(February 28, 2015 at 11:28 am)Huggy74 Wrote: If you want to claim that Jesus was married, Provide your sources, that's all.

There are apocryphal books which depict Jesus as having been married. The fact that the books were not included in the final compilation of the bible no more discredits its contents than the bible is a credit to its historical accuracy. But the source is there, the information is there. If Jesus was a real person, he could have been married as those sources suggest. He still could have been married even as the fictional character created by the writers according to those sources just as he is a fictional character of the bible.

(February 28, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(February 28, 2015 at 11:28 am)Huggy74 Wrote: If you want to claim that Jesus was married, Provide your sources, that's all.

There are apocryphal books which depict Jesus as having been married. The fact that the books were not included in the final compilation of the bible no more discredits its contents than the bible is a credit to its historical accuracy. But the source is there, the information is there. If Jesus was a real person, he could have been married as those sources suggest. He still could have been married even as the fictional character created by the writers according to those sources just as he is a fictional character of the bible.

Name the book... it's very simple.

(February 28, 2015 at 12:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Name the book... it's very simple.

Gospel of James
Gospel of Philip

(February 27, 2015 at 5:44 pm)Nope Wrote: I honestly don't understand why a formerly married Paul or Jesus should be such a big deal among Christians.

Mythical characters getting poon than them?

(February 28, 2015 at 12:25 pm)Sionnach Wrote: Gospel of James
Gospel of Philip

I found and quoted the reference in the Gospel of Philip a few posts back. Can you quote the reference for the Gospel of James? I searched the Infancy Gospel of James, but couldn't find anything ( http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html ). There is also the Secret Book of James ( http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...james.html ).

Cue -- But you see, those book aren't part of the *real* bible! They are naughty left overs from the Devil!

OK, stepping back though the xtian logic.

Jesus was created a human why? - perhaps to serve as an example of how a human can strive for godliness? But his human example lacked the most basic and needed aspect, that of controlling and understanding our most basic human psychological and physical drives, the drive to reproduce and to mate. Without jesus mating, he could not be a good example for humans. If he was simply a sacrifice, why would he need to be human? A godly sacrifice in the sky would have been better and less misconstrued.

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

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/9-thi...bly-wrong/

Quote:Jesus has been described as the best known figure in history, and also the least known. If you mentioned the name “Jesus” and someone asked Jesus who, you might blink. Or laugh. Even people who don’t think Jesus was God mostly believe they know a fair bit about him. You might be surprised that some of your most basic assumptions about Jesus are probably wrong.

We have no record of anything that was written about Jesus by eyewitnesses or other contemporaries during the time he would have lived, or for decades thereafter. Nonetheless, based on archeological digs and artifacts, ancient texts and art, and even forensic science, we know a good deal about the time and culture in which the New Testament is set. This evidence points to some startling conclusions about who Jesus likely was—and wasn’t.

I'd like to see a study on people who already knew this.

I would not be surprised to learn that the majority of people who already knew this information were Atheists.

I would not be surprised if the majority of Christians were completely unfamiliar with the details and references all together, let alone why the truth of those details were relevant to the validity of their beliefs.

The most interesting part would be to see how much of this was known by practicers of other faiths. I suspect their result would be similar if not identical to the Christian results. The implications support my hypothesis that people believe their religion is true without ever considering the competing alternatives, and even if there are good reasons not to believe an alternative religion, they'd never even know what they were.

(February 28, 2015 at 12:25 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(February 28, 2015 at 12:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Name the book... it's very simple.

Gospel of James
Gospel of Philip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip

Quote:The other passage, referring to Jesus kissing Mary Magdalene, is incomplete because of damage to the original manuscript. Several words are missing. The best guesses as to what they were are shown below in brackets. Most notably there is a hole in the manuscript after the phrase "and used to kiss her often on her...." But the passage appears to describe Jesus kissing Magdalene, apparently described as "barren" and "the mother of the angels" at the beginning of the relevant paragraph and using a parable to explain to the disciples why he loved her more than he loved them:

As for the Wisdom who is called 'the barren', she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [softly] on her [hand]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour 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.[this quote needs a citation]

However, "hand" is not necessarily the word after "kiss her... on her". It may have been cheek, forehead or feet to simply show respect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

Quote:the author describes certain activities as contemporary Jewish customs that probably did not exist. For example, the work suggests there were consecrated temple virgins in Judaism, similar to the Vestal Virgins in pagan Rome, although this is unlikely to have been a practice in mainstream Judaism.

You still haven't referenced any where in these books where it states Jesus was married.

No one is claiming Jesus was married.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? "Probably" is not an effing claim!