Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'Proof' Jesus was married found on ancient papyrus that mentions how son of God spoke of his wife

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


No, symbology is fine. This was written many hundreds of years later by a sect that taught this. This is not "proof" Jesus was married, this is proof this cult believed he was. There is no new information here. It would be like me saying "proof" Jesus visited native americans and handing you a a Mormon Bible.




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


No, symbology is fine. This was written many hundreds of years later by a sect that taught this. This is not "proof" Jesus was married, this is proof this cult believed he was. There is no new information here. It would be like me saying "proof" Jesus visited native americans and handing you a a Mormon Bible.


I'll give you that. It's a very good point.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   


The origins of this latest fragment are as yet unknown. Professor King received it from an anonymous collector who had found it among a job lot of ancient Greek and Coptic papyri

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...


untill they find out where this actually came from ..

I say HOAX



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


No, symbology is fine. This was written many hundreds of years later by a sect that taught this. This is not "proof" Jesus was married, this is proof this cult believed he was. There is no new information here. It would be like me saying "proof" Jesus visited native americans and handing you a a Mormon Bible.


Exactly...or like saying "proof" that Jesus existed, and handing me a regular Bible.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by avocadoshag

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


No, symbology is fine. This was written many hundreds of years later by a sect that taught this. This is not "proof" Jesus was married, this is proof this cult believed he was. There is no new information here. It would be like me saying "proof" Jesus visited native americans and handing you a a Mormon Bible.


Exactly...or like saying "proof" that Jesus existed, and handing me a regular Bible.


You realize that that's slightly different, of course. The authors of the New Testament accepted death, rather than deny Christ. Joseph Smith was shot, while in jail, awaiting charges on polygamy.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Yes. The Bible, New testament specifically, makes several references to "the Bride of Christ", and is strictly symbology for the Christian Church. Nowhere does it use the phrase in reference to Mary.

The translation in the OP's link, does not refute this. It merely offers another opinion.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Well, somebody wrote it down, so it must be true!

Yours truly, King of the Galaxy,
Blue Shift



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by avocadoshag

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


No, symbology is fine. This was written many hundreds of years later by a sect that taught this. This is not "proof" Jesus was married, this is proof this cult believed he was. There is no new information here. It would be like me saying "proof" Jesus visited native americans and handing you a a Mormon Bible.


Exactly...or like saying "proof" that Jesus existed, and handing me a regular Bible.


Exactly. The Bible does not prove Jesus existed. The wealth of corroborating historical evidence is what proves Jesus lived. Until a mountain of information documenting Jesus' marriage surfaces, we can hoax this.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by avocadoshag

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


No, symbology is fine. This was written many hundreds of years later by a sect that taught this. This is not "proof" Jesus was married, this is proof this cult believed he was. There is no new information here. It would be like me saying "proof" Jesus visited native americans and handing you a a Mormon Bible.


Exactly...or like saying "proof" that Jesus existed, and handing me a regular Bible.


You realize that that's slightly different, of course. The authors of the New Testament accepted death, rather than deny Christ. Joseph Smith was shot, while in jail, awaiting charges on polygamy.


No, it's not different. The difference is that the Bible is corroborated by an incredible amount of historical evidence. You might as well say Shakespeare did not exist, or Einstein. It would fly in the face of reason. The Bible itself does not prove Jesus' existence though.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


lol the second pic gives a whole new meaning to "touch me not, for i have not yet ascended unto the father"

"woah there honey, gotta see dad 1st! "


don't you find the denial of jesus being married amusing?
and all the hoops and gymnastics.



fact: marriage is a strictly obligatory precondition for becoming a rabbi, no exceptions, period.
[same rule applies to rabbinas ]

fact: a jewish male in his 30's, still unmarried would have been considered a freak and accused of being a homosexual,
and we all know how tolerant they were concerning LGBT's and greeks. no way he'd be able to call himself rabbi, much less have a following, unless they were the same.

fact: even jesus's enemies acknowledged him as a rabbi.

and so it begins with a small revelation, greater ones to come.
edit on 19-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I think truth here is irrelevant.

I think, at least, this has good timing to spark debate/conversation/ideas/juxtaposition.


I think I'm one of the few people who have not seen/read the davinci code, but if I understand correctly it was a "movie" that implied/stated(?) that Jesus was married....

The Davinci Code is just one example of MANY times Jesus sexuality and intentions were depicted as 'less than honorable'.

The book released in 2003 and the movie released in 2006, and while the Vatican had issues with some of its messages, I can't seem to find any information about Christians throwing a hissy fit over it enough to induce them to attack buildings and kill people. Not once, any time, during the last 9 years that its idea has been in mainstream, did someone die because Jesus might have been married.

Just some food for thought. I might have to add that to my netflix queue.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by avocadoshag

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


No, symbology is fine. This was written many hundreds of years later by a sect that taught this. This is not "proof" Jesus was married, this is proof this cult believed he was. There is no new information here. It would be like me saying "proof" Jesus visited native americans and handing you a a Mormon Bible.


Exactly...or like saying "proof" that Jesus existed, and handing me a regular Bible.


