Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

[qutoe] Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert
Of course it's fake. It's (supposedly) from hundreds of years after Christ and it's just a tiny piece of paper. The writings are incomplete as well. It could be anything. I don't know why people got all worked up over this. It's nothing.

reply to post by adjensen


Good luck, adjensesn. Seems the natives are restless.

reply to post by windword

IF Jesus is indeed the bridegroom of the church, as Christians assert, he has many brides, represented in the 10 that were eligible and 5 that didn't cut the mustard (seed). Not unlike King Solomon, who had 700 wives, (poor guy), who was the son of King David, the line of which Jesus is supposedly sired from.

As a side note though, I think his apostles might have had a problem, at the time, subjecting themselves as the "bride" of Jesus, don't ya think? That kinda of disavows the parable to be interpreted as Jesus actually being the "bridegroom" of our spiritual esoteric marriage.

Also, another question. There are 12 tribes of Israel. Why is this parable about 10, and only 10 brides?

Your last question was an interesting one, so I did some research to see if there was any significance to the "10 virgins".

It led me to some more "lost" texts. Here's what I found regarding the "Letter of the Apostles" or the "Epistle of the Apostles" and how it relates to the 10 virgins.

And we said unto him: Lord, who are the wise and who are the foolish? He said unto us: Five wise and five foolish; for these are they of whom the prophet hath spoken: Sons of God are they. Hear now their names.

But we wept and were troubled for them that slumbered. He said unto us: The five wise are Faith and Love and Grace and Peace and Hope. Now they of the faithful which possess this (these) shall be guides unto them that have believed on me and on him that sent me. For I am the Lord and I am the bridegroom whom they have received, and they have entered in to the house of the bridegroom and are laid down with me in the bridal chamber rejoicing. But the five foolish, when they had slept and had awaked, came unto the door of the bridal chamber and knocked, for the doors were shut. Then did they weep and lament that no man opened unto them.

We said unto him: Lord, and their wise sisters that were within in the bridegroom's house, did they continue without opening unto them, and did they not sorrow for their sakes nor entreat the bridegroom to open unto them? He answered us, saying: They were not yet able to obtain favour for them. We said unto him: Lord, on what day shall they enter in for their sisters' sake? Then said he unto us: He that is shut out, is shut out. And we said unto him: Lord, is this word (determined?). Who then are the foolish? He said unto us: Hear their names. They are Knowledge, Understanding (Perception), Obedience, Patience, and Compassion. These are they that slumbered in them that have believed and confessed me but have not fulfilled my commandments. ” — Chapter 42-43

en.wikipedia.org...

So, according to these texts, the "10 virgins" are representative of these 10 attributes.

reply to post by Deetermined

Very good work, Deetermined, I myself didn't know that! I starred your post for your hard work.

That being said, the real problem here is the religious crowd takes the book as a literal truth when it is far from that. We are supposed to make up our own minds, not go by what a book says to do. If that were true, we each would have the book permanently attached to our bodies.

It just stands to reasonable, and logical thought that in those Ancient Times a man of 30 years would in fact have married, probably several times, provided he was a man of means. Many of these marriages, in the Ancient Jewish world, were arranged, and wives were sometimes even bought from the family. Even today a man who shuns women in that part of the world is looked down on as a Homosexual.
And if he wasn't married to a woman, then who was the father of her children, whose descendants run the world's governments even today?

reply to post by Deetermined

Then said he unto us: He that is shut out, is shut out. And we said unto him: Lord, is this word (determined?). Who then are the foolish? He said unto us: Hear their names. They are Knowledge, Understanding (Perception), Obedience, Patience, and Compassion.

Am I to understand that, according to this story, Jesus discouraged these qualities in men?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

Of course it's fake. It's (supposedly) from hundreds of years after Christ and it's just a tiny piece of paper. The writings are incomplete as well. It could be anything. I don't know why people got all worked up over this. It's nothing.

Of course it's fake? Why's that? Because Christians believe that Jesus was unmarried? Sorry, but that's begging the question. Belief can never constitute evidence of ANYTHING.

