Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by lucidclouds
 





and he showed me the holy city+ Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.


Anyone ever wonder if this is describing a mother ship? Independence day anyone




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 


So Jesus never referred to the "church" as his wife. But he did say to Peter, on this rock I build my church, supposedly. Although, I highly doubt that is really true, seeing as how he called Peter "Satan" and said that he would deny Jesus 3 times before the cock crowed.

Why would Jesus trust Peter to found his church? Nonsense!


It's called "redemption", something of a core concept in Christianity.


When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” (John 21:15-19 NIV)


Jesus very deliberately asked Peter whether he loved him three times, once for each denial.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


But they were written by John and he wrote the book of John which quotes Jesus. so if he had quoted him directly in Revelation would that have worked for you?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by lucidclouds
 


The Book of Revelations doesn't quote the living Jesus. It is a recount of his visions. Who knows what drove him to visions, illness, hunger, poison, near death experience........

It is not the words of Jesus.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
edit on 21-9-2012 by lucidclouds because: misunderstood your post im unlettered and ordinary. sorry



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


So what do you believe? only books that quote Jesus? What about the books that Jesus quotes? Do you believe those?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by lucidclouds
 


I believe that the Bible manipulates the words and story of Jesus. I think some of his teachings are wonderful and other are out of character and therefore, a forgery. Either that or their was more than one Jesus, a passive healer and mystic and a would be warrior, wanting bring in the "New Age" to Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

I think that the basic teachings of Jesus are universal and true, and therefore too dangerous for the PTB to just give to us. I don't trust the "Church" to truly care about our salvation, and therefore has preserved the "word of God" for our benefit. I think it's filled with falsehoods and lies to distract us from the true teachings and the true path to freedom and enlightenment.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
The biggest hoax played at the expenses of the masses to benefit the early church, now the Vatican with Jesus as the son of God, will never be allowed to be exposed as a hoax as long as the Vatican holds the power of the original church, too many acts of murder, violence, war and death due to religious believes.

Never, people never anything that shows the truth about Jesus the man, the biggest hoax in History will ever be allowed to be exposed.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


This whole chapter is very confusing. I believe it refers to reincarnation, and his Earthly mission. But I'm not posting to argue that with you.


13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.


Then he goes on to say:


15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.



18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven


Does that realate to this?


Matthew 11 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.


Is that why he goes on to say this?


20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.





21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


I think that when Jesus said to "feed my sheep" he meant to keep his ministry alive, after he was gone. I don't think Jesus meant for Peter to establish a religion, as Jesus was against any kind of hierarchy within his ministry, which is exactly what Peter, and especially Paul did.

The idea of a "church" in the consensus of Christians, that I've known to is intangible and personal, and not found in buildings made of rocks.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 


This whole chapter is very confusing. I believe it refers to reincarnation, and his Earthly mission. But I'm not posting to argue that with you.


13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.


Actually, this would refute reincarnation -- John the Baptist had only been dead for a year or so, so the statement that people thought that Jesus was John spoke to resurrection (the recreation of a person) as opposed to reincarnation (the rebirth of a person), as Jesus was not a toddler.


Does that realate to this?


Matthew 11 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.


Is that why he goes on to say this?


20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.


No, not really. The Gospels indicate that Jesus was aware of the events that would take place, and when, in his future. His frequent admonitions to people not to blab about who he was probably figured into that.




21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


I think that when Jesus said to "feed my sheep" he meant to keep his ministry alive, after he was gone. I don't think Jesus meant for Peter to establish a religion, as Jesus was against any kind of hierarchy within his ministry, which is exactly what Peter, and especially Paul did.

The idea of a "church" in the consensus of Christians, that I've known to is intangible and personal, and not found in buildings made of rocks.


That may be true, but there was a church in the time of Christ, and he taught there, so it doesn't necessarily follow that he had something else in mind.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 






Actually, this would refute reincarnation -- John the Baptist had only been dead for a year or so, so the statement that people thought that Jesus was John spoke to resurrection (the recreation of a person) as opposed to reincarnation (the rebirth of a person), as Jesus was not a toddler.


Not really. It seems that they confused "Elias" with John the Baptist and Jesus. They didn't know which one of them was which returned prophet. Clearly the people were confused as to Jesus and John's origins, but they believed both of them to be returned prophets.





That may be true, but there was a church in the time of Christ, and he taught there, so it doesn't necessarily follow that he had something else in mind.


The Bible says that Jesus taught in the Synagogue and I think it mentions the Temple, but the only time Jesus ever says the word "Church" is that one we're talking about.

I would be interested to see just exactly how that word translates, and it's original meaning, in Greek or Arabic.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I humbly submit that before trying to convince anyone that your "God" or your "Bible" or your fill in the blank deity or teachings are superior or the only "truth" ; we first agree at least for sake of discussion what specifically those terms mean to you.

