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.

 

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

page: 9
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede



You are very confused in your joining this thread's discussion. The thread has nothing to do with proving the existence of the Christian Jesus.



Apparently you have a short memory problem. Show me in my posts where I have mocked anyone for questioning the Christian Jesus' existence.


You are the one who first baited those who deny the historicity of the Biblical Jesus and mocked the speculation of what events and people may be responsible for this composite character.

Your very first sentence in your very first post in this thread:



To my mind it seems amusing that some of those that claimed Jesus never existed are the very ones now that picture Him as a scoundrel.


Then you tried to justify the Gospels as academic literature.



What if a critic would separate all four of the gospels and credit each on its own merit as literature? Well, that is never going to happen due to fact that the minds of academia have already been institutionalized by the schools of secularism.


After reading your justification for taking the Gospels as a serious account of historical events, based on the volume of work, I asked why not also accept the works about Zeus and Hercules, based on the same logic. I reminded you that there is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph, in any of the literature you listed.

Then you continued to push YOUR agenda to prove the historical existence of YOUR Jesus here:



You are very misinformed.
Tacitus was a Roman Historian who mentions Jesus in his work in about CE 116.
Suetonius was also a Roman historian 71 - 135 BCE and referenced Jesus in his work of The Twelve Caesars.
Josephus writes of Jesus twice and John the Baptist once.


So, I will remind you one more time, none of the sources that you listed mention Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph.

This thread offers ATS readers the opportunity to speculate on the alternative reality of the person or people who eventually became the mythical figure of Jesus Christ.




posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jenisiz

originally posted by: Jobeycool
Why in the world would it be encoded in some top secret coded message only some people can understand.That enough should tell you it is crap.This stupid stuff gets as looney as the 9/11 Truther nonsense.





The 9/11 truther movement has more evidence then that of Christianity. Faith is the mask of ignorance. The evidence of Jesus being an idea or character "borrowed" is insurmountable. His story was created from previous "sons of god" that predate his birth by thousands of years. Faith that Jesus is the one and only true son of god requires ignorance in the dozens of stories that predate him.

Personally I don't find this article to be too outlandish. After all, since the story of Jesus was borrowed, it would be safe to assume the parts of him having children should be true too.


"Faith is the mask of ignorance." Really? Ever had a DNA test done to verify that our father is who your mother claims he is? No? Ah, so you just take in on faith that what your mommy told you is the truth then, huh? Gee, I guess you're ignorant then, aren't you? Here's an idea: Sweeping statements claiming to evidence some great and singular truth are rarely fully thought out and almost never accurate. Just saying...



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Jenisiz

originally posted by: Jobeycool
Why in the world would it be encoded in some top secret coded message only some people can understand.That enough should tell you it is crap.This stupid stuff gets as looney as the 9/11 Truther nonsense.





The 9/11 truther movement has more evidence then that of Christianity. Faith is the mask of ignorance. The evidence of Jesus being an idea or character "borrowed" is insurmountable. His story was created from previous "sons of god" that predate his birth by thousands of years. Faith that Jesus is the one and only true son of god requires ignorance in the dozens of stories that predate him.

Personally I don't find this article to be too outlandish. After all, since the story of Jesus was borrowed, it would be safe to assume the parts of him having children should be true too.


"Faith is the mask of ignorance." Really? Ever had a DNA test done to verify that our father is who your mother claims he is? No? Ah, so you just take in on faith that what your mommy told you is the truth then, huh? Gee, I guess you're ignorant then, aren't you?


The difference is that there is an actual scientific test to conclusively prove who his father is. As opposed to, oh let's say a hodgepodge collection of contradictory, plagiarized gobbledygook as "evidence".



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: duaneology

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Jenisiz

originally posted by: Jobeycool
Why in the world would it be encoded in some top secret coded message only some people can understand.That enough should tell you it is crap.This stupid stuff gets as looney as the 9/11 Truther nonsense.





The 9/11 truther movement has more evidence then that of Christianity. Faith is the mask of ignorance. The evidence of Jesus being an idea or character "borrowed" is insurmountable. His story was created from previous "sons of god" that predate his birth by thousands of years. Faith that Jesus is the one and only true son of god requires ignorance in the dozens of stories that predate him.

Personally I don't find this article to be too outlandish. After all, since the story of Jesus was borrowed, it would be safe to assume the parts of him having children should be true too.


"Faith is the mask of ignorance." Really? Ever had a DNA test done to verify that our father is who your mother claims he is? No? Ah, so you just take in on faith that what your mommy told you is the truth then, huh? Gee, I guess you're ignorant then, aren't you?


The difference is that there is an actual scientific test to conclusively prove who his father is. As opposed to, oh let's say a hodgepodge collection of contradictory, plagiarized gobbledygook as "evidence".


