianity as per Peter in his epistle.

Mary Magdalene never wavered or recanted and her church is a true church, now still as always the only true Church, church being a word for a temple body of inner temple worshippers, with very real signs of infillment for all active believers, yet to be reborn, as is our enjoyable task, again open for worship literally and cliterally based upon loving one another, not one other, so that by so loving one another all people may know that her flock are the true disciples of Christ by their highly in evidence, without equal, orgasmic love for one another, not one other, as they grow and come together in predestined networking, knitworking, point and loop, love.

In so conceding and rightfully restoring her and therefore what she stood for as first and extant church leader and conceding her validity as well as that of her Church and her ways, Peter’s illegitimate usurping church did of late indeed thereby again

* restore to her, in its eyes, her original undiminished authority,
* return to her all and any keys of the Kingdom of God, Song of Solomon 5:4,
* forsook the binding in heaven by binding upon earth due to forsaking unilaterally assumed and purported authority,
* recognized that love and orgasms as free gifts of God should not be subject to contract and to seek to do so on earth is an attempt to bind the God.dess of Love in Heaven and so submittedly, effectively and implicitly annulled all such tendentious so binding marriages and similar arrangements made under their or their spin offs’ or proxies’ sway, retrospectively and to date, and
* annulled all entitlements of offspring arising due to such contractual arrangements where they never had fedback authority,
* vitiated all questionable benefits flowing from such marriage etc arrangement deals, and any other strange, unfounded, unnatural, unscriptural (forbidden) sacraments, due to defective authority and unscripturality and
* vitiated the effect of any promulgations and issuings from Peter’s church due to vitiated defective authority and usurpation of leadership, now implicitly effectively reversed,
* automatically transferred ownership of all business and national entities from any previous ownership to that of Orgasmianity / The Orgasmic Internet Church of Mary Magdalene and Jesus the Christ / the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven or respective practising adherents,
* automatically instituted God.dess’ Law, being the judge found common law and suitable fitting legislation in the common interest administered by the Courts of God and to whom they delegate to replace all legal systems,
thus all women in all places and all good people, should they so wish, are now freed of impositional thralldom to live and love as and with whom they wish under God.dess,

a) did Peter’s church consciously not? and

b) are they not? and

c) if not then why not?

As Jesus said “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven and with the return of the keys or a key of the kingdom Jesus’ Kingdom is now coming and all believers should come together and say “even so, come, Lord Jesus, Rev 22:20”.

With the appropriate planting of the seed of re-recognition being made in 1969, presumably Peter’s church has been waiting for a long time to and since 1969, the year of the relevant missal, for this dispensation and is presumably largely on side, as many of his good people would be also, so that that which has been practiced in secret can be shouted from the rooftops. Indeed the whole of creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time, Rom 8:22.

Peter said in his first epistle that Jesus would build his church upon the stumbling stone that the builders rejected. Now by acknowledging and admitting the stumbling block to be now in place, as of 1969, their only option is to get in line behind Jesus, as commanded, Matthew 16:23, 4:10, Mark 8:33, Luke 4:8, abandon old unlawful commitments and practices, and accept it that God rejects the wisdom of this world and does expose what is folly for what is wisdom which is to have the Church of God now fully based upon the love making teachings of Mary M which initially may be hard for some unscriptural in denial diehards to follow and swallow.

Such is the lasting legacy of Vatican II. The die is cast and the sails are now set for a new direction in church affairs: affairs of the heart, of love as worship as the spirit leads us to come together to make love as vertical worship with our ever expanding circles of foldmates for eternity. That is to live in love as Mary wrote in her epistles, 1 “John” 4:16, 2 “John” 1:16.

Peter’s church now has the option of lining up under Mary Magdalene of whom it now tacitly and visibly approves and making some changes which can be termed the long sought after “times of refreshing”, Acts 3:19-20, winds of change of the Spirit blowing through Peter’s church. It may be the only option left or otherwise lovelessly the old wineskins which cannot contain the new wine will burst or, so to speak, dispiritedly whither on the vine, if it was ever a properly connected part of it at all.

