Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Imaginarynumber1

Papyrus refers to Jesus' wife

160 posts in this topic

What I'm saying is that the thing that led to the slaughter of the Cathars was the idea that they had been taught these things by Maria Magdalena. If the idea grew and it was believed that a woman who walked with Jesus taught that he was not really the son of God, the doctrine of the Church would be questioned and perhaps eventually ignored. The Cathars were, after all, winning political elections and gaining social power.

But that was not due to their teachings, it was due to the habits of the perfects, something the Catholic church had to adapt to quite fast with a few more monk orders (The Capucines for example) that emulated their habits. (see Zoe Oldenbourg, La Buche de Montsegur) The amount of people actually participating in the Consolament rites were a very low minority. (See Ernest Forneiron, Le Mystere cathare).

The real reason for the Albiguense crusade were not the Cathars but the liberal inclination of its society. It was the only place in Europe where Jews had full citizen rights (we are talking middle ages), women were considered equal and the state was practically separated from the church (in as far as its influence) besides a few inheritance problems of the French kings in the Languedoc. The Cathars were just a good excuse.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Dr. D' timestamp qoute-

I’m not sure what you mean when you say “nothing points to it.” Nothing points to the idea that he wasn’t married, either. According to Judaic custom at the time it was not only usual, but almost mandatory, that a man be married. Except for certain groups of Essenes, celibacy was vigorously condemned. In the early part of the first century, celibacy was compared with deliberate murder. It was as obligatory for a Jewish father to find his son a wife as it was for him to ensure that his son was circumcised.

If Jesus had not been married, it would have been conspicuous to the society with which he had contact. It would have drawn great attention and be used as part of the description to characterize him.

In the Book of John we find the story of the Wedding of Cana. The bride and groom are not mentioned by name. But strangely, Jesus is “called” to this wedding even though he had not yet started his ministry. Equally strange, his mother is also in attendance. By Hebrew custom, the bride, her mother and future mother in law and their friends arrive first to prepare everything for the ceremony. The mother of the groom is in charge of the event. Second to arrive are the invited guests and last to enter is the groom and his entourage. Once joined to his new wife in matrimony, all his responsibilities to his parents have ended and he embarks upon a new life as husband and future father. At the wedding at Cana, Jesus mother is apparently in charge because they go to her when all the wine has been consumed and they want more. She goes to Jesus and he openly says, “What do I have to do with thee?” He finally agrees and performs his miracle of the wine but we should note that Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus says, so she is obviously in charge of the wedding, just as the mother of the groom would be.

It was a custom for women to help with relative`s weddings, does`t mean anything. Any how according to John`s time line, Jesus traveled to Mount Olives and back to the temple where he had saved the women from stoneing , then traveled to Bethany and met with the women that washed his feet , after the wedding at Cana, when Mary Magdaene was frist mention and as the women Jesus saved from the seven demons.

Jesus brought Mary of Magdalene the women to be stoned to her home at Bethany for her family to accept her.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a custom for women to help with relative`s weddings, does`t mean anything. Any how according to John`s time line, Jesus traveled to Mount Olives and back to the temple where he had saved the women from stoneing , then traveled to Bethany and met with the women that washed his feet , after the wedding at Cana, when Mary Magdaene was frist mention and as the women Jesus saved from the seven demons.

Jesus brought Mary of Magdalene the women to be stoned to her home at Bethany for her family to accept her.

And was it the custom for any one of them to be in charge of the wedding? No.

And where do you find this bit of Mary Magdalena and the adulteress to be one and the same? I want to see that part of the New Testament. And where does it say he took her to her home? In fact, he simply told her to go and sin no more. And how does your time line prevent Jesus from being the groom at the Wedding at Cana?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still like the Mary Magdalene [Magdala] story where she was most likely Jesus wife but they needed Jesus to be pure so they turned her into a whore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John states after the wedding at Cana, Jesus traveled to Mount Olives and saves a women from stoning for aduterly, then later travels to Bethney to Lazarus house, where his sister named Mary was washing Jesus`s feet with perfume and her hair, something only a women of pleasure would do.Mark specifys Mary Madaglene at the tomb, as the only women Jesus had saved from seven demons. So in the time line of events where did Jesus pick up Mary Magdalene who Jesus had to saved from the seven deadly demons? Surely If Mary Madalene was a wife he married at Cana, she would not have had to be saved from many demons.:)

In Latin tradition, Mary of Bethany is often identified as Mary Magdalene (of whom more is recorded in the gospels as well as in later traditions

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John states after the wedding at Cana, Jesus traveled to Mount Olives and saves a women from stoning for aduterly, then later travels to Bethney to Lazarus house, where his sister named Mary was washing Jesus`s feet with perfume and her hair, something only a women of pleasure would do.Mark specifys Mary Madaglene at the tomb, as the only women Jesus had saved from seven demons. So in the time line of events where did Jesus pick up Mary Magdalene who Jesus had to saved from the seven deadly demons? Surely If Mary Madalene was a wife he married at Cana, she would not have had to be saved from many demons. :)

In Latin tradition, Mary of Bethany is often identified as Mary Magdalene (of whom more is recorded in the gospels as well as in later traditions

http://en.wikipedia....Mary_of_Bethany

First of all, you seem to accept tradition as readily as Scripture. The old belief that only “a woman of pleasure” would wash Jesus’ feet comes from the event in Luke 7 when a woman who was a sinner, did the same. That does not mean that any woman washing his feet in the future would be an equal sinner. It only means she would be showing her honor to someone revered. Given that the footwear of that time was sandals and the Roman roads were dusty, it became a habit for servants to assist visitors to wealthy homes in washing their feet. It also became a gesture of admiration and respect to be done by anyone other than a slave or servant. The humility shown by drying ones feet with their hair was to pay the ultimate homage. It had nothing to do with a “woman of pleasure.”

