Jesus Christ Had Two Kids With A Prostitute, ‘Lost Gospel’ Claims

originally posted by: MKMoniker
And since this thread is morph'ing into the fallacy of "no proof of Jesus outside the Bible," here are tons of non-biblical, historical references to Jesus:

beginningandend.com...
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS CHRIST

And most people miss one of the best references - Jesus is mentioned in the Koran as a True Prophet deserving respect. And, to bring this discussion full-cycle, the Koran even states that Jesus was "not killed by crucification":

en.wikipedia.org...
JESUS IN ISLAM
"According to the Quran, Jesus, although appearing to have been crucified, was not killed by crucifixion or by any other means; instead, "God raised him unto Himself". In the 19th Sura of the Quran (in verses 15 and 33), Jesus is blessed on "the day he was born and the day he will die and the day he is raised alive", which clearly declares that Jesus will or did experience a natural death, and will be raised again on the day of judgment or has already been raised."

I am not one to disagree that Jesus probably did exist.

But that says nothing about the theology of Christianity or him being the Son of God, etc. I tend to agree with the Jewish and Muslims views, that he may have been a prophet or wise teacher, but not divine nor for our salvation.

The fact that the Vatican has information locked away in secure vaults has to indicate that there is more to the story than what is written in the bible. When they put the bible together some books were included and some were left out. That doesn't mean that the ones not chosen may contain as much or more information regarding the true happenings.

I've always believed Jesus and Mary had children after his "death". Just a gut feeling...

Guess we will all know soon enough.

...so it's a "gospel" that was written 1,000 years after Jesus died? Yeah, I'm sure it's really accurate.

How about a nice hoax ?

There are enough alternatives version of Jesus' life, available among all the apocryphal scriptures already studied (dead see scrolls, ...). Plus the other scriptures that the catholic church prefer to ignore (book of Enoch, Chaldean Oracles, ...).

Now that cool Pope starts making statements on Angels, aliens, exorcists, ... The kind of subject that his predecessor prefer to avoid btw. I wouldn't be surprised if we could see some re-consideration for the previously ignored apocryphal scriptures.

hardly breaking news. more like rehashed interputations.
personally i say it is true but not necessary for us to know.

a reply to: daaskapital

The article is so strangely disjointed from the tale that is used to support the idea that Jesus married. It's very title claims that Jesus might have married a prostitute and yet, the story being used to base the claim of Jesus marrying a prostitute instead makes the girl both a virgin, despised men, and a daughter of a priest who has locked herself up in a tower. That doesn't scream prostitute to me.

Whether Joseph is supposed to be Jesus or not, I do not know enough of early language use on the subject to know what is normal and what is not. I have seen statements made that we're all children of God so could it be an early use of that turn of phrase? Joseph calls Aseneth his sister--if he is the son of God, then--even before marriage--she is a daughter of God as well. In my opinion, that implies a "we're all children of God" connotation more than Joseph specifically being a "son of God".

Overall, I don't have an issue with Jesus getting married or having children. He was a rabbi after all. It would be significantly weird that if he had neither of those things and those in the bible, who had direct purported contact with God certainly didn't abstain from marriage or children. If Jesus did, in fact, exist, then he probably was married. In fact, I'd argue that Judaism and Christianity both really don't support a theme of celibacy whereas there were plenty of other pagan faiths at the time that did demand celibacy.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

well i said in my other posts, that the research that Simcha Jacobovici does leaves a little to be desired.
and left hints all along the way like his, "his fringe style seems to appeal to a certain....", and his claim that Atlantis has been found and has to deal with a biblical angle", without coming right out and calling him a hoaxer.

i'm glad that fell to some one else.

a reply to: windword

And yet not one of them mentions Jesus the Nazarene, or Jesus the son of Joseph!

You are very misinformed.
Tacitus was a Roman Historian who mentions Jesus in his work in about CE 116.
Suetonius was also a Roman historian 71 - 135 BCE and referenced Jesus in his work of The Twelve Caesars.
Josephus writes of Jesus twice and John the Baptist once. About 133 CE--
Herodotus had an excuse as he was not on this earth at this time. About 484 - 425 BCE--
Thucydides also was not on the earth as yet. About 460 - 395 BCE--

What if we applied that reasoning to every document and manuscript ever discovered and written about Zeus and Hercules or Isis and Osiris?

That is my point exactly. We should regard all literature on their merits. Merits being the intent of the author and not theology against theology. Examine ancient literature in their own light and let the chips fall where they may. The 5700 manuscripts of NT alone should fall as theology in their own rightful places as well as this newly revealed manuscript that is some how held as the judgment of the 5700 manuscripts. The way this is publicized is ridiculous and only plays on the ones who are prejudiced. That is the most unfair and unreasonable attitude that could ever exist.

