• Login:

Welcome to the Community Forum.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    35,230

    was mary magdalegne jesus' wife?

    another gospel book dat dem xxclude fram da bible

    Jesus' Marriage to Mary the Magdalene Is Fact, Not Fiction

    The publication on Nov. 12, 2014 of the book I co-wrote with Prof. Barrie Wilson, The Lost Gospel: Decoding the Ancient Text that Reveals Jesus' Marriage to Mary the Magdalene, has caused a worldwide theological firestorm, including demonstrations in India. I was even the butt of one of Bill O'Reilly's attacks and have challenged him to an on-air debate. So far, he's demurred.

    I think the reason for all this negativity is that the proof for the historical marriage between Jesus of Nazareth and the woman known as Mary the Magdalene has become overwhelming. Even before our findings, everything -- everything -- pointed to a marriage, and nothing -- nothing -- argued for Jesus' celibacy. The only thing that continues to argue for Jesus' celibacy is 2000 years of theological bullying. This may come as a shock to most people, but the fact is that none of the four Gospels say that Jesus was celibate. The Gospels call Jesus "Rabbi" (Matthew 26:49, Mark 10:51, John 20:16). Rabbis, then as now, are married. If Jesus wasn't married, someone would have noticed.

    The greatest promoter of celibacy for Christians was Paul. On every other matter of Jewish law -- and Paul was a Jew called Saul at birth -- Paul was lax. He threw out Kosher laws, ignored Sabbath observance and prayed that the hands of ritual circumcisers shake so that they cut off their own penises when they perform circumcision (Galatians 5:12). Only when it came to sex Paul was more severe than Moses and Jesus put together. Why? The answer may lie in Paul's background.

    As everyone knows, "Paul of Tarsus" came from Tarsus, an area of modern-day Turkey. What people don't know is that in the Tarsus of Paul's day they worshipped a god named Attis. Perhaps not coincidentally, Attis was a dying and resurrecting god. He was called "the Good Shepard", and his earliest depictions show him with a sheep across his shoulders. All these images were later incorporated into the iconography of Paul's version of Christianity. Put simply, Paul's Jesus looks a lot like Attis.

    Attis had a great love in his life, Cybele. On their wedding night, Attis decided to make the supreme sacrifice and offer his testicles on the altar of his love. He surprised his virgin bride by castrating himself. This idea was a big hit in the Tarsus of Paul's day. Attis' priests, the Galli, would imitate their god by going into a frenzy, emasculating themselves and offering their testicles as holy sacrifices. Not surprisingly, this once-popular religion died out. For his part, Paul didn't promote literal castration -- although some early Pauline Christians, e.g. Church Father Origen, did castrate themselves. In the spirit of Attis, Paul advocated abstinence and celibacy, even in marriage (e.g. "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," 1 Corinthians 7:1). Had Jesus been celibate, Paul would certainly have invoked him as an example when arguing for celibacy. But he doesn't. Never once does Paul argue that Christians should be celibate, because Jesus was celibate. Not once!

    If one looks at the Gospels without Attis-colored Pauline glasses, there are many, many hints that Jesus was married. Specifically, after the Crucifixion, the Gospels agree that it was Mary the Magdalene who went early Sunday morning to wash and anoint Jesus' crucified body (Mark 16:1). People have the quaint idea that ancient Jews in Jerusalem went around "anointing" each other. They didn't. What the Gospels are telling us is that Mary the Magdalene went to Jesus' tomb to prepare his body for burial. That's the Gospels, not me. Then and now, no woman would touch the naked body of a dead Rabbi, unless she was family. Jesus was whipped, beat and crucified. No woman would wash the blood and sweat off his private parts unless she was his wife.

    Besides the canonical Gospels, there are the so-called "Gnostic" Gospels. The Gnostics -- or "wisdom seekers" -- were an early branch of Christianity, whose origins we don't know. What we do know is that they represent the losers in the Christian orthodoxy game. After the fourth century, the Church burnt Gnostic holy books and the people who believed in them. As a result, until recently, we had almost no Gnostic Gospels to refer to.

