Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Suggestion of a married Jesus - Ancient papyrus shows that some early Christians believed he wed
Harvard Gazette ^ | 09-18-2012 | Staff writer Alvin Powell contributed to this report.

Posted on 09/18/2012 11:20:37 AM PDT by Red Badger

Four words on a previously unknown papyrus fragment provide the first evidence that some early Christians believed Jesus had been married, Harvard Professor Karen King told the 10th International Congress of Coptic Studies today.

King, the Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School, announced the existence of the ancient text at the congress’ meeting, held every four years and hosted this year by the Vatican’s Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum in Rome. The four words that appear on the fragment translate to “Jesus said to them, my wife.” The words, written in Coptic, a language of Egyptian Christians, are on a papyrus fragment of about one and a half inches by three inches.

“Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim,” King said. “This new gospel doesn’t prove that Jesus was married, but it tells us that the whole question only came up as part of vociferous debates about sexuality and marriage. From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether it was better not to marry, but it was over a century after Jesus’ death before they began appealing to Jesus’ marital status to support their positions.”

Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World in New York City, believes the fragment to be authentic based on examination of the papyrus and the handwriting. Ariel Shisha-Halevy, a Coptic expert at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, considers it likely to be authentic on the basis of language and grammar, King said. Final judgment on the fragment, King said, depends on further examination by colleagues and further testing, especially of the chemical composition of the ink.

One side of the fragment contains eight incomplete lines of handwriting, while the other side is badly damaged and the ink so faded that only three words and a few individual letters are still visible, even with infrared photography and computer photo enhancement. Despite its tiny size and poor condition, King said, the fragment provides tantalizing glimpses into issues about family, discipleship, and marriage that concerned ancient Christians.

King and colleague AnneMarie Luijendijk, an associate professor of religion at Princeton University, believe that the fragment is part of a newly discovered gospel. Their analysis of the fragment is scheduled for publication in the January issue of Harvard Theological Review, a peer-reviewed journal.

King has posted a preliminary draft of the paper, an extensive question-and-answer segment on the fragment and its meaning, and images of it, on a page on the Divinity School website.

The brownish-yellow, tattered fragment belongs to an anonymous private collector who contacted King to help translate and analyze it. The collector provided King with a letter from the early 1980s indicating that Professor Gerhard Fecht from the faculty of Egyptology at the Free University in Berlin believed it to be evidence for a possible marriage of Jesus.

King said that when the owner first contacted her about the papyrus, in 2010, “I didn’t believe it was authentic, and told him I wasn’t interested.” But the owner was persistent, so in December 2011, King invited him to bring it to her at Harvard. After examining it, in March King carried the fragment to New York and, together with Luijendijk, took it to Bagnall to be authenticated. When Bagnall’s examination of the handwriting, ways that the ink had penetrated and interacted with the papyrus, and other factors confirmed its likely authenticity, work on the analysis and interpretation of the fragment began in earnest, King said.

Little is known about the discovery of the fragment, but it is believed to have come from Egypt because it is written in Coptic, the form of the Egyptian language used by Christians there during the Roman imperial period. Luijendijk suggested that “a fragment this damaged probably came from an ancient garbage heap like all of the earliest scraps of the New Testament.” Because there is writing on both sides of the fragment, it clearly belongs to an ancient book, or codex, and not a scroll, she said.

The gospel of which the fragment is but a small part, which King and Luijendijk have named the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife for reference purposes, was probably originally written in Greek, the two professors said, and only later translated into Coptic for use among congregations of Coptic-speaking Christians. King dated the time it was written to the second half of the second century because it shows close connections to other newly discovered gospels written at that time, especially the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Philip.

Like those gospels, it was probably ascribed to one or more of Jesus’ closest followers, but the actual author would have remained unknown even if more of it had survived. As it stands, the remaining piece is too small to tell us anything more about who may have composed, read, or circulated the new gospel, King said.