And if you have never had that test performed, you are taking your parentage on faith. It is what it is, no matter how you move the goal posts.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
And Jesus was a Dragonborn battling Alduin, and resurrected a kid he killed so he wouldn't get grounded.

www.cracked.com...

Why God is so cruel with divine comedies, I will never guess.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Fortunately I have no family to have faith in or to lay a false foundation upon me. I've made my own way in the world and didn't blame or praise an invisible being in the clouds...or my non-existent family for that matter either.

It's a fact FAITH is a blind mans approach to almost everything he himself cannot comprehend or explain. You have Faith the sun will rise tomorrow...scientists have proven it will. We didn't need religion or a god to prove anything...we ignored faith and made life easier and longer lived for people still wanting to believe they will be saved by a man in the clouds. I have faith in myself...I'm not putting it in something that's never been around to help me.

Where was god every night I was beat senseless until I ran away just freshly turned a teen? I praid everynight for him...but alas, I guess I wasn't praying hard enough. Good thing though...I would've been waiting around for success and for my scars to heal had I not run away.
edit on 11-11-2014 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

True, but with both Suetonius and Josephus it seems likely that the biblical Jesus is referred to.

In The Twelve Caesars the text is, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.." and then goes on to explain that they were banned from Rome. Since Suetonius did not use the prefix " a certain" in front of Chrestus, it's argued that "Chrestus" was a well known figure.

Josephus mentions Jesus both directl and indirectly, the indirect mention being the less controversial.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
This country is in serious serious trouble if it continues to let people be brainwashed about 9/11 Truther garbage and way way way far out over the top conspiracies that don't even make a bit of sense. Jesus having a baby and marriage but everyone wanted it kept secret and with some encoded messages all over the planet like some Indiana Jones adventure is a bunch of absurd looney ridiculous fantasy lands.
edit on 11-11-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)


I advise people to look into UFO.s and aliens and paranormal research.It has rational real evidence.Corruption in politics has far more to to with money and not blowing up their own country.Called Greed.
edit on 11-11-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Jobeycool

Have you read the bible? 99% of it is pretty ridiculous as well...guy walking on water and turning water into wine. Them folks were crazy!!!

Works both ways as you can see.
edit on 11-11-2014 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: snarky412
a reply to: daaskapital

[I bet the Vatican is having a hissy fit]

They probably knew all along



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jenisiz
a reply to: Jobeycool

Have you read the bible? 99% of it is pretty ridiculous as well...guy walking on water and turning water into wine. Them folks were crazy!!!

Works both ways as you can see.
All of life has corruption.Might want to look at U.S. policy with the CIA and whatnot and sending gun running ops and weapons to help with these wars only making them worse.A rational conspiracy that is real along with money power and wealth and abusing the Constitution,We are going way off subject anyways.If you want to believe in the nonsense that Jesus was married and had kids but the only way to find out is hidden secrets that you must adventure in like Indiana Jones go right ahead.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I'm done because this thing has yet again turned way off subject into atheist attacking christians.I do not beleive in the Jesus got married and had kids stuff.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Jobeycool

I believe in god, I'm just not religious. But what you're suggesting is literally in alignment with religion. It's a conspiracy...it's been proven to have been utilized to control the masses. This has been know for thousands of years -

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BC – AD 65
edit on 11-11-2014 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: sdubya

First of all, Josephus' references to "Christ" are well known forgeries. End of story.


In his biography of the Twelve Caesars written around the year 112 AD the Roman historian Suetonius wrote of Claudius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

– Suetonius, Claudius, 25.


This passage is far from proof of the historicity of one Jesus of Nazareth or the son of Joseph.

Any who, This thread is about Jesus, the son of the carpenter, Joseph, and whether or not he married and had kids with Mary Magdalene.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
don't think she was a prostitute. may have been this lady:
google search (see her in the side panel
google search cleopatra selene



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

When you say "End of Story" do you mean a story you never read? Because it sure seems that way:

The only reference to Jesus when it comes to Josephus that is in dispute is this one:


Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration. [5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like


And all scholars agree even in it's original state it referred to "Christ".

Then you have this:


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]


So perhaps you should actually know what you are talking about before spouting off? That is a direct naming of "Jesus" by the way.

Source: Josephus on Jesus

Edit, and I just saw your post above:

a reply to: windword


originally posted by: windword
So, I will remind you one more time, none of the sources that you listed mention Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph.

This thread offers ATS readers the opportunity to speculate on the alternative reality of the person or people who eventually became the mythical figure of Jesus Christ.


