New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married

reply to post by DeadSeraph


The first link lost me when they started talking about DNA evidence. There is no DNA evidence, as it is Jewish custom to remove the remains in the boxes, and rebury them before sunset of the day they were unearthed. The part of the documentary that makes it compelling is the statistical evidence that is presented on the likelyhood of the same names appearing together in a tomb that was not that of the family of Jesus of Nazareth. I have no doubt whatsoever that the historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus are VERY different.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

The first link lost me when they started talking about DNA evidence. There is no DNA evidence, as it is Jewish custom to remove the remains in the boxes, and rebury them before sunset of the day they were unearthed. The part of the documentary that makes it compelling is the statistical evidence that is presented on the likelyhood of the same names appearing together in a tomb that was not that of the family of Jesus of Nazareth. I have no doubt whatsoever that the historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus are VERY different.

Both links claim DNA analysis was done on the bones in the ossuaries and were inconclusive due to the nature of the samples taken. Doesn't really seem to have anything to do with Jewish custom (since any tissue would have decomposed over a thousand years ago), unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying.

Either way, I love this sort of thing and have found the debate very interesting. Thanks for sharing

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

The first link lost me when they started talking about DNA evidence.

You don't even need that. The archaeologist who was in charge of the dig that uncovered "Jesus' tomb" says that Cameron is an idiot.

The documentary was made according to the "imagination of people," he said. "I don't accept the claim that this tomb was the burial place for the family of Jesus," he said. (Source)

reply to post by adjensen


An opinion hardly qualifies as evidence...

It wasn't a archeologist who discovered it, it was a construction crew, and the Israeli Dept. of Antiquities was called in to authenticate the site and to remove anything of historical value.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Prof. Amos Kloner oversaw the excavation of the site in the 1980s as the district archeologist of Jerusalem. He later published his findings in a professional archeological publication. (Source)

So, you're ignoring this guy's statement, a qualified expert in archaeology, who apparently has a pretty good understanding of this site, in favour of the atheist, non-archaeologist, James Cameron?

Biased, much?

Very interesting article. I'm not saying that the Bible is totally wrong, but I do believe that it is incomplete and there are discrepancies in what it says. Did Jesus have a wife? Perhaps, I do feel that much more evidence needs to be provided in order to substantiate this claim.

reply to post by Absoluttruth

much more evidence is needed to substantiate this claim

Read: "I don't want to believe it, but if you rub my nose in it a few times, I won't have a choice. Until then, good luck!"

We've already had several pieces of circumstantial evidence, such as being a Rabbi and a fisherman-carpenter, which means it would be a little odd not to have a wife, and the Bible should have addressed this but kind of skirted the issue; also, the article doesn't provide any evidence saying, "This was meant to be whatever other than Mary Magdelene blah blah blah".

Which means it could very well mean what we think it means. Or whatever.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Absoluttruth

 

much more evidence is needed to substantiate this claim

Read: "I don't want to believe it, but if you rub my nose in it a few times, I won't have a choice. Until then, good luck!"

We've already had several pieces of circumstantial evidence, such as being a Rabbi and a fisherman-carpenter, which means it would be a little odd not to have a wife

Why would that be odd? Marriage was a requirement of Rabbis who led synagogues, but not for traveling Rabbis (it would be a hindrance to them, in fact,) which is what Jesus was. Why do you think he was a fisherman, and what relevance would someone's occupation be, anyway?

and the Bible should have addressed this but kind of skirted the issue;

Skirted the issue? What issue? It clearly says that Peter was married, so it's not like the issue of marriage was being hidden or something. Do you really think it was the authors of the books responsibility to negatively respond to every attribute that someone might have? Do you assume that Jesus was left handed, that he was seven feet tall, and that he was bowlegged, simply because the Bible doesn't say that he wasn't?

The book is silent about the marriage status of almost everyone in the New Testament, because it is irrelevant. Certain Gnostic texts are not silent on marriage, because it wasn't irrelevant for them -- it was important to have a significant female figure in their story of Jesus, because of the place of Sophia in their mythos.

reply to post by adjensen

Skirted the issue? What issue? It clearly says that Peter was married, so it's not like the issue of marriage was being hidden or something.