    In 1947, in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, the Gnostics got their revenge. At that time, several of their Gospels were found hidden in jars. They all tell the same story -- Jesus was married. More than this, for his Gnostic followers, Jesus' marriage and sexual activity was more important than his death and resurrection. Simply put, they were more interested in his passion in bed than in his "Passion" on the cross.

    What does archaeology have to say about a married Jesus?

    In 1980, in Talpiot, just outside of Jerusalem, archaeologists discovered a 2000-year-old burial tomb. In the tomb there were ten ossuaries i.e., limestone coffins. Six of them were inscribed. One of them had the Hebrew/Aramaic name "Jesus son of Joseph" scratched on its side, another "Maria," yet another -- "Yose" -- a nickname referred to in the Gospels as belonging to one of Jesus' brothers (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55). A fourth ossuary was inscribed with the name "Matthew" and a fifth -- the only one in Greek -- with the name "Mariamene," a Greek version of "Mary" associated in all of Greek literature with one woman only -- Mary the Magdalene. Even more disturbing for Pauline Christians, a sixth inscribed ossuary -- apparently of a child -- had the name "Judah, son of Jesus" carved on it.

    So what happened with this paradigm-shifting discovery? Nothing! Between 1980 and 1996 no archaeologists even reported the find. It took my 2007 documentary, The Last Tomb of Jesus, and my co-authored book, The Jesus Family Tomb to propel the find onto the headlines. And what was the world's reaction? Again, nothing. In the spirit of The Life of Brian, according to the scholarly consensus, the tomb must have belonged to another Jesus and two other Marys. After all, if you believe that Jesus is an Attis-type god, he can't have a coffin, certainly not a wife and not a child that could've resulted from their sexual union.

    This brings us to our "Lost Gospel". It appears to be a sixth-century Syriac (Christian Aramaic) text that is a translation of an earlier Greek text (fourth or second century) that Prof. Barrie Wilson and I believe preserves a first-century tradition. The text, in the rare manuscript section of the British Library for the past 160 years, is ostensibly about the biblical Joseph, of multi-colored coat fame, and his obscure wife Aseneth. But in the Syriac community from which this Gospel emerged, "Joseph" was a stand-in for Jesus, and Aseneth, "had many children by the Crucified" (Hymn 21 of Ephrem the Syrian). Clearly, we are dealing with a very thinly encoded text, concealing a Gospel that would otherwise have been destined for the bonfire.

    In our manuscript, Joseph -- a.k.a Jesus -- is identified with the sign of the cross traced in blood. Some have argued that this manuscript does not refer to Jesus. If so, why the sign of the cross? Why the blood, and why is he explicitly called the "Son of God"? As for Aseneth, our manuscript depicts her as living in a "tower." The Hebrew for "tower" is "Migdal", hence Mary the Magdalene. It's not her last name, folks. It's a title. It means "Mary the Tower Lady."

    In our Lost Gospel, she is depicted as a Galilean Phoenician priestess that abandons idolatry after meeting and falling in love with Jesus. They marry, but she's not simply "Mrs. Jesus." She is a partner in redemption referred to as the "Daughter of God" and "The Bride of God." Our Lost Gospel states that Jesus and Mary had two children and it witnesses to the idea that, for their earliest followers, Jesus and his wife Mary were co-deities embroiled in the politics of their times.

    Pauline Christians can continue to have faith in a celibate savior who is divorced from his family, his people and his times. But for me, the most important revelation in this long ignored manuscript has to do with a foiled plot on Jesus and Mary the Magdalene's lives, about 13 years before the crucifixion. If our historical sleuthing is correct, this text is a Gospel before the Gospels and we can finally return Jesus to the historical context from which Paul removed him.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simcha...b_6225826.html
    I have no desire to take all black people back to Africa; there are blacks who are no good here and will likewise be no good there.
    Marcus Garvey

    satire protected speech soo more fiyah

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    35,230
    ‘Jesus’ wife’ papyrus not a modern forgery, scientific tests say

    Scientists now say that an antiquated piece of papyrus containing an excerpt concerning the alleged wife of Jesus Christ is not in fact a forgery.

    According to the results of a carbon dating test just now released, the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” unveiled at a conference in Rome a year-and-a-half-ago could have originated as far back as the 700s, shattering allegations that the fragment of paper had been produced more recently by fraudsters.

