Jesus: married with children? New book drops bombshell

The Lost Gospel' claims a 1,500-year-old manuscript stored at the British Library provides evidence Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fathered two sons with her.

A new book claims Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had two sons with her, based on 1,500-year-old manuscript found in the British Library.

"The Lost Gospel," by Israeli-Canadian writer Simcha Jacobovici and York University Professor Barrie Wilson, bases its claim on the document dating back to 570 AD and written in Aramaic.

After six years of scrutiny, the authors concluded that the characters described this "fifth gospel," Joseph and Aseneth, are in fact code for Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The two were married by the Pharaoh of Egypt and had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.

“There is now written evidence that Jesus was married to Mary the Magdalene and that they had children together. … Gathering dust in the British Library is a document that takes us into the missing years of Jesus’s life,” the book states.


http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.625827

This is fascinating stuff...going on as we speak.  It started with the discovery of the lost gospels, coupled with research into the Templar knights, all compiled in the book by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Holy Blood, Holy Grail.  That was the book used as the template for Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

It has taken some time to get this out into the open.  Basically, the lost gospels led to the question, why weren't we told about these if they knew?  The answer: The Bible as we know it (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) is basically a fabrication, cooked up by Roman Emperor Constantine and the Pauline Church at the Council of Nicene for political purposes.  Now that enough Christians know this, these other factors are being brought to light.

The Pauline Church was not even the real church of Christ.  Christ was a Gnostic and a member of a small religious caucus in Palestine.  The Pauline Church was the mission brought to Rome by the Apostle Paul.  It became the largest and most influential of the missions because, hey, it was Rome...duh.

Many things were twisted all around by the Romans, (or Paulines).  The original virgin Mary was never Christ's mother, but Mary the Magdalene.  Most all of the Marys in France refer to the Magdalene, including the famous Notre Dame.  

This is because Christ married the Magdalene and had a daughter, Sarah, at the time of the crucifixion.  This scattered the Gnostics all over, and Mary the Magdalene fled to Egypt, thence by boat to the south of France.  There she was handed over to a group of Christians known as the Cathars, who nurtured and protected the small family.

Sarah married into a French dynastic family known as the Merovingians:

Wiki wrote:The Merovingians (/ˌmɛroʊˈvɪndʒɪən/) were a Salian Frankish dynasty that ruled the Franks for nearly 300 years in a region known as Francia in Latin, beginning in the middle of the 5th century AD.

The Merovingians married into the royal families of Europe, and their blood courses through the veins of the Stuarts, a very important French Catholic family originally (the de Guis, married into the Scottish Stewarts by the union of Marie de Guis and James Steward V).  This is why royalty is able to cure people, supposedly, by the laying on of hands.  Or, why knighting someone involves a tap.  It is said the powers of Christ flow through them.

I'm so pleased that the RC Church is no longer able to keep the lid on this.  Oh, you'll see the occasional Catholic priest trying to debunk this, but just ask him how he justifies the notion that a bearded old man walks on clouds and performs tricks for the kids in the first place.  This is the true, factual history coming to light.

maybe quill should research his non-sense a little more

quinn says " Christ was a Gnostic "

however a search on gnostic reveals this...

"Gnosticism is primarily defined in a Christian context.[6][7] In the past, some scholars thought that gnosticism predated Christianity and included pre-Christian religious beliefs and spiritual practices argued to be common to early Christianity, Neoplatonism, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, and Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism). The discussion of gnosticism changed radically with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library and led to a revision of older assumptions. To date, no pre-Christian gnostic texts have been found,[8] and gnosticism as a unique and recognizable belief system is typically considered to be a second century (or later) development.[9]"


hmmmmmmm........

To me if from the start Jesus was views as married and still claimed as the son of this deity, what would it really matter?
Many religious prophets in the bible also with powers, never passed them onto offspring, so why in this case are some people fearful if he did have children?
It just seems silly to me, where in fact it would have made Jesus more appealing to people, where instead this bases of chastity has led to later the Catholic Church having the most ridiculous stance on sex.