*** Summary

Based upon the foregoing and my submissions as to Orgasmianity and the pride of place of Mary Magdalene as the only one with authority, Peter’s team can never succeed in mounting an argument that they ever came to have authority and standing, exclusive or dominant, of any greater stature than Mary’s, or at all, which stature of hers is upon detailed examination to be found in the scriptures. She retains all authority over the Church and hence Orgasmianity and the Orgasmic Internet Church of Mary Magdalene and Jesus the Christ are the only true religion, church and proper teaching and their acts are no longer forbidden. Fault it or follow it that in this church all good believers may be freed up and worship as designed and be free of the past and their joy full and no longer suppressed and they come to be cleansed and filled with the Spirit to make love as worship and for healing and fillowship, free of contract.

Such is the Evidence and such is the Law. The submissions settle the matter as per Law Therapy procedures, i.e. Tort to Contract swap procedures and self executing parts 17 and 22 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules of the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court jurisdiction at Sydney, NSW, Australia, Earth as concluding matter 1443/64, relisted 13.10.11 as SC matter 2011/327194, but for assessment of quantum and recovery and hearing of any charges and convictions and sentencing against related participating parties.

Submitted to the Eternal Spiritual Court, the High Court in Space and Time, over a number of weeks to Thursday 22nd December 2011 and accepted and passed 1.34pm 22.12.2011 and hence binding upon lower Court .

Published 12.01 am, Friday 23rd December 2011 into legalspace at and from Sydney Law Therapy Chambers, The Asherity Temple, Concord, NSW. Notice of appearance response received to me from ultimate client approx 3 a.m. 30th December 2011.

All parties are believed to have been served or obtained for themselves all earlier documents leaving all n2af’s served upon four immediate parties to resolve per UCPR rules and reversal of fortunes effected thus concluding the substantive matter. Learn to prepare present and win. Nobody knows your case like you do. Winning is the best therapy and orgasms are excellent too. Now for those of us who have overcome be infilled or reprogrammed to top level so as to make love one to another, not to one other, freely and justly.

Peter’s people’s leaders are spiritually and legally obliged to make some changes from the top down.

This is Earth and its Heavens, get used to it. Eph 1:10.

If you’re not happy about and supportive of God.dess’s new system of loving freely and justly one another and thus willing to make a positive contribution you are free to leave as you came, leave anything useful or of value behind. An escort and/or assessor can be provided to this end if needs be.

Link Back to Orgasmic Internet Church of Mary Magdalene + Jesus the Christ

Link Back to Orgasmianity.org website

© & IP, 22.12.2011.

BLESSED ASHERANCE (ASSURANCE) (ANAGRAMMED: SHE ARCANE) – JESUS IS MINE !!!!, OH WHAT A FORETASTE OF GLORY DIVINE” - ASHERAH THE BLESSED, Jesus belongs to the followers of Asherah and Mary Magdalene and not to the Simoneyaks

Little Children

For those interested in the current proceedings as to standing.

Part 17.3 Notice to Admit Facts filed in current accession matter 2011/327194, formerly 1443/64, in Sydney Supreme Court, served 9th December 2012.

The seventh defendant, the Roman Catholic Church, supplied a defective Notice of Dispute within 14 days and otherwise did not traverse the facts put to them to admit so on 23rd December 2012 admitted all 12 requests per the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Just in case you were left wondering for whom the world ended on 23rd December 2012. It ended by way of admission for the SiMoneYaks - those followers of Simon as opposed to those of Our Royal Blessed Goddess And Sister/Servant/Saviouress Mary (Magdalene) who is thereby by way of part 17.3 admissions restored at law as Christ’s original choice but for a time de-officed leader.

Please proceed accordingly.

Be not unequally yoked.

