It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Papyrus mentions Jesus wife authentic?

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   

andy1972

tsingtao
Jesus wasn't married.

why would He get married?

did the romans kill His whole family, too?

seems they left His mom alone.

soooooooo???




Maybe they fled to France, where there was a jewish 'kingdom', Septimania.


ya, maybe. roll eyes.

what was in france 2000 yrs ago?

neanderthals. lol! !

they didn't have the fork till Medici brought it from italy.




posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   

andy1972

LABTECH767
reply to post by andy1972
 


It is not a lie it is gnosticism.


edit on 11-4-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)


Gnocism..yeah..Jesus 'burnt his food in public' so he became very unpopular. Doesn't change the fact he was married. The bibles just full of lies.


you don't say.

copy of his marriage cirt, please.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   

StormyStars
reply to post by Cinrad
 






Thousands of scrolls, codices, fragments make no mention of Jesus' wife and this one does. The coherent christology contained in the old and new testaments also favour Jesus not having a wife. Tons of scientific research done to establish the authenticity of the scriptures indicate that the Bible is a genuine record of the coming of the messiah. It would take more than one fragment of an old text to make me think otherwise... unless of course I already had a


I was fortunate when in 1989, studying Theology, to have and take the opportunity to look and even read, at that time, was the oldest known Holy Bible.
It had mention of this as well as quite a few mentions of Jesus's brattiness, how he'd been mean to his Mother, a trickster on his older brothers, how he thought his twin brother witless, no mention of Joseph except as master carpenter and partner of orgies, his sisters MADE to be his Priestesses, him seeking out a prostitute who he later married, lived and procreated with her for a few years around a region of France after his twin brother took his place on the cross, him and wife Mary going back, ' home, ' while near the end of her pregnancy, him being a drunken gambler, the Romans once again murdering him, his wife and infant son.

Think about it, either version, the Romans MURDERED Jesus Christ. THEN have nerve to become CHRISTIANS, forming armies of Knights Templars, basically till the World became under certain Roman law. Hence the ONLY people to take over the World in the sneakiest most successful way ever. CHRISTIANITY.

Did Romans let their wives do or be anything other than human chattel? Respected? No.

So why would the Vatican ever release any other scriptures other than those sharing the wanted information.

No. I can't prove this to you. Very few ever had the privilege of seeing the oldest known Bibles, nor can I say why.




BTW: S&F Spsrta


lol!! wow!

so what do you do now?

those are quite a series of claims!

sounds like nobel prize work to me!

but you got to see the oldest bible alive. how?



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

CB328



Tons of scientific research done to establish the authenticity of the scriptures indicate that the Bible is a genuine record of the coming of the messiah


What?! Science? The only thing science proves about the bible is that cities mentioned in it did exist, as if that's surprising.


Don't forget the science also shows, through analysis of writing styles and whatnot, that the pentateuch was written by different authors (not just Moses), that there are glaring errors all over (even in the gospels telling the same stories), and that most of the books of the New Testament were written hundreds of years AFTER Jesus lived.

But, you know...details.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
The one thing people seem to be unaware of is the fact that the Jewish names Yeshua, (Iesous to the Greeks) as well as Mary were extremely popular names. I've read historical accounts that state that at the time when he lived about one in every five Jewish boys had been named Yeshua and the name Mary was even more popular.

The name 'Jesus' did not exist. It was Yeshua. 'Jesus' is an anglicized version of the Greek 'Iesous,' and was not adopted until around 1400 AD, when the letter 'J' came into being.

Another thing that I'd like to point out is that the story of his resurrection would have certainly made it easy for his enemies to put their own men in who could claim that they were "the resurrected Christ." And that's the hit I get from the tale saying that Jesus and his wife moved to France. Note: I am not saying the resurrection didn't happen; I am only saying that part of the story would have made it easy for imposters to make the claim that they were the "real Jesus."

If Magdalene and Jesus had been married, then by Jewish law and custom, after his crucifixion she would have been married by another member of his family. She completely disappears from the Biblical records soon after he was nailed to the cross.

I would think it is far more logical that Magdalene would have been with the group that accompanied Joseph of Arimathea, (Jesus' uncle) to Glastonbury. If Magdalene had been pregnant with his child at the time of the crucifixion, then I think his followers would have taken great pains to conceal her identity and the identity of her child.

