Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by redhorse
 


Paul didn't author a version of the gospel. Only His direct disciples did that., John, Matthew, and Peter, with Luke interviewing disciples and eyewitnesses. As far as Nicaea goes there is absolutely no writings from antiquity that says anything about discussing the books of the Bible. In fact, the Bible that was accepted at the time of the council had been virtually the same as the books that appear in the Bible today. Check out the subheading titled "misconceptions" on the Wiki entry for the Nicaean Council. You also have a huge problem with justifying the rejection of Paul's letters because "he never met Jesus", because Peter was in Christ's "inner circle" along with James and John, and if you look at 2 Peter 3:15-16 he affirms everything Paul wrote in his letters, as well as refers to him as a "beloved brother".

edit on 25-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by redhorse
 


The last book of the Bible was Revelation written in 95-96 AD. All Paul's letters were written before 65 AD, same with Peter.


According to studies of the fragmentary evidence that exists. There is no direct evidence that any of the Gospels or books of the New Testament were written contemporous to the lives of the supposed authors. The fragments that have been studied are all dated in the region of the 2nd and 3rd century. As far as it is known there are no primary sources which can confirm the opinion that the Gospels were written, originally, within the lifetimes of the Apostles. Everything that we have is a copy of a copy.

It was at the Council of Rome in 382, that the canonical texts were formally agreed upon, and similarly, where the other books of early christianity were decided against, however since the minutes of this meeting have not survived, we do not know which texts were decided for exclusion. Those texts that have since re-emerged, may have already have disappeared from common usage due to both Roman persecution of Christianity, and following the establishment of the orthodox state sanctioned religion, persecution of those groups that did not conform to that patriarchal ideal.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
If in fact Jesus did have a wife and there may be a bloodline following him, they'd want to keep it secret for a good reason.

Imagine if the world knew Judas had children and we knew exactly who are his descendent's alive right now. If we told the world that Judas's living relatives are X, Y, and Z.........they would be killed. They could never live a normal life.

So Judas and Jesus if they did indeed have children......somebody long ago destroyed the records.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


I would suggest reading Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" volumes. The apostles Peter and Paul had to have written their books before 65ish AD, they were murdered by Nero. John wrote while in banishment on Patmos under the reign of Domitian, James was murdered in 52 AD. We know when these men died so textual critics can know basically when the books were written.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Well, the scholarly research end of things continues, and the general consensus remains one of extreme skepticism.

Marc Goodacre notes that in the past few days, it has been demonstrated that "every line, practically every word" in the fragment appears in the Gospel of Thomas. His latest overview appears here.

The original scholar, Francis Watson, notes that there is a significant problem with what's missing from the piece -- the number of letters on either side that are missing would not make for complete phrases. In other words, the text was written to fit on this piece of papyrus, with the assumption that people would infer the words or phrases that would tie the lines together, but there isn't enough space in the "missing edges" to do so. Article here.

Harvard, meanwhile, seems to be backing away from claims that King's research has been fully analyzed.

To that end, the Harvard Theological Review, which was to have published King's article, has announced that they will not do so. That seems like the "stick a fork in it, it's done" moment for this fraud.

Meanwhile in the anti-Christian community, it's business as usual:






posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Okay, that made me choke on my coffee.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Yes, but, Irenaeus himself wrote that in the latter half of the second century, and it was meant as a denouncement of Gnosticism and in defence of orthodoxy. Who can actually say, with absolute certainty, that Irenaeus was not simply the first of many to denounce one set of teachings in favour of another? Or that he did not give validity to the texts that had been attributed to the Apostles in order to give that argument validity? Simply, I do not see how a late second century polemic verifies your point of view at all.

Either way, the simple fact remains that the oldest examples of those texts that we have are fragmentary and they were written in the second and third centuries. Therefore, we can only assume that they were copied from originals written by the Apostles themselves. Since that is a given, we have no guarantee that they are true or accurate copies of what was originally written.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who it turn was disciple of John. It's hard to fathom a man once removed from Christ's "beloved" apostle didn't have the correct idea what was considered legitimate scripture and what was not. Sorry, that's extremely unlikely.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No, Irenaeus heard Polycarp speak when he was a 'youth'. That hardly constitutes tutelage. I went to see Pope John Paul the second when he visited my city when I was a kid, should I claim apostolic succession?