Further details and pleadings:


Please feel free to post to any discussions to be found at bottom of messiahdavid.org site page and promote through your networks for others to knit up.

CASE NO 2011/327194 previously 1443/64
David Gregory Murphy v Council of the Municipality of Strathfield and anors

To the defendants or defendants to be as named per the above email address:

It is noted that all facts have been admitted by all parties to the recent Notice to Admit Facts and Notice to Admit Authority of Documents and again all parties have breached unanimously the Notice to Properly Settle Under Guarantee thus inviting a determination as to liability.

With all 11 respondents having admitted all per the rules and all having breached and all having received the notice and all having demonstrated that they have received the said notices and none having served a traversed Notice of Dispute and none but the 8th defendant to be having put any written requests to me as invited, which response has been satisfied, all is admitted.

However prior to refiling a part 17.7 Motion for Judgment as to Liability I serve a further specific Notice to Admit Facts upon the 7th defendant (Roman Catholic Church) pursuant to part 17.3 of the UCPR in relation to capacity of the Simoniac leadership of the seventh defendant whose capacity I dispute as being resident pursuant to a fraudulent de-officing of a designated co-anointed leader, Mary Magdalene, with her own respective teachings and her own set of followers within the seventh defendant which contingent have the claim to supremacy of tenure and are alone to champion in unhindered fashion the interests of the seventh defendant resulting in all promulgations pursuant to the improper de-officing being of no authority or capacity.. This impacts also on the standing of those resident in the edifice of the sixth defendant (calling for a revisiting as to tenure) who consequently currently seek to avoid service and impacts upon the loyalties of the fifth defendant.

This Notice to Admit Facts will have an impact upon the later proceedings as to quantum and any lateral cross claims. It is anticipated that all parties may be able to refer certain claims to an earlier party or parties, plural, as yet unjoined in respect of outstanding claims, remedies etc. Perhaps James Warren Byrnes may be of some utility here as a twelfth party appears to be missing. If so please advise as I am not clear for whom he acted, if anyone. If he had a principal please advise that I may forward requests to admit to his principal who may become the twelfth defendant. Perhaps he inherited or was bestowed or appointed some capacity to approach me stemming nevertheless from the first, eighth and ninth defendant. He should not be protected if he has a case to answer for having breached the Deed of Agreement on behalf of some undisclosed secret party (such as a certain Masonic rite? or more likely a cabal of jewish creditor/investors?) leading to exposure by all defendants for the “all moneys outstanding”. Please give me the name and email contact details of any principal or legal representative thereof of his (or Comer and MacDonald / PEF's) as he (and Comer and MacDonald etc) was only a child at the time of the cause of action in 1963 and pact of 1964 and I may well have to put another set or respective sets of requests to admit facts to them directly prior to joining them.

The attached Notice of twelve Requests to Admit Facts has already been admitted by two parties having some degree of training in a related entity who rather than refer the requests on admitted all.

Note: all parties and respondents have now again admitted request 55 of section 4 so my standing to bring the further attached Notice to Admit is not in dispute even by the seventh defendant under its current incapacitate leadership.

It is now time for the Magdalene-Asherite faction of the Roman Catholic Church to take on the mantle of leadership, all having been admitted per the Rules of Supreme Court by the simoneyaks. It is time for Royal Revolution.



Notice to admit facts

17.3 Notice to admit facts

(cf SCR Part 18, rule 2; DCR Part 15, rule 2; LCR Part 14, rule 2)

(1) The requesting party may, by a notice served on the admitting party ( "the requesting party’s notice"), require the admitting party to admit, for the purposes of the proceedings only, the facts specified in the notice.

(2) If, as to any fact specified in the requesting party’s notice, the admitting party does not, within 14 days after service on the admitting party of the requesting party’s notice, serve on the requesting party a notice disputing that fact, that fact is, for the purposes of the proceedings only, taken to have been admitted by the admitting party in favour of the requesting party only.

(3) The admitting party may, with the leave of the court, withdraw any such admission.