The so-called Jesus and Mary that ended up in France appear to have been very public about who they were. And this certainly seems to suggest to me that they were imposters.

edit on 11-4-2014 by Riddles because: Typos. It's always typos



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

StormyStars
reply to post by Cinrad
 






Thousands of scrolls, codices, fragments make no mention of Jesus' wife and this one does. The coherent christology contained in the old and new testaments also favour Jesus not having a wife. Tons of scientific research done to establish the authenticity of the scriptures indicate that the Bible is a genuine record of the coming of the messiah. It would take more than one fragment of an old text to make me think otherwise... unless of course I already had a


I was fortunate when in 1989, studying Theology, to have and take the opportunity to look and even read, at that time, was the oldest known Holy Bible.
It had mention of this as well as quite a few mentions of Jesus's brattiness, how he'd been mean to his Mother, a trickster on his older brothers, how he thought his twin brother witless, no mention of Joseph except as master carpenter and partner of orgies, his sisters MADE to be his Priestesses, him seeking out a prostitute who he later married, lived and procreated with her for a few years around a region of France after his twin brother took his place on the cross, him and wife Mary going back, ' home, ' while near the end of her pregnancy, him being a drunken gambler, the Romans once again murdering him, his wife and infant son.

Think about it, either version, the Romans MURDERED Jesus Christ. THEN have nerve to become CHRISTIANS, forming armies of Knights Templars, basically till the World became under certain Roman law. Hence the ONLY people to take over the World in the sneakiest most successful way ever. CHRISTIANITY.

Did Romans let their wives do or be anything other than human chattel? Respected? No.

So why would the Vatican ever release any other scriptures other than those sharing the wanted information.

No. I can't prove this to you. Very few ever had the privilege of seeing the oldest known Bibles, nor can I say why.




BTW: S&F Spsrta


That's quite a claim. Ive looked at several conspiracy theories involving Jesus. These include claims from Bart Ehrman, Archaya S, Richard Carrier, etc and Ive NEVER heard anything remotely like this.....so you would understand when I say I don't believe you when you say you have seen knowledge that would literally turn the world upside down.
edit on 11-4-2014 by KidOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by KidOK
 



I've seen those stories in print as well, but I sure don't think the sources were necessarily truthful. As I recall, the Babylonian Talmud was the original source for a lot of the disparaging remarks about Jesus.

We must remember that Jesus caused quite a big brouhaha in his day, and he made quite a few very serious enemies among the Pharisees, who were a very powerful group of people.

In the Talmud, the Jewish Pharisees gleefully admit that they were responsible for the crucifixion, they take full credit for his death, and then go on to make some of the most distasteful and ugly remarks you can imagine about Jesus as well as his mother, Mary.

If the Babylonian Talmud is any indication of how the Pharisees really viewed Jesus, then I think it's safe to say that they hated Jesus' guts and were fully committed to an agenda aimed at completely destroying his reputation.

edit on 11-4-2014 by Riddles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparta
 


First this is in response to the misunderstanding of what I wrote earlier and not aimed at Sparta,
Jesus was no married but Sophism makes out his wife was wisdom so for them and the gnostics these two esoteric reimaginings of christianity which began in the secon half of the first millenium they term his wife Sophia or translated from the greek Wisdom, this of course was not a flesh and blood woman but the concept that he was spiritualy bound to wisdom and most non gnostic and no sophist christians declared this Coded method of Gnostic idea transferrence vie Gnostic (non gospel) scriptures made over several hundred years after the apostles had all past over as pure Heressy and guess what they were right it is pure heressy.
There is wisdom to be found in the scriptures but not the Gnostic texts or the Sophist text's and as a christian myself I will point out to yourselves that it is only through the holy spirit that your eye's can be truly opened or else you will be confounded.
I wish you well but am more angry with those whom thought I was agreeing with the idea he had a physical wife, but I say this again it would make no difference to my faith but HE DID NOT, he was too busy walking around doing God's work and moving from place to place to have a wife and family though from there scriptures there are a large number of decent woman whom would have married him.
He died for you and you forget as to you he is just a character in a book, He rose from death and after 40 days of purification and ridding himself of the dust of this earth he ascended, He was spirit and word of God manifest as flesh but was more spirit than flesh though by taking on mortal form he suffered mortal death and yet he is the author of life so since he was before life he really could not die in the normal sense of the word and rose from death.
The Gnostic Idea's were rooted in the non Abrahamic traditions of esoteric beliefs and hid themselves under the veil of christianity, I have read the hermetica among other texts and it is interesting but definitely not a christian text yet you will find passages and references to that and other non abrahamic texts mixed in with the gnostic traditions and references within there texts.

edit on 11-4-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


Pardon me...

did you say there is NO wisdom to be found in Gnostic texts?

