Deep Sight:
I'm afraid I see no purpose to this thread. Even if it is true that Mary Magdalene and Jesus had an affair, and even if it is true (as Rosicrucians claim) that Jesus had a child with her, who was taken away to Gaul (France), and even if it is true that she was a prostitute, none of these do anything to vitiate the message of Christ or his ministry.

True, it does not in any way diminish the teachings attributed to Jesus.
However, for christians, especially the early church fathers, who were bent on promoting him to god, the idea of jesus condescending to enjoy what is essentially human, a source of weakness at that, proved too complicated for their narrow minds to deal with.

Dont forget that the early chruch fathers declared a war against women, a war that is still being waged today by their progeny, the Roman Catholic church.

Oga Ubenedictus

And what exactly happened at nicea? They just fliped through shey...........Please keep your loyalty to the see of rome, we aren't interested in a blood thirsty type of christianity responsible for changing times and seasons, re-writing history, wanton destruction of lives and properties just because one holds a different view, hellish intolerable spirit and the combination of all forms of idolatry.

Wish you all the best.......I know much better than you think

Deep Sight:

No: True LIGHT would not discriminate in such a hypocritical fashion. Is a prostitute not a human being? Did he not say that he came for the sake of sinners and the lowly? If at all she was ever a prostitute, did she remain a prostitute after meeting him? These are the issues an honest person will consider, not just jumping to attack just because its Uncle Jesus being discussed.

yeah she did, except now she served only one man . also i am serious on this note: early christian missionaries who set out to convert the tribal europeans, used to keep p.rostitues with them who traded free se.xual favours to entice converts.

and another serious question that needs be raised is, how did jesus meet this prostitute ?, if not when on a visit to a bro.thel to make use of services. .

[color=#990000]Judas was the disciple that Jesus loved . And that was why he knew him so so well to have betrayed him. Its a mystery that a few people understand.

Delafruita:
my dear you just quoted john as saying john was the beloved disciple.did you expect john to say phillip or thomas was the beloved disciple?

John the baptise wrote the book of John nt john the beloved, they are two different pple.

Bélla3: John the baptise wrote the book of John nt john the beloved, they are two different pple.

How can he write a book when he dies midway through it....Nansense

mkmyers45:

How can he write a book when he dies midway through it....Nansense

mumu... According to the bible it was clearly nt written by John the beloved. Perhaps it was started by john the baptise.

Bélla3: mumu... According to the bible it was clearly nt written by John the beloved. Perhaps it was started by john the baptise.

Stupidest comment ever....

mkmyers45:

Stupidest comment ever....

dumbie

NewsFlash:
New discover show that Jesus was married.


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/09/18/jesus-wife-papyrus-fragment/70000625/1



Lord Reed, Anony, Ihedinobi, Ijawkid and others.

You guys must be running for cover right now.
I'm waiting to see how you refute these findings or how you are going to twist and spin it.
That the problem reaching a conclusion before you have the facts.
The facts come back to bite you in the bumbum.

He he heh.

plaetton: NewsFlash:
New discover show that Jesus was married.


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/09/18/jesus-wife-papyrus-fragment/70000625/1



Lord Reed, Anony, Ihedinobi, Ijawkid and others.

You guys must be running for cover right now.
I'm waiting to see how you refute these findings or how you are going to twist and spin it.
That the problem reaching a conclusion before you have the facts.
The facts come back to bite you in the bumbum.

He he heh.

Don't get you knickers all in a twist now.

Read first:
topstories.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17224&external=1703330.proteus.fma

Or Google:

critics scrutinize claim that jesus had a wife

Lord_Reed:

I think that Jesus was a desirable man for a husband and some women may have indicated their interest. Whether He actually married from what scripture has expounded about His life I would say no He did not.

i think we all need some middle eastern social studies and history. But the bible did not outrightly quote Jesus was never married so how come about your conclusion?

diluminati:
i think we all need some middle eastern social studies and history. But the bible did not outrightly quote Jesus was never married so how come about your conclusion?

I just wonder why they find the idea so repulsive.

Jesus can eat, drink, pee peee, poo poo, but no chuki chuki. No no

diluminati:
i think we all need some middle eastern social studies and history. But the bible did not outrightly quote Jesus was never married so how come about your conclusion?

As plaetton would point out, such an important detail would not be left out in fact if anything it is a prime case begging for exploitation. Any number of wives could have been attributed to Him to validate a case for polygamy. If scripture was to be changed to fit the power brokers why hobble themselves with such a burden?

Secondly Jesus Himself said there are those who remain celibate for the kingdom sake.Matt.19:12
He could have chosen to because He knew He would die shortly, why create a widow unwittingly?

