Actually, you can read "Thunder, Perfect Mind" online at the Nag Hammadi site. It is only a couple of pages, and is retiscient of "The Flowing of the God-head", which is an early Christian work by Methchild of Magdeburg (That work is much longer than "Thunder...", but the language is similar). Here's a link to the page for Thunder, Perfect Mind:
Thunder, Perfet Mind

That would seem reasonable to expect, although searching for something of that ilk in a Biblical context is going to be a bit of a rough go. One of the "heresies" of certain Gnostic sects was that they held no qualms against ordaining women, though I am not so sure how hip you might be to those that actually held a preference towards female priests. (Certain sub-sects of the Gnostics tended to get a tad risque in their devotions; which to their own train of thought was to purge the mind of "fleshy" distractions via indulgence- One appeased, the mind could clearly focus upon what it needed to be done. Simon Magus' own more pagan versions (insinuating himself as the Messiah, and his ... Well, I am not sure what you might call her. Let's just say that her calliing into his version of the priesthood really didn't change the job description all that much from her prior calling- which was a prostitute.) Gnosticism had various teachers and revisions throughout its day & age, but there was not one of them (that I can recall at this current moment, leastwise) that excluded women from the "holy" vocations. There also weren't too much of the negative arch-typing and/or depictions of them in their religious writings. (i.e. There were a couple of Eve and the apple stories, however, the eating of the apple was considered a good thing- And the serpent a manifestation of the "true god" (those that created Eden were not the "good guys". As the mind is considered most relevant, and the only route to gnosis (knowing)- Eve & the serpenet got much better reviews from the Gnostics, more as saviors and/or liberatuers from the archons.) The Christian Gnostics went as far as to insinuate that the serpent was the original manifestation of Christ among mankind.

As there was something of a competition going on in wee earliest hours of Christianity for who or whom had the right idea of what was going on, or how the churches should go (Which Paul was the first to condemn/warn against the Gnostics in his epistles to the churches they had helped establish. For ther most part, by the time the Council of Nicea had come about- the Gnostics had been effectively subdued and/or quashed- But their ideas hadn't, which was one of the whys there was a need for certain "clarifications". Whether Christ was a man, like any other man, was one of the issues that needed to be resolved, and that would have assuredly been, in part, due to the Gnostics. Iraneus was another that warned against them and their ideas/philosophies. To the Roman idiom, the Gnostics revisions were actually much more common and familiar to their earlier ways.

Yes, Martin Scorcese (sp?) broached that subject a while back with "The Last Temptation of Christ"- which folk were not too crazy about that his movie suggested the thought might have even crossed his mind. (Perhaps in lieu of the fact of his depiction of it as a near sexual fantasy. In all fairness, I thik the point he was making- as opposed to the fact that Jesus could be a pervert, was that it was a persistent/daily temptation- Although he also still maintained the old Papal goof that Mary Magdalen was a prostitute. (I believe it was Gregory I that first insinuated that misnomer. So much for Papal infallilibity))

There were certain "truths" that I had noticed in the gospel writers versions of the facts (Though primarily kept to myself, as my early questions in as where they concerned the Bible. These, more than my ill-behavior, had me thinking that I mightn't be such a "good boy".) was that in all of the disciples- None of them really did anything for him, and I believe only one of the males actually showed up for the Crucifixion. (Both Marys were there however.) I had suspected this, and the fact that she was the first to see him after the resurrection- made her a tad more important to him than merely. (Wife hadn't entered my thoughts, nor that they might have been more involved with one another than the gospel writers might let on.) Still in service to him, as opposed to in hiding- that would be the logical rational for her to have witnessed the resurrection first.