The main topic of the dialogue between Jesus and his disciples is one that deeply concerned early Christians, who were asked to put loyalty to Jesus before their natal families, as the New Testament gospels show. Christians were talking about themselves as a family, with God the father, his son Jesus, and members as brothers and sisters. Twice in the tiny fragment, Jesus speaks of his mother and once of his wife — one of whom is identified as “Mary.” The disciples discuss whether Mary is worthy, and Jesus states that “she can be my disciple.” Although less clear, it may be that by portraying Jesus as married, the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife conveys a positive theological message about marriage and sexuality, perhaps similar to the Gospel of Philip’s view that pure marriage can be an image of divine unity and creativity.

From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether they should marry or be celibate. But, King notes, it was not until around 200 that there is the earliest extant claim that Jesus did not marry, recorded by Clement of Alexandria. He wrote of Christians who claimed that marriage is fornication instituted by the devil, and said that people should emulate Jesus in not marrying, King said. A decade or two later, she said, Tertullian of Carthage in North Africa declared that Jesus was “entirely unmarried,” and Christians should aim for a similar condition. Yet Tertullian did not condemn sexual relations altogether, allowing for one marriage, although he denounced not only divorce, but even remarriage for widows and widowers as overindulgence. Nearly a century earlier, the New Testament letter of 1 Timothy had warned that people who forbid marriage are following the “doctrines of demons,” although it didn’t claim Jesus was married to support that point.

In the end, the view that dominated would claim celibacy as the highest form of Christian sexual virtue, while conceding marriage for the sake of reproduction alone. The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife, if it was originally written in the late second century, suggests that the whole question of Jesus’ marital status only came up over a century after Jesus died as part of vociferous debates about sexuality and marriage, King said. King noted that contemporary debates over celibate clergy, the roles of women, sexuality, and marriage demonstrate that the issues were far from resolved.

“The discovery of this new gospel,” King said, “offers an occasion to rethink what we thought we knew by asking what role claims about Jesus’ marital status played historically in early Christian controversies over marriage, celibacy, and family. Christian tradition preserved only those voices that claimed Jesus never married. The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife now shows that some Christians thought otherwise.”


TOPICS: Other Christian; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: apostle; disciple; epigraphyandlanguage; faithandphilosophy; godsgravesglyphs; gospelofjesuswife; gospelofjohn; hewasarabbi; jamescameron; jamesossuary; jesus; jesustomb; johnchapter2; karenking; letshavejerusalem; losttombofjesus; mariame; mariamne; marriageatcana; marymagdalene; rabbismarry; sectarianturmoil; simchajacobovici; talpiot; talpiottomb; weddingatcana
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

Rose Lincoln/Harvard Staff Photographer

Harvard Professor Karen King with the previously unknown papyrus fragment that, when translated, contains “Jesus said to them, my wife.” “This new gospel doesn’t prove that Jesus was married, but it tells us that the whole question only came up as part of vociferous debates about sexuality and marriage," said King.

Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World in New York City, believes the fragment to be authentic based on examination of the papyrus and the handwriting. Photo © Karen L. King

1 posted on 09/18/2012 11:20:47 AM PDT by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; NYer

Ping!..........


2 posted on 09/18/2012 11:21:24 AM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Video at link..........


3 posted on 09/18/2012 11:21:58 AM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Blasphemy! Behead the infidels.

Oh wait, wrong religion.

ROFLMAO


4 posted on 09/18/2012 11:23:40 AM PDT by DonkeyBonker (Oppose Senate Amendment S.A. 2575! I need more than 10 rounds in my magazine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

This thread should be electric, and with sparks flying.


5 posted on 09/18/2012 11:24:13 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

This scrap of paper is not worth wiping your butt with as long as its provenance is unknown.

This is crap in terms of scholarship. Could be a papyrus from Gnostic circles, if it’s not entirely forged.

The stupid professor says its provenance is a mystery. How convenient. How convenient that it comes from a private collector. The great papyri collections all document where the fragments were found. If this is a great collector of papyri, he wasted his money buying something with no known provenance. Or, if he knows the provenance but won’t say, that’s the smoking gun proof that the provenance, if made public would discredit the piece of (s)crap entirely.

And the idiot fools at the NYTimes and the Harvard PR clowns eat it up.

