Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

page: 12
20
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I don't see why Jesus would not have a wife or copulate. He was flesh and fought with the weakness of flesh. Maybe the Einsteins and Tesla's of the world were his distant offsprings. We probably aborted a few Einsteins I'm afraid.




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLonewolf
Just read the article and it's riddled with "he believes, he thinks and he say's" Just because someone thinks, says or believes something does not make them an expert..How do we know this guy isn't a ignorant, narrow minded bible thumper? So i just looked this guy up and guess what? He is a bible banger..Go figure, he would dispute this
edit on 21-9-2012 by TheLonewolf because: (no reason given)


Conversely, look up the lady who proposed this Gospel Of Mary ( quite a stretch from the little scrap she does have) has been a bit of one of those radical feminist type professors all along. If we must disregard one opinion for a narrow minded agenda, we must also disregard the other.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hermit777

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Hermit777

To you and adjensen i have said it before if this is your belief then fine, do not bore me with fake science or supposition. You are allowed your belief as long as you do not try to force it on others with unintentional falsehoods and dubious references and other beliefs predicated on a misconception in the first place.


Sorry, but in this instance, you are the one who is presenting fiction as fact. "Fake science"? Please.


What you are doing is clear to anyone who can read. You are the one using phooney science.

What "phooney science" have I used?


if ppl read the whole Paper it can be seen where she states it may have come from came from the Gospel of John

No, she doesn't. She references them as two separate things.


And because you like internet sources so much here is one to read as to the ramifications of the C of N and Emperor Constantine on the bible et al.

www.deism.com...

Seriously, you use a Diest website that cites the co-founder of the Jesus Seminar as evidence of anything? You might as well cite Bertrand Russell and Erich von Däniken, while you're at it.



There are many more like this and of course Fanatic bible-thumpers who decry the truth, why for the simple reason that in the Gnostics there is no need for priests or go-betweens or a Pope. They state what is needed to be like the Master and purport to use his words, oh and they speak of reincarnation and many more things.
But the biggest sin is those writings would eliminate the need of a strong Central control, and that is all it is about controlling the masses and getting money.

Wow, you're seriously barking up the wrong tree there -- the Gnostics were about nothing if it wasn't relying on "Masters" for your insight. Here's how it worked -- you found a Gnostic Master, you studied under him and if you were deemed "enlightened enough" (which most likely involved lots of fawning, devotion and cash on the hoof) after a decade or so, your Master might fill you in on the Gnosis. Assuming that he didn't die first, of course, in which case you started over with another Master.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hermit777

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Hermit777

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by redhorse
 


Where did you get your history? The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the books of the Bible, the Council was called to address the Arian heresy (exactly how to define Christ's deity). 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. So what are you talking about?


The The Council of Nicaea had everything to do with Stating what belonged and what did not. There were many versions including the Gnostics. It was The Council of Nicaea that removed or stated what belonged in the Cannon and what did not. Anything that did not control people was removed.


I wish I had a dollar for everytime I have to say this... Lord knows that Dan Brown made enough with his disinformation that cause people to think this, but... my cross to bear, lol.

No, the Council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with determining what went into the Bible. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

We have historical records that demonstrate that Biblical Canon had been largely settled over a hundred years prior to the Council.

We have historical records that show what WAS discussed at this conference, and it was the Arian controversy, not anything at all to do with the Bible.

 

You, on the other hand, have The Da Vinci Code or some equally dubious fiction.

You're wrong.


Ah no my PhD says i am correct and Dan Brown writes nice fiction base on some fact and a lot of supposition.

There were 3 Major Cannons the Greek and Egyptian are 2 and were Weeded by the Council of Nicaea, and then Outlawed. As i said they were still ROMAN and wanted Control. And nothing was actually Settled 100 years earlier except staying away from LIONS in the Colosseum. The Romans wanted Control, the head of the Roman Empire was just trying to keep his Empire together. With all that there are still 2 Catholic Churches,
Greek Orthodox and Roman Orthodox. They just could not make it happen in 350 but close to finding a new way to control the people. Oh and BTW the Emperor with In Hoc Signo Vinces still did not get Baptized until he was on his deathbed. So much for his Belief. His little trick kept everything afloat for almost 300 more years.


edit on 3-10-2012 by Hermit777 because: completeness


You have a PhD? Cool! In what, from where? You do not type like someone with a PhD, with the poor grammar, lack of punctuation, and misspellings and all. The Coptic (Egyption) and Greek Catholic Churches still exist today, albeit not under Rome. There were not three cannons, but five by the time Nicea rolled around.

