New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married

Isn't middle eastern religion just copy pasta from 5000 B.C. Egypt?

reply to post by Wildbob77


Three days. Mark my words.

yes i agree he had a wife and yes i agree it was mary. of course there is nothing wrong with having a sexual identity, but i feel like the younger generation of women forget to take a little virtue, pride, honor, etc. in themselves and their bodies.

reply to post by silo13

The idea that Jesus was unmarried and chaste is largely accepted by Christian denominations and a reason for the practice of celibacy among Roman Catholic priests.

"Beyond internal Catholic Church politics, a married Jesus invites a reconsideration of orthodox teachings about gender and sex," said journalist and author Michael D'Antonio, who writes about the Catholic Church, in a blog on The Huffington Post. "If Jesus had a wife, then there is nothing extra Christian about male privilege, nothing spiritually dangerous about the sexuality of women, and no reason for anyone to deny himself or herself a sexual identity."

I say that if this find somehow convinces the Pope to lift the celibacy requirement from the Catholic clergy, I couldn't care less if it is true or not...even a hoax would be good if Priests no longer sexually molested children.

I doubt it will serve that purpose...but wouldn't it be great if it did?

It seems to me to be far more spiritually dangerous to deny a normal outlet of human sexuality that has led now to countless cases of abuse, both reported and kept secret to the grave, for so many. The damage from sexual abuse is often indelible and the harm it causes can go on for generations who weren't even abused. For example, the terrible legacy that the people in St. Michael, Alaska are still dealing with...it is reprehensible that such crime is allowed to continue when there is a simple solution that one man holds 100% power to command.

Originally posted by queenannie38
reply to post by silo13

 

The idea that Jesus was unmarried and chaste is largely accepted by Christian denominations and a reason for the practice of celibacy among Roman Catholic priests.

"Beyond internal Catholic Church politics, a married Jesus invites a reconsideration of orthodox teachings about gender and sex," said journalist and author Michael D'Antonio, who writes about the Catholic Church, in a blog on The Huffington Post. "If Jesus had a wife, then there is nothing extra Christian about male privilege, nothing spiritually dangerous about the sexuality of women, and no reason for anyone to deny himself or herself a sexual identity."

I say that if this find somehow convinces the Pope to lift the celibacy requirement from the Catholic clergy, I couldn't care less if it is true or not...even a hoax would be good if Priests no longer sexually molested children.

I doubt it will serve that purpose...but wouldn't it be great if it did?

It seems to me to be far more spiritually dangerous to deny a normal outlet of human sexuality that has led now to countless cases of abuse, both reported and kept secret to the grave, for so many. The damage from sexual abuse is often indelible and the harm it causes can go on for generations who weren't even abused. For example, the terrible legacy that the people in St. Michael, Alaska are still dealing with...it is reprehensible that such crime is allowed to continue when there is a simple solution that one man holds 100% power to command.

I couldn't agree more.

I find nothing in the New Testament that suggests church leaders or "priests" are required to be celibate. This is a doctrine that has plagued the catholic church since its inception, and it is contrary to not only natural human instinct, but biblical teaching. Paul himself admonishes Christians to marry if they are unable to remain celibate without compromising their faith.

The rampant sexual abuse within the catholic church is a direct result of the dogma which states that priests are not allowed to take wives (this has no relationship with the New Testament in reality, since Paul had clarified the issue anyways, and thus the practice is based on dogma, and not doctrine).

I still contend, however, that this particular fragment is not "proof" that Jesus was married, nor is it even relevant. It is about as relevant as any other gnostic text, and those who wish to ascribe to the relevancy of such texts will continue to do so.

Essentially, it has no impact on anything except Dan Brown's book sales.

Yes, I've read supporting info before by a etymologist but can't seem to find it now. It claimed something like that the usage of Mary as Jesus 'companion' clearly indicates her being his wife (or perhaps at least girlfriend / lover). The expression in its original context was only used for lovers / couples at the time.

A very nice act of the priesthood btw to degrade the wife of their messiah to a 'whore' . I mean it is the wife of there so called 'god', wonder what this tells us about trinity?

Originally posted by anno141
Yes, I've read supporting info before by a etymologist but can't seem to find it now. It claimed something like that the usage of Mary as Jesus 'companion' clearly indicates her being his wife (or perhaps at least girlfriend / lover). The expression in its original context was only used for lovers / couples at the time.

A very nice act of the priesthood btw to degrade the wife of their messiah to a 'whore'

. I mean it is the wife of there so called 'god', wonder what this tells us about trinity?

Is this the part where I get to do a Godzilla Facepalm?

What exactly do you base your conclusions on, anno141? Dan Brown novels?

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?

No where in the article linked in the OP says anything near to what you just said. If I am mistaken, highlight the original quote from the article.

What the article does talk about, is if marriage should be forbidden or not between Christians. If you have "bothered" to read the Bible at all (preferably the KJV), you would realize that Christ always refers to his wife/bride as the Church. If this scripture was referring to a physical wife such as Mary and it was authentic and Jesus WAS married to her or whatever, than the entire Bible is wrong and Jesus would never have existed in the first place. You can't have that loophole.