1a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that more than anyone else, Mary Magdalene satisfyingly, according to the clues deposited in the biblical text, satisfies all the accepted conditions generally mentioned for consideration and hence is a - the - prominent contender for consideration as the author of 1 John and hence the fourth gospel?
1b) If not then why not?

2a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that the textual clues in support deposited in 1 John and the fourth gospel are conclusive enough in the circumstances for a conclusion to be drawn that Mary M, being quite presumably the disciple whom Jesus loved, to whom the best part had been given never to be taken away from her, a double meaning there, was the writer of the said epistle and said fourth gospel as befits a highest church leader?
2b) If not then why not?

3a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that a consideration of the clues to be found in the epistle such as 1:1 (held/touched) , 5:21 (cf from idols/migdol), 2:12-14 (father in two meanings, young men all repeated twice for emphasis) and verses 1, 12 and 13 of 2 John which is quite apparently written back as a response to the writer of 1 John, the elect lady, in which John touches on the some of the somewhat feminine teachings raised in 1 John by the person to whom 2 John is written back to, point probatively and adequately to Mary Magdalene being the elect lady, with a sister with children, as author of 1 John and hence John’s gospel (note chap 17, the male disciples were asleep and Mary M recorded the prayer lest there be any doubt as to authorship she could not be seen at the time to have claim to) and was hence the disciple whom Jesus loved, Jesus not being gay and not loving otherwise just one disciple and not not much liking the others, the reference being clearly romantic.?
3b) If not then why not?

4a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that John 21, written now by you know who you know why, has much to say about the two contenders for church leadership and shows who was held in higher regard by Jesus and who was being paid out after being caught out in the nude (Simon’s mimicking “how I have loved you”) with the disciple whom Jesus loved such that he and his crew caught no fish all night when there were plenty of fish to be caught so he was caught out and supplied some tribute for to be given the one who gave tribute (“it is the Lord”) for her rendered in dominance services as pursuant to her standing and Temple profession as a receiver of tribute.?
4b) If not then why not?

5a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that Mary Magdalene being the writer of the epistle and fourth gospel and the only anointed, jointly anointed, Jesus feet and her hair/head, disciple and first apostle, apostle to the apostles, was and hence is the leader designate of the church and was the temporal body of Christ to which we all, if true, belong, her having the best part?
5b) If not then why not?

6a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that John’s comment back to Mary Magdalene as the writer of 1 John in the pointedly anagrammatical Diotrophes (i.e. priesthood) lament in 3 John v9 refers to the concept of priesthood having no real place in their, or the latter day english language church, in which they (the elect lady, Mary Magdalelene (legendary mama) and John’s contingent (incl. Demetrius (merited us, mitered us)) held the authority and hence the church is a movement of the laity, layity, as opposed to the other priesthood (Diotrophes) styled religions and antichrists which went out from them (1 John 2:19) which do not recognize the leadership of the elect lady, Mary M, and John et al, having talked wicked nonsense about them, 3 John v10, causing there to be two seeming gospels, one group continually and mournfully celebrating the death of Jesus long after he had come back and preaching a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-9) to the new one, the gospel of love, based upon the new commandment (John 13:34) continually celebrating living in love and having joy upon meeting and loving one another, not one other, as Jesus had loved the church, living the new commandment day by day in action and having joy?
6b) If not then why not?

7a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that we should not be unequally yoked with simoneyak simoniacs?
7b) If not then why not?

8a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that an acceptance of 1 John and the fourth gospel being written from a female point of view casts certain teachings, such as loving one another, woman to man, man to woman, in a different light and has unavoidable implications for the ordination of women in the church hierarchy and of course leadership as the original church leader designate was a woman and another is long overdue and the church may not be even be being seen to be scriptural but rather apostate by denying such?
8b) If not then why not?