Apples to oranges, buddy. You're comparing the Secret Service to the President.

Why would that be odd? Marriage was a requirement of Rabbis who led synagogues, but not for traveling Rabbis (it would be a hindrance to them, in fact,) which is what Jesus was. Why do you think he was a fisherman, and what relevance would someone's occupation be, anyway?

I'm assuming people here know what they're talking about - they sound about as knowledgeable as the Bible does, anyway. I don't know anything about Jesus FOR A FACT, and I'm sure as heck not relying on a source of information that makes Jesus sound like a reincarnation of half a dozen figures throughout pagan religion.

But the article does seem to favor his having a wife, doesn't it? As I have said, the experts underline a difference between 'wife' and 'bride'.

So the status of their marriage is irrelevant, but what they had to eat for dinner wasn't? You mean it didn't come up in conversation? They talk about everything else, why not marriage?

Certain Gnostic texts are not silent on marriage, because it wasn't irrelevant for them -- it was important to have a significant female figure in their story of Jesus, because of the place of Sophia in their mythos.

Just like it's important for Christians/Catholics to depict their god as a male, yes? Don't even think about putting a sexist spin on the pagan church, because your church did the same exact thing. Why do you think they demonized Mary Magdelene? Even Peter was known to be a bit sexist in his discussions. Why do you think he stole the church after Jesus 'died'? There is speculation that Mary was the intended heir, but Peter wouldn't have it.

Just look at the pic. So pristine like it was done yesterday. Hey that just might be an indicator of doubt ? You people.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Why would that be odd? Marriage was a requirement of Rabbis who led synagogues, but not for traveling Rabbis (it would be a hindrance to them, in fact,) which is what Jesus was. Why do you think he was a fisherman, and what relevance would someone's occupation be, anyway?

I'm assuming people here know what they're talking about - they sound about as knowledgeable as the Bible does, anyway.

What "people here"? What are you talking about?

But the article does seem to favor his having a wife, doesn't it?

Well, of course it implies that -- it's called sensationalism. From the "update" in the article:

Even before King's discovery, there has been speculation that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. "I do not think Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene," King clarified Tuesday, adding, "whether he was or was not married ... I really think the tradition is silent and we don't know."

So, article aside, the source of the article states that she doesn't think that he was married to Mary Magdalene, and has no idea whether he was married or not.

I ask you again, do you think that Jesus was left handed, that he was seven feet tall, and that he was bowlegged, simply because the Bible doesn't say that he wasn't?

There is speculation that Mary was the intended heir, but Peter wouldn't have it.

Kindly cite reputable sources of this speculation.

reply to post by adjensen

What "people here"? What are you talking about?

Participants in the thread. Don't expect me to identify them further than that...

So, article aside, the source of the article states that she doesn't think that he was married to Mary Magdalene, and has no idea whether he was married or not.

According to Kurt Wise, a geologist from Harvard, all of the evidence could point to an old earth and he would still believe in a young earth because that's what holy scripture teaches. Now, does this woman favor scripture over the evidence as well?

Just the fact that we don't have a clear answer to either end says that something is not quite right. We're missing something here - either omitted or obscured.

I ask you again, do you think that Jesus was left handed, that he was seven feet tall, and that he was bowlegged, simply because the Bible doesn't say that he wasn't?

My thoughts do not matter. My logic and the facts presented to me are what I work with, not my personal opinions - so far as drawing a conclusion is concerned.

Her vision does not meet with universal approval:
The penitent Mary Magdalene, by Francesco Hayez

"But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, 'Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are of other ideas."

"Peter also opposed her in regard to these matters and asked them about the Savior. "Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?"

Dr. Karen King, a professor of church history at Harvard Divinity School, has observed, "The confrontation of Mary with Peter, a scenario also found in The Gospel of Thomas,, Pistis Sophia,, and The Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, reflects some of the tensions in second-century Christianity. Peter and Andrew represent orthodox positions that deny the validity of esoteric revelation and reject the authority of women to teach."

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Look under "Gospel of Mary".

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

What "people here"? What are you talking about?