It is also in this portion of Luke that we first hear of Mary Magdalene and since the Wedding at Cana is found only in John, we cannot know the amount of time passing between these events. With the first mention of Mary Magdalene, however, it specifies that she had demons cast from her earlier. How much earlier, we don’t know. It is more than likely that the reference was not to actual demons but that Mary Magdalene had been a follower of Astarte where there were seven steps to the initiation and to remove her from that faith would have prompted this form of reference.

Yes, it is wholly possible that Mary Magdalene was the same Mary, sister of Martha. We can give some evidence to this by the suggestion that she was sitting shiva and responded only to the command of Jesus.

You have not answered, however, where it was stated that the adulteress was taken by Jesus to her home. And your timeline in no way prevents Jesus from being the groom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. D' timestamp

First of all, you seem to accept tradition as readily as Scripture. The old belief that only “a woman of pleasure” would wash Jesus’ feet comes from the event in Luke 7 when a woman who was a sinner, did the same. That does not mean that any woman washing his feet in the future would be an equal sinner. It only means she would be showing her honor to someone revered. Given that the footwear of that time was sandals and the Roman roads were dusty, it became a habit for servants to assist visitors to wealthy homes in washing their feet. It also became a gesture of admiration and respect to be done by anyone other than a slave or servant. The humility shown by drying ones feet with their hair was to pay the ultimate homage. It had nothing to do with a “woman of pleasure.”

It is also in this portion of Luke that we first hear of Mary Magdalene and since the Wedding at Cana is found only in John, we cannot know the amount of time passing between these events. With the first mention of Mary Magdalene, however, it specifies that she had demons cast from her earlier. How much earlier, we don’t know. It is more than likely that the reference was not to actual demons but that Mary Magdalene had been a follower of Astarte where there were seven steps to the initiation and to remove her from that faith would have prompted this form of reference.

Yes, it is wholly possible that Mary Magdalene was the same Mary, sister of Martha. We can give some evidence to this by the suggestion that she was sitting shiva and responded only to the command of Jesus.

You have not answered, however, where it was stated that the adulteress was taken by Jesus to her home. And your timeline in no way prevents Jesus from being the groom.

right but with perfume could only meam a women of pleasure.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right but with perfume could only meam a women of pleasure.

But is that true? Did only "women of Pleasure" use perfume? Did the rest of Humanity really smell terrible? Whatever happened to Myrrh and Frankincense....were they used only by "Women of Pleasure"?? If so then someone needs to tell the Magi not to be so disrespectful!!

I find this whole thread rather ridiculous - with tiny portions of an incomplete religious text (the Christian Bible - as determined by the Nycaea conference) being proferred to support an insupportable life of an unproveable person (Jesus Christ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the Catholic church is going to say that. It is that religion that began the council of Nicea to decide what would be in the bible. Women were not looked upon as people and not treated well as now in the Middle East.

IF Jesus did marry and Mary and the daughter escaped to Egypt then the bloodline continues. The Catholics wanted to make these rules and 'religion' to control the people. So the story of Jesus' marriage was stomped on. It would very odd for a Jewish man of his age to NOT be married. I think he was and Mary and the baby went to Egypt.

Catholics killed thousands of people who did not go along with this so called religion. Again killing people in the name of their 'gods'

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops think I put in the wrong link there, that one being, never mind, point is I don't think there was a physical Jesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Jesus is a myth, the story of Horus retold

http://www.pleasecon..._the_Horus_Myth

The version of the Horus myth as told in the link is totally inaccurate. I do not want to derail the thread, but the myth of the Osirian Horus has very little in common with the life of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he got married to Mary M. lived a quiet happy life with a few kids.... i guess believing that makes me a sinner??? How does this work??? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. D' timestamp

First of all, you seem to accept tradition as readily as Scripture. The old belief that only “a woman of pleasure” would wash Jesus’ feet comes from the event in Luke 7 when a woman who was a sinner, did the same. That does not mean that any woman washing his feet in the future would be an equal sinner. It only means she would be showing her honor to someone revered. Given that the footwear of that time was sandals and the Roman roads were dusty, it became a habit for servants to assist visitors to wealthy homes in washing their feet. It also became a gesture of admiration and respect to be done by anyone other than a slave or servant. The humility shown by drying ones feet with their hair was to pay the ultimate homage. It had nothing to do with a “woman of pleasure.”

