Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Just in Time for Easter: Proof that Jesus was Married
Creative Minority Report ^ | April 10, 2014 | Matthew Archbold

Posted on 04/10/2014 8:26:11 PM PDT by NYer

Finally!

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.

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?’ "
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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: faithhopecharity

Well I see you got a few answers-Ha:)To pretend that Our lord was married.Hummmm.You might be thinking in human terms.


41 posted on 04/10/2014 9:32:16 PM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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?


42 posted on 04/10/2014 9:36:19 PM PDT by right way right (America has embraced the suck of Freedumb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


43 posted on 04/10/2014 9:39:57 PM PDT by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Argus

Absolutely!


44 posted on 04/10/2014 9:43:47 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


45 posted on 04/10/2014 9:45:21 PM PDT by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatima

Well he was fully human too


46 posted on 04/10/2014 9:59:18 PM PDT by faithhopecharity ((Brilliant, Profound Tag Line Goes Here, just as soon as I can think of one..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NYer


"http://gospelofjesusswife.hds.harvard.edu/"

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...

:-)

47 posted on 04/10/2014 9:59:33 PM PDT by Heart-Rest ("Our hearts are restless, Lord, until they rest in Thee." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Are you saying that Saul/Paul was absolutely married? If so, Paul himself said otherwise. 1 Corinthians 7:8


48 posted on 04/10/2014 10:29:35 PM PDT by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Gal. 1:6-9

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...!


49 posted on 04/10/2014 10:30:47 PM PDT by swampfox101 (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Sounds legit. And by that I mean “are you kidding me?”


50 posted on 04/10/2014 11:03:32 PM PDT by RichInOC (2013-14 Tiber Swim Team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

And if they’re doing it for the shock value, it’s not really shocking anymore. These stories at Easter time are about as spontaneous as a rocket launch.


51 posted on 04/10/2014 11:08:14 PM PDT by RichInOC (2013-14 Tiber Swim Team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

BKMK


52 posted on 04/10/2014 11:10:41 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity; tom h; TBP; fatima
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.

Marriage is what John Paul II used to call the "primordial sacrament", in that it was inscribed in human nature from the very moment the Persons of the Trinity said the words "Let Us make man in Our image", "male and female He created them", and "the two shall become one body". But this creation story makes it perfectly clear that marriage is a created institution that is the unique privilege of created men and women, i.e., created human persons, and not at all that of uncreated Persons.

By definition, only created persons can be "made in the image of God". But Jesus, as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is an uncreated Person as are the other Two Divine Persons of the Trinity. He is a Divine uncreated Person who became Incarnate. He assumed our humanity. Only created persons, and not uncreated Persons, can be said to be "made in Our image" as opposed to being "the same as Us".

The created man and woman find only in other created persons of opposite gender the possibility of making a complete, equal, and complementary self-gift of all that they are in their beings - their flesh, their souls, their PERSONS, and to do so requires by definition their equal and complementary dignity as created men and women.  That is because men and women by creation are co-naturally fit for each other, precisely for the marriage relationship.

For a Divine Person to establish a 'marriage" with a created person is ludicrous on its face -- as it would now mean the most unequal and unfit of all bonds, that of God Himself marrying a human being. It would not only be a kind of desecration of the Trinity, by virtue of making the sacred into the merely profane, but even a desecration of natural marriage, since as a farcical counterfeit it defaces the conjugal union, as with all false facsimiles of the true and beautiful.

Moreover, even the idea itself of human-Divine marriage reduces God to something other than God. Jesus is not a created human person, which would necessarily be required for Him to be able to make a complete self-gift of His Person with a woman. Giving him an earthly wife would theologically and necessarily reduce Him to only a human person, which hearkens back to the Christological heresies of old, interestingly enough those which precisely raged during this same period of time.  

Consider something else. Even though we know Jesus could not carnally marry a woman, suppose for a moment that He could. Would His death have dissolved the union? What then of His Resurrection? Would His wife then have been free to re-marry immediately after His death on the cross? Whose wife would she then be on Easter Sunday?

It seems both sacrilegious and even blasphemous to seriously consider the possibility of Jesus having conjugal relations with a woman. For Jesus, His very Flesh would have had to be considered virginal from the moment of His conception, since in no way could His embodied sexuality ever be actualized in carnal relations with a woman and still remain a true expression of His Personal Self-gift.

53 posted on 04/11/2014 4:03:25 AM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Nyer,

You didn’t know this? In Saint John Calvin grade school Sister Mary Elefant showed all of us the wedding certificate where Saint Peter married Jesus and Mary of Aramathea, not Magdalene, that was dated January 14, 32 A.D.

G-F


54 posted on 04/11/2014 4:36:52 AM PDT by GreyFriar ( Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GilesB

If he a was a Torah observant man or rabbi, he was married.


55 posted on 04/11/2014 4:47:14 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; ...

And for Easter 2015, some researcher will find the divorce decree between Jesus and his wife!


56 posted on 04/11/2014 4:50:31 AM PDT by GreyFriar ( Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

“...what difference...”

It would matter because of the hypostatic union and Jesus’ nature as true God and true man. If He were to have children, they would be partly divine in a watered down sense as Jesus’ human nature (from his Mother) and His Divine Nature (from the Holy Spirit) are not separated out. The idea that His children would be part God is just not acceptable and, as a Person of the Trinity, He was well aware of this and Our Lord remained celibate.


57 posted on 04/11/2014 4:53:06 AM PDT by stonehouse01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

“...if he was a Torah observant man or rabbi...”

That is why the Pharisees hated Jesus and one of the reasons He ended up crucified. He did not adhere to all of the Torah laws He was supposed to. For an example, He touched unclean lepers, etc. He healed the sick on the Sabbath, causing scandal. He was not Torah observant in certain matters that would ultimately pertain to and be revealed in the New Covenant.


58 posted on 04/11/2014 4:59:53 AM PDT by stonehouse01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

No one individual Jew can observe all of Torah.

The reason why the Hellenized, corrupt, establishment Jews (from the tribe of Levi when it should have been the tribe of Judah) in the civil and religious leadership positions is because he expected them to observe Torah in both letter and spirit.

In the first Temple period the spirit of the Torah was followed. During the second the letter of it was followed. Jesus was not only trying to get the establishment to follow it in a balanced fashion, but the rest of the Jewish population as well.


59 posted on 04/11/2014 5:09:57 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

Thanks. ( I don’t know. I would think that the Creator of the entire universe could handle any problem like the natures of any children. Especially since He not only controls the process for each of us ( joining of specific soul of H creation and choosing with corporeal body) but also because of all the evidence He can modify Hjs usual recipe or process for children at any time He wishes — indeed miraculous or unusual or unexpected births are almost a trademark of the Biblical God. So even if we agree that “1/4 divine” children would be “ unacceptable” to us both, it doesn’t necessarily follow that such would be the result. God is all - powerful and He has made it clear He is in control of the generative business. I’ve full faith He could have worked out the 1/4 question. Just the peramblings of a layperson here, though. Just picking up on the original posting is all. I’ve no particular long in this race, ha. But thanks for your interesting comment. Much appreciated.


60 posted on 04/11/2014 5:40:45 AM PDT by faithhopecharity ((Brilliant, Profound Tag Line Goes Here, just as soon as I can think of one..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 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