Hi Bob,

BV> Yeah...It's funny. I noticed from the dates in my original
BV> library copy that it seems to go out for long periods of time
BV> and then sits on the shelf for years. Then it's out for ages
BV> again... Quite strange.
BL> Hey! My one's the same. And the really weird part is that the rush
BL> comes in March/April... (Easter?)

It's weird hu ! I don't recall the "rush" period for the one I had.
Although it was obvious that the book had some "strange" lending
patterns associated with it. I don't recall anything about a
specific period such as Xmas or Easter though.

BL> The library lists it as 001.94 in the loony section with UFOs and
BL> things, so it must rely in recommendations or no one would ever find it.

HeHeHe...I think it was in the "general theology" section at Sutherland.

BL> Ahh... follow ons. I notice it was written in 1982.
BV> Not as good as the first. Having read all three follow-ons I
BV> can now tell who researched and wrote what sections. The trio
BV> went their separate ways after the first two. Between them,
BV> they have written five books on similar stuff that I have read.
BV> While they are somewhat different they are just as engrossing.
BL>  Yair... I like the analysis of the New Testament. I always thought
BL> it was silly that Lazarus just disappeared. He was obviously a good
BL> mate of JC; he is brought back from the dead, and then he vanishes!
BL> Talk about an ingrate!

Yeah, that was weird. If you know anything of Freemasonry you might
see a few other similarities too. It really is fascinating stuff
.
BL>  But the logic gets very shakey with Mary Magdalene. First they show
BL> how unreliable the gospels are, having been edited and rewritten, and
BL> then they analyse them word-by-word to `prove' their point.

I didn't think it was as bad as all that. Mind you, there have been one
or two other people that have had similar views about Mary Magdalene.
One of my favorites is the Australian lady, Barbara Thiering. I heard an
interview with her when she was flogging "Jesus the Man" for all it was
worth.

The question put to her was, "What did you think of the Mouldy Whale?",
to which she replied, " It is trash, my book is nothing like that".

Well, you can imagine, that was enough for me. Two days later and I
could have sworn I had re-read the Wholly Tail except this time
there had been a little more in-depth research done. The bottom line
though was very similar, as is a lot of other stuff if you can look
past the superficial stuff. That's what I find so interesting. There
are so many "slightly" different versions claiming to the un-abashed
and true version which makes all the others look like rubbish, that
there has just got to be something hidden in there somewhere.

One of the things I liked about Rolling Snails is that Henry ended
up a million miles from where he started and I'm sure that he still
can't quite believe how he got there. In his latest book which tries
to focus back on the original mystery, he ends up discovering other
stuff that makes the whole story and original mystery look like kids
stuff by comparison.

BL> I prefer my own analysis: it's *all* bullshit.

Probably the correct analysis too. It can be fun though :)

Best Regards, Brenton

--- PQWK194