Journalists are crap-eaters.


6 posted on 09/18/2012 11:25:21 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Personally, I would have more faith in the authenticity of this artifact if it weren’t held by an ultra liberal, left wing, ivy league institution.


7 posted on 09/18/2012 11:25:54 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Get that evil, foreign, muslim, usurping bastard out of MY White House!" FUBO GTFO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonkeyBonker
Blasphemy! Behead the infidels.

Oh wait, wrong religion.

ROFLMAO

Oh no! Now you did it! You've got 'em going again!


8 posted on 09/18/2012 11:27:25 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (I'm not voting for Obama, so therefore I must be helping Romney!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

It was given to the Harvard professor by a private collector...


9 posted on 09/18/2012 11:29:34 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

LOOK!, It is Obama’s LFCOB!


10 posted on 09/18/2012 11:33:59 AM PDT by DonkeyBonker (Oppose Senate Amendment S.A. 2575! I need more than 10 rounds in my magazine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

It may well be an authentic Gnosic (s)crap of papyrus. (The stupid professor herself links it to other Gnostic writings.)

If so, it’s not surprising—the Gnostics made claims like this. If that’s the provenance it’s not new and the professor is trying to ride the supposed novelty to star-status in Academia.

But because she won’t or can’t say anything about provenance, she has nothing, zero, nada, in terms of scholarly value. She tries to make it scholarly valuable by treating the Gnostic gospels as equal to the canonical Gospels and by claiming that it offers something new.

I sure hope that she gets torn to shreds at the Coptic conference, but chances are good they’ll refuse to tear into her like she deserves to be torn into.

Or, perhaps, to them she’ll reveal the provenance and settle for an infinitesimal discovery-credit (since it probably comes from Gnostic circles) after the journolist impact-concrete has had time to set and the sound-byte lies have embedded themselves in the popular mind.


11 posted on 09/18/2012 11:35:03 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Ten bucks says the end result will be about Jesus referring to the church as his “Bride” - but some doofus is trying to gin up publicity by creating a “controversy”.


12 posted on 09/18/2012 11:36:52 AM PDT by RMDupree (I'm not really here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Oh good grief!

This is blasphemy.

I think I’ll burn down the White House.


13 posted on 09/18/2012 11:37:14 AM PDT by diamond6 (http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/p/catholic-prophecy.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonkeyBonker

Nah, it’s Christian...............


14 posted on 09/18/2012 11:38:03 AM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Unfortunately, some deliberate and some in willing ignorance do not comprehend the difference in ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’. But hey as the wisest prophet penned there is nothing new under the sun.
15 posted on 09/18/2012 11:38:25 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

It was not until the Councils of Nicea decided upon the “official” version of Christianity that Jesus’ divinity became widely accepted. Many early Christian sects believed that he was a man, a divinely inspired and perhaps divinely conceived man, but a man, with the traditional needs and wants of a man. Why, then, would he not have married and produced children, as instructed by God (be fruitful and multiply)? There is nothing wrong with that, except in the minds of certain individuals who were and are more concerned with power and control than with faith. Heresy, I know. Whatever.


16 posted on 09/18/2012 11:39:13 AM PDT by ronnyquest (I spent 20 years in the Army fighting the enemies of freedom only to see marxism elected at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Some poeple believe in unicorns. Doesn’t make it so...


17 posted on 09/18/2012 11:39:13 AM PDT by Gamecock (We don't come to Christ to be born again; rather, we are born again in order to come to Christ. RCS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

now if the translation was “bride”, instead of “wife” it would be somewhat believable, since the Church has described itself as the Bride of Christ from the beginning.

Lurking’


18 posted on 09/18/2012 11:40:41 AM PDT by LurkingSince'98 (Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
I think she is a liberal but not stupid--she is one of the leading authorities on Gnosticism. I think she has also written books (or at least one book) on Islam that try to put it in a favorable light. You can get to be a tenured professor at Harvard Law School by pretending to be an Indian, but you don't get to have an endowed chair at Harvard Divinity School if you are stupid.

It does appear to be a genuine fourth-century piece of papyrus.

