Skip to comments.Papyrus Referring to Jesusí Wife Is More Likely Ancient Than Fake, Scientists Say
Posted on 04/10/2014 1:54:14 PM PDT by mojito
click here to read article
Why would it matter?
Odd how they don't include the option that it could be ancient and fake! Because we all know that there weren't any people faking things until Al Gore and Climate scientists. But the most important reason to accept what this clown says is because he's a SCIENTIST! Hell he couldn't possibly be wrong.
Rabbis did not exist until after the 2nd century Jewish diaspora.
Perhaps even if this is a true historical record it is actually talking about the Church?
I do believe that a great deal of it is a result of man's connection to God at some points throughout history. However, until we find a version that undoubtedly could not have been man-made, we should treat it as objectively as any other work.
Daniel Ratericus narrat: Falsum sed accuratum.
I think that, just like today, it was probably customary.
Now, Jesus was called “rabbi”, but that seems to have been a title of respect and not a formal job title. He wasn’t, for example, attached to a particular synagogue, and he didn’t receive formal training under other rabbis, as would have been the custom. So, I don’t think it would be surprising if he didn’t conform to the customs of rabbis in other ways.
Because Muslims will kill them.
After the temple was destroyed, yes. But He is called “Rabbi” and teacher in many versions of the New Testament, right?
I don't know anything about this Prof. King, but her bio doesn't reassure:
“Karen L. King is Hollis Professor of Divinity, Harvard Universitys oldest endowed professorship (1721), and is the first woman to hold this chair. Trained in comparative religions and historical studies, she pursues teaching and research specialties in the history of Christianity. Her particular theoretical interests are in discourses of normativity (orthodoxy and heresy), gender studies, and religion and violence.”
you are missing the point. If Jesus had a wife, there is no reason that it wouldn’t have been mentioned in the early gospels and traditions. There is no theological problem with a married Jesus. The theological problem is that it is trying to prove the Bible, the early church fathers, and the traditions of the church are wrong.
Jesus’ relatives helped run the church in Jerusalem, and were known, but there is no early mention of a wife or kids.
I have seen articles that imply that He was trained by rabbis and scholars. We know so little about His childhood and even adulthood until He started His ministry, don’t we?
I understand and agree. But it still leaves me with the conclusion that whatever implications this revelation (real or fiction) implies, it doesn’t really make any difference to me. I say this because if there was a ‘wife’ I don’t find it impossible to believe that it is a something unnatural, like much of today’s much hyped perversions masquerading as ‘normal.’ It only brings my perception of spirituality closer what is really ‘normal’.
“....it is something unnatural...” should be “isn’t” [tripped myself up there].. IOW, man/woman marriage is natural
Well, I can think of one reason he might have abstained from getting married while he was on earth. After all, he was already engaged.
Sure, maybe there was some philosopher named Jesus (Yeshu) who was advertising for students sometime around the year 100 A.D. or so, as Greek philosophy was popular in those days. We know that Jewish families back then liked to hire Athenian and Phoenecian expatriates as teachers.
This “Jesus” may have been bragging that women could study with him, as it was fairly unusual for women to study philosophy. Hypatia of Alexandria was a rare example of a famous female philosopher. I reckon that philosophy is just too manly for chicks. Or, sexism.
I would focus on the word ‘disciple’ and what it meant in Greek and in the local culture. It may mean ‘student,’ or something more profound.
Jesus The Christ (Yeshua Hamashiach) did not seem to have much respect for Greeks. See Mark 7:24, et seq.
Ancient forgery. Gnostic heresy. Something along that line.
Well, there is no definitive statement about him being trained, but, in the absence of that, I would assume that he wasn’t.
After all, we do know that, as a child, Jesus could stand up in the Temple and hold discourse on the Torah that impressed his elders. So, he apparently had all the knowledge one would expect the author of the Torah to have. Why would he need to be trained by a human with less understanding than he possessed?
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.