And Polycarp was the student of someone called John. There is nothing to indicate which John, or even if that John was anyone of note. There is certainly no evidence to tie him directly to John the Gospel writer. That is pure supposition.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


John was apostle to Asia Minor (modern day turkey, think 7 churches of Revelation). Polycarp was appointed Bishop of Smyrna by John, his apostle. And "hearer" was the Greek way of referring to a disciple. Irenaeus copied the oral teaching of Polycarp. I would consult New Testament survey textbooks and early church fathers.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


John was apostle to Asia Minor (modern day turkey, think 7 churches of Revelation).


Was he? Are you sure? As I understand it, John was appointed, by Jesus, to tend to Jerusalem, as well as to care for his mother...and until his exile to Ephesus, he did preach in and around that area...there is no tradition, that I am aware of, that he played anything more than an advisory role while in Asia minor.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Polycarp was appointed Bishop of Smyrna by John, his apostle.


Again, are you sure? While Irenaeus claims that Polycarp was a companion of Papias, who in turn, was a 'hearer' of John, so it was Papias not Polycarp who was the disciple. I am unaware that he claimed that John appointed him Bishop of Smyrna, or if indeed John had the authority to do so. Isn't it more likely that he was appointed by Paul who did have such authority.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And "hearer" was the Greek way of referring to a disciple.


Irenaeus did not claim to be a 'hearer', in his polemic against Valentinus, he claimed to have heard Polycarp preach when he was a youth. Not that 'I was Polycarp's hearer'. In a later letter, he then claimed to have been taught by him as a child and that that was when he heard of Polycarp's conversations with John. Either way, in both contexts, it represents heresay.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Irenaeus copied the oral teaching of Polycarp.


Did he? Again, are you sure? Certainly in his polemic against Valentinus, and his letters he refers to the kinds of things that Polycarp may have said, but he makes no claim that they represent his 'teachings', and surely, Polycarp's own letter to the Phillipiians would be consider representative of the man's theology.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I would consult New Testament survey textbooks and early church fathers.


Well given that in all cases, apart from the Letter to Phillipians, Irenaeus is the 'primary' source, I don't think that that would help. Each subsequent writer and commentator has seemingly embellished on Irenaeus's embellishment. Ignatius the only other extant writer from the time of Polycarp-ish only refers to Peter and Paul and makes no mention of John, so I am not sure how that would help other than to understand the way it which the general has become so misconceived.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 



But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4).


Polycarp.

"Apostles in Asia" = John and Phillip
edit on 27-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Biliverdin
 



But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4).


Polycarp.

"Apostles in Asia" = John and Phillip


Yes, I know that...but where does it say that he was appointed by John. It simply does not make that claim, YOU are following a tradition that interprets his words to mean that. We are informed that John was asked by the Bishops of Asia to write his Gospel. And that it was Paul that established the Church in Ephesus...all of which indicates that while in Asia minor, John was more of a 'figure' of the Church, rather than holding any official capacity. Which, if you consider that carefully, would better fit his more mystical outlook.

Let's look at what Irenaeus is saying, and why he is saying it... Polycarp is believed to have been the first compiler of the New Testament and it appears that Irenaeus is supporting that perspective in his polemic against the followers of Valentinus. Therefore, what he is actually trying to impart, is that he knew Polycarp, and Polycarp knew the Apostles. Fair enough. There is every reason to believe that given his geographical proximity to John for one. Why is it therefore subsequently necessary to qualify that postition by claiming that Polycarp was appointed Bishop by John, when there is no evidence to back that up...until much later when Apostolic succession becomes a factor within the patriarchy of the state sanctioned church?

So what Irenaeus is actually trying to argue is more important, not his position within the heirarchy and his apostolic succession. Valentinus was teaching that the message of christianity was hidden, that you needed an 'elect' in order to understand that message and thereby gain salvation through that elect. Irenaeus however, says, No, I knew Polycarp, and I heard from him, that everything that you need to know is right here in these books of the New Testament.

Now, if we return to my original point, the problem that we therefore face, given the fragmentary evidence, combined with Polycarp's martyrdom, which would inevitably have led to an attempt to destroy his 'work', is what books were in the original New Testament? What was taken out over the course of time, and more specifically, at the Council of Rome in 382? In short, we have, at present, no way of knowing. We also have no way of knowing how accurate the copies of copies are of those texts that may have been in the original, such as the Four Gospels because of this editorialism. While Irenaeus argued that Valentinus was incorrect in his assertion that salvation required someone to mediate between God and the initiate, we find a couple of centuries later, a reversal from the patriarchal church whereby they themselves assume that position. Everything you need in the book, but that book has to be interpreted by a Priest. See what I mean?