Have you even read them?

Thomas lines up with the gospels though out most of the text

outlined here... The First Synod of ATS

I would say there is far more wisdom to be found in the gnostic texts then there is in ANY of the OT... and much of the NEW save the gospels...

You would likely reinconsider your position if you actually read what they have to say...


edit on 11-4-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 





lol!! wow!

so what do you do now?

those are quite a series of claims!

sounds like nobel prize work to me!

but you got to see the oldest bible alive. how?


I don't do much now lol!
Pfft! Claims! They were in the Oldest known Bible at that time,, 1989. There have been 2 older one's found since & I wish I could see THOSE!!!
Pfft! It wouldn't be MY Nobel Prize work sigh!

I already stated I can't say how or why. Not even where lol! But it was encased in glass, a space type suit arm attached/ built in, you put your arm in it and there were a jelly like pair of tong like fingers to turn the pages with, ALL of the pages were in sheep skin, a few different languages so more than one Author, 300 AD, still fragile despite the pages being made of sheepskin, the binding made from what they thought to be hardened Camel hide. We saw it BEFORE the Vatican got it AND we never saw or heard from the Professor/Paleontologist/Archaeologist/etc ever again which DID make the news. All I can say is that I was in the region it was found when we had this opportunity plus the whole thing was made into a documentary now available to public viewing with much controversy. The end.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by KidOK
 






That's quite a claim. Ive looked at several conspiracy theories involving Jesus. These include claims from Bart Ehrman, Archaya S, Richard Carrier, etc and Ive NEVER heard anything remotely like this.....so you would understand when I say I don't believe you when you say you have seen knowledge that would literally turn the world upside down.


So your not finding a, " Conspiracy Theory? " Makes it ....untrue? lol!

I never expected everyone to believe me just because I stated what I was privileged to see lol! There ARE others who were as privileged to see, of whom were also there. Maybe this will draw 1 or more forward to confirm this. Maybe not.

Really? THAT would turn the World upside down? Or just brainwashed Christians? Please, explain how it would turn the world upside down when it is known yet still has not changed anything?

Blessings to you and yours'.


edit on th302014Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:02:27 -05000414th30pmFri, 11 Apr 2014 20:02:27 -0500 by StormyStars because: of 1 little letter pfft!



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparta
 


Uhhh, sorry but it's bull#.

Jesus never existed, the church is the only one to claim any evidence and it's scripture. Those who want to believe make up excuses and reasons for anything related to christianity to be true, how ever those who are not religious and enter 100% unbiased find no evidence to support any claims what so ever regarding the bible, jesus, or christianity. I'm sorry, it's bull#. Always has and always will be.

You can replace bull# with faith.... actually if you do this post takes an entirely different meaning.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   

StormyStars
reply to post by Cinrad
 






Thousands of scrolls, codices, fragments make no mention of Jesus' wife and this one does. The coherent christology contained in the old and new testaments also favour Jesus not having a wife. Tons of scientific research done to establish the authenticity of the scriptures indicate that the Bible is a genuine record of the coming of the messiah. It would take more than one fragment of an old text to make me think otherwise... unless of course I already had a


I was fortunate when in 1989, studying Theology, to have and take the opportunity to look and even read, at that time, was the oldest known Holy Bible.
It had mention of this as well as quite a few mentions of Jesus's brattiness, how he'd been mean to his Mother, a trickster on his older brothers, how he thought his twin brother witless, no mention of Joseph except as master carpenter and partner of orgies, his sisters MADE to be his Priestesses, him seeking out a prostitute who he later married, lived and procreated with her for a few years around a region of France after his twin brother took his place on the cross, him and wife Mary going back, ' home, ' while near the end of her pregnancy, him being a drunken gambler, the Romans once again murdering him, his wife and infant son.

Think about it, either version, the Romans MURDERED Jesus Christ. THEN have nerve to become CHRISTIANS, forming armies of Knights Templars, basically till the World became under certain Roman law. Hence the ONLY people to take over the World in the sneakiest most successful way ever. CHRISTIANITY.

Did Romans let their wives do or be anything other than human chattel? Respected? No.

So why would the Vatican ever release any other scriptures other than those sharing the wanted information.

No. I can't prove this to you. Very few ever had the privilege of seeing the oldest known Bibles, nor can I say why.