9a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that with the de-officing of Mary Magdalene by Simon, formerly Peter but demoted back to Simon pursuant to his triple denial (John 18:17, 25-27), a fraud took place which is overdue for rectification and Mary Magdalene be restored to a position of temporal authority and leadership long denied by the patriarchal Diotrophes (priesthood) set and women in consideration be elevated and the Jesus / Magdalenean new commandment be reinterpreted as between men and women, love one another, not one other, as I have loved you (Simon having given his slant on what that meant), she being the disciple whom Jesus loved?
9b) If not then why not?

10a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that the deofficing of Mary Magdalene by the male disciples resulted in an illegitimate de-officing fraud of she who had been appointed and co-anointed and contradictorally arose because of headstrong undoctrinal mysogenist Diotrophes patriarchy against Galatians 3:28 that in Christ there is neither male nor female and further that this unlawful de-officing, being a fraud upon her and Jesus’ joint anointment appointment has resulted in a simoniac church with history, traditions, certain sacraments, ceremonies (e.g. marriage) and much teaching where it departs from the Word being based upon a fraud and hence irrelevant, misleading, in error and invalid?
10b) If not then why not?

11a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that the only real oft quoted verse to support marriage in the gospels being, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, even points out it is the man who leaves his parents and goes to the woman and not the woman who goes to the man indicating the priority of women in the view of Adam (Moses) and Jesus?
11b) If not then why not?

12a) Do you admit or agree that it is in fact the case, is it not, that marriage has no place in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth as Jesus said (Matthew 22:30, 6:10) and a higher calling per Jesus (Matthew 19:11) and Paul is to be single (1 Cor 7:8, 2 Cor 6:14) but living in love (Ephesians 5:2, 1 John 4:16, 2 John 2:6) and loving one another, not one other (which means more than making a cup of tea for someone at a church social) as by this would all men, the simoniacs, know that we are His disciples if we have love, one to another, not one other, as Jesus loved the church, Mary Magdalene.
12b) If not then why not?

Yours Sincerely
David Gregory Murphy
Plaintiff / by your admissions, per request to admit #55 section 4, Messiah

New thoughts on the Garden of Eden story in the light of God being Asherah, a Female.

The story of God creating a naked man and putting him in a garden where SHe could visit him makes much more sense when you realize that God, Asherah, Isis, Innana et al, is female.

We can perfectly well surmise why a female God like Asherah, Goddess of Love, blessings and guidance would create a naked man of novel design and put him in a garden with lots of fruit trees and visit him over time to amongst other things teach him a language over time and enjoy Her creation as Goddess of Love. The story of the Garden of Eden makes little sense if God is portrayed as male as a male god would presumably not have put a naked man but rather have put a naked women in a garden where he could visit to amongst other things teach her a language over time.

But of course Adam, the adam of the m.adam, came first because that is what Asherah wanted to do and could have fun visiting him and providing him an opportunity to worship each sabbath when she rested.

Of course this gives us a fairly strong argument of what Asherah worship was meant to be and that was not just singing songs in groves, in remembrance of the Garden of Eden, to create blessings when blessings can be created between believers Asherah style: so worship was originally meant to be the physical act of worthship; blessing banking for admin to distribute.

This slant on the story is confirmed in that later in Genesis we have stories of other lesser male gods coming down and mating with the women that came from the union of Adam and Eve.

Of course the early jews did not want that sort of story getting out so cast God as male to keep control over the women when if God is female and the Garden of Eden was for Asherah and her pleasurable creation Adam for joint worship, worthship, then things get much more interesting and give us some direction as to how we should worship.

In fact many of the stories of what God did in the old testament make less sense if God is merely male than when God is female e.g. jealousy, killing bad guys and not women on battlefields.

Remember in Genesis in the Garden of Eden story there is no mention of the word marriage. Marriage is not part of Asherah doctrine nor as exposited later by her best knows expositor Mary Magdalene, High Priestess of Asherah, who penned two works, the fourth gospel (John) and first John according to the various inlaid clues.

