Proof Jesus was married. And was not resurrected.
23 thoughts on “Proof Jesus was married. And was not resurrected.”
Comments are closed.
Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues.
Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues.
Comments are closed.
Oh well.
Time to call off Easter…
It’s amazing what people will believe.
Of COURSE He was resurrected. And I am also willing to bet He was married.
This evidence either proves both, or it proves neither.
It proves neither. Since He was resurrected, there isn’t any DNA. He said Himself He was resurrected, and if He is who He claims to be (which He is, but if people don’t believe it, they won’t believe any of this anyway) than there would be no DNA to be collected.
But I still believe He was married. Just my personal opinion.
“Since He was resurrected, there isn’t any DNA”
So zombies don’t h. Ha20DNA?
I’m afraid I don’t follow the logic.
She means if he was resurrected, there would be no bones left behind from which to extract DNA.
Assuming a resurrected being keeps their earthly body as opposed to inhibiting an eternal body which would leave DNA from the earthly body in a Tomb.
If Jesus was married and had children then would his children also be Gods since their father is the God of this World?
If the DNA in the tomb really belonged to Christ, then the DNA should have the DNA of God in it.
Such problems when you explore the mysteries of religion.
Assuming you actually meant “as opposed to inhibiting an eternal body that would leave DNA from the earthly body in a Tomb”, not only would it need to leave DNA, but it would need to leave DNA in the form of bone.
If you meant “as opposed to inhibiting an eternal body, which would leave DNA from the earthly body in a Tomb”, then I would counter by asking what evidence would suggest an eternal body, upon resurrection, would leave behind DNA?
Isn’t it presumptive to assume that we’ve figured out how God’s body works? I mean, what makes us think that God has DNA anyways? If you’re a strict literalist, you’ll claim he’s without blood. So, whether the bones contain God’s DNA is so weighty with assumptions that I find it somewhat silly.
What I find really intriguing is the inscription for Mary Magdalene “known as the master”. Assuming for a moment this is Jesus, his wife, etc., that would give a whole chunk of credence to the gnostic teaching that Mary was an apostle/leader under Christ.
If Mary was an apostle then she would have been the 13th Apostle. There could have been more than 12 if women were included in the group.
It is very possible the religion Christ started was very different than the Catholic Churches that followed.
But they’re not saying that they found the bones where he was buried after being crucified, are they?
My understanding was that they just found bones in ossuaries with micro-fragments being available for DNA testing.
This doesn’t necessarily challenge the resurrection story, but it does contradict the 40th day ascension angle (not to mention the whole virgin birth thing – pretty tough to get a decent DNA chain without two donors).
“The filmmakers . . . suggest ossuaries once containing the bones of Jesus and his family are now stored in a warehouse . . .”
Even if there were bone fragment, it does challenge the resurrection story.
According to Amulek, resurrection si a complete restoration. Nothing will be left behind.
“According to Amulek, resurrection si a complete restoration. Nothing will be left behind.”
So, do the baby teeth sit behind or in front of the adult teeth? Or do the adult teeth go back into the gums and we just have baby teeth?
I think we need to lighten up on the definition of the word “Complete” when it comes to the resurrection.
What makes rick conclude there weren’t two donors? Christ is the literal son of God. The Father of his spirit is the Father of his body.
Unless Zeezrom was a baby, JM, then the baby teeth go nowhere:
ltbugaf, I think rick was responding to alea’s suggestion that God may not have DNA.
“I think rick was responding to alea’s suggestion that God may not have DNA”
It’s either that or you have to believe that Mary had an extra-marital affair and literally had sex with God…
…or Jesus was the first in-vitro conception, I guess.
In order for Jesus’s birth to have been a virgin birth, it would have had to been some variation of the latter.
you don’t have to believe it’s extra-marital. They were married by Gabriel, as LDS tradition asserts. I don’t think anyone, since Talmage’s statements in Jesus the Christ, can claim that the Mormon conception (pun intended) of the impregnation of Mary was quite naturalistic. Virgin birth isn’t really an LDS belief.
Tradition? It’s the first I’ve heard of it.
Kim, I’ve actually read somewhere about variations on the theme that God had the power to make Mary ‘born again’ shortly after finding herself to be be pregnant; making a traditional impregnation compatible with Mary being a virgin (since she had not had sex since her new rebirth). Kinda far out there dogmatically, but since this is all speculation anyway. :)
Is Alea alluring to the LDS old school tradition that God and Mary were “sealed” and had sex the natural way with Joesph being only an earthly husband? Thus she was considered a virgin since she was sealed before having sex.
The Book of Mormon teaches that Mary became pregnant with Jesus, “after the manner of the flesh.” That means she was not a virgin (by my interpretation).
As for the news article, I think it’s only making it into the media because James Cameron is involved—and anyway does it really matter if they have proof? When you’re trying to disprove a tautology it’s not like evidence is going to deter the eternally convicted.
See Science Vs. Faith.
It also could mean that Jesus was part human. It’s pretty vague.