"By the fifth century, a "pentarchy" or system of five sees (patriarchates), with a settled order of precedence, had been established. Rome, as the ancient center and largest city of the empire, was understandably given the presidency or primacy of honor within the pentarchy into which Christendom was now divided. Plainly, this system of patriarchs and metropolitans was exclusively the result of ecclesiastical legislation; there was nothing inherently divine in its origin. None of the five sees, in short, possessed its authority by divine right. Had this been so, Alexandria could not have been demoted to third rank in order to have Constantinople exalted to second place. The determining factor was simply their secular status as the most important cities in the empire. Typically, each of the five patriarchs was totally sovereign within his sphere of jurisdiction."

The primacy of Rome, as such, did not entail universal jurisdictional power over the others. On the contrary, all bishops, whether patriarchs or not, were equal. No one bishop, however exalted his see or diocese, could claim supremacy over the others. The bishop of Rome was simply vested with the presidency, as the senior bishop - the first among equals.

The Copts and the Armanians broke off in the fifth century, but the Greek and Byzantine Traditions actually held on for quite a bit. There is not a real exact date and the issues revolved cultural, political, and linguistic differences as well as theological. Any narrative of the schism which emphasizes one at the expense of the other will be fragmentary.

Put down the Dan Brown and actually study some history.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


So who is right and who is lying or deceived. Is the gospel of Thomas the forgery? Is the gospel of Thomas written from the gospel of Mary or were they working together. I see no real evidence either way to know what is the truth. I will keep observing and try to piece it together. Someone who makes such a definitive statement is often at least partially wrong. I have found that true most of the time



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


How do you know it wasn't forged? Personally, it doesn't matter to me, because most of the stuff in the Bible has no bearing on what's going on in today's world. Tell me, where do they use the Bible to determine political decisions? Base education on what was taught in the Bible? Use Bibles to determine the holistic properties in meals?

Nothing. Nada. Zilch. So why does it matter? It doesn't. Everyone here is so busy clinging to the past, obsessed with their rearview mirror, that they aren't paying attention to the fact that we're about to drive straight over a cliff!

The future, people! What happened 2,000 years ago won't matter if the events of TODAY destroy the world of TOMORROW!!!



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by adjensen
 


So who is right and who is lying or deceived. Is the gospel of Thomas the forgery? Is the gospel of Thomas written from the gospel of Mary or were they working together. I see no real evidence either way to know what is the truth. I will keep observing and try to piece it together. Someone who makes such a definitive statement is often at least partially wrong. I have found that true most of the time


Age testing on the ink will likely be the final arbiter, but the general consensus of Coptic scholars is that this fragment is a forgery, based on the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (essentially, just copying words from it and rearranging them for this,) and done within the past ten years or so.

The Gospel of Thomas is a historical forgery, but the word means something different in that context -- it is a real document, of that era (2nd Century,) but it is pseudepigraphical, meaning it was not written by the person who has claimed to have written it (in the case of Gospel of Thomas, that would be Judas, the twin brother of Jesus.)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
 


How do you know it wasn't forged?


What, the documents associated with Nicaea? Why would they be forged? How would someone in the Fourth Century know that people 1,600 years later would be overly concerned with where the Bible came from and write fictional accounts of what happened at this Council? Similarly, why would the church fathers in the Second Century write out a canon that is pretty much exactly what we have today, if it was just a fictional list, intended to hide the fact that Constantine would actually be deciding what Canon would be, 150 years in the future?

Geez, use some common sense here.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Common sense says that it takes many years for such a pervasive, profound deception to be completed and refined and then spread. When man is involved, and there is power to be had, deception is a distinct possibility.

Look at it this way. If the Vatican or some other researcher had discovered evidence irrefutably proving the entire premise of the Bible to be inaccurate, or completely false even, would you trust them to bring forth that discovery? Would you trust them to not hide it away for fear of the chaos such a revelation would bring? There is even a prophecy the Vatican has hidden away in its vaults, because it strikes such fear in their hearts. They believe that only the highest of officials in their little establishment are worthy of seeing that information.

If it's so terrible, don't we have a right to know of it? No, we do not...they do not trust us with what they know, so I do not trust them with what they say they know. Our faith in our fellow man is so precarious, we have to walk on eggshells to avoid anarchy and social collapse. Why would I trust any political figure who possesses or answers to a higher authority with that mentality?

That's the bottom line here. How much do I trust the people in charge of bringing this information to us, of making these discoveries public? How much do I trust the people paid to verify these things - or paid to keep their mouths shut, because their bosses are afraid of the repercussions?

I don't trust them, because they don't trust us. Because I know, if they deem it necessary, if they believe it to be a wise move, regardless of what we want...they will lie straight through their teeth, to their dying breath, as long as it keeps the peace. The peace they prefer in contrast to the chaos that their honesty might bring. Familiarity over change, because change sometimes brings destruction before it can evolve. They don't want change, because they don't know what it will change into. And we will never know the difference - or at the very least, we'll never be able to prove it.
edit on 8-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


And therein, I think lies your problem -- you don't trust them, simply because you'd rather that they not be right.