Participants in the thread.

Don't expect me to identify them further than that...

Okay -- I couldn't tell if you meant people "here in the thread" or people "here in this article". Either way, no, Jesus was not a fisherman. While it's likely that he was a carpenter, all we know is that Joseph was, so Jesus plying the trade is an assumptive speculation. But whatever his occupation was, apart from running a synagogue, it would have had no bearing on his need to be married.

According to Kurt Wise, a geologist from Harvard, all of the evidence could point to an old earth and he would still believe in a young earth because that's what holy scripture teaches. Now, does this woman favor scripture over the evidence as well?

Huh? That doesn't make any sense -- what does Wise's statement have to do with anything? The woman that I cited is the one who has this text fragment. If you're not going to accept the word of the one person in the world who could claim to be an "expert" on this text, are you saying that the only people you'll listen to are those you agree with?

I ask you again, do you think that Jesus was left handed, that he was seven feet tall, and that he was bowlegged, simply because the Bible doesn't say that he wasn't?

My thoughts do not matter. My logic and the facts presented to me are what I work with, not my personal opinions - so far as drawing a conclusion is concerned.

See, you're contradicting yourself -- you claim that your personal opinion doesn't matter, and yet you've concluded that Jesus was married, because the Bible doesn't say that he wasn't, but you're not attributing anything else to him on the same basis.

Dr. Karen King, a professor of church history at Harvard Divinity School, has observed, "The confrontation of Mary with Peter, a scenario also found in The Gospel of Thomas,, Pistis Sophia,, and The Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, reflects some of the tensions in second-century Christianity. Peter and Andrew represent orthodox positions that deny the validity of esoteric revelation and reject the authority of women to teach."

Wait a minute, this is the same woman that you denigrated above, because she said that Jesus wasn't married to Mary Magdalene. Make up your mind -- is she someone whose opinion you value or not?

At any rate, she's citing Gnostic texts, which I've already explained to you have an intentional slant to them. I asked you for a credible scholar who claims that Jesus intended Mary Magdalene to found his church, rather than Peter, I didn't ask for a scholar who claims that the Gnostics believed that, those are probably a dime a dozen, and I'd be inclined to agree with them.

reply to post by adjensen


I'm only going to respond to one part of your post, because it's not going to go anywhere - I can see that clearly.

The part about the woman expert and the scripture, apparently, you didn't understand. Here's my point: we rely on the experts to give us the right answer, yes? But as proven through Kurt Wise of Harvard, if the experts themselves will favor the Bible over their own schooling and research, how are we to trust their expert opinion?

That's my point here. And since the article appears to lean neither one way or the other, here's my breakdown: I don't trust the context the Bible has given me so far. I don't trust it one bit. And the article seems to be implying that he had a wife, as well as the expert saying definitively ( one of the few things s/he said definitively) wife and bride were not the same thing. All considered...

You know what, I'm done arguing this crap. Believe what you want to believe. I'm too tired, too irritated, and generally too emotional to have a clear-headed conversation on this subject. And don't bother responding.

Have a good one.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
The part about the woman expert and the scripture, apparently, you didn't understand. Here's my point: we rely on the experts to give us the right answer, yes? But as proven through Kurt Wise of Harvard, if the experts themselves will favor the Bible over their own schooling and research, how are we to trust their expert opinion?

Okay, so we can't trust experts, because one guy says something. Let's hold onto that for a minute.

That's my point here. And since the article appears to lean neither one way or the other, here's my breakdown: I don't trust the context the Bible has given me so far. I don't trust it one bit. And the article seems to be implying that he had a wife, as well as the expert saying definitively ( one of the few things s/he said definitively) wife and bride were not the same thing. All considered...

Whoops, now we're back on the side of trusting an expert, because she said wife and bride are not the same thing.

But, wait, it's the same expert that you said NOT to trust when I cited her saying that Jesus wasn't married to Mary Magdalene.

So, let's recap, shall we?

1) Scholar says that "bride and wife" are not the same thing - to be trusted
2) Same scholar says that Jesus wasn't married to Mary - NOT to be trusted
3) Non-scientific article, which uses same scholar as primary source, "implies" that Jesus was married - to be trusted
4) Other scholars who say this article is incorrect - NOT to be trusted

Conclusion, on your part? Jesus was obviously married.

