New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married

reply to post by hurdygurdy


Well you're entitled to your opinion but I don't see any context within the painting or story of Jesus that has anything to do with aliens. Him pointing to the sky is saying god who is in heaven above us.

Maybe I'm missing something?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
One wonders why you seem to be so offended by something so "idiotic".

I'm not offended by your conclusions, but rather by the process be which you arrived at them. There is no basis for your conclusions, apart from fictional accounts, and yet you present them as good theories. "Jesus is John the Baptist"? What on Earth would make you think that? "No one wrote about Jesus until 100 years after he died"? There is proof that's not true, why would you claim it?

I know that you're only 23, but come on, as Paul says, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."

God doesn't have a wife yet, but he will soon enough when his Bride makes her way to the marriage feast of the Lamb. Right now she needs to be making sure she has enough olive oil to keep her lamp burning through the night while He rides to the rescue.

reply to post by adjensen


Why do you continue to point out my age? This is the second time in as many run-ins that you have pointed it out. What is your point exactly? Just because I'm young means I'm childish and my theories don't hold any water?

That's a very childish argument from someone who implies he's grown and no longer childish.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Why do you continue to point out my age? This is the second time in as many run-ins that you have pointed it out. What is your point exactly? Just because I'm young means I'm childish and my theories don't hold any water?

To a certain degree, yes, but only because you insist on making immature arguments. If you made sensible, thoughtful arguments that demonstrated that you had researched the matters you were discussing, it would be much different, and I'd enjoy the debate. Instead, you make foolish, easily dismissed claims, demonstrating your immaturity, and why should those not be pointed out?

reply to post by adjensen


If you say so.

reply to post by silo13


This news only has any meaning for those that believe that Jesus existed (as a half divinity) and that are able to accept challenging the mainstream, that is it requires a believe that HE did in fact exit. At this point non believers still have no factual evidence that he did. This of course does not detract from the power and real history of Christianity and its effect on Rome and the region.

reply to post by silo13


Dear silo13,

Wait, will people accept this small document as proof that Jesus existed and was a real person? We can accept that he was a real person so long as he was married? It is old gnostic stuff and was never accepted. The letters and manuscripts that were finally included in the New Testament were not just whatever people had around. The letters from Paul for instance were in the hands of churches that he had visited and started. Consider what Paul wrote in some of his letters, he would say that the people he was sending these words to knew that he spoke the truth and knew the people he mentioned. The gnostic texts did not have that authority because they were written hundreds of years later.

None of this is new, the same claims made for hundreds of years with no proof. Jesus was married, Jesus had kids, Jesus was gay, Jesus never existed, Jesus didn't die, his disciples stole the body. All have been asked and answered many times and yet, Christianity still spread. If any of these things were true, wouldn't the Jews in Jerusalem at the time have said them, they didn't. Easiest thing in the world would have been to say that the person did not exist and did not do those things. The Romans sent to Christians to die in the coliseums for claiming these things, why didn't the Romans just say that they had not crucify Jesus? Why did they let a revolutionary be released instead? History accepts that the revolutionary was let go, without Jesus you need an explanation for why he was let go?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I hold out faith in you, don't worry, lol. You just need to develop critical thinking skills, and the willingness to think about, and look into, the subjects that you're passionate about. That isn't a judgement, it's a hope :-)

I think it's a misquote anyway; I think he was saying "take my wife, please...." [rimshot]

The wife/Bride of Christ is the Church. John 3:29, Mark 2:19, Ephesians 5:23-32, Revelation 19:7; 21:2,9-10, etc...

Now on to the most retarded post I've ever seen... seriously, dude, crack open the Bible you mock and actually read it:

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I don't think Mary Magdalene was a woman at all, I believe "she" was John the Baptist and John and Jesus were lovers.

Jesus had an apostle named John who he kissed regularly, this apostle was John the Baptist in my opinion. The writer of the book John and Revelations was also John the Baptist. I think the reason they almost entirely removed him from the story was because he was gay.

I'd even go as far as to say that "Jesus" was actually John, the Romans just switched his name out with Jesus. Both Jesus and John both had miraculous births around the same time and both escaped Herod from the same city while he was searching for Jesus. Coincidence? I don't think so.

The reason there is no historical evidence for Jesus until 100 years after he died is because Jesus never lived, it was John the Baptist who lived.

Same story, different name.

St. John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin, being the son of Elizabeth, Jesus' cousin via His mother, as Mary and St. Elizabeth were cousins. There was nothing particularly "miraculous" about St. John the Baptist's birth, and I have no clue where you got that. He fled nothing. Herod Archelaus had the male children in BETHLEHEM killed, and as we see in St. Luke's Gospel, Elizabeth and by default young St. John the Baptist lived in Hebron, nowhere near the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents.

John the Evangelist was the Apostle you are thinking of insofar as the writer of the Gospel according to St. John and Apocalypse (Revealing) of Jesus Christ aka Revelation. St. John was the brother of James, and together they were the "Sons of Thunder" because they were.. well... a little hot tempered and ready to take on the world. Kissing a male friend on the cheek is still done today in the Middle East, and has nothing to do with homosexuality.

