New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married

While it's a very interesting discovery, It doesn't prove anything. Gnostic texts from the same period and region have made other outlandish claims as well. There is a reason they are generally regarded as unreliable. What difference does one more gnostic text make?

Reality Check

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Reality Check

Reading the comments on that article makes me sad... so much ignorance, unchallenged (or not very challenged, and overwhelmed by the ignorant posts.)

reply to post by DeadSeraph


What I got from your link is that we can choose to interpret this new discovery in one of two ways:

1) we can read what it says and follow its implied meaning

2) we can read what it says, and figure out the best way to force it into what we already believe.

Clearly, the Christians have already chosen what they will do. Sherlock Holmes would be devastated at the idiocy of mankind.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

What I got from your link is that we can choose to interpret this new discovery in one of two ways:

1) we can read what it says and follow its implied meaning

2) we can read what it says, and figure out the best way to force it into what we already believe.

Clearly, the Christians have already chosen what they will do. Sherlock Holmes would be devastated at the idiocy of mankind.

edit on 19-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Then you didn't read the whole thing.

-The text is completely fragmented. There is no way to determine that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically (i.e a spiritual wife). Refer to the many references in the NT that call the church the "Bride of Christ". Without more context, this says a lot about nothing.

-The text is written in coptic, and currently thought to date from the 4th century AD. Gnostic writings were flourishing in the region at this time. Outrageous stories of the life of Jesus and his disciples and the nature of theology were common place. It can be inferred that this fragment is of gnostic origin due to the language it's written in, and the date and implied place of it's origin.

A quote from the article linked states:

"The fragment that King calls the Gospel of Jesus' Wife could well contribute to the study of Gnosticism in the second or fourth century, but Witherington said it's not a game-changer for our view of the first-century Jesus. "While this fragment is interesting, if you are interested in the historical Jesus, this is much ado about not very much," Witherington said via email.

Essentially, this text doesn't prove anything (though it is certainly being brandished by the Davinci Code enthusiasts as some sort of confirmation of their fictitious version of history). It doesn't even necessarily imply Jesus was married (again, we would require the full text to determine exactly what was being discussed, and in what context).

Edit to add:

I don't personally see a problem with the idea of Christ being married, However I think it is highly unlikely that it wouldn't be mentioned in other more ancient texts if that was the case.

Originally posted by Meldionne1
I thought Jesus pushed someone off a roof when he was 9? Isn't that a sin? ....and when he was younger than that he wandered off for 3 days against his mothers orders, and when they found him he said " didn't you know i had to be in our fathers house" ...( mouthing off maybe? ) ....the bottom line is...if he was real....he was human or part of humanity. I'm sure there are some event within his life that could be considered a sin. Maybe not one of the ten commandments, but something that is sinful too. ..if your saying he never sined because he followed the 10 commandments, then that's fine. But there are other sinful things in the world.
As for being married, and having a child. Yep, I'd put money on it. ..and of course the child would be kept secret. Otherwise the child would be hunted down and killed by Jesus's enemies. ...and maybe the child was concieved and born after Jesus died on the cross . Because there is the theory that he didn't die on the cross, that he was drugged by herbs from the piercing of the spear, fell into a mild coma, slow heart rate, and rescues from the chamber that night. That's why there wasn't a body in the chamber . And those drugs/ herbs do exist, and did exist back then....and there are rumors that jesus was seen walking the land after he died on the cross.

Crucifixion works to kill by suffocation. As the body hangs forward and down, with the arms fully extended and raised, it becomes impossible to fully exhale. Victims can breathe by pushing themselves up with their legs (it was common Roman practice to break the legs of victims who were taking too long to die). Once the victim could no longer raise themselves up, they would be dead within minutes.

If someone drugged Jesus (remember that Jesus refused the mixture of vinegar and myrrh, offered to him as a humanitarian act to ease suffering. If a drug were to be administered, this would have been the perfect time), thinking that they could rescue Him when the Romans thought He was dead, then in a drugged state, He would not push Himself up with His legs but would be suffocated in minutes.

Jesus was also speared AFTER he was dead. The spear was testing to see if He was dead. The fact that water, and then blood came out confirmed that there was blood in his body cavity which had already begun to separate.

Face it, He was dead.

... also, the bit about Jesus killing someone is not part of Christian literature (and never was), was written hundreds of years afterwards and in a different part of the world, so I'll call it BS.

