(February 27, 2015 at 10:54 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: One question..
Do you consider this article sufficient "evidence" that Paul was married?

one question: do you consider the bible sufficient evidence for anything?

No one is claiming for a fact that Paul was married.

And one more question, why are you ignoring my posts?

(February 27, 2015 at 10:54 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Not to mention Jesus was homeless, how could he have taken care of a wife?

Because we all know there is no such thing as a homeless family. And never in recorded history has there been evidence of a man that doesn't take care of his wife.

This argument of yours makes me seriously consider the possibility that you are incapable of reason.

Huggy, I have no idea if Paul was married or not and neither do you. The bible sources indicate that he wasn't married at the time he wrote his letters. The article that I linked was written by a Christian and, I incorrectly assumed, you would like an alternative Christian view.

(February 28, 2015 at 9:57 am)Cato Wrote:

(February 27, 2015 at 10:54 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Not to mention Jesus was homeless, how could he have taken care of a wife?

Because we all know there is no such thing as a homeless family. And never in recorded history has there been evidence of a man that doesn't take care of his wife.

This argument of yours makes me seriously consider the possibility that you are incapable of reason.

What's there to reason about? None of you have put forth one shred of credible evidence to back up you argument. If you want to claim that Jesus was married, Provide your sources, that's all.

(February 28, 2015 at 11:28 am)Huggy74 Wrote: What's there to reason about? None of you have put forth one shred of credible evidence to back up you argument. If you want to claim that Jesus was married, Provide your sources, that's all.

Holy crap. NO ONE IS CLAIMING ANYTHING FOR A FACT.

Have you read the article? Or the title? There's that neat little word: probably.
Do you want a dictionary definition with that?

(February 28, 2015 at 11:30 am)Norman Humann Wrote:

(February 28, 2015 at 11:28 am)Huggy74 Wrote: What's there to reason about? None of you have put forth one shred of credible evidence to back up you argument. If you want to claim that Jesus was married, Provide your sources, that's all.

Holy crap. NO ONE IS CLAIMING ANYTHING FOR A FACT.

Have you read the article? Or the title? There's that neat little word: probably.
Do you want a dictionary definition with that?

Wrong,
Minimalist claims his article is a

(February 27, 2015 at 3:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Calm, rational, solidly-based demolition of their stupid jesus shit.

You can't destroy/demolish an argument with anything other than facts.

(February 27, 2015 at 3:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: So evidence created 700 years after the fact is good enough for you in this instance, how convenient.
Talk about being Gullible...

But evidence created 140 years after the fact is solid... right???

(February 28, 2015 at 11:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Wrong,
Minimalist claims his article is a

(February 27, 2015 at 3:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Calm, rational, solidly-based demolition of their stupid jesus shit.

You can't destroy/demolish an argument with anything other than facts.

I think what he meant by using that word was that there are many reasons to believe the things about Jesus that some people take as facts are at the very least uncertain. But I can't be his advocate.
Min never claimed anything from the article was a fact, because the article explicitly says the popular beliefs about Jesus are *probably* wrong.

What you are doing though is acting as if Nope and Cato were claiming that Jesus or Paul was married for a fact, which they weren't.

Do you see what I mean?
Also, what made you finally address my post?

(February 28, 2015 at 11:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Wrong,
Minimalist claims his article is a

(February 27, 2015 at 3:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Calm, rational, solidly-based demolition of their stupid jesus shit.

You can't destroy/demolish an argument with anything other than facts.

That very much depends on the quality of the argument being demolished. If an argument is, say, self contradictory, lacking in any historical or evidentiary support, and containing impossible things, you don't need much more than the yawning void where support of the argument should be, to demolish it. Insubstantial arguments take very little to collapse.

For anyone who is curious, here is the quote from the Gospel of Philip that might suggest a sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I suppose it might also suggest a sexual relationship between Jesus and the male disciples (because they seem to be jealous). Or maybe kissing on the mouth suggests nothing sexual. However, this definitely hints at a tradition that Mary Magdalene was the favorite disciple due to her wisdom. There are hints of that in the canonical gospels too. (BTW: this is an interesting gospel. Christianity would have probably been a better religion if the gnostics had triumphed IMO.)

Quote:As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...hilip.html