It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Papyrus mentions Jesus wife authentic?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by Spectrumdez

There were no, correct me if I'm wrong and please show me evidence that I may peruse, any pagan associations with an "earth mother". Like I said, please show me what you are referring to if I am wrong. Ishtar is the prevalent female deity associated with pagan religions of that time, and her worship was about fertility. They not only did not stamp this practice out, they converted it into Easter which is why little kids find easter eggs. They took Pascha and incorporated the rites of Ishtar, thus forming Easter. So please explain how the female gods of paganism where stamped out by the Romans. I mean no disrespect, but history does not support your argument, although you are the first person on here who made an argument as to why a lie about Yeshua being married even needed to exist. Congrats on that. Some might say Sophia, or the greek notion of female wisdom. It was not a goddess, and once more was a greek understanding. Like I have pointed out, the notion of the Bible holding women down never happened. And it also was not prevalent in Jewish culture of the time. Therefore there is literally no need to lie.

posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:07 PM


reply to post by Sparta

Has this question ever been asked.

Is this referring to the son of God "Jesus" or some guy named Jesus (pronounced "Hey Zeus")?

I'm asking this because every thing I have read about this, nothing has ever said "the son of God".

People probably think you are joking but "Hey Zeus" really was the way the Greeks pronounced Iesous. Personally, I don't think Zues had anything to do with the individual named Yeshua though.

That being said, I do suspect the Greeks had their own agenda and were certainly trying to imply that Christ was just another incarnation of Zeus. It seems to be a likely part of their plan.

All those old cultures like the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians were extreme believers in magic and one of their biggest beliefs was that saying a gods' name aloud somehow 'brought down' the god and made him manifest upon the earth.

Christ probably got blamed for a lot of things that may have had far more to do with Zeus. The Romans probably really loved the name Iesous too, because they worshiped Zeus as well, only under the name of Jupiter.

Everybody had an agenda...

By the way, the name 'Jesus' wasn't used at all until around 1400 AD. The name Yeshua was pretty much forgotten and never used except perhaps by a handful. Until 1400 AD, everybody used the name Iesous when they were speaking of Christ.
edit on 13-4-2014 by Riddles because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the input.. I would give star and flag. But this forum is not ipad friendly, or I'm just seeing how to.

posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 06:21 PM
”not (to) me. My mother gave me life…”
“ the disciples said to Jesus, “deny. Mary is (not?) ..worthy of it.
Jesus said to them, “My wife..
She is able to be my disciple..
Let wicked people swell up.
As for me, I am with her in order to

Yeshau is taking about his bride the body of Christ, those that accept the him and believe in him become married to him and are invited to the wedding. The only reason the disciples disagree is because of the laws and how woman are treated by men in those days. His teachings was different and treated woman respectfully than the other teachers of the time. The body of Christ is not the church but your body which is your temple, the physical church is a building and divided in many denominations and beliefs. The wicked will see this and swell up and use this to say to you everything you believe is wrong, he is with his bride to make scripture come true.

Revelation Chapter 19
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed [are] they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

So are you gonna accept the invitation?

posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 07:03 PM

reply to post by tsingtao

no one outside His followers believed He was the Son of God

Well yeah...if they believed they became a follower....

haha! thanks for pointing out my capt. obvious, DOH!

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 12:09 PM
How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart

"Two factors immediately indicated that this was a forgery," Mr. Askeland tells me. "First, the fragment shared the same line breaks as the 1924 publication. Second, the fragment contained a peculiar dialect of Coptic called Lycopolitan, which fell out of use during or before the sixth century." Ms. King had done two radiometric tests, he noted, and "concluded that the papyrus plants used for this fragment had been harvested in the seventh to ninth centuries." In other words, the fragment that came from the same material as the "Jesus' wife" fragment was written in a dialect that didn't exist when the papyrus it appears on was made.

Mark Goodacre, a New Testament professor and Coptic expert at Duke University, wrote on his NT Blog on April 25 about the Gospel of John discovery: "It is beyond reasonable doubt that this is a fake, and this conclusion means that the Jesus' Wife Fragment is a fake too." Alin Suciu, a research associate at the University of Hamburg and a Coptic manuscript specialist, wrote online on April 26: "Given that the evidence of the forgery is now overwhelming, I consider the polemic surrounding the Gospel of Jesus' Wife papyrus over."

Having evaluated the evidence, many specialists in ancient manuscripts and Christian origins think Karen King and the Harvard Divinity School were the victims of an elaborate ruse. Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438.html%3Fru%3Dyahoo%3Fmod%3Dyahoo_itp

posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:17 PM
It may be authentic, but at first opinion I would have to say that Jesus would not of had a wife - only because the apostles wrote of not needing a wife in the relationship of man and God after the Gospels. Yet the possibility of people etching facts out of 'religion' to keep it standard and contained, I think that is highly possible.

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in