I feel that there could be a novel here based on this information - perhaps using historical data to embellish the fiction. Any thoughts?

reply to post by chr0naut


And this we know because we were there. Sir, neither you nor I know what really happened. but for the evidence before us, can only conclude our own opinions.

reply to post by silo13

"Very well said. I've always thought the same. Jesus died as a man. Being a man, a 'real man'? I truly believe (as it seems you do) he would must have known the sacrifice, pain, agony of leaving a mother, a wife, friends. That he could not have been 'complete' without knowing the love of a woman, also."

By your logic then Jesus should of had sex with men too and any other emotional and physical action like all other humans. Mybe there was incest between him and his mother or sister.

Originally posted by Unity_99
By the way, I don't really know if Christ was married, I assume he may have been. But the merrivingian line doesnt really go to Christ. Our family has that as well, but it's more like a lineage that goes to Sumar and Egypt, and its why so many grey type DNA abductions occur if you have those markers.

Please read up about the Merovingian line here on Wikipedia.

Please note the following quote from the Wikipedia article:

The Merovingians are extensively featured in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", in which they are claimed to be descended from Jesus and survived their deposition in 751. The book was later revealed to be based on a hoax originating with Pierre Plantard in the mid-20th century.

I am a descendent of King Louis XIV of France who was claimed in this book (and other places) to be of the Merovingian line. This is a total fabrication, Louis and myself are descendents of the Bourbon line.

I have never been abducted and do not know of any of my family who have.

reply to post by chr0naut


What about King Champlain or whatever? The French dude. There was mention earlier about his being the bloodline...you seem educated, what's your prognosis?

reply to post by DeadSeraph


No, I did read the whole thing. From what the "experts" said, there wasn't enough context to say definitively that he meant Mary Magdelene, so it was akin to a ricochet. "Oh, well, it didn't say it SPECIFICALLY, so I guess we're cool for now."

Instead of hearing the bullet ping off the wall by its head and decide to duck or surrender, the Church decides, "Hey, we're going to keep standing here because they're coming close, but not hitting their mark."

That's what I'm getting from this. As long as they aren't explicitly contradicted, they will continue to cling. In fact, I'm betting it'll take nothing less than a crow bar, two sticks of dynamite, and a beating from a gang of armed Italians before the Church will admit defeat. Which is hilarious, considering the Italians are probably among their biggest fans.

And even then, it won't matter. After all, Kurt Wise of the geology department at Harvard has admitted that even if all the evidence pointed to the Bible being a fraud, he would believe the Bible instead because he'd been raised that way. A brick wall learns faster than the hardcore Christians, because their faith is the only thing that hasn't let them down. In the very deepest essence of the faith, it's teaching them how to look at life that has given them the strength to hold on.

Which, in retrospect, is actually pretty sad.

Originally posted by mactheaxe
It is my understanding that when the council of nicea( i hope thats right) put together the bible, they excluded ANYTHING that would make jesus seem less divine, ie, marriage, not dying on the cross, and so on. Is it really more credible to believe that he was gods son and died for all of us, resurrected himself, or just had a horrific run in with a controlled society, or is it more credible that he actually did live a life based on personal beliefs that we should all enjoy? so much emphasis is put on him being holy and our source for redemption that i find it more plausible to think he lived a normal life, afterall, wasnt he just a carpenter?

The Bible, in close to its modern form, had existed for more than a hundred years before the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Iraneus in 180 AD wrote a book "Against Heresies" in which he noted, and quoted from, 21 books of the New Testament. The Old Testament had already determined a canon in the Septuagint version which was completed in 132 BC.

Please read a little history, perhaps you will revise your 'understanding' to align better with the facts.

reply to post by chr0naut


And if it HADN'T been that way for most of its existence, you would never know, would you? After all, everything the experts say HAS to be true. It's not like they're capable of being bribed or threatened or deciding, "Hey, it would be best for the world if we didn't reveal such and such," is it? That would be totally unlikely.

After all, we WANT to see total anarchy and chaos, all the pain and destruction that would inevitably rise as a result of the Church's fall. So we would TOTALLY ruin all of the faith if we had the chance.

/sarcasm.

Jesus spoke of his bride, the Church, multiple times.

Nothing to see here folks, just fools looking to undermine Christianity with a controversy. A poor one at that.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

 

You do understand how condescending you are, right?