People got worked up because, IF the document is genuine, then it indicates that SOME early Christians believed that Jesus was married. Now - despite your vacuous attempt to trivialize the matter - I'd say that is interesting, although it is, of course, not proof that he was married because historical evidence of a belief is never proof of anything. The fact that it is just a small piece of paper is irrelevant. What is crucial is whether it is genuine.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Then said he unto us: He that is shut out, is shut out. And we said unto him: Lord, is this word (determined?). Who then are the foolish? He said unto us: Hear their names. They are Knowledge, Understanding (Perception), Obedience, Patience, and Compassion.

Am I to understand that, according to this story, Jesus discouraged these qualities in men?

The text referenced is actually called Epistula Apostolorum, which is a Second Century (apparently) Orthodox Christian text directed against Gnostic Christians. So it is highly unlikely that Jesus actually said anything that is reported there, but the break of the five and five are the traditional Christian virtues (Faith, Love, Grace, Peace and Hope) and Gnostic virtues (Knowledge, Perception, Obedience, Patience and Compassion.)

Of those five Gnostic attributes, Knowledge and Perception are the core of that system's belief, so it is not surprising that they would be deemed "foolish" (understand, that's in terms of theology, not in universal terms -- the author isn't implying that Jesus wants his followers to be stupid) but the last three, I can fit those into Gnostic theology, but just as easily fit them into Orthodox Christian theology, as well, so it's not a great argument, in my opinion.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

So Jesus never referred to the "church" as his wife. But he did say to Peter, on this rock I build my church, supposedly. Although, I highly doubt that is really true, seeing as how he called Peter "Satan" and said that he would deny Jesus 3 times before the cock crowed.

Why would Jesus trust Peter to found his church? Nonsense!

Or rather Jesus recognized Satan can work through anybody, even one of his closest disciples. In spite of that he likely recognized Peter as capable of establishing a church base based on his knowledge of the teachings transferred.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Am I to understand that, according to this story, Jesus discouraged these qualities in men?

According to another interpretation of these texts that I read, having Knowledge, Understanding (Perception), Obedience, Patience, and Compassion wasn't enough. Without Faith, Love, Grace, Peace and Hope, you wouldn't have enough "oil in your lamp" to keep it burning until Jesus' return.

Like adjensen said, it may not be a reliable source, but it gives us one interpretation of what the parable could have meant to a specific group back in the days of early Christianity.

Either way, it's one more example of people reiterating that Jesus referred to himself as a bridegroom to his followers outside of Biblical texts.

reply to post by adjensen


Fake or not
Only a fool would accept a 'papyrus tweet' that is centuries after the fact, over the well scrutinized firsthand accounts found in the Gospels

Then answer this please Mr Expert: Why is the Gospel of Thomas not in the bible?

Kinda letting the cat out of the bag to point to the Gospel of Thomas as the reason this thing is a fake. Perhaps the bible isn't the anadultered word of God? :O

The Bible, as well as most other sacred text have gone through so many revisions by MAN its hard to believe mostly any of it-or any other text.

Remember that book of Mary they found, then the other just recently found in Iran?

What about the 30 years from all these new bibles EXCLUDED from when he practiced in INDIA???

My point is, you will always have detrackers and debunkers like this 'Expert' who probably can't count the number of his toes or fingers

Bet all these say something different depending on your century of choosing....

Antique 1861 Miniature Bible "New Testament & Psalms" American Bible Society NY



1677....





1500's





William Tyndale’s Bible (first English Print-1500's)

Originally posted by Cecilofs
Then answer this please Mr Expert: Why is the Gospel of Thomas not in the bible?

Because it's a Gnostic text. Why would books from a contrarian religion be included in the Bible?

Here you go, I wrote a thread on it last year:
Early Christian Heresy: Document Forgery and the Problem of The Gospel of Thomas

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Cecilofs
Then answer this please Mr Expert: Why is the Gospel of Thomas not in the bible?

Because it's a Gnostic text. Why would books from a contrarian religion be included in the Bible?

Here you go, I wrote a thread on it last year:
Early Christian Heresy: Document Forgery and the Problem of The Gospel of Thomas

Lol. The other member most likely was being sarcastic trying to mock you, but by nearly all accounts you ARE ATS's resident Gnosticism expert.

reply to post by adjensen


Because anything that doesn't agree with Christianity, despite its obvious Swiss-cheese characteristics, is obviously heresy, right?

Christianity shoots itself in the foot then insists it's ketchup and "God" meant for you to spill it.

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
Having a "degree" does not mean that you are a scholar of knowledge, or true knowledge for that matter.

All it means is that who ever has that particular degree has memorized what their school has taught them, like the nice little student they are.

There is a reason for classes, teachers, and school records. They need to know who will ask the right questions and who wont.

Peace, NRE.

Though I agree with you in small part...the 'expert' in question doesn't have just a degree, he has three in fact. A BA, an MA and more significantly, a PhD. That last one means he had to produce a piece of original research. No memorization, or learning by rote; empirical research. That still counts for something. As does the very, very long list of research that he has subsequently conducted and had published. Durham, where he teaches, has an excellent reputation in Theology, and particularly in Theological research, all educational qualifications aside, as well as the awarding bodies of those qualifications, Durham, as a centre of excellence in research, gives his credentials, as an expert in this matter, significant weight and legitimacy. So I think expert is a true evaluation of his status and his opinion on the matter should be valued. Though that does not mean we have to agree with it, but it should, most definately, be given due consideration.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

Of course it's fake. It's (supposedly) from hundreds of years after Christ and it's just a tiny piece of paper. The writings are incomplete as well. It could be anything. I don't know why people got all worked up over this. It's nothing.

You do realise that most of the Gospels, in their earliest known form, only exist as fragments? And that even then, most of those fragments are dated to around the 2nd century. There are not, as far as I am aware, any copies written at the time that they are claimed to have been written by the original authors, all are copies of copies, of copies...and so on and so forth.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
[qutoe] Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

Of course it's fake. It's (supposedly) from hundreds of years after Christ and it's just a tiny piece of paper. The writings are incomplete as well. It could be anything. I don't know why people got all worked up over this. It's nothing.

Most of the gospels were written well after the death of Jesus; the earliest possible for any of the gospels is 40 years after his death and that is highly debatable; in fact most biblical scholars don't buy it. Many were written around 100 to 200 years after his death, which puts them in the "from hundreds of years after Christ" category which is apparently part of your case for discrediting it.

The Council of Nicea, which is the conclave that decided what went into what we know as the new testament that chronicle's the life of Jesus was held in 325 a.d. which is hundreds of years after Christ as well.

Not to mention that much of that council was heavily influenced by Paul, who was the one apostle to never actually meet Jesus and was rather characterized by his statement "Better to marry than to burn." in his attitude about sex.

This document may or may not be legitimate. I think it is absolutely valid and necessary to question it, but on fair scholarly grounds, not an emotionally based investment in the idea of the virginal patriarch who was too holy to be interested in sex, which is frankly a perspective that far too many biblical scholars are coming from any way.

The other side that is invested in the document being legitimate is often just as emotionally invested in the idea of Jesus having a wife however, which is why the whole mess is highly suspect. The truth of it will never be known either way, but I suspect that the consensus gathered will discredit it; fairly or not I don't know.

reply to post by redhorse


Where did you get your history? The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the books of the Bible, the Council was called to address the Arian heresy (exactly how to define Christ's deity). The last book of the Bible was Revelation written in 95-96 AD. All Paul's letters were written before 65 AD, same with Peter. So what are you talking about?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by redhorse

 

Where did you get your history? The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the books of the Bible, the Council was called to address the Arian heresy (exactly how to define Christ's deity). The last book of the Bible was Revelation written in 95-96 AD. All Paul's letters were written before 65 AD, same with Peter. So what are you talking about?

The council of nicaea was indeed called ostensibly to address the Arian "heresy", you are correct; however in that debate it was decided what went into the new testament and what did not. They had to decide what was truly divinely inspired or handed down and what was not. The Council of Nicaea has EVERYTHING to do with the what was originally set down as the most accurate accounting of Jesus and his life.

You are correct (more or less) regarding Paul's letters, however I will still draw attention to the fact that Paul was the only apostle to not have actually met Jesus, so his accounting is highly suspect, and I would like to point out that I was not dating Paul's letters in the hundreds of years after the death of Christ category, but I can see how someone reading the post may have made that assumption.