    Translated to English, the document is adorned with the words “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife...’” and “she will be able to be my disciple” — two fragments of phrases that not only suggest that the founder of Christianity may have been married, but that role of women in the church may have been significantly different over a thousand years ago.

    Karen L. King, a professor at Harvard University who discovered the text, originally thought that the papyrus was from the fourth century. But while the latest rounds of testing date the document to be several hundred years newer than previously assumed, it also dismisses concerns surrounding the actual authenticity of the evidence.

    The Boston Globe reported on Thursday this week that King’s document was originally dismissed as a fake by both academic peers and the Vatican’s official newspaper, but carbon-dating suggests the ink used on the papyrus is from eighth century Egypt.

    “I’m basically hoping that we can move past the issue of forgery to questions about the significance of this fragment for the history of Christianity, for thinking about questions like, ‘Why does Jesus being married, or not, even matter? Why is it that people had such an incredible reaction to this?’ ” she said in an interview with the paper.

    “Now when I come back and read the fragment, it seems the major issue being talked about was that Jesus was affirming that wives and mothers can be his disciples,” King said.

    But ahead of the results of this latest tests being revealed, King too had her doubts. “I took very seriously the comments of such a wide range of people that it might be a forgery,” she added to the New York Times, who reported that King now says she is very confident that the document is in fact genuine.

    “When you have all the evidence pointing in one direction, it doesn’t make it 100 percent, but history is not a place where 100 percent is a common thing,” Dr. King told the Times.

    As for others, however, skeptics still have their doubts.

    “Nothing is going to change my mind,” Brown University Egyptologist Leo Depuydt told the Boston Globe this week. “As a forgery, it is bad to the point of being farcical or fobbish. . . I don’t buy the argument that this is sophisticated. I think it could be done in an afternoon by an undergraduate student.”

    The document is full of “gross grammatical errors,” he added to the Times, “seems ripe for a Monty Python sketch” and could have been authored with a homemade ink substitute that “an undergraduate student with one semester of Coptic” could have accomplished. A rebuttal from Depuydt will run alongside Dr. King’s peer-reviewed paper when it is published by the Harvard Theological Review this week.

    According to the Globe, two rounds of carbon-dating testing were done on the document—first by the University of Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and then Noreen Tuross of Harvard.

    “I haven’t seen any argument that I find at all compelling that would indicate that it’s not genuine, it’s not ancient,”Roger Bagnall, director of New York University’s Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, added to the Globe.

    http://www.rt.com/usa/jesus-wife-king-papyrus-740/
    I have no desire to take all black people back to Africa; there are blacks who are no good here and will likewise be no good there.
    Marcus Garvey

    satire protected speech soo more fiyah

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    35,230
    a latt aff christians peeps chat bout da bible sey seek ann dem will find butt dem fraid fe seek da trooth bout da bible. dem feel was dem believe is da trooth. itt more bout dem beliefs dan verifiable facts dat cchallenge da status quo

    do oonnoo believe mary magdalegne was jesus' wife?

    y ar y natt?

    iff jesus was reallee married how wood dat effect wat yuh been taught ann believe?
    I have no desire to take all black people back to Africa; there are blacks who are no good here and will likewise be no good there.
    Marcus Garvey

    satire protected speech soo more fiyah

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    East Eden, west of hell
    Posts
    20,035
    interesting peice.... if you are interested in some thought provking reading on religion Christianity, Judaism and islam..suggest the work of Karen Anderson...

    PS god was murdered half a millinea ago....
    What nonsense! How can you have a revolution without shooting people ? Lenin 26th October 1917...
    If Christians go to heaven, I do not want to go to Heaven: Hatuey. 2/02/1512

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    35,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Wahalla View Post
    interesting peice.... if you are interested in some thought provking reading on religion Christianity, Judaism and islam..suggest the work of Karen Anderson...

