is this why mary magdalene was painted as a whore??

catefrances

could jesus and mary magdalene have been husband and wife???


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8535109

A Harvard University professor has unveiled a fourth century fragment of papyrus that she says is the only existing ancient text that quotes Jesus explicitly referring to having a wife.

Karen King, an expert in the history of Christianity, says the text contains a dialogue in which Jesus refers to "my wife", whom he identified as Mary.

King says the fragment of Coptic script is a copy of a gospel, probably written in Greek in the second century.

King unveiled the fragment of the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife", in Rome on Tuesday.

She says it doesn't prove Jesus was married but speaks to issues of family and marriage that faced Christians.

King says on a Harvard website that the dialogue includes the disciples discussing whether Mary is worthy and Jesus saying "she can be my disciple".

Jamminonthe1

Didn't you see the DaVinci Code?

StillHere

Jamminonthe1 wrote:

Didn't you see the DaVinci Code?

but seriously, there have been other gospels that I believe the catholic church has "discredited" as being false or heresy, that refer to Mary Magdalene as at the very least Jesus' lover...possibly his wife. i don't know that its been explicitly worded in that way prior to this.

since i am a recovering catholic, i am not up on the current trends in the church, so this is from older news

the blood line of jesus and mary = the holy grail

it makes sense, yes?

catefrances

Jamminonthe1 wrote:

Didn't you see the DaVinci Code?

i did. but fiction hardly seems a credible source.

Prince Of Dorkness

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

Godfather.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

deleted post...just not worth the bullshit.

Godfather.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

The roman's have texts that reference jesus. Nero blamed the roman fires on christians. The disputed writings of Tacitus also reference someone who was crucified and started the christian movement.

The Talmud references jesus and his crucifixion.

Why would either source document anything about a person that didn't exist? Neither believe in the man as a son of God.

Factual inaccuracies in biographies don't make us doubt the existence of a person if other sources corroborate the person's existence. They simply make us question the conventional, accepted truths regarding the person.

Now you can doubt Jesus the deity, I do, you can doubt the existence of any God, I do, but why would you doubt the existence of a man that many different records indicate was real? The certainty in your statement sort of makes the rest of anything you have to say on the matter sound disingenuous. I understand your disgust for the Christians that make your life worse than it ought to be, but why deny someone that for all intensive purposes existed. It was probably not in the way it was described in the bible, but a man like him did exist, without it the Christians probably wouldn't have split from Judaism would they? And after all, maybe that is what you meant by your comments, that Jesus didn't exist in the sense that the historical accounting of the religious texts created too much myth around the actual man. That Jesus the idea didn't exist, although the man probably did.

For the record I am not a historian nor a christian. More of an agnostic simply because I cannot answer how something came from nothing in a philosophical sense.


On topic, I am amazed that people are still discovering things from the past like this. That these kinds of things can still be around and not "discovered" is pretty amazing.

chadwick

i dislike the 'wh' word. in fact i never use it & dislike hearing or reading it. that is all

BinauralJam

Jamminonthe1 wrote:

Didn't you see the DaVinci Code?

That was So Cool!

Godfather.

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

The roman's have texts that reference jesus. Nero blamed the roman fires on christians. The disputed writings of Tacitus also reference someone who was crucified and started the christian movement.

The Talmud references jesus and his crucifixion.

Why would either source document anything about a person that didn't exist? Neither believe in the man as a son of God.

Factual inaccuracies in biographies don't make us doubt the existence of a person if other sources corroborate the person's existence. They simply make us question the conventional, accepted truths regarding the person.

Now you can doubt Jesus the deity, I do, you can doubt the existence of any God, I do, but why would you doubt the existence of a man that many different records indicate was real? The certainty in your statement sort of makes the rest of anything you have to say on the matter sound disingenuous. I understand your disgust for the Christians that make your life worse than it ought to be, but why deny someone that for all intensive purposes existed. It was probably not in the way it was described in the bible, but a man like him did exist, without it the Christians probably wouldn't have split from Judaism would they? And after all, maybe that is what you meant by your comments, that Jesus didn't exist in the sense that the historical accounting of the religious texts created too much myth around the actual man. That Jesus the idea didn't exist, although the man probably did.

For the record I am not a historian nor a christian. More of an agnostic simply because I cannot answer how something came from nothing in a philosophical sense.