These things where not expounded upon in the scripture so for now I think it can be shelved.

plaetton
:

I just wonder why they find the idea so
repulsive.
Jesus can eat, drink, pee peee, poo poo, but
no chuki chuki. No no

As I said before the idea would have even plenty of merit. His children would have been a special class of people because they would have been taught lots of things. "Chuki chuki" in marriage is legal so why would it be repulsive from a moral standpoint?

Lord_Reed:

As plaetton would point out, such an important detail would not be left out in fact if anything it is a prime case begging for exploitation. Any number of wives could have been attributed to Him to validate a case for polygamy. If scripture was to be changed to fit the power brokers why hobble themselves with such a burden?

Secondly Jesus Himself said there are those who remain celibate for the kingdom sake.Matt.19:12
He could have chosen to because He knew He would die shortly, why create a widow unwittingly?

These things where not expounded upon in the scripture so for now I think it can be shelved.



As I said before the idea would have even plenty of merit. His children would have been a special class of people because they would have been taught lots of things. "Chuki chuki" in marriage is legal so why would it be repulsive from a moral standpoint?

Good.
Now wouldn't you think that early church fathers, with apostolic succession and authority in their minds,and with the imperial politics of that era, would not have wanted to share the spotlight, prestige and power with the heirs of Jesus?.
That would explain why they would expunge from the scriptures, any reference to Jesus married life and family.

Would this be an unreasonable leap of logic?

legend has it that these heirs did indeed exist and where persecuted throughout the millenia by the church of rome.
The legend of mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus persists to this day in parts of france where she was said to have died and buried.

plaetton:

Good.
Now wouldn't you think that early church fathers, with apostolic succession and authority in their minds,and with the imperial politics of that era, would not have wanted to share the spotlight, prestige and power with the heirs of Jesus?.
That would explain why they would expunge from the scriptures, any reference to Jesus married life and family.

Would this be an unreasonable leap of logic?

legend has it that these heirs did indeed exist and where persecuted throughout the millenia by the church of rome.
The legend of mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus persists to this day in parts of france where she was said to have died and buried.

Legend says there were dragons and flying horses, are we suddenly recoursing to legend now? We all know the history of the church in Rome. There was no struggle between any heirs of Jesus and the religious leaders because it was Constantine who elevated christianity to state religion status not any religious leader.

If anything heirs of Jesus would have further validated Constantine's desire to exploit religion for political power and provided the superstitious with an absolutely enticing target for veneration.

Lord_Reed: . . . it was Constantine who elevated christianity to state religion status not any religious leader. . . . .

@ Lord_Reed

Actually, the above is not really correct. Constantine did not make Christianity state religion; what he did was to "unban" it, to remove it from being illegal, and to stop people from being persecuted for being Christians. The person that can be said to have made Christianity state religion is Theodosius* in 380 AD ---- several years after Constantine.



* Edit But you are right in that neither Constantine nor Theodosius was a religious leader; they were both emperors taking these steps for a mixture of reasons including political advantage.

Enigma:

@ Lord_Reed

Actually, the above is not really correct. Constantine did not make Christianity state religion; what he did was to "unban" it, to remove it from being illegal, and to stop people from being persecuted for being Christians. The person that can be said to have made Christianity state religion is Theodosius* in 380 AD ---- several years after Constantine.



* Edit But you are right in that neither Constantine nor Theodosius was a religious leader; they were both emperors taking these steps for a mixture of reasons including political advantage.

I stand corrected.

plaetton:

True, it does not in any way diminish the teachings attributed to Jesus.
However, for christians, especially the early church fathers, who were bent on promoting him to god, the idea of jesus condescending to enjoy what is essentially human, a source of weakness at that, proved too complicated for their narrow minds to deal with.

Dont forget that the early chruch fathers declared a war against women, a war that is still being waged today by their progeny, the Roman Catholic church.

u are in fairytopia, the world of fairy tales, pls wake up. The catholic church has nting against women. If u nid proof simply ask, besides christ didnt have sex with mary so d fadas didnt nid to understand it because it didnt happen.

rich_john: Oga Ubenedictus

And what exactly happened at nicea? They just fliped through shey...........Please keep your loyalty to the see of rome, we aren't interested in a blood thirsty type of christianity responsible for changing times and seasons, re-writing history, wanton destruction of lives and properties just because one holds a different view, hellish intolerable spirit and the combination of all forms of idolatry.

Wish you all the best.......I know much better than you think

hahaha, yeah, i believe u know more, but u certainly behave as though u know less. Nicea didnt say anything about d bible, nicea was about the trinity, d cread and church administration. The fathers of nicea didnt attempt to write d canon. The canon was in hippo. As regard ur idea of some monster... oh! I just remembered it isnt a monster, u are talking about d novel 1984 by elliot with some guys wu did historical malpratice etc. Wow! U certainly read wide, but i've got to tell u, wakeup from novel land. That company doesnt exist.

