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.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:11 AM

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by MamaJ

Research shows he was real, reincarnated many times, lived like we all live with a family.

He just so happened to remember his purpose because he was on a mission, to free the fallen

According to your interpretation. The OT clearly states who he is, the physical manifestation of God. The reason he is the First and Last is because only One was needed, and because only One was needed it made him not just the First but the Last :shk:.
edit on 19-9-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

This is an attempt to turn Jesus into the figure of the quran, a mere prophet who married like their prophet.

Oh I definately agree. By the 5th century gnostics were circulating Arius' and Valentinus' garbage. Even the Quran was ripped from the Holy Bible and twisted. This is just like that forged "gospel of Barnabas" from the 15th century that Apostle Barnabas wrote 1500 years after his own death naming Muhammad as Messiah :shk: and it's a fact Muhammad did claim Messiahship by saying he was the Messenger of Allah which translates as "Angel of the Lord".

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:41 AM

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
fact: marriage is a strictly obligatory precondition for becoming a rabbi, no exceptions, period.


Further in Jewish law, the European gloss of R. Isserles on the Shulchan Arukh OH 581:1 states that only one who is married may lead the congregation in worship - note that this is the Hazzan/Shaliah Tzibbur and not the Rabbi whose function may only have been to teach.

How does that relate to Rabbis today? Most Rabbis marry. They marry for the companionship and children, but also in doing so they can better understand the dynamics of the family, which they are often called upon to counsel. Most Rabbis are fortunate enough to find an appropriate mate, even in this very complicated world. (Source, emphasis mine.)

From the description in the New Testament, Jesus was clearly a teaching Rabbi, he didn't lead a Synagogue.


and a major one at that, weren't you talking about Eisegesis earlier?

The Shulchan Aruch (Hebrew: שׁוּלחָן עָרוּך‎, literally: "Set Table")[1] also known as the Code of Jewish Law, is the most authoritative legal code of Judaism. It was authored in Safed, Ottoman Eyalet of Damascus, by Yosef Karo in 1563 and published in Venice two years later.[2] Together with its commentaries, it is the most widely accepted compilation of Jewish law ever written.

the Talmud

Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the law (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim), for example of court decisions. This situation changed drastically, however,
mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth and the Second Temple in the year 70 CE
and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms. As the Rabbis were required to face a new reality—mainly Judaism without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study) and Judea without at least partial autonomy—there was a flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that Rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[1][2]
The earliest recorded oral law may have been of the midrashic form, in which halakhic discussion is structured as exegetical commentary on the Pentateuch. But an alternative form, organized by subject matter instead of by biblical verse, became dominant about the year 200 CE, when Rabbi Judah haNasi redacted the Mishnah (משנה).[citation needed] The Oral Law was far from monolithic; rather, it varied among various schools. The most famous two were the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. In general, all valid opinions, even the non-normative ones, were recorded in the Talmud.[citation needed]

The oldest full manuscript of the Talmud is from 1342, known as the Munich Talmud and was purchased in a hotly contested auction from New York based Christies by Tyndale House of the UK.

your source also mentions gay and lesbian rabbis

nope, have a:

and try again [while you're at it don't forget the other 2 Facts ]
when i was 12 [33 years ago] the big debate at Church [RCC] AND the Synagogue was whether i'd become a priest or a rabbi, lol, i've forgotten more about religious scholarship than most of you folks added up together.

squirm all you like, much bigger revelations are on their way, according to persistent rumors on the Aether

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

If you've forgotten more than we know now, doesn't that mean we know more than you now? After all, what good is knowledge when it's forgotten?

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:50 AM

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.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you? Are you saying there is no "proof" Jesus existed? I hope not, because there are very few that believe that. IF I read that correctly and that is what you believe, I would suggest doing a little research. I would not take you long to find that Jesus was documented other than in the Bible. Now for the question of whether of not he was married I don't know. It would be great to know for sure. I am sure (for me) He was the Son of God, and if he were married I would hope if he had Children they would be documented.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by kurthall

The question is, was it the same Jesus?

I doubt the Romans were so meticulous that they made certain not to confuse one person for another. After all, their wages didn't exactly guarantee stellar accuracy...especially if they were drinking on the job (which seems more likely than not).
edit on 19-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:34 AM
so maria magdalena...from prostitute to divind wife.....

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:36 AM

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

If you've forgotten more than we know now, doesn't that mean we know more than you now? After all, what good is knowledge when it's forgotten?

nothing is ever truly forgotten it just sinks into the unconscious

it's also a figure of speech don't be so literal

just Saiyan L

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by kurthall

There are at least 100 different Jesus's mentioned during that time period. You gotta take your pick.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by AfterInfinity

I'm sure there is plenty of holes within the entire story! I'm sure roman authority burned plenty of scrolls that had more about Jesus and eliminated most copies explaining Jesus being married and other important dogma on early christianity.

Speaking of which, early christainity was primarily made of woman than men, there is a reason behind this.

I'm sure early church (catholic), Early angry Jews, burned as much as they could on jesus to suppress information, this including the gnostics too

Before the acceptance of Christianity there was more anger towards them, between this time many scrolls probably burned
edit on 19-9-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:45 AM

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by kurthall

There are at least 100 different Jesus's mentioned during that time period. You gotta take your pick.