Marriage, as someone recently posted, is a male construct to keep inheritances transmitted through the male line and not the female line and still allow men to stray with men maintaining that they were the creators of most transferable wealth when we know that the earth is the Lord’s, Messiah’s, and all is created by God, Asherah. Hence, of course, no informed woman would advance the notion of marriage considering that Jesus, Mary and Paul never greatly advocated it and it was not the highest state of service referred to by them (e.g. Matt 19:10-11, 1 Cor 7:8).

Of course this does not mean that Asherah worthship practices are prostitution as Asherah worship with a priestess was not contract but worship and any payment is tribute and not of contract and all is perfectly honourable and commanded as we are commanded to love one another, implicitly not one other.

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.



My name is Mary Magdalene and this is the story of the fourth gospel, my gospel. The Gospel ascribed to my friend and co-leader John.

As many of you know the fourth gospel was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and as many know the fourth gospel was written by the same person who wrote 1st John. Both were written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” which was me.

To say that the disciple whom Jesus loved was John is to suggest that Jesus was gay and didn’t much care for any of the other disciples and that is not true. In a general sense he loved them all but in saying the disciple whom Jesus loved it is clearly in a romantic sense as to say otherwise means he only ever loved one of the disciples and didn’t much care for the rest.

As many of you may have noticed there is no evidence in the fourth gospel or the first epistle ascribed to John that these two documents were in fact written by John. It had to be left a bit enigmatic and authorless but for the clues because I was a woman and a gospel or epistle written by a woman at that would not carry much weight. Nevertheless, I as the true leader of the church, the disciple to whom the best part was to be given and never taken away, had to write a gospel and a letter to the little children and the fathers, clearly written by a woman. As said there are no clues that John wrote the fourth gospel or the first of the three epistles ascribed to him. The clues that are to be found there hint that it was I and that had to be done on purpose for credibility.

Those who have read second and third John know that they are short as John used scribes and scribes cost money so he dictated short letters. 2nd John is written back to the author the 1st John which is me, the elect lady. I am the elect lady in waiting as Jesus said the best part was for me never to be taken away from me in both senses of the words. And since I acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ and upon that rock Jesus said he would build His church I am the contender for the leadership of the church, the acknowledged apostle to the apostles, hence I am the elect lady, the lady in waiting.

Hence we put into the fourth gospel and the first epistle the teachings of love, that we should love one another, that we should come together in holy sacrament, making love as an act of worship and that was to our new commandment upon which we would build our church, loving one another, not one other, in deed not word, making love with one another as the spirit moves and infills us all.

One of the clues in first John was in the first verse “we handled/held/touched Him” and those only recorded in the New Testament as to who handled, held or touched Jesus were the two Mary’s (Jesus wasn’t gay) so that was a clue that it was from me and not John. Indeed from the biblical record no one can sustain an argument that the fourth gospel and that 1st John came from John except from his collection of documents.

in his childhood Irenaeus had heard Polycarp say that the letters came from John so he named them John 1, 2 and 3.

People wonder why, after the gospels, I disappeared from the New Testament record. Well now you know. I wrote a gospel and wrote a letter as was my duty as leader of the church as that is something a leader of the church and high priestess of the temple and Daughter of Zion who was to see her King riding upon donkey should do as queen, Queen Magdalene, queen of love and sex, s.piritual ex.pression, (although we did not have the word sex at the time. We called it love, eros).

From Judas we know the value of the ointment with which I initiated Jesus. He went off his rocker at my performing a double anointment and said it was worth a year’s wages and being the High Priestess of the Asherah division of the Temple I had temple access and the right to perform a proper initiation of the King. As the first bishop Judas then tried to cancel the initiation because he could see the writing on the wall and decided to have Jesus killed. From Judas we have clues to my status and the value of what I did. It is no wonder the simoneyaks, the Diotrophes set, set out to write me out of the New Testament after my gospel and letter of love and desire. Yes I was a horny high priestess, a priestess of Asherah, Goddess of Love, and I was the disciple whom Jesus loved and who loved Jesus as was my duty to the King and how we worship in love to generate blessings in deed not just vain word. Truly I lived in love. I was and still am on fire, hot for my Lord. We were filled with the Hole-y Spire-it of Love.