There are other books (non Gnostic) from the early church that still exist, thuogh these books were not cannonized. (Christian pseudophigyria (sp?) & apocryphals- such as the Marytdom of St. Felicity & St. Perpetua. This merely tells the story of the two early Christian martyrs, which can also be found in "Fox's Martyrs"; but they were both women.) There are many books (Gnostic and otherwise) that were never selected for inclusion/cannonized into the accepted version of the Bible- which was also one of the necessities for the Council of Nicea. I cannot remember the man's name who was appointed to the, then, tremendous task. There were new books being born everyday, some of which were actually written by a Christian hand- many more of them attributed to various patriarchs and apostles that just couldn't be so. There were stories that were lost in those times as well, though commonly told and retold among the early Christians. Many of the exclusions were made upon that basis (authorship/authority), others for the questionable content therein. I have read several of them, as well as those books found near Nag Hammadi (primarily Gnostic writings). The value of that find is inestimable, from a historical viewpoint. Many of these texts had otherwise been condemned and subsequentially destroyed. Another interesting side-note in history was a man named Mani (Father of Manicheism (sp?)) He was killed for his ideas as well (not by the Christians). The Albigesians (a Christian sub-sect primarilly centered about Gaul) were another, in that they had quite a bit to do with the then Pope's reluctant embrace of St. Francis & the Franciscan Order. Their ideas were similar, which the early Roman Church far from espoused. A Beggar's Church was not what most self respecting Roman nobles of the time might likely have signed on for, and they did comprise the hierarchy of the church at that time. St. Francis was something of a ploy to combat the Albigesian "heresies"- one ideal of which was that one should try to emulate the life of Christ- Which wasn't very prosperous and/or powerful. There were more violent attempts to quash them (eventually successful) but only after the Franciscan Order was officially "embraced". The common folk just weren't too hip on the extravagant lifestyles of the Bishophorics.

As I may have alluded to before, I was raised Roman Catholic- And still maintain something of a love/hate affinity towards them. (And it shows most obviously, and or ominously, in my verse.) I cannot even comprehend a man such as Francis of Assisi was; but that he was made and left this world (and the Church) a better place- whether he had ever been accepted by the Catholics or not.

St. Hildegardt De Bingen (whose own order was comprised of female priests, and was far from ostracized by the Church of the day) is another.

The Latin Doctors (From Aquinas and Jerome to Augustine and Iraneus) had much to do with what came to be the Holy Roman Church. Add some Plato, a little Aristotle; mix in some scripture to accepted ways of the day- and voila.

As you have likely guessed, I absolutely adore reading, writing and talking about this subject- and there are holes a'plenty in what I have learned and/or read, purely because I enjoy it. Rather than a book of rituals and spells, I would rather learn what happened when that book/idea/philosophy hit the scene. Some, like Angelo Bruno, got roasted- and some whose writings might have been grossly worse in their import (Cornelius Aggripa Von Netterschiem actually wrote his 4 books of the occult philosophy and dedicated it to a local Bishop. From Necromancy and Numerology right down to conjuring of spirits and demons- How that got past the e'er watchful eye of the Church is beyond me. Perhaps there was too much going on at the time, who knows? ... No really, who knows, cause I wanna know too *smirks*)

I eat this kind of stuff up, among my other readings and interests- But was the rationale behind the original question I had posed in the subject line. Not really something like the DaVinci Code- I'm sorry, but I just am not prepared to accept so much at face value. I cannot even really say whether Mr. Brown truly believes what he wrote, or if he conisdered himself more like a reporter and/or discoverer of some little known history. I can easily see why, if Leonardo DaVinci accepted this and was in some small & secret society- That was near enough common for an Italian nobleman of his day and age. That he was hiding clues in his paintings, not so much- He struck me, from those things that he had left behind, as possessing a far more inquisitive mind into the nature of all things. He was another that had left the world something better before he was gone (many-several somethings actually) One needn't argue that the Church suppressed, repressed & oppressed, and would likely have tried to keep such matters in check- And that kind of thing happened day to day, year after year; for better than a thousand years.

Even into the modern age, it is still one of my primary pet-peeves. Churches of man denominations like to hop on that train of thought every so once in a while- such as some few of the schools in the Bible-belt coming out with the thou shalt not read lists. (Which usually include some something by Shakespeare in the rank. I'm sorry, but if your child is choosing to read Shakespeare, give the kid a big ole cookie- don't slap their hands. Shoot, if they are choosing to read at all, rather than play video games or watch television- this is a step in the right direction. I would whole heartedly agree with brushing at the student reading lists, but not because I might have some kind of issue that is normally the reasoning/rationale. Sure, don't use D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly", nor anything DeSade chose to put to paper- My objections would be more like F. S. Fitzgerald's little, all too frequently assigned, book is about as dry and dull a read as I never have want to read again. I would prefer to encourage reading, not punish the student for it.)

Well, I have managed to ramble, stumble and plop into a whole other subject, so I figure I should better hush up now. Thanks again Alicia. :)

Peace,
Po