The reason being, is because God frowns upon divorce, and man cannot have two wives. So either Jesus marries Mary and divorces her to marry the Church (a sin), or he marries both (a sin).

WOW THATS AWESOME its totally going to change the way mankind thinks , wow all the mysterious untold stories will revolutionize mankind and it will bring us all together holding hands and singing love songs

it doesnt even say anything about sex , cannot one be married and not have sex? and with 25 different off chutes of the same damn religion does it even freakin matter, you dont like a way a religion is going, make your own up yay, it will only be a matter of time before there is the gay church of christianity


why people still cling to this $%^& is beyond me

reply to post by chr0naut


The drugs were on the spear. When he was pierced ,the drugs entered his body. And everyone thought he was dead. There were and still are , herbs that can slow your heart rate to almost nothing, and make it seem as if you are dead .when he was placed in the chamber ,he was secretly rescued by his Faithful followers. Not raised up into the air and vanished. You don't think people back then were capable of a hoax? The ultimate hoax to make everyone think god took his body and soul so that no one would continue to look for him.

Originally posted by Meldionne1
reply to post by chr0naut

 

The drugs were on the spear. When he was pierced ,the drugs entered his body. And everyone thought he was dead. There were and still are , herbs that can slow your heart rate to almost nothing, and make it seem as if you are dead .when he was placed in the chamber ,he was secretly rescued by his Faithful followers. Not raised up into the air and vanished. You don't think people back then were capable of a hoax? The ultimate hoax to make everyone think god took his body and soul so that no one would continue to look for him.

I appreciate that this may seem feasible, but the "spear" was administered too late. He was already dead (as evidenced by the separation of the blood). No heartbeat, no circulation of drugs.

I've always thought that Jesus was married to marry magdalene and that thy had a kid and that the baby Jesus we know today actually Jesus's baby .. What I don't get is why the church would want to cover that up what do thy gain out of it ?

And that there are two Mary's one is Jesus mum and mother Mary is Jesus's son mum

reply to post by chr0naut


Most people are not aware of being taken and having medical. All have this done in reality. However I was told by the greys, the reason is the Jewish bloodline. The Bloodline goes from elites, to royalty, to Jewish, to Egypt, to Sumar.

Our family lineage goes through Sir Walter Scott to Mary Stuart.

David Icke reveals that the merivingian is actually the Dragon bloodline.

However, there are 23 plus supposed DNA inheritances, and not all want those markers, basically they make hybrids and choose those who have various dna markers in their genetics. From Sumar to Nordic.

Its common knowledge that this is the bloodline of Jesus, but not the truth.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

This bloodline also includes:

the Habsburgs, the most powerful family in Europe under the Holy Roman Empire

Geoffrey Plantagenet and the Plantagenet royal dynasty in England

King John, who signed the Magna Carta

King Henry Ist, II, and III, who were extremely close to the Knights Templar, as was King John

Mary Stuart and the Stuart Dynasty, including King James Ist of England, sponsor of the King James version of the Bible

King George Ist, II, and III

Edward Ist, II, and III, Queen Victoria

Edward VII

George V and VI

Queen Elizabeth II

Prince Charles and Elizabeth's other offspring, Anne, Andrew and Edward

Princes William and Harry from Charles' "marriage" to Princess Diana

US Presidents, George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and George Bush are all named in the charts as strands of this bloodline

it was passed on to the year 2000 US presidential favorite, George W. Bush Jr., and his brother, Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida

In fact if you go deeply enough into the genealogical research you will find that ALL the presidents are from this line.

...


And this is just ONE of the reptilian bloodlines and just SOME of its offshoots.

This article tells us this bloodline has nothing to do with Christ. And I know my father is annanuki, in all his behavior, I won't say all I feel about it, but have Egypt come strongly in his case to me and that our opposition, went way back. I keep having an image of some Egyptian slave tasker and this federation officer in blue uniform, confronting, and alas somehow now we're making up for some heavy duty fights back then. Well that is the scenario that always comes when I think of m father, who I keep trying unconditional love and keep in the forefront all his good points.

But this bloodline is not what people think.

More than that, the most used version of the Bible was commissioned and sponsored by another strand in the same bloodline, King James 1st of England.



Just a coincidence, nothing to worry about! The line of James, according to genealogy sources listed below, can be traced back to 1550 BC and beyond and includes many Egyptian pharaohs, including Rameses II.

Egypt, Jewish, SUMAR! Annanuki.

Its why the so called "elite" are so Egyptian, because they are!

And without getting into the whole Christ real/metaphor, or both issue. Because I just let that go, its not real to me anymore. The Christ, STO, Toa mysticism, light body and walking in the footsteps of Christ/Buddha and bringing in our real infinite light to solve problems is the most important thing, and I believe in Immanuel, God/Goodness with us. So I believe in Christ, no matter what.