Illogical, much? I can see why you're running away from it

reply to post by randyvs

Just look at the pic. So pristine like it was done yesterday. Hey that just might be an indicator of doubt ? You people.

No, it means they did their job by cleaning it as best possible, as any archeologist would in order to leave no doubt when deciphering it.

I'd so love to say 'duh' but I wont.

peace

reply to post by adjensen

Conclusion, on your part? Jesus was obviously married.

Illogical, much? I can see why you're running away from it

This is why I came back. Because I knew you'd throw that jab in. I'm saying that the Church has more reason to lie to us about Jesus's possible marriage than anyone else does, so I'm not taking the Church's authority on anything.

Let's say I'm suspicious. Is that good enough for you? Of course it isn't. Too bad.

2) Same scholar says that Jesus wasn't married to Mary - NOT to be trusted

How does she know, exactly? because it isn't explicitly stated? So you're saying every person who stated previously in this thread that it would be highly uncommon for a young man at that time to NOT be married, is incorrect in their assertions? Is that your stance?

Alright. Just thought we'd make that clear.

Conclusion, on your part? Jesus was obviously married.

Never said that. I never said, "Jesus is married and you're wrong." Nothing to that effect was ever posted by me. However, I will say that the possibility of his being married makes a helluva lot more sense than what the Bible touts:divine man, son of "God", completely sinless, blah blah. If he eats and breathes and talks and walks, that gives him human characteristics. And unless he was asexual, there is no reason to think that he may have had the same chemical influences that all other men have.

Unless the Holy Spirit fixes that for you? In that case, I'm blaming The Secret for that. You know The Secret? Look it up - it's half the reason all prayers appear to be answered.

reply to post by Absoluttruth

Very interesting article. I'm not saying that the Bible is totally wrong, but I do believe that it is incomplete and there are discrepancies in what it says. Did Jesus have a wife? Perhaps, I do feel that much more evidence needs to be provided in order to substantiate this claim.

From what you've said (above) I think you've got the right idea.

Now, ask yourself - why would parts of the Bible have been 'left out'. Then ask yourself if these 'left out parts' offended anyone? And who? Then why. Keep going. You're on the right track.

It's my opinion when King James 'decided' (with a handful of butt kissers) what would and would not be 'included' in the Bible? He found great offense at anything that glorified the importance of woman - or - put them on the same level as men... Much less made Jesus a 'real' man - still without sin, as, anything He did under the mantle of a true marriage would (still) allow him to remain blameless/sinless.

Was he married? I have no idea. Could he have been? Why not. Is he supposed to 'marry' the church? You bet. But I see no reason (and I could be wrong) why he could not have an earthly wife as most men do - and after 'dying and rising' - unite the earthly church as his 'bride in heaven'...

Just saying -

peace

reply to post by silo13


Haha...like the gospel of Jesus? The one that should be in the Bible, no matter what, turns out missing? The pivotal character in the Bible doesn't get his own voice? Everyone who WASN'T pure and divine gets to speak for him? Please.

All that need be said.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

2) Same scholar says that Jesus wasn't married to Mary - NOT to be trusted

How does she know, exactly? because it isn't explicitly stated?

Because she studies this stuff, it's her job.

So you're saying every person who stated previously in this thread that it would be highly uncommon for a young man at that time to NOT be married, is incorrect in their assertions?

Of what relevance is that? Saying that it would be "highly uncommon" isn't the same thing as saying "utterly impossible". Your conclusion that Jesus must have been married because it would be uncommon for him not to be is an irrational one, similar to saying "the odds of winning the lottery are so small that no one ever wins it."

If Jesus was divine, if the experiences of Mary, prior to his birth, and those of the parents of John the Baptist (also apparently not married) are accurate, along with Jesus' precociousness as a child (teaching in the Temple) it is highly unlikely that he would have been expected to "live a normal life", so saying he'd be betrothed at twelve because "that's what they did back then" is a claim without basis, with a reasonable explanation for why that would not have happened.