Bélla3: John the baptise wrote the book of John nt john the beloved, they are two different pple.

hahaha! Where did u get ur information?

Ubenedictus: u are in fairytopia, the world of fairy tales, pls wake up. The catholic church has nting against women. If u nid proof simply ask, besides christ didnt have sex with mary so d fadas didnt nid to understand it because it didnt happen.

ha ha ha,
Who is in fairytopia?
Christ was not intimate with Mary? Did he tell you that, or because it was not recorded?
Was it resorded in the gospels that jesus used the toilet twice a day, or that he ate garri and ogbono soup?

Jesus is permitted to have a special love for the John, as most of you imagine, but it's absolutely unthinkable for him to have loved or marrired a woman?
Why , because women are degenerate and impure? Is this not the notion behind the rule of priestly celibacy?
Priests ar swiftly deciplined or defrocked for having intimacy with women, but when they caught having intimacy with young boys, they look the other way or simply transfer them to another diocese from wwere they continue their iniquities.

You say that the Catholic church does not have an ongoing war against women, then why are women still prohibited from priestly functions?

Let me give you an assignment. Can you please tell me , or find out for us, when the church finally declared that women had souls?

I just check again and confirmed u arent a xtian, nonetheles, i will answer ur question with a open mind.

plaetton:

ha ha ha,
Who is in fairytopia?
Christ was not intimate with Mary? Did he tell you that, or because it was not recorded?
Was it resorded in the gospels that jesus used the toilet twice a day, or that he ate garri and ogbono soup?

the early xtians concluded he didnt marry because they live around that time and witness the fact. Beside, Jesus' mother, adolphus(brothers), disciples are mentioned in scriptures, i cant find 'wife' and 'children'. Besides d guy didnt stay in one place, how could he race a family? There are so much to consider, the templars' myth is not an argument.

Jesus is permitted to have a special love for the John, as most of you imagine, but it's absolutely unthinkable for him to have loved or marrired a woman?
Why , because women are degenerate and impure?

it is u wu say so.

Is this not the notion behind the rule of priestly celibacy?

the notion behind celibacy is the word of christ "some will b celibate for sake of the kingdom" and paul advises that it is better to be celibate if u wish to b totally devoted. That is d notion bhind celibacy.

Priests ar swiftly deciplined or defrocked for having intimacy with women, but when they caught having intimacy with young boys, they look the other way or simply transfer them to another diocese from wwere they continue their iniquities.

this is a joke, canon law prescribes d same punishment wen priest arent chaste where d unchasity is by woman or man. The situation u mentioned above is the fault and failure of the bishop wu failed to apply d law to the detriment of the church.

You say that the Catholic church does not have an ongoing war against women, then why are women still prohibited from priestly functions?

are u kidding me? Are u d only unbeliever wu isnt aware that the NT prohibit women from those function is the church? The catholic church isnt against women, or any thing like that, instead after a careful study of scriptures she concluded that she lacks the power to ordain women priest, she didnt say she will not or cannot the church says she doesnt have that power.

Let me give you an assignment. Can you please tell me , or find out for us, when the church finally declared that women had souls?

are u kidding me? Or are u just insultive or trying to b? Is this a joke. In the church women has alway had, do and will alway posses soul. Go and check no exclusion is made wen talking abt soul. If u heard otherwise, u have been decieved.

^^^^^
Have you ever heard of the Council of Macon?
Here is a link.

http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/women-souls-1.htm

Ubenedictus: I just check again and confirmed u arent a xtian, nonetheles, i will answer ur question with a open mind. the early xtians concluded he didnt marry because they live around that time and witness the fact. Beside, Jesus' mother, adolphus(brothers), disciples are mentioned in scriptures, i cant find 'wife' and 'children'. Besides d guy didnt stay in one place, how could he race a family? There are so much to consider, the templars' myth is not an argument.

it is u wu say so. the notion behind celibacy is the word of christ "some will b celibate for sake of the kingdom" and paul advises that it is better to be celibate if u wish to b totally devoted. That is d notion bhind celibacy.
this is a joke, canon law prescribes d same punishment wen priest arent chaste where d unchasity is by woman or man. The situation u mentioned above is the fault and failure of the bishop wu failed to apply d law to the detriment of the church.

are u kidding me? Are u d only unbeliever wu isnt aware that the NT prohibit women from those function is the church? The catholic church isnt against women, or any thing like that, instead after a careful study of scriptures she concluded that she lacks the power to ordain women priest, she didnt say she will not or cannot the church says she doesnt have that power.

are u kidding me? Or are u just insultive or trying to b? Is this a joke. In the church women has alway had, do and will alway posses soul. Go and check no exclusion is made wen talking abt soul. If u heard otherwise, u have been decieved.

