Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tlove250
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I think this is the thing that people gloss over. Jesus was called a Rabbi, and in traditional Judaism being married was a prerequisite for priesthood.


For about the millionth time, itinerate (traveling) Rabbis were not required to be married. That only applied if one was in charge of a synagogue, which Jesus was not.


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. (Source)




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Guyfriday
 


Uh, the whole thing about Messiah being "Cut off" in prophecies 500 years before he came denounces he would have children, that's the entire point of being "cut off". It means his line would end with him.


500 years before Christ:

Daniel 9:26

26 “And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined

He had certain prophecies to fulfill while he was here, the above piece is one of them. He couldn't have had children, being cut off means he'd have been killed before he could have children as his generations would have been "cut off" with him.


The problem with the David prophicies are that they are Jewish prophicies. To the Jews Jesus wasn't the Messiah. There were a few other people roaming around the middle east during that time that better fit the title of Messiah.

It wasn't untill after David was King that the idea of the Messiah would be a savoir of man sent from god (and be a descendent from the blood-line of King David. Odd huh?) Before this the title of Messiah was given to royals (or high-priests) that had the money to get and use holy oil (a pricey item of the day)

Though like most prophicies, Davids are kind of vauge. If Jesus was the Messiah that was prophicied then the flood would have taken place during the last 2000 years. Where was this flood?

Then we also have to look at the issue of did Jesus call himself a Messiah?
In the end I feel that Jesus could have had childern and was married, but this doesn't matter as much as why was this "Book of Jesus' Wife" written in the 2nd century at the time when the church was pushing the belief that Jesus wasn't married?

Was he, wasn't he, and how would this affect the church?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Guyfriday
 


The Jews thought there were two delivers, ben David (ruling and reigning) and ben Joseph (suffering servant). They didn't realize it was the same Messiah with two comings. Even Christ's disciples asked if He was going to restore the Kingdom at that time when He was here, and he said it wasn't for them to know the timing.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Let's look at what Jesus had to say to others about marriage...

Matthew 19:9-12 (Jesus)

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (divorce) his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

In verses 11 & 12, Jesus is clearly pointing out that the issue of marriage, sex and divorce obviously doesn't pertain to everyone. In fact, he says that some men "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake."

Everything Jesus did here on earth was to set the example for entering the kingdom of heaven. That was his sole purpose for being on earth. He said, "he that is able to receive it, let him receive it." He knew this wasn't meant for everyone. Each person was placed here on earth to fulfill the purpose for which they were made. Here are verses quoting Jesus and Paul on the matter...

Matthew 5:28-29 (Jesus)

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 (Paul)

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

edit on 22-9-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



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

Uh, no, adj. Sorry, but it's pretty obvious that he was. Just depends where you look, and how you interpret things.

What's the big deal if he was married? And more importantly, WHO CARES????

It doesn't change anything that he taught. I just really don't understand the defensive dogma thing....at all.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


There is nothing in the accounts that says He was the groom, in fact all accounts say He and His friends were invited guests.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen
 



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

Uh, no, adj. Sorry, but it's pretty obvious that he was. Just depends where you look, and how you interpret things.


Okay, I'm game... how is it obvious that he was?


What's the big deal if he was married?


As I've said before, I don't know that it matters, but the fact of the matter is that there is no reason to believe that he was, so why lie to ourselves?


And more importantly, WHO CARES????

It doesn't change anything that he taught. I just really don't understand the defensive dogma thing....at all.


Because if this sort of thing is just left to stand, there will be no end of "Well, it's been proven that Jesus was married, so I guess we can dismiss the Bible as complete lies", regardless of what, if anything, might actually have been proven.

Just look at the enthusiastic response to this thing on ATS this week -- the number of people who are chiming in with "I always knew that Jesus was married!" because they'd read it in a Dan Brown book ten years ago. This, in spite of the fact that the woman who has this fragment, herself, said that there was no way that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and no reason to believe that he was married at all.