But they follow the gnostic Egyptian, to Sumar, to Atlantis beliefs. In a ruthless, karmic way.

And while there is a tale of France, if he wasn't murdered on the cross, then I more support the Eastern belief that Christ, a Buddha, escaped to India and Tibet, with his wife.

LMFAO, If they didnt know he was married they really didnt know jack about him lol.

Other than he was a fictional character whos life storey (or half we know) is based almost entirely on Horus, the Egyptian son of the God Ra...

But thats the great thing about a storey of someone who lived thousands of years ago, we can say whatever we want about him, and if we all agree on it than it becomes true lol.

I started an OP in Philosophy & Metaphysics, if anyone's interested: A Different Take on that Early Christian Text - "Wife" as Soul. I'd reproduce it here, but it's too long to fit. Just thought it was interesting looking at it from a different perspective.

I saw a movie on line yesterday...
"The man from Earth"...

You guys should check it out..Verry cool.
Beware: They sit in a room for the duration
of the film and discuss..But its actually verry
thoughtgiving....

I watch online all the time...Hint

Think about it like this; Jesus was born of woman so he was full human, but he was also born of God. We know that if any sin at all, including the inherited sin of Adam was found in Jesus, then his sacrifice would have been invalid and meant nothing, he had to be sinless. So if his father was sinless, and his mother was of sin, then we can stipulate that sin must be passed through the Father, otherwise Jesus death was invalid.

Consider Romans 3:23 (KJV) "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"

Also, John 3:3 (KJV) "I [Jesus] say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" [referring to acceptance of salvation as we are with sin]

Now if sin is passed down through the father, and Jesus was sinless, then His children would be born sinless would they not? And that would contradict the very scriptures above. The purpose of Jesus sacrifice is to clear humanity of its sin, and this is not just sins we commit, but ones we are born into, "original sin". The bible and Jesus himself are very clear about all humans being born into sin, no exceptions whatsoever. All humans are born into sin, there is none exempt other than Jesus himself.

Jesus being married presents no clear contradiction to Christianity, but logic tells us without contraceptives, that Jesus would have had to father children, if Jesus was born a man, then his Children would have been human, and contradict the scriptures. Sure Jesus may have been infertile, but the argument continues. Jesus was wholly dedicated to His purpose in being on earth, to be offered as a sacrifice, in the scriptures there is no clear evidence that Jesus was married, and there is no clear evidence that he wasnt married, so this calls for wisdom and discernment and common sense.

Continuing, Jesus knew human nature, He knew if some part of Him was left behind, something as small as a piece of the cross, part of his robe, some other thing, it would be worshipped. For example look at the artifacts supposedly left behind by Him, we are obsessed with them, finding their legitimacy; Jesus was not a fool, He knows our nature, it is easier to worship what can be seen than what cant be seen, I believe it was intentional of God that no physical thing would be left behind outside of the scripture. So imagine how much more chaos it would cause if there was a bloodline to Jesus? If you believe Jesus to be God, and believe God had Jesus purpose here planned, then it is common sense to see that having a physical bloodline would only cause problems down the road. We would focus not on Jesus and His sacrifice, but moreso on finding the lineage.

So in closing, yes Jesus being married doesnt prove any real contradiction to scriptures, but what it does do, is it does provide a huge potential for fundamental contradictions. Personally I feel there are far too many imposters in those days, and the conspiracy theorist in me feels this whole papyrus thing just leaves too much open to speculation. Lastly, it makes no sense why God, incarnate through Jesus with a very specific mission, would come here and get married on the side, and almost put His wife on the backburner so he can die. It just seems like too much of a problem that God would have the foresight to see being caused down the road.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

I couldn't agree more.

I find nothing in the New Testament that suggests church leaders or "priests" are required to be celibate. This is a doctrine that has plagued the catholic church since its inception, and it is contrary to not only natural human instinct, but biblical teaching. Paul himself admonishes Christians to marry if they are unable to remain celibate without compromising their faith.

The rampant sexual abuse within the catholic church is a direct result of the dogma which states that priests are not allowed to take wives (this has no relationship with the New Testament in reality, since Paul had clarified the issue anyways, and thus the practice is based on dogma, and not doctrine).

I still contend, however, that this particular fragment is not "proof" that Jesus was married, nor is it even relevant. It is about as relevant as any other gnostic text, and those who wish to ascribe to the relevancy of such texts will continue to do so.

Essentially, it has no impact on anything except Dan Brown's book sales.

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

It is not a problem that plagued the Catholic Church since its inception. The RCC didn't have a completely celibate priesthood until the Middle Ages. In the rest of the Christian Churches, which can be proven to have existed since the first century, priests have always been allowed to marry, provided they do so before they become deacons or priests.

Also, it is my belief that celibacy is not the cause of the sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. The vast majority of celibate people are not pedophiles and sexual abusers. There simply became a huge problem of certain Catholic seminaries vetting certain types of people and taking over from within in the 60s and 70s. Those men had to have those proclivities before becoming priests.

That said, I agree with you 100% on your view of the fragment.