Dr Grump said:
You are comparing apples with oranges. As I said, it is easy to prove that the holocaust happened. Not so that Jesus was the son of a god....
Maybe not, but it is pretty easy to prove that he never married or had a family. The only 'gospels' that even imply it are the gnostic gospels, which were written over a hundred years after the fact. If I wrote a 'historical' book that I claimed came from 'eyewitness' evidence that claimed Lincoln left a bunch of notes about how the South was supposed to rule the country and that he was going to retract the Emancepation Proclamation, but that all of the politicians close to him covered it up, how credible do you think it would be?
Then there's the lack of a true bloodline. According to all the theorists and all the people who study this bullcrap, the line of Jesus ended up in the Marovingians, the first royal line of France. The confirmed surviving Marovingians have been genetically tested and have been found to have no trace of semitic DNA of any kind anywhere in their genetic makeup.
There are only two 'solid' pieces of evidence they lean on. The first is that, at some point (can't remember when), somebody mixed up Mary Magdeline and the prostitute Mary that Jesus saved from the angry mob (you can even see this in "The Passion of the Christ"). It's an easy mistake to make, but conspiracy nuts point to this as proof that the Catholic Church intentionally labeled her as a prostitute to discredit women in the church (wtf? Then why'd they leave in the record in Paul's writings that indicated that the early church gave women more rights than any other organization?).
The other bit of 'proof' given is that Mary stayed behind at the crucifixion, possibly risking her life (by association with a 'heretic') to mourn Jesus, and that she was the only one to go with Mother Mary to the tomb the day of the resurrection. This is supposed to prove they were married because only a wife or mother would show such dedication. Well, Mary was obviously one of Jesus' more dedicated followers. As a woman living long before women's lib, she was far less likely to be arrested and executed than his male disciples. Attending to his tomb was also a very 'feminine' action to do, as well as mourn publicly, rather than wander off in shock and mourn later, as is the typical reaction from a man. Then, there's the fact that I, personally, know several females I would take a bullet for that I wouldn't marry on a dare.
The last bit of 'proof' I've heard of is that John looks feminine in the painting of The Last Supper. Well, any art student would know that if you look at, well,
every other depiction of the apostle John from the same era, and you will see that
everybody depicted him as being feminine. Either it was fashionable at the time, or every single artist from that period was a member of the fictional version of the Priory of Scion, an organization that actually started in the 1950s, not the 1000s.
This downright blasphemous idea that Jesus made a family doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is just a cheap effort to detract from the divinity of Jesus. Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, but the gnostic gospels and this new wave of 'alternate' versions of Jesus would have you forgetting the first part.