19 posted on 09/18/2012 11:43:30 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
“Jesus said to them, my wife.”

I'm sure those words were probably not elegantly stated and were said "off the cuff".

As we know "married" is a "legal term of art".
20 posted on 09/18/2012 11:43:41 AM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest

Sorry, Charlie. The earliest doubts were NOT about his divinity. They were about his humanity. The Gnostics fullly believed in his divinity. They just couldn’t see how the divine could really be human. The Docetists, ditto. Ditto for the Sabellians and Modalists. That covers the first 200 years.

Challenges to his divinity only emerged in the 200s (Adoptionism). Belief in his divinity was there from the start, among those who believed in his Resurrection. Of course most people didn’t believe in that—they thought he was just another Jewish prophet and they WEREN’T called Christians.

Anyone who was a Christian did believe in his divinity.

The view you describe was common among 19thc Liberals. They conveniently overlooked the fact that the earliest controversies AMONG CHRISTIANS had to do with challenges to his humanity.

Inconvenient truths.


21 posted on 09/18/2012 11:45:27 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Jesus said that the foxes have holes and the birds have nests, but He didn’t have a place to lay His head. Would Jesus have had a homeless wife and children? No. That would be irresponsible and that would be a sin.


22 posted on 09/18/2012 11:46:26 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DonkeyBonker

This changes nothing! i have more respect for Jesus if he could do what he did and be married! If he was married to Mary Magdaline, a widow, with a dubious past, he saved her from a life of sin. That’s something I can believe he would do. After his resurrection it was she at the empty tomb. But, there is nothing that would change a thing in his teachings, and maybe something that might explain some of the things he said. He needed to experience all of what it is to be human—that could include marriage.


23 posted on 09/18/2012 11:46:34 AM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

You understand that I was using the word “stupid” off the cuff?

It is stoooooppppppidd for a scholar of her rank to announce this discovery while being unable or unwilling to give the provenance.

Unless she did it because she knew journolists would be too stoooooooppppppiiiiiidddddd to realize that without provenance, the piece of papyrus is useless for making any sort of claim about “what happened back then.”

Without provenance, there’s no way to know whether it comes from Gnostic circles or orthodox circles. If from Gnostic circles, then it’s ho-hum, nothing new.

Of course, she simply assumes that it is Gnostic (but didn’t bother to mention the implication of that to the journolists). Since she and her ilk have for 40 years now simply lumped Gnostic and orthodox texts together in a giant heap as equally authoritative historical sources, to her the (s)crap is momentous.

But only because she’s made that prior move (which has no historical basis, rather arises from the now discredited Bauer thesis).


24 posted on 09/18/2012 11:51:09 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

So a “fourth century” scrap of papyrus that refers to Christ as married, refutes entire gospels that date to the 1st & 2nd century that do not?


25 posted on 09/18/2012 11:52:03 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Oh, please. I remember a while back when that burial box was found that was supposed to have held the bones of "John, brother of Jesus". Fake. Plus we learned there were lots of Johns and lots of men named Jesus during that time.

My gardener's name is Jesus and he's married.

26 posted on 09/18/2012 11:52:26 AM PDT by Deb (If you wanna laugh everyday, follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Jesus came to live among us, be like us, experiencing the same joys and pains we do. Marriage and kids are a big part of the human experience. The family is the anchor of society. As a practicing Jew, it would have been common and even expected for a man His age to be married.

If it turns out He was married and even had kids, how would it be a negative on His ministry or Divinity? It would not shake my faith in the slightest.

27 posted on 09/18/2012 11:54:34 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest
Many early Christian sects believed that he was a man, a divinely inspired and perhaps divinely conceived man...

Actually, early heretics were completely willing to accept Christ as completely divine, but they had a lot of trouble with the concept that He could be fully man as well. The divine was thought to be so above mankind that God would never condescend to be a man.

Variations of this gnostic heresy were the predominant alternative to orthodoxy until just before the first Council of Nicea. Then the Arian heresy with its claim that "there was a time when the Son was not" tilted away from the full divinity of Christ. That error was condemned in the Council, although it took quite some time for orthodoxy to completely triumph over Arianism.