It mattered because the Paulines needed to rid the Bible of the influence of women...the Magdalene was a heroine and veritable equal to Jesus...they had to invent this story about her being a prostitute. Oldest trick in the book...call her a cunnus.

The Cathars were also a rival to the RC church. Eventually, so were the Templars. And what did Phillip IV do?

We could get into the doctrines, but we should probably move over to a religious studies site.

Original Quill wrote:It mattered because the Paulines needed to rid the Bible of the influence of women...the Magdalene was a heroine and veritable equal to Jesus...they had to invent this story about her being a prostitute.  Oldest trick in the book...call her a cunnus.

The Cathars were also a rival to the RC church.  Eventually, so were the Templars.  And what did Phillip IV do?

We could get into the doctrines, but we should probably move over to a religious studies site.

You are neglecting the fact that if the Jerusalem Church had not been wiped out in the revolt of AD 70, where it was led by the brothers of Jesus in James had much authority in this early stage if the Church, where if it had survived, would have Pauline teaching still flourished.
Everything was a rival to the Catholic Church, including the Orthodox Church, more so Christian Arianism  was even more popular than Pauline Christianity at one point, which again the Christian Church played a hand in its downfall again with the ending of the Merovingian line.

The Cathars are very a interesting religion, especially their concept of good and evil, where it is evil that created the world.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It mattered because the Paulines needed to rid the Bible of the influence of women...the Magdalene was a heroine and veritable equal to Jesus...they had to invent this story about her being a prostitute.  Oldest trick in the book...call her a cunnus.

The Cathars were also a rival to the RC church.  Eventually, so were the Templars.  And what did Phillip IV do?

We could get into the doctrines, but we should probably move over to a religious studies site.

You are neglecting the fact that if the Jerusalem Church had not been wiped out in the revolt of AD 70, where it was led by the brothers of Jesus in James had much authority in this early stage if the Church, where if it had survived, would have Pauline teaching still flourished.
Everything was a rival to the Catholic Church, including the Orthodox Church, more so Christian Arianism  was even more popular than Pauline Christianity at one point, which again the Christian Church played a hand in its downfall again with the ending of the Merovingian line.

The Cathars are very a interesting religion, especially their concept of good and evil, where it is evil that created the world.

Or the tension created by evil.

I'm not neglecting anything about the Jerusalem Church...they just were not big enough.  The world at the time of Julius Caesar, and the centuries that followed, belonged to Rome.  Any good businessman or shopkeeper will tell you the key to success is location, location, location.  Paul engaged in his mission to Rome, and eventually became the contact for Romans when they wanted something from Christianity.  Very fortuitous for what we call the Roman Church today.

Constantine wanted something, and the Pauline Church was there to serve it up.  Constantine firmed  it up at the Council of Nicaea...it was like a Constitutional Convention.  This in; this out; this in; this out.  It was all about Constantine's politics. The Bible was simply a 'how to' workbook.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with setting up a belief system that supported the Roman Empire.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were certainly not historians.  Yet they presented their theses in the form of histories, so it takes two millennia before we can get to work on the actual history of this important part of our past.  That's why this work, and Holy Blood, Holy Grail are such important monuments in the progress of history.

read the boon holy grail quill referenced.....Imo a lot of tish.

I have no beef with Jesus having been married - I rather think he was - would have been slightly out of the ordinary if a Hebrew man at his age wasn't during that time.....

as to Didges point about Pauline doctrine (for that is what it is) no I think if the temple hadn't been demolished and even if the revolt had taken place I still think James would have headed "Christianity " as a kind of early reform Judaism.

Cass wrote:read the boon holy grail quill referenced.....Imo a lot of tish.

I have no beef with Jesus having been married - I rather think he was - would have been slightly out of the ordinary if a Hebrew man at his age wasn't during that time.....

as to Didges point about Pauline doctrine (for that is what it is) no I think if the temple hadn't been demolished and even if the revolt had taken place I still think James would have headed "Christianity " as a kind of early reform Judaism.

I don't believe that.  I don't even see how it could have happened in such a small situs.  Oh I mean, I believe Christianity would have died and been long forgotten if left in Jerusalem...James would have still been the head, and etc., but Christianity would have been nothing.  But these are all ifs and buts.  