We also see it in the same way in which heresy is qualified following that change. While most heretics fall into the dualist camps, the majority of those that are burnt, are those that claim that everyone can experience God, directly, by following the path taught to them by Jesus. Which is, what both the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Philip seem to indicate also.

My argument is not therefore about dismissing Irenaeus, but in dismissing the way in which his words have been embellished to show a different nature to the relationship between Polycarp and the Apostles. It is enough that he heard Polycarp preach, or was taught by him as a child. That establishes his understanding of the 'message' that the teachings of Jesus were to be taken literally in the context of the polemic, that there was no hidden meaning that needed interpreter to be understood. The later embellishments and interpretation serve only as an enforcement of a dogmatic heirarchy and support apostolic succession to the exclusion of other branches of the church, such as those started by Mary, Thomas, and Philip, for example, until we are only left with those branches established by Peter and Paul. Paul who never heard Jesus speak, and Peter who, perhaps, never really got the simplicity of that message.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


1. James the Just Brother to Joshua was the Bishop of Jerusalem, Saul/Paul tried to Arrest him Kill him 3 times.

2. Saul/Paul never met Joshua alive or dead, Peter just liked his Misogynous attitude, in that they were similar brothers as it were.

3. IMHO Mary M was in fact the Wife of the Master Joshua/Jesus they had 2 children Judas called Jude or Juda or Thomas Dimititous Judas, and a Daughter Sarah.

4. Mary M. was NOT a WHORE that was again made up by a Pope control the masses at all times.

so there lol



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hermit777
4. Mary M. was NOT a WHORE that was again made up by a Pope control the masses at all times.

so there lol

No argument from me on that one, I made a thread about it, in fact....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So there


...with bells on



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hermit777
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


so there lol


What a convincing argument



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Interesting video presentation, Coptic scholar Christian Askeland comments on the quality of manuscript and problems with the textual content.



And in other news, the Smithsonian Channel postponed the Sunday night airing of their documentary on this text, "pending further testing." (Source). Looks like Karen King's 15 minutes of fame are over, and now it's time to pay the piper for all the media hype that she stirred up, prior to doing sufficient testing on the fragment's authenticity.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by sylent6
Jesus wife is God's organization, his government, his people. People its symbolic.



Yep, people don't seem to understand Jesus constantly called the church his Bride.

If he did, then it had to be stated outside the Bible, because there is no single verse where Jesus would do so. You should have included the source of your claim.
But there is an interesting reference in the Bible to Jesus' bride and the wife:
"One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, 'Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.'”
Revelation 21:9

Since the Lamb is the Lamb of God and "The Messiah is called the 'Lamb of God' throughout the Bible's New Testament. This may seem a peculiar label to those who aren't familiar with biblical idioms, but to those who know their Bible, it is a cherished title for the beloved Messiah, Jesus Christ," it follows that the verse in Revelation endorses the idea that Jesus had a wife.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by Hermit777
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


so there lol


What a convincing argument


If you had taken the time to read his post to me, you would have seen that I was merely responding in kind to his remark. Friendly like. But of course, we can all simply criticise.

What exactly, may I ask, did your comment add to the discussion? Nothing, that's what. Deary me, silly boy!

ETA...just noticed that you were criticising him...but my point remains, and further, he actually put forth an argument, so your criticism, seems all the more facile...if you'd been having a go at me, it would have been more justified.
edit on 3-10-2012 by Biliverdin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by Hermit777
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


so there lol


What a convincing argument


If you had taken the time to read his post to me, you would have seen that I was merely responding in kind to his remark. Friendly like. But of course, we can all simply criticise.

What exactly, may I ask, did your comment add to the discussion? Nothing, that's what. Deary me, silly boy!



I'm 32 years old, tyvm. Have you read the thread? I've contributed to it (although not nearly as much as ajensen and with much less patience than he has shown). All the evidence points to this document being historically worthless (if not an outright fake), and yet people are still here presenting opinions as fact and throwing around insults?

Nothing I haven't seen before here, of course. Have a lovely day.





top topics
 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join