Early christians fathers were family men and did not practice celibacy as a rule. Celibacy was an enforced dogma that came much later.

plaetton:

Early christians fathers were family men and did not practice celibacy as a rule. Celibacy was an enforced dogma that came much later.

generalising is going to put us in trouble. U will find it very hard to proof ur above statement, it is true that celibacy was totally optional until some councils applied it as a rule but most of the church fathers were celibate, without wife or family. Please read that up i would hate to argue about d celibacy of d church fathers. Besides celibacy isnt a dogma, it is a discipline and can change.

Ubenedictus: generalising is going to put us in trouble. U will find it very hard to proof ur above statement, it is true that celibacy was totally optional until some councils applied it as a rule but most of the church fathers were celibate, without wife or family. Please read that up i would hate to argue about d celibacy of d church fathers. Besides celibacy isnt a dogma, it is a discipline and can change.

Celibacy is not an option for catholic priests. It is an enforced dogma.

i dont know where you are going to get your proof that most early fathers were celibate.

At least you will agree with me that dogmas(the rules of belief or faith) were decided at various church councils or synods.
In other words,they were not direct emanations from scriptures, but are improvised belief systems that were firmly crystalised and fused into the main body of christianity.

A person claims that "the church finally decided that women have souls".

When asked for evidence, he provides this:

plaetton: ^^^^^
Have you ever heard of the Council of Macon?
Here is a link.

http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/women-souls-1.htm

When you go to his link, you see the site stating immediately from the beginning in the very heading that the claim is a myth. The substantive body starts by saying:

The story that the Council of Macon decreed that women do not have a soul is untrue. This article traces the growth of the myth.

Look also in Wikipedia and you see:

Contrary to popular myth, the Synods of Macon undertook no discussion on the subject of whether or not women had souls, or whether or not women were human.

Now those who have been long here know that I have always said that these people (evangelical atheists, conspiracy theory nuts etc) are usually either obtuse or dishonest or both. Well, who is providing more and more evidence to support that statement now?

I say again, these are the same people who come here forming "intellectual"!

Oh by the way, trust to see evidence of dishonesty when this same myth is repeated elsewhere even after this post; as our friend's own link says:

One does not to hope ever to be free of the myth . . . .

It seems u are trying to twist my words,

plaetton:

Celibacy is not an option for catholic priests. It is an enforced dogma.

this is a very big lie, i can say this as a catholic still descerning the priesthood. Priestly celibacy, has never been, isnt, and never will be a dogma. It doesnt qualify as a dogma, priestly celibacy is a CHURCH DISCIPLINE, it has been for over 1500yrs, is and may change at anytime. Please dont spread misinformation, celibacy isnt a dogma.
Eastern catholic church has a married priesthood, do u know that? When married anglican ministers become catholics and wish to be priest they are allowed to keep their wives, so dont be suprise if u enter a catholic church and d priest is married.

i dont know where you are going to get your proof that most early fathers were celibate.

my dear with the exception of tertulian wu was a family man most other church fathers were celibate bishops, both history and their writtings bear witness to that fact.

At least you will agree with me that dogmas(the rules of belief or faith) were decided at various church councils or synods.

nah, dogmas were defined and confirmed in councils, and those wu disagree were excommunicated. The dogmas werent invented in councils.

In other words,they were not direct emanations from scriptures, but are improvised belief systems that were firmly crystalised and fused into the main body of christianity.

again this isnt true, dogmas are truth of faith as reveal by christ and confirm by the spirit to the apostles and faithfully handed on to the church generation after generation thru scriptures and tradition. The councils didnt invent the dogmas, they proclaimed it. Before nicea defined d trinity, it was already handed on to the church and believed and taught to christian, nicea simply said the trinity is a xtian doctrine, reminded us what d doctrine says and said that those wu rejected it were following a false gospel.
I hope u can see my position.

Enigma: A person claims that "the church finally decided that women have souls".

When asked for evidence, he provides this:

When you go to his link, you see the site stating immediately from the beginning in the very heading that the claim is a myth. The substantive body starts by saying:



Look also in Wikipedia and you see:

Now those who have been long here know that I have always said that these people (evangelical atheists, conspiracy theory nuts etc) are usually either obtuse or dishonest or both. Well, who is providing more and more evidence to support that statement now?

I say again, these are the same people who come here forming "intellectual"!

Oh by the way, trust to see evidence of dishonesty when this same myth is repeated elsewhere even after this post; as our friend's own link says:

im not suprised, it seems my friend lives in the land of fairy tales. He has started to manufacture lies. It isnt new, im nt suprised.

plaetton: ^^^^^
Have you ever heard of the Council of Macon?
Here is a link.

http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/women-souls-1.htm

did u read d link? It debunks ur myth