    PS god was murdered half a millinea ago....
    interesting da wukk of karen anderson


    da divine can't be murdered
    I have no desire to take all black people back to Africa; there are blacks who are no good here and will likewise be no good there.
    Marcus Garvey

    satire protected speech soo more fiyah

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    35,230
    Would It Matter if Jesus Were Married?
    By Bill Tammeus


    The discovery of an ancient piece of papyrus, now known as the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife," has reignited debate over whether Jesus was married.

    A year ago I helped lead a Jewish-Christian study tour to Israel. One of the highlights was a visit to Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity.

    There, in the famed grotto, I gazed at the 14-point star installed on the spot where it is believed Jesus was born two millennia ago.

    And I had an odd, almost sacrilegious thought—for a Protestant Christian. Why 14 points on the star? Well, I thought, maybe they stand for the 12 tribes of Israel plus Jesus plus, uh, Jesus' wife.

    Wait. Jesus had a wife?

    Probably not. But as Mike Graves, a theology professor at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri, says about the idea that Jesus was married, "There's nothing to contradict that claim in Scripture, no reference to his being celibate per se."

    This whole topic was stirred up some months ago when Harvard scholar Karen L. King displayed at a conference of Coptic scholars in Rome what she said was a fragment of a fourth-century gospel. The papyrus contained the phrase: "Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …'"

    Since then many experts have raised doubts about whether the tiny piece of ancient writing is authentic. Indeed, Francis Watson, a New Testament scholar at Durham University in England, posted an online paper (http://markgoodacre.org/Watson2.pdf) in which he asserted that the text is a fraud, patched together from words in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

    But let's ignore the question of authenticity. Instead, let's think about whether it matters if Jesus was married.

    First, would being single have made Jesus an oddball among 30-something first-century Jewish males?

    Not really.

    "Celibacy in first-century Judaism was by no means anomalous," says Amy-Jill Levine, an Orthodox Jew who teaches New Testament at Vanderbilt and is author of The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. "There are attestations of (celibacy) in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Philo's description of the Therapeutae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae), an idealized Egyptian Jewish community of celibate Jewish men and women. Paul commends the celibate life in 1 Corinthians (7). And the Book of Revelation (14:4), which has a strong Jewish background, celebrates the 144,000 male virgins."

    So it wouldn't have been weird that Jesus was single. But why is the notion that he might have been married so intriguing and, for many, off-putting?

    Says Graves: "I think whatever resistance modern Christians might have (to Jesus being married) … can be attributed most directly to our Gnostic tendencies. So many Christians today have wrongly embraced this ancient heretical tendency that values things of the Spirit and next world as more meaningful than things of the flesh and the present … Some early heretics, in an effort to extol Jesus' divinity, said that if he walked on the seashore, he wouldn't even make footprints. If no footprints, then we certainly can't have him married to a real woman."

    Beyond that is the fierce need on the part of some to protect the Jesus depicted in traditional Christian creeds.

    David May, who teaches New Testament at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Shawnee, Kansas, puts it this way: "If Jesus were married, one theological anxiety is: How could he be the Messiah or Son of God? There seems to be some feeling that Jesus' role and ministry would be diminished if he were married."

    Mark Noll, a renowned evangelical scholar, author, and historian who teaches at Notre Dame, adds: "People get excited over such matters because these assertions seem to distort, dislodge, or disprove some aspect of a Whole that they regard as their Faith, which is what they base their life upon."

    And Prof. Beverly Roberts Gaventa of Princeton Theological Seminary offers this thought about why a married Jesus might make some Christians uncomfortable: "For most Protestants, I suspect that what is at stake is more a set of unexamined assumptions; we've just never thought about Jesus as married and it's hard to change how we think."

    Don't, in other words, challenge my view of the way things are. Or at least the way I have been taught they are. (The papal inquisition of Galileo for his research proving that the Earth revolved around the sun comes to mind.)

    The Catholic Church, plus a few smaller branches of Christianity, of course, has created rules about having a celibate priesthood based at least partly on a belief in an unmarried Jesus. As Gaventa says, "For some Christian traditions, the celibacy of the clergy is modeled on the celibacy of Jesus. If it were clear that Jesus was married, then his marriage might open up the question of clerical celibacy."

    So the Catholic Church has special reasons for debunking the idea of a married Jesus.