It is also in this portion of Luke that we first hear of Mary Magdalene and since the Wedding at Cana is found only in John, we cannot know the amount of time passing between these events. With the first mention of Mary Magdalene, however, it specifies that she had demons cast from her earlier. How much earlier, we don’t know. It is more than likely that the reference was not to actual demons but that Mary Magdalene had been a follower of Astarte where there were seven steps to the initiation and to remove her from that faith would have prompted this form of reference.

Yes, it is wholly possible that Mary Magdalene was the same Mary, sister of Martha. We can give some evidence to this by the suggestion that she was sitting shiva and responded only to the command of Jesus.

You have not answered, however, where it was stated that the adulteress was taken by Jesus to her home. And your timeline in no way prevents Jesus from being the groom.

right but with perfume could only meam a women of pleasure.

This claim is much like the others you still haven't provided evidence for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the Cathlic Church would say it was a fake. However, I'm not Catholic and my opinion is that the Catholic Church didn't include all of the books of the Bible in the first place so how can we trust them. It has been proven via the history channel that these were books that the Catholic Church didn't want the people to know anything about. Others hid the books that are already being found and dated to the time of Jesus. I believe that Jesus was married to Mary. She was his confidant in a lot of things that the other aposles (sorry, no spell check and watching a 4 year old) were not privy to. We have no idea really what happened during the time of Jesus because we were not there. However, the Papyrus that was found does date back to the time of Jesus. I'm just wondering why all the fuss. Does it really make a difference whether Jesus was married or not? The Catholic Church seems to think that it does, why? What do they not want us to know. Thank God, that I'm a spiritualist not relgious. Yes, I believe in God but I don't necessarliy believe everything in the Bible considering that it was written 300 years after the death of Jesus. That's like sitting down with a class of students and the teacher whispers something to one student and by the time that it goes around the class it's something completely different. So, my reasoning is, no one will ever know the truth until we die.

crisb

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4th century??????????? I doubt it is of any importance. Do you have any idea how long four centuries is? The gnostic gospels are probably more worthless that the christian scriputrues.....well maybe there is some true history in the NT....gnostic's....hmmmm most were brain dead and thought this life evil.....yeah brain dead. At least Xians believe life is good and not some kind of prison put here by some evil lesser god.

doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow 140 posts in one day, over one of the most predictable responses since the dawn of time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF anything is fake, it's the entire Vatican hierarchy of hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The version of the Horus myth as told in the link is totally inaccurate. I do not want to derail the thread, but the myth of the Osirian Horus has very little in common with the life of Jesus.

http://www.josephus.org/#testimonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for derailing the thread by this post but the Jesus/Horus comparison, unfounded as it is, keeps coming back.

It is still debatable whether the mention of Jesus in Josephus text is a later insertion or not. This has been discussed by others who are more knowledgeable than me on the subject. However, my comment was about the myth of Horus as mentioned in the link:

- Horus was conceived by the goddess Isis, not ‘Meri’ (meri simply means ‘beloved’, masc.; fem. Is meri(t) or meryt. Isis (Is.t or 3s.t –'She of the Throne')

-Isis was the archetypical wife and mother, never portrayed as a virgin, like all Egyptian goddesses. The concept of a correlation between the sacred and virginity is unattested in Egyptian religion

-Horus had no stepfather, Seb/Geb (earth god) was his grandfather, the father of Isis & Osiris

-He was not born in a cave, was born & hidden in the marshes of the Delta

-The mere concept of ‘angels’ is totally foreign to, & absent from, Egyptian religion

-Sheep skin was considered ritually impure; no shepherds attended the birth of Horus

-Rite of passage is also absent, as is the attribution of an age to Horus during any phase of his legend

-Was never baptized and therefore no ‘baptizer’ was beheaded

-Had no ‘disciples’: the ‘sons of Horus’ were minor deities who guarded of the canopic jars . ‘Followers of Horus’ was a term used by the 19th dynasty Turin Royal Canon (king list) to describe predynastic rulers.

-Was called Horus, Horemakhet, Ra-Horakhty, Haroeris…not Iusa

-Horus waged battles against Seth, forces of chaos…but delivered no sermons, on mounts or elsewhere. Horus was a sky god, a cosmogonic deity, and a personification of divine kingship; a warrior god depicted slaying his enemies, no similarity with Jesus here. He was depicted as, and identified mainly with the hawk or falcon, a winged sun disc, rarely a ram; not lambs!

-Crucifixion was neither known nor practiced in Ancient Egypt. Horus as a god was immortal; every pharaoh was a personification of the Living Horus, as such he established Ma’at (cosmic order/justice), not a law given to man. He was never buried nor resurrected, it was his father Osiris who was resurrected by Isis.

- Among his titles was ‘the avenger of his father’, ‘Lord of the Two Lands’…not messiah, shepherd, son of man, the way, or lamb of god.

The comparison between Horus and Jesus is simply untenable

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bible is a clumsy forgery...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus said to them, "My wife, ..take my wife please!" Could have been a comedy routine.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't give a hoot what the Vatican says. they have too much to say as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.