Skip to comments.Just in Time for Easter: Proof that Jesus was Married
Posted on 04/10/2014 8:26:11 PM PDT by NYer
Hey, you know I was thinking that it was almost Easter and there hasn't been some shocking new revelation that Jesus wasn't real or he was real but was actually just a plumber from Poughkeepsie (which oddly enough was the name of a small town in Israel.) ((Not really))
So a new study has come out saying that the proof that Jesus had a wife is kinda' old. Yeah, that's actually what the study said. A piece a parchment supposedly says "Jesus said to them my wife." That's old news. But the new news is that the parchment is really old.
Some are calling it the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife." And by "some" I mean people who don't actually believe in the actual gospels.
In 2012, the discovery of a tattered papyrus fragment rocked the biblical studies community after some alleged its text proved that Jesus was married.Isn't it funny how she wants to move beyond the forgery questions and move on to the topic of women priests and priests getting married. Hmmm.
Now tests show the fragment is not only likely legit — it's also superold.
The controversial fragment known as the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries, and could possibly date back as early as the second to fourth centuries, according to a newly published study in the Harvard Theological Review.
The fragment, which contains the words, "Jesus said to them, my wife," first came to light several years ago. Harvard University Divinity Professor Karen L. King, who announced the fragment's existence at a conference in 2012, was quick to point out that the fragment does not prove that Jesus had a wife.
"The main topic of the fragment is to affirm that women who are mothers and wives can be disciples of Jesus — a topic that was hotly debated in early Christianity as celibate virginity increasingly became highly valued," King said in a statement...
Not everyone agrees that the document is legitimate. Brown University professor Leo Depuydt wrote a rebuttal to the findings in which he calls out "gross grammatical errors." He said the fragment is so clearly a phony that it "seems ripe for a Monty Python sketch."
In an interview with the Boston Globe, King said, “I’m basically hoping that we can move past the issue of forgery to questions about the significance of this fragment for the history of Christianity, for thinking about questions like, ‘Why does Jesus being married, or not, even matter? Why is it that people had such an incredible reaction to this?’ "
“Have you ever picked your feet in Poughkeepsie?”
Brother Popeye Doyle
*facepalm* don’t these people ever give up?
Well, the proof was that it wasn’t a forgery. Whether or not what is written is to be believed is another matter. Not saying it is or isn’t true (what is written) but that is an important distinction.
Harvard Divinity Professor?? who cares!
Harvard aint what it used to be ..IN SPADES!!
Was it Morgan Fairchild?
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Proof that stupid people will believe anything
The timing is rather dubious, as is everything else about this nonsense.
As if there could not be really old blasphemies
Just for fun. Pretend for a minute we find real proof he was married. ( like he would have been expected to be, in that place and time and especially Given his role). Just pretend. Now, what difference would that make? Just asking. I can’t see any big negative. And it would help reinforce the institution of marriage today. But maybe I’m overlooking something? Thanks.
Oh goody. More nonsense from the so called scholars. A document that is way more recent than any of the gospels and at best dodgy
but...but Its TATTERED PAPYRUS....../s Authentic Tattered PAPYRUS.../s
The Church is the Bride of Christ.
So yes, Jesus has a “wife”
BTW was this fragment in English?
Well, if you are going to be a Torah observant rabbi you are going to be married.
Just proof that Dan Brown’s ancestor was also a fiction writer. :)
Well, to be more accurate, He's engaged; the marriage supper hasn't happened yet, but it will.
Jesus was married to Peter, no doubt.
This message has been approved for posting by OKCupid.
Big difference, Dude. As the only sinless man to have ever walked the earth, Jesus was not subject to the lusts and temptations of mankind. He came to be a living witness to God, to fulfill the law, and to die for all sins.
Were he to have married and had children then this would have been the life of an ordinary man, not God in flesh. And our faith would be a lie.
Incidentally, you might recall that the "Jesus married" notion is exactly the hidden secret revealed at the end of Dan Brown's bestseller, "The DaVinci Code."
What difference, at this point, does it make? There are 1+ billion of his followers, and do we really care if he was married or not? Did he have kids too? If so, there is some real royal blood flowing through the veins of earth’s population.
I thought he was gay - it gets so confusing....
Only jokes could be this ancient;
And Jesus said, "Take my wife..."
Thanks. But I’m not quite sure. There is absolutely no sin in being married and having children. Indeed, it’s part of the divine plan for us. And it’s one if the very first commandments to be fruitful and multiply. Many would argue that there is a sin of not obeying the above, and both the Church and Judaism teach the centrality and sacred nature of marriage and family life. . And at the very least, since Jesus came as a human, his being married would have served as a good example for us. I’m listening and not arguing just trying to understand better is all. Thanks.
You are right. Thanks for the clarification.
The book of Thomas, the book of Mary, and other gnostics were old too. The koran is old too.
And I don’t have a bit of use for any of them.
Had a nice young Jewish man of that time NOT been married, it would have been unusual enough to be noteworthy.
Proves? No. I would say, strongly suggests.
:) Please put me back on your ping list.Thank you.
So ... fake but accurate, part deux?
Harvard Divinity Professor. Why does Harvard need a professor of candy?
Heretical beliefs have been rejected since the very beginning of Christianity. Only a modern "scholar" could be confused into thinking that heresy has some special significance by dint of age.
Ordinary men and women are simply the embodiment of God, as Jesus was, and he is more the Great Example than the Great Exception.
He came to be a living witness to God, to fulfill the law
And no other human being ever could do that? Are we not witnesses to God every moment?
If God is Omnipotent, then is God not Infinite? Otherwise, there would necessarily be a limit on God's power.
Now if God is Infinite, then mustn't God be boundless? So how could anyone or anything be "not of God" or outside that which is Infinite? And how could there be anywhere God is not, including inside you and me?
Does that not make us "the image and likeness of God" in a very literal sense?
Was Saul of Tarsus married?
Well I see you got a few answers-Ha:)To pretend that Our lord was married.Hummmm.You might be thinking in human terms.
This stuff is a holy week tradition.
What was it last year? I think it was someone found Jesus’ grave, or was that the year before?
This is like the supposed “lost tomb of Jesus” that had the names of “Jesus son of Joseph”, “Mary”, “Matthew” carved in stone ossuaries. There was no proof that the names were the names of the Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament, or that any of the other names had anything to do with his family or disciples. It was “assumed” that they were.
Same with this parchment. If it is an authentic piece of parchment from the 1st century, or the 2nd century or 3rd century - that’s all it is - an “authentic” piece of parchment. We don’t know if the Jesus mentioned on the parchment has anything to do with the Jesus of the New Testament. And, if it is speaking of the Jesus of the New Testament, does that mean that what is written on the parchment is true? We don’t even have a context to see what the fragment is referring to.
I love how people who want to trash the New Testament manuscripts flippantly disavow the authenticity or trustworthiness of the content of those documents, yet rush to accept non-canonical documents as being trustworthy and beyond question.
The mainstream media sure likes to distort anything related to religion. The title of this article is misleading as it implies that, since manuscript experts have determined that the manuscript in question is not a “fake” (meaning it may have been created about the 10th century— about 800 years after the last New Testament books were written), that implies that it “proves” that Jesus had a wife— which it does not. Reading the article, the researchers themselves make clear this is a *Gnostic* text. The Gnostics were not Christians, as the headline erroneously states, but were an esoteric dualist sect (similar to the modern New Age movement) that incorporated aspects of the beliefs of the religions around them, including Christianity. So, no— NO early Christians believed that Jesus was married.
Well he was fully human too
Harvard researchers have discovered that "Sharpie Markers" were widely used back in those days, and that distinctive, telltale "Sharpie Markers" ink was conclusively found all over the manuscript...
Are you saying that Saul/Paul was absolutely married? If so, Paul himself said otherwise. 1 Corinthians 7:8
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Gnosticism is not new. I has been around since the first century Church...!
Sounds legit. And by that I mean “are you kidding me?”
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.