    Duke Tufty, senior minister at Unity Temple on the Plaza in Kansas City, Missouri, thinks something else may have been at play: "The (early) church observed that many of its parishioners were leaving large sums of money to the priests and their families when they died instead of to the church. The solution was an easy one. Every priest was forbidden to marry; each had to take a vow of poverty; and priests had to be celibate. Why? Because that's what Jesus was, they claimed."

    At the same time, many scholars seem to feel it doesn't much matter if Jesus was married.

    One exception is former Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong. In his book Born of a Woman, he asserts that Jesus may have been married to Mary Magdalene—a fact that holds significant implications for women and women's rights.

    In that book, Spong says the story of the virgin birth has helped create an unhealthy perspective on women. By dismissing a literal reading of that part of the story, Spong is free to offer his preferred "midrashic" (think: imaginative retelling of old stories) approach to the biblical text. That approach yields all sorts of possibilities, including Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene. As Spong writes, "Once you enter the midrash tradition, the imagination is freed to roam and to speculate."

    Noll says he doesn't care whether Jesus was wed:

    "As a Protestant Christian … it makes no difference to me at all … As a historian, I'm skeptical about ‘eurekas' in general but … even in the improbable case that this speculation proves to be credible, so what?"

    Some are concerned because "the bride of Christ" has typically referred to the universal church itself—not a flesh-and-blood woman.

    Leroy Huizenga, director of the Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary in Bismarck, North Dakota, pointed to this in an article (http://bit.ly/OHjjGj) in the journal First Things: "Scripture and Tradition affirm that the Church is the bride of Christ who surrenders sexuality (Catholics believe) so that he might pour out all his divine love upon his Church in a covenant relationship reconsummated … in every celebration of the holy sacrifice of the Mass."

    But Catholic biblical commentator Patricia Datchuck Sanchez, who regularly writes for the National Catholic Reporter, suggests that the focus on whether Jesus was married or single misses the point.

    "None of the canonical New Testament authors thought it significant enough to mention Jesus' status," she says. "Whether married or single, the message and mission of Jesus would be the same. Granted, given Jesus' transient lifestyle and absolute dedication to his mission, it may be that he, like Paul, chose to forego the joys and comforts of married life so as to be single-heartedly given to the service of others. However, rather than speculate about the unknown and inconsequential in order to press an unrelated agenda, we may better direct our efforts at attending to the daily challenge of integrating the truth of Jesus' teachings with the lives that we lead."

    Editor's Note: Writer Bill Tammeus, former award-winning Faith columnist for The Kansas City Star, is a Presbyterian elder and writes the daily "Faith Matters" blog (http://billtammeus.typepad.com/), a monthly column for The Presbyterian Outlook, and a biweekly column for The National Catholic Reporter. His latest book, coauthored with Rabbi Jacques Cukierkorn, is They Were Just People: Stories of Rescue in Poland During the Holocaust.

    http://www.unity.org/publications/un...s-were-married
    I have no desire to take all black people back to Africa; there are blacks who are no good here and will likewise be no good there.
    Marcus Garvey

    satire protected speech soo more fiyah

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    35,230
    Tests Reveal “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” Not Fake


    Although only the size of a business card, a tiny papyrus fragment stirred an enormous controversy in 2012 when a Harvard divinity professor revealed that it indicated that Jesus was married. Now, scientific testing has verified that the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” is not a modern forgery and likely dates to the eighth century A.D. Scholars emphasize, however, that the document itself is still not evidence that Jesus ever had a wife.

    In September 2012, Harvard University divinity professor Karen L. King made a stunning announcement, revealing the existence of an Egyptian papyrus fragment that contains the first-known explicit reference to Jesus being married. The fragile relic, measuring only 1.6 inches by 3.2 inches, appears to have been cut from a larger document and contains eight incomplete lines of Coptic script scribbled by a nubby pen. The fourth line of the text contains the words “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife,” followed in the next line by “she is able to be my disciple.”

    King’s revelation of “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” generated instant controversy. (The use of the word “gospel” is a shorthand reference by scholars and not a claim of canonical status.) Although initial assessments indicated the fragment was indeed ancient, fellow scholars and the Vatican newspaper were among the critics who declared the document to be a modern-day forgery. Now, according to an article published last week in the Harvard Theological Review, scientific testing of the ink and papyrus and an analysis of its handwriting and language has determined the controversial fragment to be authentic with no evidence of fabrication.