Now if you had 5700 manuscripts that verified this one new manuscript then you may have a case of some value of judgment. But to evaluate well over 5700 manuscripts of various authors and places of origin as being bogus from one insignificant manuscript is not professional at all. Also I am not programing my belief as I do not subscribe to any particular denomination of any religion. I simply read literature as close as I can to the author's intent.

a reply to: Seede

You are very misinformed.
Tacitus was a Roman Historian who mentions Jesus in his work in about CE 116.
Suetonius was also a Roman historian 71 - 135 BCE and referenced Jesus in his work of The Twelve Caesars.
Josephus writes of Jesus twice and John the Baptist once. About 133 CE--

Again, NOT ONE of them mentions Jesus the Nazarene, or Jesus the son of Joseph. Anyone could, and did claim the title Christ. Even the Bible has your Jesus warning of that very thing.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

No, you are extremely confused. You are referring to Deuteronomy and that deals with stealing a pledged woman's virginity against her will (AKA RAPE), In that case the man was to be put to death, nothing would happen to the girl. The flip side of that is if he rapes a virgin who isn't pledged he just has to pay a fine...that's some f'ed up stuff...This is why men would pledge their daughters early in life. It would deter wayward men.

Men paid a money to a girls father. This payment was contingent upon the girl being a virgin. The man was basically thanking the father, with money, for preserving his daughters youth and innocence.

The other instance is in Exodus, and that has to do with sleeping with a virgin and she is a willing partner. The man who took the virginity would have to pay the dowry price whether he married the girl or not as he had basically stolen money from the father. Nobody died.

Now where death came into play was when there was marriage involved. In ancient Israel being engaged was the same as being married. You just hadn't had your awesome party yet. If a woman who was married or engaged cheated on their mate, the man and woman involved in the act of cheating would be killed.

Even in the new testament, sexual immorality only seems to be mentioned in relation to couples who are in a relationship.

a reply to: daaskapital

Saint Issa of India......truth or not.....who knows?!?

originally posted by: weirdguy

Lol...awesome

originally posted by: Walsh
a reply to: daaskapital

Ok well , my questions are "what Gospel is he translating '"?
and where did he get it ? . i see no information on this at all .....

my second Question is , does this change the "divinity " of Jesus if its true ?

IMHO it won't..

because according to Orthodoxy Belief "Jesus is an extension of god " .

if true this will strengthen the Muslim belief that Jesus was a "prophet of god " (a normal man)


my 2 cents

So, two fake religions fighting over who is more fake? Gotcha.

a reply to: Catacomb

As someone who experienced 12 years of Catholic School and has lived surrounded by every manner of Christian one can think of I can't help but stand and applaud statements like yours.

a reply to: daaskapital

OH yea, I know youre just reporting what you found, as far as I can tell from your post youre pretty neutral so im not trying to shoot the messenger at all.....

Im a christian but, im fully aware there are many variables in my chosen faith and that the bible was put together by multitudes of men who only wanted certain things in it.......

Im up for the truth no matter what it is!

some of the lost stories and church approved accounts of Jesus and other families and legends of the past tell similar accounts , thousands of years apart
if Jesus had children why would it be kept secret, did he even know about his kids, that sounds like pure 'what if' speculation
what about him leaving town in a ufo and landing in heavenly place

a reply to: windword



As for the OP, not surprised. This wouldn't be the first time in history similar claims were made. In fact, an almost identical claim is made in the talmud. Other claims were that he was a drunkard, a sorcerer, etc.

Then you have the gnostic gospels. Unfortunately, none of these writings are older than the oldest new testament manuscripts, so they hold much less credibility (some having been written 500 years after the crucifixion). Without further information, or scholarly examination, how can anyone take such a story seriously when the article states the text in question is around a 1500 years old?

Jacobovici claims the manuscript, which is 29 chapters long, is a 6th century copy of another 1st-century gospel and casts parts of the Bible in a very different light.

Where is the evidence that this is a manuscript based on an earlier document that dates to the first century? I suppose it will probably be revealed in the book, and subsequent film... $$$

a reply to: DeadSeraph

My sentiments exactly, every time I see the same tired claims.

I`ve always said that in order for jesus to have been perfect he would have had to be married.

In theory jesus was tempted by the devil with all the temptation we face and he resisted all the temptations and that`s the reason people claim he was perfect and a perfect sacrifice.

In order for him to resist the temptation of adultery he would have had to be married.

if he wasn`t married then he was never tempted by adultery. It`s easy to be perfect and resist temptation if you are never tempted.

if he wasn`t married then we don`t know for sure that he could have resisted the temptation of adultery and thereby remained "perfect".

if he wasn`t married how can he judge us for adultery if he never faced that temptation.

In order to be perfect he would have had to face all the temptation that we face and resist everyone, including adultery.