28 posted on 09/18/2012 11:55:12 AM PDT by Martin Tell (ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

“you don’t get to have an endowed chair at Harvard Divinity School if you are stupid.”

Actually, you do. Liberal professors are often incredibly stupid in very simple matters of how we know things, historical evidence etc. They read only the NYTimes. They have a more narrow worldview and more narrow exposure to diverse opinions and ideas than does your average auto mechanic.

I know. I’ve spent 40 years in Academia. I’ve seen more stupid than you’ll ever want to imagine.


29 posted on 09/18/2012 11:55:33 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest

It really makes no difference whether Jesus was married or not.
He’s still the Firstborn Son of God, and died on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for our sins................


30 posted on 09/18/2012 11:57:11 AM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
I've got a ton of crap to do this afternoon and now I have to go out and riot, sheesh
31 posted on 09/18/2012 11:58:53 AM PDT by grellis (I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Define your terms, and be honest, if possible!

When Dr. Soundingbrass says that he believes that this fragment is “authentic” he can only TRUTHFULLY mean that he thinks the papyrus is very old, and comes from the period in question. And Professor Tinklingcymbal’s SAYING that this proves anything in regard to Christ’s being married merely illustrates HER perverted mindset.

IMHO, this is just one more titillating (to some) relic, either from the many apochryphal writings, “epistles”, etc., or from some individual from that era who had either looney tunes or perhaps sinister reasons for writing this kind of stuff.

And although the Coptics have a right to imbibe whatever flavor religeous elixer they can stir together; real thinking believers in Jesus Christ, God The Son, Third Person of The Holy Trinity and Savior of the world, are under no obligation to drink any of it!


32 posted on 09/18/2012 12:00:59 PM PDT by Tucker39 ( Psa 68:19Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits; even the God of our salvation.KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

It just means that he suffered a little more than we thought..........

Jesus said, “There is no marriage in Heaven.”

That’s why they call it ‘Heaven’................


33 posted on 09/18/2012 12:01:23 PM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Mea culpa! Second Person of The Holy Trinity. Please forgive my outrageous mistake.


34 posted on 09/18/2012 12:02:37 PM PDT by Tucker39 ( Psa 68:19Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits; even the God of our salvation.KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Mea culpa! Second Person of The Holy Trinity. Please forgive my outrageous mistake.


35 posted on 09/18/2012 12:02:48 PM PDT by Tucker39 ( Psa 68:19Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits; even the God of our salvation.KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Okay we’re going to have one papyrus fragment be the thing we have to believe over the thousands of other copies and larger fragments of other books?

Please. These artices are done by people who don’t believe anything in the bible at all and only want to shake the faith of others as their goal.


36 posted on 09/18/2012 12:02:53 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drpix

The earliest known copies of The Gospels are not from the 1st and 2nd centuries. They also come from the same time frame............


37 posted on 09/18/2012 12:04:33 PM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

Try Matt 19 and “eunuchs for the kingdom”

Marriage is not essential to full humanity. There’s even a Jewish tradition of voluntary celibacy for prophets (”schools of the prophets” in the OT). That Jesus was not married is not of no significance. He was married to the Ecclesia, his Bride. Ephesians 5.

Without some people living voluntary celibacy marriage is not fully understood. Without some people being married, voluntary celibacy is not fully understood. The two are interrelated.

If the universal Christian claim that Jesus was unmarried were simply overturned, you’d have 2000 years of Christian belief proved to have been false. If the Church got all that wrong all these years, based on a scrap of papyrus whose owner won’t even reveal where he acquired it, then what else did the Church get wrong all these years?

Your casual willingness to abandon 2000 years of belief is breathtaking.


38 posted on 09/18/2012 12:05:06 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

No problem, that’s not my belief anyway.............


39 posted on 09/18/2012 12:05:29 PM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

It really makes no real difference whether he was or wasn’t married............


40 posted on 09/18/2012 12:06:48 PM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DonkeyBonker; Red Badger

Maybe I’m a layman, and just read what is written, but isn’t the church supposed to be a like a bride, for Christ? Why wouldn’t He then refer to the church as “my wife, the church”?

/simplest explanation is usually the one that is right


41 posted on 09/18/2012 12:06:54 PM PDT by ro_dreaming (G.K. Chesterton, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It’s been found hard and lef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Well, the main point is that Jesus’ mission here on earth was not to get married and sire a genetic line of descendants. This would be a detraction from the real reason He came here.

His mission was to be a sacrifice for all so that jew and gentile alike could inherit eternal life if they believe in Him, and be adopted into God’s family.

God’s need for human sex to accomplish things is nonexistant. He had the power to become flesh, He has the power to make all peoples part of His family without them having to be part of His personal genetic dynasty.


42 posted on 09/18/2012 12:09:20 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
It just means that he suffered a little more than we thought..........

It would mean he was wrong all the time....

:)

43 posted on 09/18/2012 12:09:20 PM PDT by NeoCaveman ("If I had a son he'd look like B.O.'s lunch" - Rin Tin Tin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RMDupree

1) Had Jesus married, it would not have been a sin. So, a claim that he was married would not detract from his sinless nature. (Not that I believe he was married—I don’t.)

2) The Bible repeatedly talks about the church (the body of believers) as being the bride of Christ. Remember, we’re reading someone’s translation of this scrap into English. Bride and wife mean the same thing. Had the translator chosen bride instead of wife “Jesus said: my bride” it wouldn’t be controversial to most Christian’s ears at all, as most would interpret it as a reference to the church.

3) There are thousands of “early christian” manuscripts floating around that are obvious fake/uninspired even to non-experts. There’s no reason to think this scrap didn’t come from a similar fake/uninspired manuscript unless it can be proven otherwise (in other words, finding a copy of the manuscript in its entirety so it can be analyzed).


44 posted on 09/18/2012 12:09:48 PM PDT by Brookhaven (The Democratic Party has become the Beclowning Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: grellis
“I've got a ton of crap to do this afternoon and now I have to go out and riot, sheesh”

Me too. My schedule is booked. I'll try to fit it in however. Maybe we should look at outsourcing our rioting on days we are busy?
There are probably some well qualified offshore companies that could handle our individual rioting needs at a reasonable price.

45 posted on 09/18/2012 12:13:13 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Encourage all of your Democrat friends to get out and vote on November 7th, the stakes are high.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RMDupree

Ten bucks says the end result will be about Jesus referring to the church as his “Bride” - but some doofus is trying to gin up publicity by creating a “controversy”.

Ten bucks also says that IF jesus was married his wife was well past puberty.


46 posted on 09/18/2012 12:13:30 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger; delacoert; Colofornian
Four words on a previously unknown papyrus fragment provide the first evidence that some early Christians believed Jesus had been married, Harvard Professor Karen King told the 10th International Congress of Coptic Studies today.

King, the Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School, announced the existence of the ancient text at the congress’ meeting, held every four years and hosted this year by the Vatican’s Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum in Rome. The four words that appear on the fragment translate to “Jesus said to them, my wife.” The words, written in Coptic, a language of Egyptian Christians, are on a papyrus fragment of about one and a half inches by three inches.

I'll bet Mormons are ecstatic over the news!

Related thread:
Was Jesus Married?

47 posted on 09/18/2012 12:13:39 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (At the end of the day, you have to worship the god who can set you on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ro_dreaming

Occam’s Razor............


48 posted on 09/18/2012 12:18:54 PM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
I don't think she said it was Gnostic--just that it is similar to some previously-discovered Gnostic texts.

It's of no value for telling us anything about Jesus and the original disciples--it may shed light on what some divergent quasi-Christian group in Egypt thought 300 years later.

49 posted on 09/18/2012 12:19:57 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
“Jesus said to them, my wife...”

“...is the Church”?

“...is those who hear the Word and do it”?

See, at this point, we don’t know.

50 posted on 09/18/2012 12:20:14 PM PDT by RichInOC (Jesus is coming back soon...and man, is He ticked off. (I'm trying to keep it clean.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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