I didn't know there were fake Jesus around caliming to be Yeshua the Messiah, or anointed , proof? Are you going to counter claiming that J.C never claim to be the messiah? Why would he claim it, peter did

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:46 AM
If Jesus was who they tell us he was, then how come he can turn water into wine, but cannot escape from being crucified? I think all this jesus stuff is a load of cobblers.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Jordan River

I didn't know there were fake Jesus around caliming to be Yeshua the Messiah, or anointed , proof?

That is not what I said. His name was very common and many people did proclaim to be the messiah. This is common knowledge. I'm not getting into anything else you want to argue about. The name appears many times in writings and records of that time period and it doesn't always refer to the same person.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by Jordan River

Most of the 'Messiah' catchphrasing was from the mouths of other people who had heard tell of him, or had met him. He was notoriously humble, from what I've been told.

And I would hope I've been told accurately, or the whole deal is a farce regardless of what scientists may have recently "discovered".

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by adjensen
I'll summarize my post in the (original thread) here, as well.

This "proof" is a scrap, smaller than a business card, which contains eight lines, plus three words, and the continuation of the phrase "my wife" is missing, so we have no way of knowing if it said "my wife, Mary" (cue Dan Brown) or, perhaps "my wife, the church" (cue the existing New Testament).

In addition, this is apparently a Fourth Century document, written in Coptic, which is consistent with the Gnostic texts in Nag Hammadi, and the views expressed would be consistent with those.

In short, there is nothing particularly "revealing" about this, even if it shown to be real.

Why would Jesus say "My wife the church" --- When he opposed organized religion?

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:38 PM

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
Why would Jesus say "My wife the church" --- When he opposed organized religion?

Where did I say that he opposed religion?

You may be confusing his opposition to some of the views and behaviours of some religious leaders of his time, but he most certainly was an observant Jew.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by n3mesis

Ok, you have me interested now...........slightly off topic, but hey who cares, this has been posted several times.

If Jesus and Mary had a child, how come their child was nothing special? And the one after that and the one after......

or is this where you say , "why does the child have to be special?"

I just wondering that's all as if we took a look at cattle, we breed cattle to their bloodlines etc, surely there would be some "trait" that made this person special and if so why have we not heard of him/her?

Coptic legend believes Mary Magdeline and Sarah, the daughter of their union, were removed by Joseph of Arimathea to the southern shores of Gaul (France), across the mediteranean Sea. There they were taken in by the Cathars of the Languedoc region... whom the Pope sent the VERY FIRST Crusade to conquer. It was there, as the mountain ran red with blood in a wave knee deep that the Commander sent message to the Pope: The Cathars and Catholic faithful all look alike. How I am I to tell them apart? --- The reply is infamous: KILL THEM ALL, God will know his own. What were they in search of? The HOLY GRAIL... the bloodline of the Christ. The child Sarah and the worship of the Black Madonna.And let's not forget that Jewish geneology is passed from the MOTHER, primarily. It is a Westernization of later centuries that switch to a male dominated Patriarchy of lineage.

I hope this did not ramble... And ALWAYS search the truth. Some behind us from years back burned whole Libraries in Alexandria and Babylon so that the history we know was what THEY wanted passed along... not to let TRUTH stand in the way of their world vision.


The ninth generation from Jesus of Nazereth is: (drumroll, please!) Charlegmain, the Holy Roman Emporer [ written in his own hand, he proclaims his Birthright! ]

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:50 PM
. I just see it as plausible due to the Davidic lineage growing and the promise of the growth from Abrham.

I honestly think that God is Jesus is also acceptable, the incarnation, thats Catholic 101. Trinity deal.
Having sex IMHO doesn't blemish a man of purity, perverseness and chronic sex does.

I honestly see no biological imperfection in sex due to the fact that God created sex. If it was perverse he wouldn't of multiplied us.
God said it was ok the eat the food of pork because everything God created was
But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate" (v.9-17).

So God created the Penis and vagina. Is the penis and vagina more of a miracle than birth itself?

So also this could be attributed into God cleansing J.C. Because through repentance we are clean, even if J.C spilled an emission into a vessel

Don't ever forget about repentance

just a point of view
edit on 19-9-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by Flamingo6562

I think we're all going to want sources for your claims. Please forgive us if we don't exactly take your word for it. After all, there's a reason I'm not Christian...if you catch my drift.

edit on 19-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:57 PM
There is plenty of interpation, through either the Church, scholar or self. Plenty sides to take, theist, anti theist. So honestly it all depends what the person wants to see

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by Jordan River

So honestly it all depends what the person wants to see

That's what it has always depended on, for those too afraid to see the truth. And the truth has been so uncomfortable for so long, we've been so afraid and disgusted by what we've become for so long, that we can no longer see it. We are the schizophrenic who looks in the mirror, and instead of ugly wrinkles and decaying bags of flesh, and greedy beady little eyes searching for the next sparkle or the next flash of pleasure, we see royal kings and mighty sorcerers who command the skies and seas, every wish and command ours for the taking.

We have crafted an illusion, an illusion that feeds from many different sides. Christianity is one of those sides, for it gives us a reason not to be afraid, and therefore a reason to not seek change. But here, we have a sign that such things may be about to crumble into dust, revealing a brand new mirror by which to see the truth of what we have become.

But beware...mankind has never taken kindly to such rude awakenings. We are rather violent when we are dragged into the overwhelming light - and I fear this will be no different.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in