Let's start with a list:

1) for every "fact" in the Bible regarding Jesus, there's a half dozen experts who will say it isn't absolute, but speculated.

Q: You do understand how condescending you are, right?
A: Yes

Statement: for every "fact" in the Bible regarding Jesus, there's a half dozen experts who will say it isn't absolute, but speculated.

Response: Then why do you ask for proof for something the experts are only able to speculate about themselves? I'm certainly not an expert, or even a "Russian scientist". What would you want as "proof"? I don't see proof coming. Gravity is only a theory, but we base much on it, and it works. Why not simply concede the point and move on buddy?

reply to post by Lionhearte


If you had bothered reading the article at all, one of the few things they did say definitively was that 'wife' and 'bride' were not used synonymously in the scriptures.

Guess you showed your hand a little early, eh?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by chr0naut

 

What about King Champlain or whatever? The French dude. There was mention earlier about his being the bloodline...you seem educated, what's your prognosis?

Perhaps you mean Samuel de Champlain who was a navigator and who founded the city of Quebec in Canada (which at the time they called New France).

Although he was not of any royal line (they checked) he was dispatched by King Louis XIII of France to "devote himself to the administration of the country" of New France. This made him governor, but without official title.

I don't know of any "Champlain" in the royal lines of France.

It really doesn't matter much anyway, Bloodlines were just a way for those in power to try and legitimize their rule. The truth is, we are all humans and all related in ways.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

No, I did read the whole thing. From what the "experts" said, there wasn't enough context to say definitively that he meant Mary Magdelene, so it was akin to a ricochet. "Oh, well, it didn't say it SPECIFICALLY, so I guess we're cool for now."

Instead of hearing the bullet ping off the wall by its head and decide to duck or surrender, the Church decides, "Hey, we're going to keep standing here because they're coming close, but not hitting their mark."

That's what I'm getting from this. As long as they aren't explicitly contradicted, they will continue to cling. In fact, I'm betting it'll take nothing less than a crow bar, two sticks of dynamite, and a beating from a gang of armed Italians before the Church will admit defeat. Which is hilarious, considering the Italians are probably among their biggest fans.

And even then, it won't matter. After all, Kurt Wise of the geology department at Harvard has admitted that even if all the evidence pointed to the Bible being a fraud, he would believe the Bible instead because he'd been raised that way. A brick wall learns faster than the hardcore Christians, because their faith is the only thing that hasn't let them down. In the very deepest essence of the faith, it's teaching them how to look at life that has given them the strength to hold on.

Which, in retrospect, is actually pretty sad.

edit on 19-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

That's not what the article said at all. Your own bias is showing clearly. It's interesting that in the same post you criticize christian's for clinging to their faith in spite of evidence, yet do exactly that.

If this fragment of writing is the definitive proof you think it is (in spite of expert opinion to the contrary), How do you explain the fact New Testament documents hundreds of years older make no mention of Jesus having a wife?

It's obvious you have an agenda here which you'd rather prop up rather than objectively looking at the facts. If this particular fragment dated from say 45AD and was written in greek or aramaic, you might have a leg to stand on. But it isn't. It is clearly a gnostic work, and there is no way around it. There is a logical process behind what constitutes gnostic gospels and what constitutes authentic scripture (and it has less to do with the council of nicaea than you might think).

Someone already made the analogy in this thread:

If you died tomorrow, and 400 years later there were multiple writings about your life, which ones would you want people reading? The ones written 400 years after your life, or the ones written by people you knew in life, shortly after your death?

How is it you can't comprehend why this fragment doesn't turn Christianity on it's head like you want it to?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

If you had bothered reading the article at all, one of the few things they did say definitively was that 'wife' and 'bride' were not used synonymously in the scriptures.

Guess you showed your hand a little early, eh?

edit on 19-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

How does this prove anything? The writing is FRAGMENTED. How can you draw the conclusion Jesus had a wife based off of a fragment that reads ""...' Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'"?

Do you know what he said before? Do you know if he was telling a parable? You have no idea what the context is. That says nothing of the fact it's a gnostic writing...

Are we to assume there are multiple God's as well, because certain gnostic sects said so? Where do you draw the line? Theologians draw it at the earliest known writings and manuscripts that were authored by individuals who knew the man personally and who's versions of events generally corroborate each other.