Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

Originally posted by Deetermined
Hosea 2:16 (KJ21)

16 “And it shall be at that day,” saith the Lord, “that thou shalt call Me ‘Ishi’ [that is, My husband], and shalt call Me no more ‘Baali’ [that is, My Lord].

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

OK, at face value, who heard him say that, and did they in fact write it down at the time?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by GreatOwl

 

That made me laugh so hard I think I just leaked a little wine!

When a Roman needed to attend to nature he or she would say something like "Time to turn water into wine." This was a joke, of course, for the act of urination was something like transforming water magically into a kind of 'wine' - urine.

www.fargonasphere.com... Into Wine

But, pee drinking is also mentioned in the bible...

But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master
and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that
sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own
piss with you? KJV Isaiah 36:12

So, it's not so stange and idea. Remember, in the far east drinking urine was a holy practice. Gandhi drank his own pee every day. It's part of yoga. But in order to drink one usually had to restrict the diet to vegetarian only, so that it became pure. Meat products contaminate the urine. But, once one fasts from all meat, and lives on a diet of plant food, pee becomes a health drink. Actually, some say it's the water of life, or the fountain of life, because of urine's ability to cure disease.

In our modern world it has become a science, and the medical profession calls it "urotherapy",

In alternative medicine, the term urine therapy or urotherapy, (also urinotherapy or uropathy) refers to various applications of human urine for medicinal or cosmetic purposes, including drinking of one's own urine and massaging one's skin with one's own urine. While there is currently insufficient evidence for the therapeutic use of urine, many chemical components of urine have wide-scale use, such as urea and urokinase.

SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org...

So, it's not such a strange idea, that Jesus would feed the wedding guests "psychedelic urine" for "wine", because Jesus knew many things, he knew how to heal the sick, and thus knew that the urine was also a health drink. The common man,. however, did not know this, and many still don't know today, so it still seems a "funny" idea to most people. That's probably why the scriptures say the Disciples "knew where the wine came from" but the "guests did not." The wine just came out of their kidneys. That's the only practical way to make wine "on demand."

The practice of eating psychedelic plants then drinking the urine afterwords to get a high, also comes from India, in the Vedas. The body is like a chemistry lab, it processes the plant and extracts the required ingredient, excreting it into the urine to make the holy drink.

Originally posted by manna2
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.

The COMMON Sense is just this, it does not matter Married or not Married it does not change who he was What he Really Said, What he Did and what happened to him.

Please do not Quote Paul to me i wish he WAS just a Myth, and he never Met Jesus EVER. Yes i know the Story BTW did i tell you i met JFK the other day on the road and we had a long talk think i will rewrite his life for him. Oh and also Paul Hated James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem, and tried to have him Arrested 3 times, i guess Jesus told him to do that also while on the Road.

This may all matter to the Pope and Papist but that's their Problem. They tried to burn and destroy many writings to wipe out the Real jesus/Joshua and create one to Control People with and Murder Other People [Yes Murder]. Que Monty Python "NO ONE EXPECTS the Spanish Inquisition"

Oh and yes MM and his Children were mentioned but After the Church so Kindly Burned everything they did not like well that is why it is not there for all to read. But there were 3 Cathars that did escape and took many things with them, and after the Templars were arrested the Warehouses were Empty and all the records were already Secreted away. And They failed to Kill all the Templars, Darn bad Planning.

Why at the time was it a secret to Protect MM Jesus's Son Juda and the unborn Daughter Sarah. If People then Knew openly Mary was his Wife and Juda was his Son and Mary was again Pregnant their Lives would not be worth much. So Joseph of Aramithea Spirited them and many more of the Family of Jesus / Joshua out of Isreal/Judea.

YES COMMON SENSE.

Elvis has left the Room

reply to post by adjensen


All of the gospels are fake, claims expert.



Wow, that was easy...

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
reply to post by adjensen

 

All of the gospels are fake, claims expert.

Wow, that was easy...

Do you have a PhD also me too ok i go along with that why not.

reply to post by adjensen

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.

I myself beg to differ, perhaps it may be true form their conclusion just from reading the book, which came out in 2003, but some of us began our research many years before that. And, as you keep making reference to Dan Brown like he is the only authority on the subject, check this, from Wikipedia:

History of the hypothesis
The 13th-century Cistercian monk and chronicler Peter of Vaux de Cernay claimed it was part of Catharist belief that the earthly Jesus Christ had a relationship with Mary Magdalene, described as his concubine.

In his 1996 book Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed, Laurence Gardner presented pedigree charts of Jesus and Mary Magdalene as the ancestors of all the European royal families of the Common Era.