The fact is that Paul went to Rome, and started the Pauline Church.  It was picked up fortuitously by Constantine, and the Bible got written.  Because geopolitical Rome was as expansive as it was, Christianity spread out and became the religion that it is today.  Otherwise, it would have been a small band of Jewish farmers, of interest only to esoteric anthropologists.

James was already dead by the time of the revolt though as seen the church was very much in control at this point of the Holy land, and you cannot if they had not been destroyed not factor in Quill what influence this may have had on the later Roman Empire, based on Pauline Christianity, where there argument and no doubt religious works surviving as well as Jewish ones, may well have disputed all the claims from the Pauline doctrines, all of which you re not factoring into the equation.

They could have become big enough because you are going off the later Pauline Church which at the time of 70 AD was no bigger if not smaller than the Jerusalem Church, as there was only pockets of Christians around nations at this time, being as they themselves were also being persecuted within the Roman Empire. So again a Jerusalem Church with its written works and no doubt having greater influence with direct connection to Jesus through many of the apostles and his siblings would have weakened the influence of Paul's, who's claim to meeting Jesus was nothing like having lived their lives with Jesus as the others did. This again you are not factoring and going off two different time eras. The vacuum left by the fall of this Church did see the rise of the Orthodox Church and also Arianism, which as stated was more popular later than Pauline Christianity where they had to be underhanded to stop its influence as already explained 


I agree with Cass on this about a reformed or Christianized Judaism. As it would have been very difficult to refute works no doubt that could have even come from the hand of Jesus.

The Romans governed Palestine, not the Pauline Church.  The Pauline Church did not become a governing factor until Constantine took up Christianity as a political maneuver in 313 AD.

But the Pauline Church achieved the position it did by the boost that Constantine shift, sometimes known as the Triumph of the Church, gave it.  With the tacit religious exclusivity that was given to it, the Roman or Pauline Church was able to write the defining book of Christianity, known as the Holy Bible.  

This book was written by the Council of Nicaea in historical form, using the words of the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  It was written under cover of heavy censorship, the purpose being to create a political document, not a truly historical, nor a religious document.  The specific purpose was to create, in Christ, a focal point to hang above the Holy Roman Emperor, giving him sole and absolute authority.  It was the perfect merger of religion and politics.

Today, no one should take the Bible as being anything but a highly censored, interesting, even important text that helps explain the rise of both Church and the Empire.  Let me put it this way: if you believe in the actual truth of the Bible, you probably believe in flying saucers too.

The importance of the lost gospels is they were the writings that were censored, and therefor kept out of the Bible.  The first among many questions is, why?  What was it about them that made the Council so afraid?  Such questions are the shadows of history, and we read them in order to understand the back story.  What was going on, and what did the world look like back then.

But first we have had to rid the world of the heavy influence that the RC church has had over the western world, in perception as well as belief, for some 2,000-years.  Although we are just interpreting history, it is interwoven with powerful religious beliefs that impede true historical inquiry.  Ask Galileo if Church Church dominated belief impeded real scientific inquiry.

Therefore, we are liberating not just gospel documents, but belief and perception.  It is important to know about the war on femininity that the Church maintained, and why Da Vinci placed the feminine 'V' in his painting of the Last Supper. And many other things as well.  This is lost history, as well as lost gospels.

Yes I do not need a history lesson Quill, interesting as it is, I am well aware of how and when the rulings changed what is Christianity, where again you are not taking on the view point if the Jerusalem Church had survived and more importantly with other written works known to have been destroyed when the city was sacked.

Again you are going off the gospels chosen later of ones that could have easily countered these, to the point many by this point could have followed works even dictated or written by Jesus himself. Remember they are all based off a Q Gospel. one that has not been found, which is why I am pointing this out to you.

Da Vinci has no relevance here all that does is the real founding Christian faith was superseded only due to its destruction due to location. Where my view is the real Gospel or Gospels had Jesus married with children.

Just saying buddy to hypothesis here.