As always, sensationalist media + non-critical thinkers = mass ignorance.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Guyfriday
 



The problem with the David prophicies are that they are Jewish prophicies. To the Jews Jesus wasn't the Messiah. There were a few other people roaming around the middle east during that time that better fit the title of Messiah.

It wasn't untill after David was King that the idea of the Messiah would be a savoir of man sent from god (and be a descendent from the blood-line of King David. Odd huh?) Before this the title of Messiah was given to royals (or high-priests) that had the money to get and use holy oil (a pricey item of the day)


What are you talking about? The comming of Christ was foretold all the way back in Genesis 3 from hebrew scriptures. Incorrect to say to jews Yeshua was not the Messiah, there's a few hundred thousand jews in that first century that would gladly tell you that was false. The movement started with the jews, not the gentiles. Yeshua came to the lost sheep of Israel, gentiles (greeks etc.) didn't recieve the gospel until several years later. Messianics weren't called christians until a while later and it was intended as an insult and kept as an honorific.

Yeshua is also decended from David, on Mary's side through Heli and on Joseph's through rite of adoption became a decendant of Jacob, Zerubabbel lifted the curse from Jeconiah's bloodline. The world messiah means "anointed one" and generally referred to prophets who were chosen to be the mouthpiece of God through which the Word (Memra) would speak, who is the Voice of God the prophets were hearing themselves.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:13 PM
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.



The head waiter called him the bridegroom...



Why would Jesus need to be invited to his own wedding? Itg was most likely his brothers wedding.
edit on 22-9-2012 by Logarock because: b



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Speaking of Mary Magdalene, Winword made a good point about the fact that we know little about Jesus' life between the ages of 12 - 30, but since we do know that Jesus didn't cast the seven demons out of Mary Magdalene until after he started his ministry, I think it's pretty safe to say that he wasn't married to her during those prior years and I think this newly found manuscript is trying to point in that direction.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


The name Yeshua seems to be a commen name during that preiod in time (doesn't the Hebrew Bible use that name for a few different people?)

Is it not possible that by saying that Yeshua would be the Messiah, they were saying that, "a commener will rise to save us"? or that someone from humble beginnings will rise to power, and protect us from our foes.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Just the other day I was looking at a site that talked about his mother calling him to the event (called Joshua at that time), and so on and so forth. Sorry, I'm exhausted and don't remember what site it was....but seems the link came from ATS somewhere.....a few days ago.

but, in any case, here's a site that discusses the finding: Did Jesus Have a Wife?

And again, what does it matter? So what if he was???

How is this so threatening to believers? Honestly, I want to know. Why is this possibility so upsetting?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thanks for your reply.

Still, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Personally, I believe that the Bible is mythology. I just want to understand......you said:

Because if this sort of thing is just left to stand, there will be no end of "Well, it's been proven that Jesus was married, so I guess we can dismiss the Bible as complete lies", regardless of what, if anything, might actually have been proven.


What has been proven? What part of the Bible, aside from the geography of the area, has been proven?

You seem worried (though I'm sure you'll deny it).....why? What is wrong with knowing the real truth?
I don't know who Dan Brown is, nor have I read anything he wrote.

I just really can't wrap my head around this antiquated and stubborn thinking of the Bible enthusiasts.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


we can spend some time on it when I have time.
But the better question is why do you think you have special knowledge that antiquates 2,000 years of scholarly work on the subject from one manuscript?
Why would you discount an expert in the field simply because he is Christian?
That says more here, and as to why you yourself feel it is important. You accused others of being dogmatic on the issue when you yourself cannot engage in debate sticking to....your own dogmatic beliefs?

I think you are holding dear to it because you feel it makes you smarter in your own eyes to those that actually adhere to the faith.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 



I think you are holding dear to it because you feel it makes you smarter in your own eyes to those that actually adhere to the faith.

Well, you're wrong in your thinking.

I "hold dear to it" because common sense and modern archaeology are finding more and more. I am undecided on the matter of "faith". Please don't presume to know my position. If someone shows me proof of anything that happened 2,000+ years ago, I'm certainly willing to learn.