There is significant historical evidence that supports the claims that biblical canon developed in the Second Century in response to Marcion's canon. There is zero historical evidence that supports the claims that the Council of Nicaea determined what biblical canon should be. It is, therefore, absolutely irrational to claim that the Council of Nicaea determined biblical canon, and yet, here you are, making that claim.

It is perfectly reasonable to have a contrarian opinion on matters of faith or acceptance of orthodox teachings, but it is quite another to have an irrational perspective which is based on nothing more than a fervent desire for one's own perceived truths to be actual.

I posted this picture earlier in the thread, but I think it bears posting again.



Sometimes the mundane answers really are the right ones. In fact, that's usually the case.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Finding a scrap of parchment that says someone was married is a lot more believable than reading a book that says, "This guy died for your sins and rose three days later, but his sacrifice is still valid as long as you worship his name and work every day of your life to avoid gratifying the nature that this God dude gave you, and if you don't then you'll be punished even though its his fault you were born that way."

In contrast to the story-line given above, marriage is a lot less deserving of skepticism. It's a lot more understandable, even despite the differences in culture (which still don't account for the death-defying illogic that pervades the premise I summarized above). I think you may have forgotten to take that into account. Either that, or you've deliberately spun it in a misleading manner.

edit on 8-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
 


Finding a scrap of parchment that says someone was married is a lot more believable than reading a book that says, "This guy died for your sins and rose three days later, but his sacrifice is still valid as long as you worship his name and work every day of your life to avoid gratifying the nature that this God dude gave you, and if you don't then you'll be punished even though its his fault you were born that way."


This demonstrates quite nicely what that picture illustrates.

Yes, finding a scrap of parchment that "says someone was married" is believable, but it doesn't say that "someone" was married, it says that Jesus, who is "This guy who died for your sins", etc, was married. You throw out all of that stuff that concretely describes Jesus, because it is in terms of what you don't like, and say it's perfectly sensible to accept that he was married, because you rather like that idea.

You're accepting the "fact" that Jesus was married, not because there is a preponderance of evidence that he was (most evidence, in fact, says that this scrap is a fraud,) but rather because him being married fits into your preconceived bias of what you want Jesus to be, for whatever reason.

And I hate to have to point it out, but the skeptical position on this matter is not "oh, yeah, Jesus was married," but the counter, because the positive assertion is that he was, despite a lack of evidence for it. "Skeptical" does not mean "contrarian", which is what it seems like you think it means.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Forgive me if I don't give as much credence to the whole God/Son sacrifice supernatural witchcraft dealie as I do to something as mundane as marriage.

I mean, the two are obviously on the same level: the union of man and woman is very much similar to a god sacrificing his only mortal son in order to cast of spell of abdication on the people of earth.

For the life of me, I can't explain it, but I feel as though only the marriage part makes sense to me. It couldn't possibly be the idiocy of the witchcraft - which is, by the way, also prohibited by scripture, yet was used to attain forgiveness of all sin...imagine that? - oh no, it couldn't be that at all.

After all, it's much more difficult to believe in the possibility of a man and woman getting married. Or anyone getting married, for that matter. I mean, what IS marriage, even? A ritual? I heard about one of those involving the oldest son being crucified to erase all karmic debts in the world...for the rest of time. But that can't be real, right?


Sorry for the sarcasm, but you apparently can't tell the difference between an every day occurrence and a singular event that has apparently failed to fulfill its promise of delivering the believers from the evils of our world.
edit on 8-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

To NavyDoc and adjensen:

1. When someone starts to criticize grammer and spelling they have lost the debate! I write the way i speak in Chat. When i write Papers that is very different.

2. Yes i pointed to a Deist article why not the things on the internet are so important to you so here is something that does not agree with you but on the internet.. Frankly i have read a good many Peer Reviewed papers from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Cornell and other non-controlled universities. Those are what people should read on this topic they are accessible and well researched.

3. Dan Brown again? You are the only ones mentioning Dan Brown i feel you both have a Man Crush on him.
If you are so concerned about his books go email him, but i have never ascribed any of things i have said, to Dan Brown or any other Fiction Book. I could just as easily say you 2 are getting your facts from "The Last Temptation Of Christ" or Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", it would not be correct, just saying it does not make it so.

i have posted many things in this thread without trying to push my Beliefs on anyone, as i feel you 2 are doing.
So ppl can read what i have posted and read the links, and decide for themselves, instead of them only being fed the monotonous POV of specious & circuitous arguments, the 2 of you have given.

