Jesus Christ Had Two Kids With A Prostitute, ‘Lost Gospel’ Claims

Imagine that Jesus'kids or their kids were taken up in a cloud too. I.e. into extraterrestrial angelic transport to bring them on another better and peaceful planet where they can live normal age and perform full potential of spirit and ful dna too. Imagine they, not Jesus, will come tomorrow to Earth to offer us the same. Jesus cannot come because neither the Universe was evangelized, as He set as precondition before the ascension, nor other key preconditions of prophecy are met (I discuss that in detail).

I have to say I don't doubt Mother Mary's identity even for a moment.

Mary Magdalene every newly discovered gospel speaks she was the wife of Jesus. So let that be accepted by hierarchy and we start from that point on. Or we start without the help of any hierarchy. Jesus with descendants (that are not the corrupt French kings!) make a real difference the entire timeline of so called End times. That might be not so close after all.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask


So rather then being in favor of truth, youre more in favor of just causing discontent.......

That seems objective

when it comes to the church and organized religion.....yup
the more it gets shaken up the better

it would be even better if it could somehow be proven that she gave him the herpalie erpalies......
that would be fab

a reply to: Jobeycool

Lol...You are aware that religion, Christianity especially, is responsible for millions of deaths right? Religion is hands down the most deadly weapon in our arsenal. But God is copacetic With that.

originally posted by: Jenisiz
a reply to: Jobeycool

Lol...You are aware that religion, Christianity especially, is responsible for millions of deaths right? Religion is hands down the most deadly weapon in our arsenal.

correct...
religion is a poison
anything to make people question that man in the cloud fairy tale is a good thing

edit*
of course he is cool with it...
IF he exists he is a big ass bully...i dont see how people dont see that...

look at any number of the biblical stories...
noahs ark/the flood...

i mean instead of floating down on a cirrus cloud playing his harp and offering love and guidance to his creations, he just decided to wipe everyone out and start over..
please...
IF he exists i dont want anything to do with him...

a reply to: Grovit

Esc> New Game> "Are you sure you don't want to save?">'Click' just Noah 'click'

a reply to: raymundoko

Yes. It's a well known forgery. Please, stop trying to derail this thread and stay on topic. If you want to discuss how Josephus proves the existence of a "Jesus Christ", then make a thread about it. I'd be happy to take the topic on and discuss it fully, as it should be. But, This isn't the thread for that.

The historicity or the mythicism of Jesus Christ is not established or debunked by the premise of this thread. This thread explores the speculation that the biblical character Jesus maybe being married with children, as revealed by and according to "new gospel".

Speculation is open to all, whether they see Jesus as a mythical character, as I do, or a literal historic figure.

a reply to: windword

But Windword, I think it helps to establish the context of the argument. Because, really, if you take a 5th century book over eyewitness statements, then you can pretty much accept anything anyone has ever written. At least, that's how I see it.

a reply to: sdubya

Josephus mention a lot of Jesuses.
A Surfeit of Jesuses!– But No "Jesus of Nazareth"

Why did the Christians have to lie and put words into Josephus' mouth in the first place? We'll never know now. But it still stands, even including the forgeries, Josephus never once mentions Jesus the Nazarene or the son of Joseph.

a reply to: sdubya

But you're referring to a book, the bible, it's been proven to have stole it's stories from others that predate it by 2000+ years. So how can you claim this a forgery when the bible is too? You can't consider which parts are conveniently added and excluded...like the church is KNOWN to do.

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: windword

But Windword, I think it helps to establish the context of the argument. Because, really, if you take a 5th century book over eyewitness statements, then you can pretty much accept anything anyone has ever written. At least, that's how I see it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Establishing what helps the context of what arguments?

What eye witness statements?

Who, in the Bible ever said that Jesus was a bachelor?