I know how little I "know", even at 53 years old. I'm not interested in shooting anyone down, either. I just need compelling evidence that the story is true. Otherwise, I apologize for hurting your sensibilities, but, I don't buy the story. I just don't. And I've been looking for decades.

Feel free to enlighten me.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Hey Wildtimes, Shout out!

But really, why should it make a difference if Jesus was a married man?

Jewish tradition allowed for more than one wife. Jesus illustrated this through his parable, that Determined brought to light, about the bridegroom and the 10 brides. Five of them were unprepared, and missed the mark.

It seems likely that Jesus could have followed Jewish tradition, maintaining God's natural laws and married, and still could have began his ministry, later in life, as most men do. Most people aren't elevated in social status until they've accomplished certain requirements first.

The fact that the parable of the 10 brides, is inclusive, to allow for many, many more brides, thus making the parable still relevant. In my opinion, his earthy marriage is necessary in order for the "heaven on earth" metaphor to be realistic and conform to "As above, so below." (Ten thousand angels DO dance on the head of a pin!)

Jesus was human, no? If so, then why wouldn't he fulfill the natural law in it's entirety? To be an example, Jesus, supposedly, incarnated as human, in order to be human. He didn't come here to be some genetic hybrid, exempt from the troubles that plague us most, FAMILY, and not have one!?!

IF Jesus is indeed the bridegroom of the church, as Christians assert, he has many brides, represented in the 10 that were eligible and 5 that didn't cut the mustard (seed). Not unlike King Solomon, who had 700 wives, (poor guy), who was the son of King David, the line of which Jesus is supposedly sired from.

As a side note though, I think his apostles might have had a problem, at the time, subjecting themselves as the "bride" of Jesus, don't ya think? That kinda of disavows the parable to be interpreted as Jesus actually being the "bridegroom" of our spiritual esoteric marriage.

Also, another question. There are 12 tribes of Israel. Why is this parable about 10, and only 10 brides?


edit on 22-9-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Guyfriday
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


The name Yeshua seems to be a commen name during that preiod in time (doesn't the Hebrew Bible use that name for a few different people?)

Is it not possible that by saying that Yeshua would be the Messiah, they were saying that, "a commener will rise to save us"? or that someone from humble beginnings will rise to power, and protect us from our foes.


Talking to you is an excersice in futility.

Good luck in your travels.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen
 



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

Uh, no, adj. Sorry, but it's pretty obvious that he was. Just depends where you look, and how you interpret things.

What's the big deal if he was married? And more importantly, WHO CARES????

It doesn't change anything that he taught. I just really don't understand the defensive dogma thing....at all.


YEA 4 pages Finally COMMON SENSE Thank you you get a star.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
You seem worried (though I'm sure you'll deny it).....why? What is wrong with knowing the real truth?


Worried? What would worry me about this? As I said before, I'm more annoyed than anything else, because nonsense like this is latched onto by the intellectually lazy, who want to find any sliver of possibility that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

And I would ask you the same question. The article (the original scholarly article, not the Guardian report on it) is fairly well conclusive evidence that this document is a forgery. As I also provided a link to, experts in the Coptic language who were at the conference where this was announced are fairly well universal in their dismissal of it. You claim that "common sense and modern archaeology are finding more and more", and yet you ignore the archaeologist who says that this thing is rubbish and that "any sensible, responsible academic would keep their distance from it."

Why are you so insistent on it being real, despite everything indicating that it is not?


I just really can't wrap my head around this antiquated and stubborn thinking of the Bible enthusiasts.


And I can't wrap my head around those who ignore truth and present opinion as facts, in order to sustain their own beliefs.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Hermit777
 


If it's common sense then why are you choosing an opinion that goes against tradition?
Are you implying that everyone that wrote of Him kept it a secret? If so, why? The gospel writers, what's the motive? Paul? He kept this big secret? Why? The early church fathers that spoke and or knew the apostles, disciples and family? Why keep the secret? If it's no big deal he was married, WHY THE BIG SECRET? To the point where they all could lose credibility even? I just do not get your logic if it's supposed to be based in common sense.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join