Another necessity gone missing

[Willum]

Along with works of carpentry, Lazarus, and other physical manifestations of Jesus, one conspicuous item missing is children.

According to the Book of Mary, he had some.

But, he was a man, and there are no rel proscriptions, so where are Jesus' descendants? Are they hidden in an Illuminati plot (lol), or who wouldn't want to give birth to God's grandson?

Or is this just another bit of positive evidence, that God does not exist?

[peterk]

According to the Book of Mary, he had some [children].

Did he? I've just read the Gospel of Mary and can see no reference to Jesus' children. If this is a serious question then references would be helpful.

But, he was a man, and there are no rel proscriptions, so where are Jesus' descendants? Are they hidden in an Illuminati plot (lol), or who wouldn't want to give birth to God's grandson?

Or is this just another bit of positive evidence, that God does not exist?

I don't see the connection. The gospels were written for a purpose. The writers would naturally include those events which were related to purpose. (This is true of all literature, not just the gospels.) It's not obvious to me why Jesus having or not having children is relevant to anything.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by peterk]

Why would you?
Acknowledgement means the end of the religion.
If it were true, would you acknowledge Christianity was built on lies?

What would convince you?

[benchwarmer]

Along with works of carpentry, Lazarus, and other physical manifestations of Jesus, one conspicuous item missing is children.

According to the Book of Mary, he had some.

But, he was a man, and there are no rel proscriptions, so where are Jesus' descendants? Are they hidden in an Illuminati plot (lol), or who wouldn't want to give birth to God's grandson?

Or is this just another bit of positive evidence, that God does not exist?

Can you supply a link and point to the writings in question please?

I've just read what appears to the the 'Gospel of Mary'

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... lmary.html

I see no mention of children.

Perhaps I'm reading the wrong thing, please elaborate.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by benchwarmer]

It is from the detailed analysis of Simcha Jacobovici, who went through the book with modern techniques to uncover more of the text.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_blo ... nd_Aseneth

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 13 by benchwarmer]

It is from the detailed analysis of Simcha Jacobovici, who went through the book with modern techniques to uncover more of the text.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_blo ... nd_Aseneth

Thanks for the link.

However, this is not "The book/gospel of Mary" this is the manuscript of Joseph and Aseneth:

In 2014 fringe investigative journalist Simcha Jacobovici and fringe religious studies historian Barrie Wilson suggested that a 6th century manuscript told the tale of Jesus and Mary Magdalene under the coding of “Joseph� and “Aseneth�[28] This manuscript, called "Joseph and Aseneth", forms part of an anthology compiled by Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor, so-named because it also includes the important Ecclesiastical History by the real Zacharias Rhetor. These documents are preserved as British Library Manuscript #17,202 along with other important works, e.g. The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, the finding of first century relics of Stephen and Nicodemus, and the Conversion of Constantine written by a bishop of Rome named Sylvester.

That probably explains some of the confusion. I've watched some of Simcha's documentaries and found them interesting.

[1213]

The Gospel of Mary says Jesus had children.
You have no reason to discount it, as it was written as a book.

Yes, I have. Jesus knew he will die soon and also, he had mission from God. He could not have taken care of the children; therefore, I don’t believe he got any.

But if I am wrong, what then? If we believe Jesus had children, it doesn’t make any meaningful difference.

(And Thank you for the tokens)

[peterk]

[Replying to post 11 by peterk]

Why would you?

Why would I what? I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question.

Acknowledgement means the end of the religion.

Again, acknowledgement of what?

If it were true, would you acknowledge Christianity was built on lies?
What would convince you?

That's a hard question, because you're asking me to imagine a scenario totally contrary to my whole world view. But I would say this: it's a question that all of us need to face. I could ask you what would convince you that Christianity was true.

So personally I don't think it's a helpful question. The real issue is not how we might deal with some imagined information that we don't currently have. It's how we deal with the actual information that is before us.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

Along with works of carpentry, Lazarus, and other physical manifestations of Jesus, one conspicuous item missing is children.

According to the Book of Mary, he had some.

Can you direct the reader to where the Gospel of Mary states this as being the case.

[Tcg]

Can you direct the reader to where the Gospel of Mary states this as being the case.

I can point you to where that question was already asked. That would be post #13.

I can also point you to where that question was addressed. That would be post #14.

You're welcome.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 17 by peterk]

[Replying to post 16 by 1213]

Both of your statements recognize a denial of the truth as you now know it. Deliberately avoiding or mis-understanding tells the reader that you have acknowledged that the religion is untrue.

In one case, you have made a judgment call that seems to justify the religion, as we know, one's judgment does not change the reality.

The other is a simple case of ingenuous denial of reality.

You have both made great progress.