In her 1993 book The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, Margaret Starbird developed the hypothesis that Saint Sarah was the daughter of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and that this was the source of the legend associated with the cult at Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer. She also claimed that the name "Sarah" meant "Princess" in Hebrew, thus making her the forgotten child of the "sang réal", the blood royal of the King of the Jews.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the Gospel of Philip, Mary Magdalene, who is referred to as Jesus’ koinonos, a Greek term for “companion” or “partner,” is depicted as being closer to Jesus than any other apostle. In the Gnostic Gospels and exchange happens between Mary and Peter when he admits that “the Savior loved you above all other women”.
The church still denies the authenticity of any of the Gnostic Gospels, especially the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Philip. One wonders why this is? I personally think the Church is hiding the secret or (original) Royal bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I think this was the secret held by the Templars, and the reason for their demise. The Church has always been guilty of refusing to evolve, even when new evidence contradicts their 2,000 year old theories.

Dan Brown wrote a popular book of fiction, and he included the theory, he didn't invent the theory. I first came onto the thought while researching this:
La Sainte Baume

After the crucifixion of Jesus, Mary Magdalene moved to France and lived for several years. Her offspring became the kings of France, known as the Merovingian line. French history states that she was the sister of Lazarus, who sat at the feet of Jesus, absorbing his teachings (Luke 10:28-42), and who later anointed his feet with nard (spikenard, an essential oil) and dried them with her hair (John 11:2 and 12:3).

Part of the mystery about Rennes-le-Chateau is centered on the offspring of the Magdalene. The last French king in the Merovingian line was Dagobert II. He and his son Sigebert were supposedly killed. However, the young Sigebert was smuggled into Rennes-le-Chateau by his mother, and there, the whole mystery of the Templars was created to prove the birth rites of the lineage of the Magdalene. Because of this wisdom, alchemy in France became a reality. The Merovingians knew the mysteries that Jesus taught, like changing water into wine.

source
The Life, History, and Legends of Mary Magdalene
BLACK MADONNAS OF MOULINS
The Black Madonna of Rocamadour

(Mary Magdalen by Da Vinci)

I first came to it during a 10 year Grail search, delving deeper into the stories that I ever had before, and it all became clear. Before Dan Brown wrote his book by a wide margin.

reply to post by autowrench


Autowrench I agree with you and yes i was aware of this long before Dan Brown Long time gone.

Very good post. Dan Brown could not Spell he spelled it the Priory of Zion but it's the Priory of Cistern

;-)

reply to post by autowrench


I didn't say that Dan Brown invented the idea, but most people get their flawed views of this from him.

As I wrote a couple of days ago in a different thread on this subject, some of the Gnostic Christians of the Second Century claimed that Jesus was married, because they needed a female figure to reflect the role of Sophia in their mythos.

So, you're a believer in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, eh? Is there any anti-Christianity theory that you don't think is valid?

Here's what a skeptic, on that ever so "pro-Christianity" site salon.com had to say about that epic book:

Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln are the Moriartys of pseudohistory, and “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” is their great triumph. Their techniques include burying their readers in chin-high drifts of factoids — some valid but irrelevant, some uncheckable (the untranslated diaries of obscure 17th century clerics, and so on), others, like the labyrinthine family trees of various medieval French noblemen, simply numbing, and if you trouble to figure them out, pretty inconclusive. A preposterous idea will first be floated as a guess (it is “not inconceivable” that the Knights Templar found documentation of Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s marriage in Jerusalem), then later presented as a tentative hypothesis, then still later treated as a fact that must be accounted for (the knights had to take those documents somewhere, so it must have been the south of France!). (Source)

Oh, and still waiting for your response to my earlier question in this thread -- if an Oxford educated scholar at one of the world's leading secular universities, whose specialty is early Christian literature, is unqualified to be an expert on this text in your eyes, as you stated, then who would be?

Originally posted by windword
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.

Greek or Aramaic, Arabic didn't exist....

Jaden

Funny. I could almost hear a huge sigh of Christian relief when this was posted.

These fakes make me wonder what else of the bible is forgery. At least there's some honest theologians willing to point out how suspect the whole thing is.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Funny. I could almost hear a huge sigh of Christian relief when this was posted.

These fakes make me wonder what else of the bible is forgery. At least there's some honest theologians willing to point out how suspect the whole thing is.

Depending on whom you believe, the most frequently suspected text is 2 Peter, followed by 1 Peter. The pastoral letters of Paul (Timothy and Titus) are next, followed by a couple of his epistles. The remainder are fairly universally accepted as having been written by the stated author (bearing in mind that the Gospels are titled by tradition, not because the authorship is stated in the text.)