So clearly I just demonstrated that Josephus most definitely refers to Jesus by name, and that all modern scholars agree it is authentic...
edit on 11-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I have spent much of my life not believing in Jesus Christ simply because I couldn't accept that he was born from a "virgin" and that he performed many miracles. I believed if he did exist he was just an extraordinary man with no link to God. I struggled to believe the bibles story of Adam and Eve and the whole creation scenario. Then one day about 3 years ago, I woke up with an overwhelming urge to know Jesus. I am proud to say I now know and love Jesus and God with all my heart. But...... I do not believe in churches what so ever, I don't want to offend anyone with that statement so I will quickly explain why. In my view the church has only taught us what is in the king James version of the bible, yet, more and more biblical archeology shows that there are many errors in the new translated version. On top of that, being the person I am, I don't mind not understanding something, but not understanding something is different to something not making sense. For me, getting to know God and Jesus properly saw me pouring over many different ancient texts and piecing things together and while doing this I came to the realization that..........

Mary Magdelene was NOT a prostitute. The 1st mention of her being a prostitute can only be traced back into the 4th century then Pope Gregory I aka Gregory the Great, told his loyal lambs in a mass in 591AD, that Mary Magdelene was indeed the same (unnamed) woman that was cleansed of her 7 demons (including prostitution) and the same (unnamed) woman that Jesus saved from being stoned for the crime of adultery. Yet there are many Mary's in the bible and MARY MAGDELENE was only mentioned by name only in connection with the death and resurrection of Jesus.
If Mary was the "women" who Jesus saved she would have been named because Jesus recruited Mary Magdelene as an apostle and therefore her story would have been important, her name would have been known before the testaments were written.
Because of this revolting slander, Pope Gregory I changed the view of Mary Magdelene in the Western Churches from then on. In Eastern churches Mary is worshipped for what she was.... a witness to the resurrection and faithful apostle of Jesus Christ.
Why would have the pope have slandered Mary Magdelenes good name by calling her a whore?
Considering the Catholic church is the oldest institution in the Western world dating back 2000 years you would think the reference to Mary being a prostitute would have come out sooner. Also considering the church is based on "come and tell us your sins and repent" wouldn't it look good to make the 2nd most important woman in the bible a great big sinner so we can make admitting our sins look good? Yet in the bible, God doesn't want you to be in the hypocritical institutions, he wants you to prey, worship and repent in the privacy of your own home!!

Jesus WAS married..... everything I have found suggests Jesus married Mary Magdala (Magdelene) and had children. From what ive read the family went into hiding after the crucifixion and ended up somewhere in France. I dont know how the true the France story is but its all very convincing. A priest with the surname saunier found documentation hidden in a church that apparantly proves that someone else was crucified in the place of Jesus and that he actually left for Europe permanently with his wife and children. I also came across a page which would support this theory that it wasn't Jesus that was crucified. An ancient book written in Jesus' native language Aramaic was found in Turkey which suggests it was actually Judas that took the place of Jesus on the cross.

Also this has popped in my head a million times while writing this - the meaning of virgin 2000 years ago meant that a woman had not had a baby yet, not that she hadnt had sex. All through the bible, when it refers to a virgin of todays meaning it says "had not known a man" yet if virgin had that meaning back then the word virgin would be peppered everywhere in the bible.
Another thing the Catholic church introduced to make sex a sin when its actually just as natural as the eyes in head and the heart in our chest.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't mean to. Peace and Love



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Jenisiz

Im sorry you went through crap that you didnt deserve. You were innocent and your tormentors preyed on that. I do believe in God but I never used to. I couldnt understand why children suffered and died everyday along with the unbelievable things in the bible but the more I searched for the truth (not in the bible) the more I realised that only we can control our actions because its our free will. It was never intended for God to intervene in the good and bad things that happen in life. Instead we are judged at the time of our death. I dont think we will be sitting in clouds plucking at harps but I do believe we leave the earth plain if we deserve to or we perish into nothing if we dont. You were given strength to go through what you did and whether you believe in God or not dont let hatred guide you. Let go of hatred and you will find happiness (if your not already)
Wish you all the peace and love in the world



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko





And all scholars agree even in it's original state it referred to "Christ".


And this ^^ is where YOU loose all credibility.



I'm not taking this thread off topic any more than it has already been by people such as yourself.

This thread is about Jesus of the Bible having a family, a wife and kids. Why not?



So clearly I just demonstrated that Josephus most definitely refers to Jesus by name, and that all modern scholars agree it is authentic...



Josephus refers to no less than 19 men named Jesus, but not one them does he refer to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph.

Any reference by Josephus to "Christ" is a clear cut forgery.


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



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

So you are saying this is a forgery?


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

So yeah, you have ZERO idea what you are talking about. I have no idea where you even got your information from. Come back when you are more informed. If you aren't even informed enough to know that Josephus refers to a character named Jesus who was also called Christ then you aren't informed enough to discuss alternate versions of his possible life.


So here, enlighten yourself:

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]


I like how you tried to double down there though, that was adorable.




top topics



 
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join