Open Minded study may give a person a good idea of what is correct or what may just be a good idea. Ideas are powerful and can be changed with more Data and follow it where it goes. If you ignore new Data then your knowledge will always be lacking and you are just fooling yourselves, into a childlike ignorance and never seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

I am done with this thread.
edit on 12-10-2012 by Hermit777 because: Grammer and Softening.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hermit777
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

To NavyDoc and adjensen:

1. When someone starts to criticize grammer and spelling they have lost the debate! I write the way i speak in Chat. When i write Papers that is very different.

I'm not sure that I did this, but your poor language skills belie your claim that you have a PhD. If one of my students wrote as poorly as you, I'd have sent them back to remedial English classes.


i have posted many things in this thread without trying to push my Beliefs on anyone, as i feel you 2 are doing. So ppl can read what i have posted and read the links, and decide for themselves, instead of them only being fed the monotonous POV of specious & circuitous arguments, the 2 of you have given.

No one is forcing anyone to believe anything. A rationale reader will encounter this thread and judge my side on its facts, and your side, on your opinion, and decide accordingly. Of course, by then the testing of this "artifact" will be complete, so opinion won't matter so much.


I am done with this thread.

Buh-bye. Your contributions to the thread were beyond belief.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hermit777
 



Myth #5: The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) determined which books should be in the New Testament.

The Council of Nicea did not deal with canonical questions, or questions regarding which books should belong in the New Testament. Instead, the Council of Nicea dealt with a heresy known as Arianism (held by modern day Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians), which taught that Jesus was a man, but not God. The final list of the twenty seven books which are in the New Testament actually came from Bishop Athanasius in 367 A.D. However, most of the books in the New Testament were already accepted and used by various churches well before then. In fact, the bishop Irenaeus wrote around 180 A.D. about the four Gospels being compared to the four directions of the winds. Various other second century writers also were extensively using the New Testament including Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Papias, and Athenagoras to name a few.


CARM

religionfacts.com.

Encyclopedia Britannica.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
this researcher has discovered who wrote the books of luke and mark. also the identities of jesus's wife and [3] children ... it's in the bible! www.thenazareneway.com... DON'T TELL THE POPE!



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by lastword
 


Oh, good Lord...


But I immediately ran into a problem: I couldn't get past Anna's age: 84. Why in the world did Luke find it necessary to report her age? It just wasn't critical to the story.

I had been studying "Sacred Numbers" and the various manipulations permitted by Plato and Pythagoras to solve their puzzles. And that may have been the reason I had an urge to multiply Anna's age by pi (22/7). The answer was 264. And by a sheer coincidence I had just finished reading a book by Bruce Cathie, The Energy Grid, in which he quoted Buckminister Fuller's work on DNA/RNA behaviors pertaining to the "birth process," and what is known as "the birth unzipping angle."

"The Birth Unzipping Angle of the DNA/RNA behaviors" is 26,400 seconds of arc, a "harmonic" of 264

So what I discovered in Anna's age was a "harmonic" of the "birth unzipping angle," described by Buckminister Fuller (which corresponds with the Watson-Crick model) and quoted by Bruce Cathie.


He has "an urge to multiple Anna's age by pi" and unlocks the secrets of the Bible?


Thanks for another bookmark on my "Internet kooks" list, lol.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


yah, that sacred number stuff is a bit much. i guess you didn't get to the part where one of jesus twin sons is called a n@@@@ [he was black]. that is in the bible. i guess that also would make his other son black.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


www.gotquestions.org... That link pretty much explains it for you. Short too. Also has the scripture in it. No point in posting it when i would be posting exactly how that explains it and plagiarizing.
edit on 22-9-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for the link, but you sent me to what seems to me, a Christian website about the new Testament and Jesus Christ so on and so forth! When the FAQ's answers the question about "did Jesus exist and was he real", the huge answer never once comes out and says "Jesus was a JEWISH man", they dance around that! I find that interesting and sad.

If someone wants to talk about what Jesus said, then one must talk about Jesus when he was alive as a Jewish man living with his Jewish people. He would not have known the word Church and so would not have used it. Further, lets remember that this guy everyone today calls Jesus could not possibly have existed the way some folks think he did.

Also we don't have historical evidence this Jesus (Jesus would not have been his name) person existed, which means we can't put words into his mouth. The one thing we can do is say something like 'as a Jewish man, he would not have said that, or he would not have done that, or he would not have looked like that, and so forth. This person we all call Jesus was a Jewish Carpenter. The bible/scripture does not = historical evidence.


edit on 29-12-2012 by Jerseymilker because: fixing the reply to post by, I quoted it wrong.






top topics



 
20
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join