That said, issues with 1 Peter and 2 Peter can be explained by the fact that, as is stated in the text, they are letters from Peter, but written by someone else (a "secretary", for lack of a better word) and translated from spoken Aramaic into Koine Greek. Different secretaries, different wordings, and different texts. There is nothing in the Bible so much like 2 Peter as 1 Peter is.

The pastoral letters can be viewed as being a very different audience -- in his other epistles, Paul is addressing groups of people, congregations, usually those that needed a bit of a dressing down. However, in Timothy and Titus, Paul is writing to a person, and one with whom he had a very close relationship, along the lines of father/son, so it is not unlikely that he would use a different form.

The remaining epistle challenges are complex, and, in my mind, unmerited, claims of differences through technical textual analysis, chance words and phrases here and there that imply authorship from a disciple of Paul, rather than Paul himself.

Although, ultimately, it is the message, not the messenger, that is important, I don't really see any compelling reason to say that these texts are forgeries.

Originally posted by adjensen
Although, ultimately, it is the message, not the messenger, that is important, I don't really see any compelling reason to say that these texts are forgeries.

This was my original point, why would anyone try and discredit the texts (from the OP)
While the original source (Havard Divinity School) is really written in an unbiased way.

What’s going on here? Why discredit something so quickly after releasing the information? Who's pushing the hoax theory? Something here smells, and it seems like we're all checking our shoe on this.

Originally posted by Guyfriday

Originally posted by adjensen
Although, ultimately, it is the message, not the messenger, that is important, I don't really see any compelling reason to say that these texts are forgeries.

This was my original point, why would anyone try and discredit the texts (from the OP)
While the original source (Havard Divinity School) is really written in an unbiased way.

I think that "unbiased" kind of goes out the window when there is a TV deal involved (see Smithsonian Channel.) It doesn't seem like anyone who doesn't have some sort of financial gain in this is saying that it's legitimate, which is where the unbiased claims lie.

According to Elton John, Jesus was gay... hahahaha. What are people getting so riled up about> Assuming Jesus actually existed, who cares if he was married. Is it because Mary Magdalen was a whore? He did hang out with muggers, lepers and thieves. So what if she was a whore. As long as they loved each other.

Originally posted by adjensen

I think that "unbiased" kind of goes out the window when there is a TV deal involved (see Smithsonian Channel.) It doesn't seem like anyone who doesn't have some sort of financial gain in this is saying that it's legitimate, which is where the unbiased claims lie.

Which is why it doesn't make sense. If they had stated that it could be real, then it would gain even more fame and money. Since they claim it's a fake though they won't get as much fame nor money from book deals, tv appearances, or interviews.

Why hand over financial gains by stating it's a fake? It could be real, but by now we'll never know for sure since it's going to get all this coverage as a fake. I feel that this is only the beginning, when the rest of this parchment gets brought to light it's going to be quickly passed as a fraud as well. Regardless of any evidence that comes with it.

Originally posted by Guyfriday

Originally posted by adjensen

I think that "unbiased" kind of goes out the window when there is a TV deal involved (see Smithsonian Channel.) It doesn't seem like anyone who doesn't have some sort of financial gain in this is saying that it's legitimate, which is where the unbiased claims lie.

Which is why it doesn't make sense. If they had stated that it could be real, then it would gain even more fame and money. Since they claim it's a fake though they won't get as much fame nor money from book deals, tv appearances, or interviews.

Why hand over financial gains by stating it's a fake? It could be real, but by now we'll never know for sure since it's going to get all this coverage as a fake. I feel that this is only the beginning, when the rest of this parchment gets brought to light it's going to be quickly passed as a fraud as well. Regardless of any evidence that comes with it.

Um...

The woman who is on the Smithsonian Channel show is the one who is claiming the "discovery".

The ones who are saying that it's fake are other experts on early Christian literature, Coptic texts, and archaeology, who are NOT associated with this television program.

Some people are interested in the truth, some people are interested in personal gain. I'll leave it up to you to determine who is who.

reply to post by adjensen


My apologies, I did get the groups mixed up. Karen L. King is stating that it could be true, but Watson and a few others are say otherwise.

It's sounds like a Vatican Counterattack to me.... Not the first in history, not the last..

To prove that Jesus was married looks to be a difficult task. First you have to prove Jesus existed in the first place. But with the biggest con artist all found in the Vatican that will be a tall order!!!

Originally posted by stevcolx
To prove that Jesus was married looks to be a difficult task. First you have to prove Jesus existed in the first place. But with the biggest con artist all found in the Vatican that will be a tall order!!!

You mean the man who looks spookily like Palpatine don't you? Yup, he scares me as well.