On topic, I am amazed that people are still discovering things from the past like this. That these kinds of things can still be around and not "discovered" is pretty amazing.

it's probably not my place to say Mike...but you're wasting your time explaining truth of history to this guy.

Godfather.

hostis

mikepegg44 wrote:

The roman's have texts that reference jesus. Nero blamed the roman fires on christians. The disputed writings of Tacitus also reference someone who was crucified and started the christian movement.

The Talmud references jesus and his crucifixion.

Why would either source document anything about a person that didn't exist? Neither believe in the man as a son of God.

Factual inaccuracies in biographies don't make us doubt the existence of a person if other sources corroborate the person's existence. They simply make us question the conventional, accepted truths regarding the person.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

He was a real person. History shows this. Do some research before you make completely ignorant posts.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

The bible was not written hundreds of years after he died, not even close. All Gospels and other books were written from 40AD to 90AD. Again - do some research.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

Your hate seethes.

FattyFatCat

Godfather. wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

deleted post...just not worth the bullshit.

Godfather.

Funny thing is, if it had been said about any random Muslim, the thread would have been locked in 2 seconds, and the member banned for eternity...but Jesus? Mock away, right mods?

But you're right.... its just not worth the bullshit to bullshit with bullshitters in a bullshit-moderated forum.

For posting guidelines, see Sharia.

BinauralJam

FattyFatCat wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

deleted post...just not worth the bullshit.

Godfather.

Funny thing is, if it had been said about any random Muslim, the thread would have been locked in 2 seconds, and the member banned for eternity...but Jesus? Mock away, right mods?

But you're right.... its just not worth the bullshit to bullshit with bullshitters in a bullshit-moderated forum.

For posting guidelines, see Sharia.

Is Sharia a new Mod? :shock:

even flow - question mark

That Harvard bitch! Pissing on my beliefs and religion! Time to riot!

Godfather.

FattyFatCat wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

deleted post...just not worth the bullshit.

Godfather.

Funny thing is, if it had been said about any random Muslim, the thread would have been locked in 2 seconds, and the member banned for eternity...but Jesus? Mock away, right mods?

But you're right.... its just not worth the bullshit to bullshit with bullshitters in a bullshit-moderated forum.

For posting guidelines, see Sharia.

awooooooooochhhhh...wow !! that's what I call "call it like you see it" Brother !

Godfather.

polaris_x

FattyFatCat wrote:

Funny thing is, if it had been said about any random Muslim, the thread would have been locked in 2 seconds, and the member banned for eternity...but Jesus? Mock away, right mods?

But you're right.... its just not worth the bullshit to bullshit with bullshitters in a bullshit-moderated forum.

For posting guidelines, see Sharia.

dude ... your post got locked because you and others exhibited a level of class that is shameful ... and you did it twice ...

a lot of shit gets said on this forum and i don't necessarily agree with the majority of locked/deleted threads but yours yesterday was offensive - in a way, i would probably have preferred if the thread remained open so we can see what kind of people some really are ...

hedonist

mikepegg44 wrote:

On topic, I am amazed that people are still discovering things from the past like this. That these kinds of things can still be around and not "discovered" is pretty amazing.

Nice post overall, Mike.

And yeah, I'm with you on that up there. Makes me wonder how much more is yet to be unearthed.

Godfather.

even flow - question mark wrote:

That Harvard bitch! Pissing on my beliefs and religion! Time to riot!

....and who is that Harvard bitch ? you're talkimng about...ummmmm I'll bet ya'll just got this thread locked up tighter than tuperwear

Godfather.

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

FattyFatCat wrote:

Funny thing is, if it had been said about any random Muslim, the thread would have been locked in 2 seconds, and the member banned for eternity...but Jesus? Mock away, right mods?

But you're right.... its just not worth the bullshit to bullshit with bullshitters in a bullshit-moderated forum.

For posting guidelines, see Sharia.

dude ... your post got locked because you and others exhibited a level of class that is shameful ... and you did it twice ...

a lot of shit gets said on this forum and i don't necessarily agree with the majority of locked/deleted threads but yours yesterday was offensive - in a way, i would probably have preferred if the thread remained open so we can see what kind of people some really are ...

Actually I think that other thread...shoulda just been titled "Darwin award winner", then it would have been left alone.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

it would be nice if you could, at the very least, respect the beliefs of others.