Michelangelo got it right in his Pieta statue when he had us both there, both about the same age so certainly not mother Mary, and to prove it with me gazing longingly in the direction of Jesus’ blessed blessing cock. See for yourself.


Mary: John, as you know I have been Jesus' PA, secretary and biographer managing the office for a few years now and in that time I have written notes to do a brief eyewitness history of what happened up to and just after the last days, now that the forewarned resurrection has happened, and beyond. Being the one Jesus chose to have the best part and leadership of His, our, church it is incumbent upon me to produce an account and to write at least one letter to our church which I will write for you to respond.

Unfortunately being a woman, even though I doubled as the gopher girl and operations manager, daughter of Zion and leader of the female disciples who provided the wherewithal for the movement, I still am not in favour with the men who were always jealous that I had been the one Jesus loved and the men sought positions of leadership which Jesus gave to me as I have recorded.

Being a witness who is a woman my account and any letters are not going be taken with credibility should there be other accounts by the men to advance their version of events. I understand there may be some collaboration between the men to put out accounts which will appear to accord with each other for greater credibility.

I would like to publish under your name as we are of the same school and of one accord. I shall leave out any reference to my writing the gospel except for a few judicious clues for the well read to discover but you can get the credit for the time being. Is that OK with you?

John: Anything to advance the cause of our church as we are in competition with the Diotrophes set who have now gone out from us and as they want hegemony over the church and have their own version of events to keep the movement as a money spinner to keep their ilk in jobs and making money. We need our own account and writings. With the resurrection of Jesus they believe they are on a real money spinner now that he has risen and been seen by hundreds and now is ascended, gone for a second time.

Mary: I will complete my account in my own style and shall write a letter for the guidance of our little children in our church and I hope you will write back or better still use a scribe to write back to me. Address your letter to me so all in our church will know that I am the elect woman Jesus chose who is being muscled out by the Diotrophes (priesthood) set. The least I can do is publish a written account and a guidance letter. I am so glad I can do it under your name and not under Peter’s or the other men’s. After all Peter just considers himself as one of the elders and put that in his letter tacitly admitting that he was not the one who was in fact the leader, let alone anointed leader of the church. No wonder Judas, his son, went off his rocker.

John: I will see to it that copies are kept safe with me and when I pass from this life and go to be with the Lord I shall will them to trusted church leaders. We need an account which records Jesus new commandment that he gave before he died to be the basis of his church as I don’t believe the others are going to put it in as they will concentrate more upon what makes his life and death and resurrection a money spinner. You need to focus that Jesus message was love and don’t put anything in about marriage because Jesus didn’t promote that. His message was to love one another, not one other. Talk about giving love without a mention of marriage. Speaking of that I look forward to seeing you again in future so our respective joys may be full as we do as our Lord commanded and love one another and so generate blessings in our joint venture being His church based upon love and making love to generate blessings.

Let us now keep the Lord’s commandment and love one another, for love covers a multitude of sins, and so put blessings upon the church which is our joint venture. Let us be open, upright, forward in faith and show no restraint. By this making love shall all the men know that we are truly his disciples in that we love, make love to one another so it may be said, “see how they love one another”.

© + IP David Gregory Murphy 24.4.15,

tel: (612) 8214 8397, 0419 605 365


Inner Temple Pussy Blessings

Sex Love Network


Developing Financial Responsibility – a parallel networking plan for joint venturing

Orgasmic Internet Church of Mary Magdelene and Jesus the Christ

About Mary Magdelene


Club Orgasm

Socratic Snowflake Foldmateships

The Striptures of Love



Law Therapy

How to Read the Bible


The Striptures of Love Part 1 Part 2

web log statistics