Did you know that the story of the "adulteress and casting the first stone" wasn't added to the gospel until almost 1000AD?

a reply to: windword

The link posted is fairly big on claims but short on sources....Jesus was a popular name, but no Jesus was more famous than the Biblical one.

a reply to: windword

The Bible doesn't necessarily say he was a bachelor, but it does say he had no children.

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: windword

The link posted is fairly big on claims but short on sources....

If you're having a problem locating the primary source to any one claim, let me know, I'd be glad to help ya!

Jesus was a popular name, but no Jesus was more famous than the Biblical one.

You mean the Old Testament one?

Zacharia 3
Then he showed me Joshua (Jesus) the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan[a] standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.”

Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.”

The Bible doesn't necessarily say he was a bachelor, but it does say he had no children.

Where?

a reply to: windword

It's a well known forgery? I just linked you actual proof that it isn't...are you intentionally trolling?

a reply to: windword

Your source conveniently leaves out the passage I linked.

I've already posted actual academic experts in the field who agree it is an authentic passage. It was not edited from the original. You just keep dodging though because I think you realized you are wrong.

Also, why would he have to say Jesus the Nazarene or Jesus the son of Joseph? What would that matter? He was commenting on the killing of James and said he was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. Again, all experts agree that is an authentic passage.

If you wish to claim it was a forgery again please comment on the source I linked earlier.

Funny, now all the Atheists are gonna crawl out of the woodwork talking about how bad Jesus was, then in two weeks when some other fake proof says Jesus didn't exist at all they are gonna flock there. Atheists can't decide which story they want to stick with. Jesus didn't exist? He was married to a prostitute? He wasn't crucified. All you guys want to do is destroy Christianity . Oh and I'm an Atheist by the way, I just don't care that Christinsns believe in a god. You guys continue to waste your time and lose sleep though.

a reply to: raymundoko

It's a well known forgery? I just linked you actual proof that it isn't...are you intentionally trolling?

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was a Christian. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

---------

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

a reply to: windword

That's the first passage...did you even read my posts? There is another passage in Josephus' writings. I'm convinced you are intentionally trolling.

Again, read my link.

Here is the post again:

originally posted by: raymundoko
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16] However, critics point out that Josephus wrote about a number of people who went by the name Jesus, Yeshua or Joshua,[17] and also speculate that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.[18]

Again, the source: Josephus on Jesus

Your Homework

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation.[13][33][1][2][16]

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

a reply to: raymundoko

Thus, even though Josephus may NOT have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

I may be confused as to the Old Testament and the death part, but I disagree whole-heartedly that the Bible doesn't speak against lust and extramarital sexual activities. Even the New Testament states that if people cannot help themselves they should get married, but that this is the lesser path.

I'm not a Christian, nor do I agree with restrictions against all pre-marital sex, nor do I agree with the generalized sexual oppression and suppression in many cultures. But trying to make our current version of the Bible agree with that takes quite a leap of imagination.

Therefore, I would suggest you are confused on that specific point.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

No, you are extremely confused. You are referring to Deuteronomy and that deals with stealing a pledged woman's virginity against her will (AKA RAPE), In that case the man was to be put to death, nothing would happen to the girl. The flip side of that is if he rapes a virgin who isn't pledged he just has to pay a fine...that's some f'ed up stuff...This is why men would pledge their daughters early in life. It would deter wayward men.

Men paid a money to a girls father. This payment was contingent upon the girl being a virgin. The man was basically thanking the father, with money, for preserving his daughters youth and innocence.

The other instance is in Exodus, and that has to do with sleeping with a virgin and she is a willing partner. The man who took the virginity would have to pay the dowry price whether he married the girl or not as he had basically stolen money from the father. Nobody died.

Now where death came into play was when there was marriage involved. In ancient Israel being engaged was the same as being married. You just hadn't had your awesome party yet. If a woman who was married or engaged cheated on their mate, the man and woman involved in the act of cheating would be killed.

Even in the new testament, sexual immorality only seems to be mentioned in relation to couples who are in a relationship.