You realize that that's slightly different, of course. The authors of the New Testament accepted death, rather than deny Christ. Joseph Smith was shot, while in jail, awaiting charges on polygamy.


No, it's not different. The difference is that the Bible is corroborated by an incredible amount of historical evidence. You might as well say Shakespeare did not exist, or Einstein. It would fly in the face of reason. The Bible itself does not prove Jesus' existence though.



I disagree with this entirely.
Why should the Bible be discarded as an historical source?
Yes, corroboration is important... and the Bible certainly has that, but the way that it's often presented makes it seem like the BIble itself has no historical veracity on its own - and this simply isn't true.

In a court of law, the testimony of two witnesses is enough to establish the veracity of a claim - the BIble doubles this, having four independent sources of eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. It's an incredible text, and utterly unparalleled... particularly when you take into account the fact that there are ultimately over 40 authors writing 66 books, and they ALL agree on the facts about who Jesus was, is, and will be.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by avocadoshag

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


No, symbology is fine. This was written many hundreds of years later by a sect that taught this. This is not "proof" Jesus was married, this is proof this cult believed he was. There is no new information here. It would be like me saying "proof" Jesus visited native americans and handing you a a Mormon Bible.


Exactly...or like saying "proof" that Jesus existed, and handing me a regular Bible.


You realize that that's slightly different, of course. The authors of the New Testament accepted death, rather than deny Christ. Joseph Smith was shot, while in jail, awaiting charges on polygamy.


No, it's not different. The difference is that the Bible is corroborated by an incredible amount of historical evidence. You might as well say Shakespeare did not exist, or Einstein. It would fly in the face of reason. The Bible itself does not prove Jesus' existence though.



I disagree with this entirely.
Why should the Bible be discarded as an historical source?
Yes, corroboration is important... and the Bible certainly has that, but the way that it's often presented makes it seem like the BIble itself has no historical veracity on its own - and this simply isn't true.

In a court of law, the testimony of two witnesses is enough to establish the veracity of a claim - the BIble doubles this, having four independent sources of eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. It's an incredible text, and utterly unparalleled... particularly when you take into account the fact that there are ultimately over 40 authors writing 66 books, and they ALL agree on the facts about who Jesus was, is, and will be.


Because they all have a vested interest in promoting the same belief. You have 5 witnesses, one is the wife of person A, and three more who are sons and daughters of person A. who all claim person B assaulted Person A.

Then you have one witness who has never met any of these people, and is completely independent. What would you do when this witness says hold up, that's not what happened at all. Person A is the one who went and assaulted person B!!

Independent verification is much more important than verification by close sources. With the bible what we have is the independent witness corobborating the other witnesses, they all agree. That is why the Bible has such integrity, because completely independent sources with ZERO reason to lie corroborate it.

As a strong Christian, I do not need all this corroboration. A historian would, and they have it.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Did people wear wedding bands/rings in those days?

Does he ever appear wearing one?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
It's so funny how some people won't believe when they're told He is the Son of God, the Savior of the world, the Messiah, etc., but when something that is totally untrue about Him comes out, those same people believe it.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 

there's nothing to say their Child was divine but He or She had the blood of Christ and after the death of Jesus everyone pretty much scattered so i'm sure they felt they needed to keep the baby's birth secret but i kinda feel the blood line is kinda like a sleeper agent and i'm sorry for putting it in that context but maybe some time soon or near the end who ever is alive that carries the blood of Jesus they will be tapped by God to do who knows what or maybe instead of a physical return of Christ it'll be through who's ever alive? it boggles the mind really but i'm sure there's a lineage throughout history of eveyone who has carried the blood of Jesus. Jesus was mortal and so was Marry so the Child was as well but with certain circumstances maybe. it sure is exciting the more we find out tho and it takes strong faith and sincere open-mindedness in my opinion to be able to really hear the truth in all the words spewed at us.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by adjensen
 


Booo must have not used correct phrase in search!
Don't use phrases...that's the problem.

Use simple words, the fewer the better, like Jesus wife or Jesus married for example.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Still waiting on proof that Jesus was real, let alone his wife...



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by thektotheg
Still waiting on proof that Jesus was real, let alone his wife...


Why are you waiting? There are thousands of historical documents proving Jesus is real. I guess if you wait then you can claim ignorance? Do you also wait for your food to cook itself?

As to His wife, that part is a hoax, well, less a hoax and more a cult teaching that came about quite a bit after Jesus' death.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Of course Jesus had a lover, he kissed the apostle John frequently. The apostle John is actually John the Baptist and the man/woman to the left of Jesus in The Last Supper is actually John and so is the "woman" at the foot of the cross.


1 - John the Baptist was beheaded and died in prison. He couldn't have been at the last supper or at the foot of the cross when Jesus died.

2 - Men in the middle east 'kiss' and hug frequently. They aren't homophobic. I saw the same thing when I lived in Japan. The men were not afraid of each other. They'd hug hello and kiss on the cheek.

3 - The women at the foot of the cross are listed ... Mary (the mother of Jesus), The 'other Mary', and Salome. John the apostle is listed separately.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join