yeah anyone that studies history know jesus would be looked at like a super freak weirdo if he was not married in that time.

the church has successfully kept this hidden for 2k years and will continue to even now.

evidence makes no difference.

it's religion.

Riverwolf007

Yeah we keep all of our evil cult practices secret and all the truth about Jesus in the great Christian libraries. First of all the vatican library, the Library of Saint Catherine and the Library of the jeruselum patriach.

Damn you for finding us out!

Seriously why do you think this was kept hidden? Did she discover it in a library that is under the watch of the church which had it ina safe and broke into that safe to retrieve it?

I used to think that before, when I was simply jealous of the wealth they own. Now I have legitimate reasons to dislike most actors.

Jesus was a Jewish peasent born under the oppressive rule of the Romans. Ancient Israelite Culture would have required him to have a wife and have children, especially if he was a Rabbi. Which was what he was called among his followers.

I do not see why Christians have a problem with this. It does not hurt your religion or the message of Jesus. He most likely married Mary Magdalen or whatever her name was.

ShadowMoses900

He was not required to have a wife, it would have been normal but not neccessary. And there is no evidence he married Mary Magdalen more so than he married the sisters of Lazurus or any other woman in the New testament that he had contact and communion with.

The loving tolerance of the left at display? Why don't they say that about mosques? too cowardly.

I can't imagine the current whitehouse outright rejecting this and upholding the freedom of speech.

It's no different for Judaism or Islam.

theone86

I agree the iconoclasts were just as Iconoclastic and savage as the muslims and some jews.

You're lack of faith is a shame. Do you have so little conviction in your own beliefs that rather than discuss you simply attack. Here is a prayer for you Orthodox, so that you may find some peace in your heart that is filled with hate and doubt. O God! Refresh and gladden my spirit. Purify my heart. Illumine my powers. I lay all my affairs in Thy hand. Thou art my Guide and my Refuge. I will no longer be sorrowful and grieved; I will be a happy and joyful being. O God! I will no longer be full of anxiety, nor will I let trouble harass me. I will not dwell on the unpleasant things of life. O God! Thou art more friend to me than I am to myself. I dedicate myself to Thee, O Lord. Abdul-BaháNuck81

I have faith in the risen lord which has good reason to it, not single fragments from the fourth century unlike you, who would base an entire conspiracy theory around it to try and destryo the credibility of the great fathers of Nicea whom just years earlier were persecuted under Diocletion for their faith with more horrors than you or I will ever face. Yes I have conviction but I don't resort to Tenaka's style of arguing, as if to pathetically try and make my opponent feel guilty. But thats what most bahais do since they are unable to debate.

And No I prefer the great Doxology.

And the iconoclast imperative in Islam is dubious as well. It's nowhere in the Koran, it's in supplemental texts whose relevance are called into diffferent degrees of question. The only reason it gets so much attention is because a few traditionalist figures in positions of authority within Islam decided to push iconoclasm as a pertinent issue, just like a few traditionalist figures in positions of authority pushed it for Christianity. Whether it's Christian, Judeo, or Islamic iconoclasm it's all dogma meant to solidify an agenda, but each religion has perpetuated such dogmas to varying degrees.

theone86

The traditional Christian viewpoint is actually that of the iconodules. The Iconoclasts in the ancient church had control and power for a short time when compared to the iconodules after Nicea 2. Only then during the reformation did iconoclasm spark again with private readings of scripture. They should have read more John Damascus.

Fourth century apocrypha. Should we also trust the late manuscript about the magical talking cross?

Now Nuck, we have patristics before hte council of NIcea that represent what the council of Nicea talked about. Why is that conspiracy theorists and mythisists will grab onto things which are so irrelevent and have NOTHING backing them up but reject the majority of the evidence we actually have that actual historians take into consideration? Probably because mythicists and conspiracy nuts have an agenda which they must bend reality to.

But how she says that there was a "Debate" about this in the second century from a fourth ccentury manuscript is beyond me. None of the patristics entertain such an idear and nor do they make reference to it or try to refute this supposed idea. Its irresponsible to say it comes from the second century. All it proves as of now that such an idea existed in the fourth century.

The Great Commission

MATHEW 28: 16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.18Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.