BTW: S&F Spsrta


that's the most incredulous thing i ever read! congrats!

a witless twin and he a drunken gambler?
step dad orgies? sisters? hooker wife?

lol!

france? what the hell was in france 2000 years ago?
maybe that's why they went back. snobbie waiters.
2 crucifixions?


i guess you CAN make this stuff up!

btw, did you ever say the name of this "bible"?
are you just relating what it said or do you really believe this?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Wow. Stuff just got weird. The phantom oldest Bible was by far the most out there thing I have ever read in my life. But to each his/her own. Just to clarify, the oldest known texts to hold Biblical books was the Dead Sea Scrolls, if I am not mistaken. They sell the translations if you want to look it up and get educated.

I however, choose to respond more to what is factual. Many on this thread have claimed to be educated about Jewish law in reference to the rabbi thing. I am not. However, I do know that throughout Yeshua's ministry He continuously denounced those who added onto the amount of laws and such that were not ever actually mentioned in Biblical texts. He did follow the Law of Moses, which would in general reference the Ten Commandments, in total the Torah(Old Testament). The only time that He appeared to break one of these laws, is a very famous passage of the Bible. He healed a man, then said "What is lawful on the Sabbath, to do good, or do evil, to save, or to kill?" At the heart of this, these men who created so much laws that they became a heavy burden and an impediment to these poor men to actually receive any joy from their walk with G-d. So referencing these added on laws in a way to prove Yeshua married is misguided and uninformed.

As far as Him being married, this is birthed by another passage in the New Testament where it refers to "the disciple who Yeshua loved". By not naming this person many have gone through crazy interpretations, of which Mary Magdelene is one. Now no one man can claim to know the exact person whom it refers to, what one can definitively say is that Mary Magdelene was definitely not who the Bible is referring to. From John 19:

26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

This is once again a gnostic(actual meaning knowledge) interpretation that fails to actually hold water. This is becoming a trend that whenever one claims to be wise, they always prove otherwise. Leads me to another(possibly my favorite) passage in Romans 1:

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Also, just food for thought: What purpose would it serve for these people to hide the fact that Yeshua ever married? Who exactly would care? How would that change His message exactly? Are you aware that in the Bible that both men and women have their roles clearly defined? Are you also aware that without the Old Testament, Yeshua becomes a strange dude but other than that nothing? His entire life was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. His words "I did not come to break the Law but to fulfill it".
If it weren't for that pesky Old Testament that all the people who try to steal Yeshua hate so much, He wouldn't have been considered the Son Of G-d. Think on that awhile. Then go back to Zoroaster.

Yeshua didn't need to marry. He was born of G-d. As in His own words "34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection."

From Colossians "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things"



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by StormyStars
 


So you can read ancient Hebrew?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Your understanding of the how we got the Bible is extremely narrow, perhaps, if you were interested, you should do some research in to it instead of repeating the drivel given out by the MSM?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by StormyStars
 





that's the most incredulous thing i ever read! congrats!

a witless twin and he a drunken gambler?
step dad orgies? sisters? hooker wife?

lol!

france? what the hell was in france 2000 years ago?
maybe that's why they went back. snobbie waiters.
2 crucifixions?


i guess you CAN make this stuff up!

btw, did you ever say the name of this "bible"?
are you just relating what it said or do you really believe this?


No I didn't say the name of the Holy Bible.
I'm just relating what I read.
I don't believe anyone could be that rotten in real life then worshipped for it.
I have no idea what was in France at that time, it was too early for the Jesuit Monks.
2 deaths, I never said how the 1 was murdered with his wife.
If it's MADE up...call discovery channel....say those mummified bodies they've made 4 documentaries on is made up.
Not my problem

Blessings



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by pleasethink
 





So you can read ancient Hebrew?


Did I say it was ancient hebrew?
A little yes, there is a template guide so not really necessary anyway.

Blessings



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by StormyStars
 


I would think that the oldest Bible known to man would have to be written in ancient hebrew, so for you to gather that much information from it, you clearly would have to understand how to read ancient hebrew. If it wasn't in ancient hebrew, pray tell what ancient script was this Bible written in? English? No offense, sounds kind of outlandish. Almost made up. I have heard these weird stories before from others. It is a gnostic fairy tale similar in relevance as the microphone to hell was to the christians. It's just meant to drum up emotional response while not addressing the meat and potatoes. But in the end is false and not based on factual observation. I think it's probably surprising to most people reading it that you are putting yourself in the position of the reader, while most would say something like "My friend" or the like. I truly don't mean offense. Just sounds silly.



new topics




 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join