    Microscopic imaging revealed no suspicious ink pooling on the document’s lower fibers that would have indicated a modern-day application. The scientific analysis dates the papyrus to the seventh or eighth century A.D., and the carbon composition of the ink was found to be consistent with that time period. Researchers believe, however, that the date of the fragment is unlikely to be the date when the gospel was first composed. That date could have been as early as the second century A.D.

    King stresses, as she has done since revealing the existence of the papyrus in 2012, that the artifact does not provide any evidence at all that the historical Jesus in fact had a wife, just as no historical proof exists to support claims that he never married. The fragment is too small and was written too far removed from Jesus’s time to have evidentiary value. Rather, the relic demonstrates that early Christians debated the roles of marriage, sexuality and family in spiritual life, and some believed that Jesus was married. “The main topic of the fragment is to affirm that women who are mothers and wives can be disciples of Jesus—a topic that was hotly debated in early Christianity as celibate virginity increasingly became highly valued,” King said.

    The identity of the fragment’s author is unknown, and researchers believe it would have remained that way even if more of the text had survived. Nothing is known about the relic’s original discovery, although it is believed to have come from Egypt because it is written in Coptic, the form of the Egyptian language used by the region’s early Christians starting in the Roman imperial period, and because the region’s dry climate would have allowed the fragment to be preserved for centuries. The earliest documentation connected to the artifact is a 1999 bill of sale, and the fragment’s owner, a private collector who contacted King in 2011 to determine its contents, remains anonymous.

    The scientific testing has not quelled all the critics, however, some of whom published their rebuttals in the same edition of the Harvard Theological Review. Some academics argue that the text contains grammatical errors that native Coptic speakers would never have committed. Others believe the fragment to have been copied from another ancient text, the Gospel of Thomas.

    Still, King hopes that the results of the scientific analysis will now shift the discussion surrounding the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife.” She told the Boston Globe, “I’m basically hoping that we can move past the issue of forgery to questions about the significance of this fragment for the history of Christianity, for thinking about questions like, ‘Why does Jesus being married, or not, even matter? Why is it that people had such an incredible reaction to this?’”


    http://www.history.com/news/tests-re...-wife-not-fake
    I have no desire to take all black people back to Africa; there are blacks who are no good here and will likewise be no good there.
    Marcus Garvey

    satire protected speech soo more fiyah

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    35,230
    da bible called mary jesus companion. if mary was jesus' wife, y did da curch brand her as a whore?
    I have no desire to take all black people back to Africa; there are blacks who are no good here and will likewise be no good there.
    Marcus Garvey

    satire protected speech soo more fiyah

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,690
    Quote Originally Posted by blugiant View Post
    da bible called mary jesus companion. if mary was jesus' wife, y did da curch brand her as a whore?
    Great question....because she was but not in the modern sense of the word????
    First to truly understand you must find the real and old meaning of the word Hore'?
    Second what is a Sheila Naa Gig and why many churches had One?
    and last but not least shrine prostitutes?
    Aid is Imperialism.
    All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good to do nothing.
    Legalize weed
    The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
    "3 stages of Truth, 1st, it is ridiculed. 2nd it is violently opposed. 3rd, it is accepted as being self-evident."
    Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    35,230
    Quote Originally Posted by franksterr View Post
    Great question....because she was but not in the modern sense of the word????
    First to truly understand you must find the real and old meaning of the word Hore'?
    Second what is a Sheila Naa Gig and why many churches had One?
    and last but not least shrine prostitutes?
    trickee qwestian diss

    modern sense of wat meaninn aff whore

    aramaic, hebrew ar greek?

    dem change upp tings so itt raises so many qwestians aff wat wurds to use


    Second what is a Sheila Naa Gig and why many churches had One?
    and last but not least shrine prostitutes?

    mii affii research dat
    I have no desire to take all black people back to Africa; there are blacks who are no good here and will likewise be no good there.
    Marcus Garvey

    satire protected speech soo more fiyah

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •