Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife
NY Times ^ | September 18, 2012 | Laurie Goodstein

Posted on 09/18/2012 2:35:59 PM PDT by Altariel

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last
To: scbison

Amen!


51 posted on 09/18/2012 3:53:33 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
Beyond the completely lack of authority for this scrap as a source of anything, even had Jesus said, “My wife...” he could well have finished with “My wife is the church”, or “My wife is my father’s will.”


It was a note to his apostles concerning his wireless connection. Here it is with the missing parts (in parenthesis).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Contact verizon.)

My Wife...

(...Fi isn't working and I want to watch Netflicks tonight.)

52 posted on 09/18/2012 3:59:32 PM PDT by Rides_A_Red_Horse (If there is a war on women, the Kennedys are the Spec Ops troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: scbison
"It is from 4th century, enough said."

It wasn't Jesus. It was Henny Youngman, and he was saying: "Take my wife...please."

53 posted on 09/18/2012 4:12:23 PM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

I question jumping to conclusions with one small reference but I would have no issue if it was shown he was married. In fact I would like it. There is no reason to think he would not be married.


54 posted on 09/18/2012 4:14:54 PM PDT by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

The false myth of a wife of Jesus is to validate the blood line for King and Queen (the real Illuminati). It is a trick of Satan.


55 posted on 09/18/2012 4:23:19 PM PDT by bmwcyle (Corollary - Electing the same person over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
Pauls instructions in Ephesians 5 makes it just about impossible that Jesus was married. For Paul outlines the instructions to husbands and wives ... and his comparison is to Christ and the church ... not Christ and His wife, which would be the logical contrast if Jesus WAS married.

Liberalism is a mental illness ... none more evident in the so-called Religious Studies departments at any secular university.

56 posted on 09/18/2012 4:23:55 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

There’s no reason Jesus Christ couldn’t have taken a wife. It’s entirely possible that He did, since I see nothing in scripture which would preclude it...


57 posted on 09/18/2012 4:26:13 PM PDT by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

There are many other academics who have propounded that Jesus was married, that Mary of Magdala was his wife, and that there are references in ancient documents to the effect that she was the head of the Christian group in Jerusalem after the crucifixion.

I don’t know why this would create a problem within the Christian community if it were true other than it would overturn some Church rules that were made up by men many years after the events.

Can’t be proven; can’t be disproven.


58 posted on 09/18/2012 4:34:21 PM PDT by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk oMnly to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

If it was proven, it wouldn’t bother me to learn that Jesus had a wife.

As a matter of fact, it would actually fit in with God’s plan that His Son would experience all that we experience, feel all that we feel, suffer all that we have suffered.

(All the men say, “and boy do we suffer!”)
(All the women elbow their man in the ribs OWW)

But the fact is, there are so many well preserved and complete manuscripts from that time that are total fabrications and legends and crazy stories about Jesus; many of them read like revamped Greek legends or the Arabian Nights.

This scrap of a story is just that...a scrap of a story. It smacks of tabloid journalism to so overblow it before the jury is in, and yes, the timing is a little suspect.

If it actually turned out to be something, I don’t think so many Christians would be offended. But good sense and scholarship seem to indicate that this more points to the popularity of Jesus in this era, leading to popular rumor and a market demand for supposed secret manuscripts during a time of fervor for religious discussion and rampant cultic activity, rather than the testimony of a witness of Jesus Christ Himself.

My view from the cheap seats...


59 posted on 09/18/2012 4:53:20 PM PDT by Tuanedge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill

It seems unlikely to me that the Romans, knowing that Mary Magdalena was associated with Christ, would have allowed her to the crucifixion and not apprehended her UNLESS she was his wife, in which case it would have stood for a kind of in-yur-face moment.


60 posted on 09/18/2012 5:00:59 PM PDT by djf (Political Science: Conservatives = govern-ment. Liberals = givin-me-it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

Yes—but I’m not sure about “moroni.” As I recall, that’s the name of the angel who appeared to Smith and helped him translate the runes he found.


61 posted on 09/18/2012 5:02:30 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

>>>Had Jesus married, he would have sinned by willingly going to the cross and leaving his wife behind.<<<

Of course not. Jesus going to the cross is no different than my husband willingly reporting for duty and dying in service to his country. Neither would be a sin.


62 posted on 09/18/2012 5:11:15 PM PDT by MeganC (The Cinemark theatre in Aurora, CO is a 'Gun Free Zone'. Spread the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Marcella
Both his mother, Mary, and Mary Magdalene were at the cross when he died. She could have been the wife

At the cross he made provision for the care of his mother but not his wife?

63 posted on 09/18/2012 5:22:59 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
"Asherah... is a Semitic mother goddess, who appears in a number of ancient sources ...

"The Book of Jeremiah written circa 628 BC possibly refers to Asherah when it uses the title "Queen of Heaven" ...

"Scholars have claimed that Asherah was edited out of the Bible and that most Israelites worshiped multiple gods, including Asherah, before 586 B.C. ...

"The majority of biblical scholars the world over now accept that Asherah at one time was worshiped as the consort of Yahweh (the national god of Israel). ..."

- Wikipedia

64 posted on 09/18/2012 5:32:29 PM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
Jesus going to the cross is no different than my husband willingly reporting for duty and dying in service to his country. Neither would be a sin.

Deuteronomy 24:5 New International Version (NIV)

5 If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

65 posted on 09/18/2012 5:34:54 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa; Marcella; MeganC
I remain unconvinced that Jesus was married. Read more here.
66 posted on 09/18/2012 5:37:49 PM PDT by Fiji Hill (Deo Vindice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

I agree. The next logical step from “He was married” is “He had kids.” Which creates all kinds of problems, because that would mean there are people with The Blood of God running through their veins, which smacks of ancient greek legends about demi-god heroes, ie very pagan.


67 posted on 09/18/2012 6:05:11 PM PDT by Wyrd bi ful ard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: djf
One: And He spent His time at His own wedding running errands for his mother? After he's said to her, "How is this (lack of wedding wine) a concern to you or to me?" Please. It was not His wedding.

Two: Several times in other parts of the N.T. they mention His family, as known to them, and they spell it out as: his mother, father, brothers, sisters (possibly cousins.) No mention of wife or kids.

Three: When Jesus died, he was concerned about His mother being alone, and entrusts her to his disciple John. If He were married, wouldn't He be concerned about his mother AND WIFE being alone, and needing someone to take them into their home?

Four: if Jesus had kids --- blood lines and genealogies being as intensely important as they were, in those days - wouldn't there at least be some mention, let alone controversy, about whether they would His successors? If course there would be discussion of it --- if he left any descendants. But He didn't, so there wasn't.

I rest my case.

68 posted on 09/18/2012 6:11:26 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (There are two ways to argue with a woman. Neither one works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

Jesus is not married but he is the bride groom:

Matthew 25:1-13

1 “Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them; 4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, `Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ 7 Then all those maidens rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, `Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise replied, `Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’ 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.’ 12 But he replied, `Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’ 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.


69 posted on 09/18/2012 6:16:00 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Crapgame
Wolf Creek Pass? The 37 miles of hell way up on the Great Divide

Exactly, O young scholar! It is where real men go to ski. I have in my possession an ancient ESSO papyrus, in Coptic of course, which I picked up at a gas station in Libya in 1961 upon which it is written that JC and the 12 Apostles went there in one Accord. In which case, I hope they at least had studded snow tires.

70 posted on 09/18/2012 6:18:55 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Obama = Allende.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

“At the cross he made provision for the care of his mother but not his wife?”

I don’t care if he was married or not. It’s fine with me if he was. Mary Magdalene was a close companion, is mentioned many times and it’s fine with me if they were married - or not.


71 posted on 09/18/2012 6:25:20 PM PDT by Marcella (Republican Conservatism is dead. PREPARE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

“I remain unconvinced that Jesus was married.”

Fine.


72 posted on 09/18/2012 6:28:28 PM PDT by Marcella (Republican Conservatism is dead. PREPARE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Every royal house in Europe claims descent (or used to right up to late medieval times and beyond) from the "Family" of Christ.

Malachi Martin, who ain't no heretic, is in hot water with the Vatican again over his studies of disputes in the very early church over all the plum jobs going to Christ's various Uncles, Aunts, and the cousins galore. The Church at Ephesus was home to the Virgin Mary (and Diana of Ephesus, items of whose cult slipped easily into Christian practice, and from which many converts were undoubtedly made). She was from a large family, Joe was from a large family, and these relatives of which there was no shortage, were of course among the very first converts ... not to mention apostles and disciples. Since these were all collateral relatives, this helps wily old Malachi Martin evade the old sibling question of "the brothers and sisters of Christ," keeping him off the Pope's major radar.

Malachi Martin has dug up some interesting stuff which purports to show that several generations later, the Greek converts apparently weren't too happy about Greek pastorships and bishoprics going to these folks and complained about it to the Pope in Rome, with whom they were in correspondence over the course of that first two centuries or so. Malachi says the correspondence still exists.

Fascinating.

73 posted on 09/18/2012 6:39:52 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Obama = Allende.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Well I don’t know about the big JC and his apostles being there....but I do know that C.W. McCall and Earl once pulled a load of chickens up there on a flatbed out of Wiggins....


74 posted on 09/18/2012 9:00:59 PM PDT by Crapgame (What should be taught in our schools? American Exceptionalism, not cultural Marxism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
It always floors me when people say that because nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus wasn't married, that must mean He probably was married. I don't recall not reading anywhere in the Bible that Jesus never jumped off a cliff. Does that mean He probably did?
75 posted on 09/18/2012 9:31:26 PM PDT by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crapgame
.... C.W. McCall and Earl once pulled a load of chickens up there on a flatbed out of Wiggins....

Don't blame them a bit. Even a holy man such as myself gets mighty hungry up there. There's always a good chance of getting snowed in for a while, too.

76 posted on 09/18/2012 11:52:54 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Obama = Allende.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

What makes me sick is these stupid women watching all this crap about the British Crown. First the their blood line is part of this phony crap. These people are no different from you and I. They are fallen people from the Garden.


77 posted on 09/19/2012 3:54:34 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Corollary - Electing the same person over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
I know. There was a program on PBS or something about life in the royal household which I didn't watch, but I caught snippets of it while I channel surfing. The deference shown to these "royals," in my opinion, verges on idolatry. For example, there is a man whose job description includes making sure only the most perfectly cubic icecubes make their way into queenie's drinks.
78 posted on 09/19/2012 4:55:44 AM PDT by Wyrd bi ful ard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

HAHAHA, cheap attempts to make their lives appear to be special. It only shows an empty soul.


79 posted on 09/19/2012 5:46:33 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Corollary - Electing the same person over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: theKid51

Read over the posts ping


80 posted on 09/19/2012 5:47:29 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Corollary - Electing the same person over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Good point.

What you're saying is quite true. To claim position in the Church as Jesus' close kin, would have been accepted, even expected in those days when family/tribal systems of affiliation were the norm and pedigree/genealogy were of such intense interest. This makes it all the more striking that all the claims are collateral: people might put forward an uncle/aunt/stepbrother connection, cousins by the dozens, but nobody ever ventured to suggest they were Christ's son or grandson.

If it were even remotely credible that Jesus might have had a son, there would eventually have been a dynastic dispute. But it never happened.

Malachi Martin, by the way, is being accurate, not just "Papally Correct", when he speaks of half-brothers, step-brothers or cousins, rather than full blood siblings, of Jesus. Although in Greek there are separate words for "cousin" and "nephew," the translators of the Old Testament used the Greek word, "adelphos," i.e. "brother," even when it was clear that no blood brother is meant. This happens some 20 times in the Greek Septuagint, which was the version familiar to all of the Evangeliss as well as Paul: Abraham refers to his nephew, Lot, as his brother; Laban calls his nephew, Jacob, his brother; in Leviticus cousins are called brothers; etc., etc. The Greek translators, certainly familiar with the Hebrew usage, still has no problem using "adelphoi" for everybody.

The individual brothers named in the Gospels, are specified as the sons either of Clopas or of "the other Mary," or (as some maintain) of both Clopas and "the other Mary."

81 posted on 09/19/2012 6:02:33 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (There are two ways to argue with a woman. Neither one works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: djf

I have a masters degree in theology. What many do not realize is that starting in the 2nd Century—while orthodox Christianity was spreading like wildfire throughout the Roman empire—numerous non-Christian cults, competing with Christianity—started trying to adopt the idea of Jesus as one of their own.

The writings which make up the New Testament were done by AD 90 or 100 at the latest. Liberal scholars’ ideas—from 75 and 100 years ago—that the NT were 2nd or 3rd Century writings have been thoroughly refuted—hence NT scholarship, liberal & conservative, today admits that the NT books are from the 1st Century.

The liberal (Dan Brown-esque) argument now, is that the Church had no idea which books to include or exclude as authentic until the 4th Century—and so scholarship should include mid-2nd to 3rd Century writings as possibly true accounts-—even though these were written some 100 to 200 years AFTER the NT books we actually find in our bibles.

It would be like finding a book written about George Washington—purporting to be a true eye-witness account (but without any references) written in 1890 or 1950, and somehow giving it equal weight to the writings about Washington by Jefferson, Hamilton, or Franklin.

If you know anything at all about the late Roman empire, these folks were many things...but they weren’t uneducated, stupid, ill-informed, or naive when it came to historical writings.

The leaders of the Christian church were not ignorant about what was the written “testimony of the Apostles” (as the New Testament was then often called) from the 1st Century, compared to what other religious groups—in direct opposition and competition to orthodox Christianity—were saying about Jesus, some 150+ (or 200+ in this text’s claimed age) after Jesus walked the earth.

There is a whole body of literature from this period called the Gnostic gospels, which are completely known to scholars (with no dark conspiracy covering up things deep in the Vatican). The reason these are not popularly known—is that scholars (or anyone with a brain) who reads them will know they are fanciful works of fiction—very much unlike the character of the New Testament gospels—and unless one is interested in 2nd or 3rd Century culture—are worthless in understanding the historical Jesus crucified (and raised...) in AD 30.

Conspiracy theories are fun...but the reason serious scholarship, over time, usually rejects them—is that they are most often proven merely products of the imagination.

The idea that the “real” Jesus was markedly different than what the earliest, most thoroughly authenticated books in the world—eye-witness testimonies, paint him to be... is just another fanciful conspiracy, by people who really don’t like Jesus’ claims.


82 posted on 09/19/2012 10:13:47 AM PDT by AnalogReigns (reality is analog, not digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

I have a bunch of the gnostic texts, including Robinsons “the Nag Hammadi Library” (HarperCollins, 1990) and agree most of it does not deserve serious scholarship.

But I am constantly wondering how much editing actually happened early on when the Council of Nicea occurred.

I should say, though, that one of my books is Murdocks Syriac Testament, translated about 1850 from the known Peshito versions (known at that time), and it pretty much agrees with the translations from the Greek. The language can be described as more “earthy”, more like the way a common man would speak.

Perhaps we will never know. On a personal level for me, it makes little difference whether he was married or not, no doubt there were a couple female followers he was close to, it says something in my mind that some of the other apostles seemed to complain about how close he was to Mary.

And as an aside, one of the things he preached about was marriage itself, his hatred of divorce.


83 posted on 09/19/2012 10:44:50 AM PDT by djf (Political Science: Conservatives = govern-ment. Liberals = givin-me-it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: djf; All

Since Jesus treated women with respect, and actually talked with them...(unlike the rabbis and respected teachers of the day (and Muslim Imams today)) it wouldn’t surprise me if some of the Apostles grumbled about that... However, the New Testament texts—again, THE very earliest accounts (by far) we have of Jesus, don’t tell us anything about that.

I think it’s hard to imagine what a superstar Jesus was...even 100 or 200 years after he was gone. SUCH a very popular figure that the Gnostic cults picked him up as their own (even while bitterly disparaging the original Apostles).

It really is a fanciful conspiracy theory though that essential facts of his life (like the idea that he was married) were edited out post-Nicea (AD 325)...as we have the canon (list of the books) intact as early as the Muratorian fragment (ca. AD 170) and, it’s been said that THE ENTIRE New Testament could be reconstructed from the works of the early Church Fathers (AD 125-450) since they quoted the NT books at length.

Ockham’s razor would suggest—rather than a dark conspiracy of powerful (though at the time persecuted and often executed) bishops editing out things in Jesus’ life—things like Jesus as a boy turning clay pigeons into real ones...or...his having a wife... really were exactly what they appear to be: Writings by groups OPPOSED TO CHRISTIANITY who were spuriously claiming Jesus as their own.

The New Testament is an authentic eye-witness testimony, other texts—from hundreds of years later, are not.

End of story.


84 posted on 09/19/2012 2:40:01 PM PDT by AnalogReigns (reality is analog, not digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

Well, afaik none of the Greek texts pre-date about 90AD, so they ARE NOT eyewitness testimony.

My mention of the Peshito version agreeing with the Greek translations was in support of the idea that there was little editing of the Greek versions we came to know. The four or five Peshito versions date from the 100-115 AD timeframe, so there was little time for diversion/editing.

I never said that a mention of Jesus’s wife was edited out. What I said was SOME THINGS were probably edited, and it would be very interesting to know the who/what/where of it.

No need to be rude. If you chose to look at things like a good student, you can’t let your personal opinions/theocracy get in the way.


85 posted on 09/19/2012 2:58:56 PM PDT by djf (Political Science: Conservatives = govern-ment. Liberals = givin-me-it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-85 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson