New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The document (if you can call a business size piece of paparus a document) has not been 'dated' yet. Regardless? Wouldn't it just put a twist in the pants (robes?) of the Catholic Regime - if this were true?

As a Christian I have no problem with Jesus being married, fathering children. I'm without faith the Catholic Regime agrees with me.


Great read - great article - take a peak at the link.


"If Jesus had a wife, then there is nothing extra Christian about male privilege, nothing spiritually dangerous about the sexuality of women, and no reason for anyone to deny himself or herself a sexual identity."

huffington

And more from the same link and YouTube:



peace
edit on 18-9-2012 by silo13 because: my bold




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Great find. Goes to further prove my theory that the wife of Jesus, was none other than Mary Magdalene...


Des



edit on 18-9-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
"new".....so are they still making them.....i thought the studio and writers died about 2000 yrs ago...hmmmm, might be a remake!

lol
peace



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 

I've always believed that also. I've also believed it royally pissed of Paul.

I don't see any reason why this isn't a 'good thing'... Then again, I don't agree with most Catholic dogma either.

It is an interesting new find though...

peace



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
How long before the Vatican announces this artifact is fake?
Or will they chose to ignore it all together?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I've always thought that it would be very unusual for a man of that time to not have a wife.

Think about what it meant to live in that time period.

This will be interesting to follow.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Let's see.

I think it has been said Jesus was a Jew.

If that is true he would likely have followed the traditional teachings of his faith and married at an appropriate time in his life.

This may, or may not, have produced any childern.

I have often found it courious though, at one point in the scriptures it speaks of Him and His mother Mary attending a wedding. While there she becomes concerned in the supply of wine for the guests. This would be a function of those hosting the wedding and not a guest. She brings this to the attention of Jesus and he turned the water into wine.

Could this have been his wedding and therefore a matter of concern for His family to attend to ?

There is so much in the bible which is left "open" it is often hard to "pin down" much hard evidence except for traditions.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
This "discovery" has Jesuit JEDI MINDTRICKS written all over it.

Science is one huge mind control OP with a stealth agenda. The true agenda behind Science is covering up the truth about God and the REAL history of the Earth.


“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Even way back when I was a Christian I was always open to the idea that Jesus had a wife. I was confused when those around me reacted to the idea with disgust or instant dismissal. Jesus, they assured me, was not a man with any lusts or sexual desires, because he was God. I didn't understand. In order for Jesus' sacrifice to mean anything (if it can even be called a sacrifice, but that's a subject for another time) than Jesus must have the ability to sin and must be fully man. This includes all the natural desires that men have. If Jesus doesn't at least have a passing desire for romance than how can he be considered a man?

What's so wrong with the idea that he might have taken a wife? God seemed to have no objection to impregnating a young teenage virgin who was already betrothed to another man, albeit this insemination was of a decidedly supernatural kind if the story is to be believed.

Now, years later, as an atheist, I find the idea of Jesus having a wife even more intriguing, but from a historical perspective. As the myths surrounding his supposed life developed one can only guess the variations of the stories that were written down. We have quite a few gospels that didn't make it into the Biblical canon, and the possibility of gospels that are now lost to history, or lost to history for the time being, is very interesting.
edit on 18-9-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
This fragment is likely stemming from the "gospel of Philip" which makes the claim that Jesus had a wife...

Mary was his favorite of all his diciples and regularly kissed her



As for the Wisdom who is called 'the barren', she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [softly] on her [hand]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.


Unfortunatly this is a gnostic Text which are not accepted by the mainstream churches of the world...




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Even way back when I was a Christian I was always open to the idea that Jesus had a wife. I was confused when those around me reacted to the idea with disgust or instant dismissal. Jesus, they assured me, was not a man with any lusts or sexual desires, because he was God. I didn't understand. In order for Jesus' sacrifice to mean anything (if it can even be called a sacrifice, but that's a subject for another time) than Jesus must have the ability to sin and must be fully man. This includes all the natural desires that men have. If Jesus doesn't at least have a passing desire for romance than how can he be considered a man?

Very well said. I've always thought the same. Jesus died as a man. Being a man, a 'real man'? I truly believe (as it seems you do) he would must have known the sacrifice, pain, agony of leaving a mother, a wife, friends. That he could not have been 'complete' without knowing the love of a woman, also.

And, on another note? If nothing else it confirms another 'curse' unto the woman. Not only the 'pain of childbirth' but the living agony of knowing your man is going to sacrifice himself for the better good - and because you love him? You have to stand behind his choice. OUCH!

peace



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
Great find. Goes to further prove my theory that the wife of Jesus, was none other than Mary Magdalene...



It also pushes further in the direction that actual spiritual physical ascendance and evolution towards the divine realm lies in intimate sexuality between lovers... something that will be among the great revelations.. something many people will be uncomfortable with. that Jesus ascended through sexuality.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
This is only evidence that those who wrote the text BELIEVED hundreds of years after Jesus died that he had been married. It is NOT evidence that he actually had a wife. How on earth can anyone believe that these words were accurately recorded and preserved for so long afterwards? In the gospels, the words of Jesus were not being recorded on a tape recorder and then accurately transcribed! They were largely imagined by writers many decades after the event - therefore not to be taken as gospel (excuse the pun!).

The REAL smoking gun for Jesus being married is the account of the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene at Bethany. The word 'Messiah' comes from the Hebrew verb mashiach: 'to anoint', which derives from the Egyptian messeh: 'the holy crocodile'. It was with the fat of the messeh that the Pharaoh's sister-brides anointed their husbands on marriage, and the Egyptian custom sprang from kingly practice in old Mesopotamia. In the Old Testament's Song of Solomon we learn of the bridal anointing of the king. It is detailed that the oil used in Judah was the fragrant ointment of spikenard (an expensive root oil from the Himalayas) and it is explained that this ritual was performed while the kingly husband sat at the table.

In the New Testament, the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was indeed performed while he sat at the table, and specifically with the bridal ointment of spikenard. Afterwards, Mary wiped Jesus's feet with her hair and, on the first occasion of the two-part ceremony, she wept. All of these things signify the marital anointing of a dynastic heir. Mary's use of this very costly spice is strong evidence that she was the wife of Jesus.
edit on 18-9-2012 by micpsi because: Typo corrected



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Two extremely obvious observations of invalid assumptions in that article:


The text from the New Testament is being dubbed "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife."


It most certainly is not from the New Testament.

and


"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's marital status played historically in early Christian controversies over marriage, celibacy, and family.


Okay, here is the actual professor, who is representing this fragment (with eight lines plus three words of readable text) as being a "new Gospel" -- that completely calls into question her credibility. She has no idea what it is, whether it's a fraud, a part of some other already known text, or something unrelated to Christianity at all, and yet she's proclaiming it to be a "new Gospel"?

Please.

The fact that it's in Coptic and conforms to the claims of other Gnostic texts should be a pretty clear indication of its Gnostic origins, if real, and those date from the mid-Second Century.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Ancient Scrap of Papyrus Refers to Wife of Jesus


Professor Karen King got the scrap in 2011 from a collector, though its history before that remains unclear. Preliminary testing suggests it's legit, though King now wants other scholars to weigh in. If it holds up, it would be the first ancient text in which Jesus mentions a wife (many think it's Mary Magdalene) and would likely intensify all kinds of debates—from the celibacy of Catholic priests to the role of women in Christian ministry.


More at new link -

peace
edit on 18-9-2012 by silo13 because: fix link



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


If it turns out to be true I certainly don't have a problem with it. Many years ago some high falluting jerks decided to censor the bible, picking, choosing, and intentionally misinterpreting along the way. Lots of details are missing- I believe on purpose. I think the important parts are still clearly present though, chiefly the part that says you should love thy neighbor as thyself.

If it became public knowledge that Jesus did have a wife and possibly children I think it would throw the patriarchal Catholic Church into one giant mind freak panic that their heirarchy would never recover from.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Howdy, adj

Yes, Professor King in the video actually thinks her fragment is tied to a saying from Thomas. But did you see the 4:28 update to the Huff'n Puffer article?


King also said that a professor who saw her report asked her if the text on the papyrus could have been a homily and not a gospel, an idea she said she had not considered.


That was at the conference just held. According to the main article, she's known about the thing since 2010. In the vid, she talks about she and her colleagues having considered what it could be from every angle. Hmm, missed one, it seems.

Also in the update,


Speaking on a conference call Tuesday from Rome, King said that some people who have read about the discovery have asked if the papyrus fragment was describing Jesus as being married to the Christian faith, not to a woman.

"One cannot overrule that it might be him saying 'my wife as a church,' but in the context where he's talking about 'my mother' and 'my wife' and talking about 'my disciple,' the one thing you would not say is that the church would be 'my disciple.'"


The imagery of the Church as the "Bride of Christ" is commonly encountered. Ephesians 5: 22ff has an extended

Husband : Wife :: Christ : Church

analogy and is probably early enough for most tastes, even if it isn't necessarily Paul
.

I think the interpretation of this discovery is premature. I don't know how it will turn out, but in its first exposure to impartial scholars' scrutiny, it's wilting already.
-
edit on 18-9-2012 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
The simplest answer is usually the correct one. A man during the time of Christ that WASN'T married would be unusual enough to warrant a mention in the Gospels. Following both the customs of the time and the Jewish faith, a man would normally marry.

It's just logical. And NORMAL. Celibacy is NOT usually normal human behavior.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


No, I didn't see the update, thanks for the pointer. I never gave thought to it being a homily, but it's clear that it's not likely to find an answer until (and unless) the other fragments are found. The report itself definitely has an air of sensationalism to it, which is probably not a great surprise.

ETA: I do see that they took off the "from the New Testament" bit from "The text from the New Testament is being dubbed".
edit on 18-9-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Destinyone
 

I've always believed that also. I've also believed it royally pissed of Paul.

I don't see any reason why this isn't a 'good thing'... Then again, I don't agree with most Catholic dogma either.

It is an interesting new find though...

peace



That's because Paul was gay and was in love with Jesus and jealous of his wife Mary

That's why Paul hates women so much





new topics
top topics
 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join