The more I have studied different theologies and myths the more they seem to be similar in all but theory of origin and interpretation.

Man has never been able to invent a god superior to himself. IMHO of course.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert


www.guardian.co.uk

A New Testament scholar claims to have found evidence suggesting that the Gospel of Jesus's Wife is a modern forgery.

Professor Francis Watson, of Durham University, says the papyrus fragment, which caused a worldwide sensation when it appeared earlier this week because it appeared to refer to Jesus's wife, is a patchwork of texts from the genuine Coptic-language Gospel of Thomas, which have been copied and reassembled out of order to make a suggestive new whole.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
markgoodacre.org


Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married
'Proof' Jesus was married found on ancient papyrus that mentions how son of God spoke of his wife


Time marches on doesn't it, I really don't think Jesus is happy with the way the new testament is saying that every thing is correct in the bible. I think Jesus came to James Padgett to say that a lot of the bible is not correct.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
The story in the Bible about the wedding could be read to mean that Jesus was really the Grooms Father. If that was the case, then Jesus would have been married (since he was a Rabi). I could see Bible scholars trying to cover up that kind of fact since it would mean that another largely important aspect of Jesus' life was ignored by the church.

The "Catholic Church" as established by Paul (a questionable guy to say the least) did a lot to destroy the teachings of Jesus, and the faith of his followers. Every time one of these "Lost" books pop up, it amazes me how quickly they get discredited by some New Testament Scholar. One has to wonder why a poorly done chop-job like the Bible is so highly defended by a few people, when Jesus himself said that you must question your faith in order to strengthen it.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:47 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)


You don't.

What is he a proffessor of? What affilliation dose this university have with the church?

For all we know he's got a degree in bible studies from one of those Creationist christian universities, which really accounts for nothing in the way of expertise...lol



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by lucidclouds
 


I believe that the Bible manipulates the words and story of Jesus. I think some of his teachings are wonderful and other are out of character and therefore, a forgery. Either that or their was more than one Jesus, a passive healer and mystic and a would be warrior, wanting bring in the "New Age" to Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

I think that the basic teachings of Jesus are universal and true, and therefore too dangerous for the PTB to just give to us. I don't trust the "Church" to truly care about our salvation, and therefore has preserved the "word of God" for our benefit. I think it's filled with falsehoods and lies to distract us from the true teachings and the true path to freedom and enlightenment.


Where does Jesus talk about the Kingdom of Heaven being an Eartly Kingdom. Verses please.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Why do people speak about Jesus, whom they believe doesn't even exist? The Bible is only true word of God. I am pretty sure God could influence the creation of a book.

Jesus didn't need a wife, and he doesn't today because he will ' marry ' all of mind kind, so to speak, on the day of the lord during the supper of the lamb.

It is better NOT to be married; however, marriage is blessed by lord, and only a few are called not to be married. I am pretty sure Jesus would be one of these few. I doubt he would have time to sit down and play with a son and be with his wife when he was shouldering the entirety of mankind's sins.

It simply doesn't make sense that he would have a wife in the Earthly sense, if you believe in the Holy Bible as everyone will be married to him, so to speak, in heaven.

If the Bible is true, the last thing i would want is a family hampering me spreading the Word of God, the most valuable thing to mankind. Family would be a hindrance in this aspect. It would not only neglect his family and wife, he was half God and half man and i am pretty sure resisting temptations had a super natural aspect to them, an example.
edit on 22-9-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:45 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)


Circumstantial ad hominem and poisoning the well fallacies.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
The Bible itself teaches Jesus was married. Th Wedding at Cana was his wedding. First it was the custom back then for the Bride groom to be in charge of the wine. and the mother of the groom to run the wedding. You could not be a rabbi if you were unmarried etc. His enemies would have castaged him much sooner for not following the law had he not been married.

The kicker is these scriptures which clearly shows he is the groom at the Wedding at Cana

John:2:1
1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.
3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”
4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.”
5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
6 Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each.
7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim.
8 And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him.
9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom,

10 and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

The head waiter called him the bridegroom...


Jesus had to be invited to His own wedding??

That's one mean mother in law huh?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by hawkiye
The kicker is these scriptures which clearly shows he is the groom at the Wedding at Cana

John:2:1
1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.


Why would Jesus be invited to his own wedding?


Sorry, but it's pretty obvious that Jesus was not the groom at the Wedding at Cana.


The modern translation shows the bias of the writer. Why would the head waiter call him the groom and compliment him on the wine? The custom in those days was the groom was responsible for the wine. Also he was called Rabbi and one had to be married in those days to be a Rabbi.


The head waiter did compliment the groom. It never said the groom was Jesus.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join