St. John the Baptist was "removed" from the story by the request of Salome when she requested his head be brought to her on a silver platter at the covert request of her mother, for pleasing the king by dancing. St. John the Baptist was, at this time, in jail for ticking off Herod Antipas because he called him on his involvement in an adulterous marriage.

Why would the Romans "make" a better "character" whom demands worship, takes away the threats of Roman power by promising eternal life, and has the Romans beating this innocent God-Man half to death and then crucifying Him because the Romans feared a Jewish uprising: thus making the Romans appear somewhat weaker than they'd like to?

Seriously? Dude, read it first. Mmkay?

If it were a text that is valid it most certainly came from apostate Christians, that is the corrupt Church, as it is in direct contradiction of the healthful words of truth found in God's inspired word the Bible.

Don't believe Satanic occult inspired lies over divine truth. One leads to life, the other leads to death.

Really you can check the veracity of the statement by this fact alone:


(1 John 4:2, 3) . . .Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, 3 but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s [inspired expression] which YOU have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.

So it's easy to see how everybody became confused. Jesus was getting some trim and at the critical moment he said "Oh God, Oh God, I'm coming". It became more and more exaggerated as the "oral" history was passed down throughout the years. His disciples followed him around because he was good with the ladies and they wanted to know also how to be successful. Somehow this event became the cornerstone of Christianity. Secret was that Jesus was just a good listener.

reply to post by Augustine62


Jesus had a brother named James, the apostle John had a brother named James, Jesus' mother was named Mary, the apostle Johns mothers name was Salome a.k.a. "Mary" Salome.

Mary Salome was supposedly the sister of Mary, mother of Jesus.

John the Baptist was born to an old woman named Elizabeth who was the cousin of Mary and it is widely accepted that Elizabeth's pregnancy was miraculous. John the Baptist and the apostle John were both cousins of Jesus.

John the Baptists father was Zecharia, John the apostles father was Zebedee, both start with Z. That may be nothing but still worth mentioning I guess.

Just pointing out some things that I find curious. It's a really difficult subject to study because there are so many names that are the same and so many family connections to look through. I'm in the process of studying this theory and trying to make some connections so I am in no way saying this is true.

i can't even get into the whole relevance/repurcussions thing on this...
i get as far as;

"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."

and i find the tears welling up too thick to read any further.
as usual, our own experiences, moralities, and perspectives are insignificant against the weight of the millenia old doings of some vague entity... and as usual, when our 'knowledge' of this individual changes, so too does the entirety of right and wrong.
the more thing change, the more they stay the same.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Augustine62

 

Jesus had a brother named James, the apostle John had a brother named James, Jesus' mother was named Mary, the apostle Johns mothers name was Salome a.k.a. "Mary" Salome.

Mary Salome was supposedly the sister of Mary, mother of Jesus.

John the Baptist was born to an old woman named Elizabeth who was the cousin of Mary and it is widely accepted that Elizabeth's pregnancy was miraculous. John the Baptist and the apostle John were both cousins of Jesus.

John the Baptists father was Zecharia, John the apostles father was Zebedee, both start with Z. That may be nothing but still worth mentioning I guess.

Just pointing out some things that I find curious. It's a really difficult subject to study because there are so many names that are the same and so many family connections to look through. I'm in the process of studying this theory and trying to make some connections so I am in no way saying this is true.

edit on 19-9-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

... and they were all BIPEDAL!

Honestly, the scrap of text is not dated, is from another part of the world and probably over 200 years later and we aren't even sure what it is saying. Can we wait until this has been checked out before making up some "way out there" interpretations.

I applaud that something that could (but I doubt it) be of historical and religious import is brought forward for public scrutiny but the extrapolations from the facts that the people associated with this are putting out are just simply unwarranted and show a predisposition to misrepresent the facts.

If you attempt to accept the claims put forth by the procurators of the "new" document, then you will have to discount many other claims of the Holy Bible.

If it was considered -so- unusual at the time for a man not to have a wife (which it actually was not considered completely unusual; you have been horribly misled); then how is it that Paul explicitly tells people that he would rather that people were like him - able to resist "the burning", which is the desire to be with a woman (or a man in the case of a woman). But, he says, if you are unable to resist, if it overwhelms you, then it is not only good to marry, it is required so that you might not sin. If Paul, a humble, lowly man who once had much of his own particular sin, in that he persecuted the Christians harshly, is capable of staying a virgin, and it was no surprise or big thing, then why is there difficulty for people to understand that Jesus Christ also was a virgin? If you had actually read the Holy Bible, you would understand why He would HAVE to be a virgin.

What I find most ironic about all of this mess is that people will readily believe in the existence of Jesus Christ and yet would like to make up stories in their minds of what He did instead of actually paying attention to what is given to us to be true - the Holy Bible.

Where do you come up with your make believe stories concerning Jesus Christ since the Holy Bible IS our reference for Him? Of course, you could always read the Apocrypha; but you will find, if you are paying attention, that the Apocrypha are not good for report; their writing style is not proper to the author, the Holy Spirit. Read them and compare them to the valid books of the Bible and you will see, if you are wise enough, that there is a reason why the Apocrypha are not considered true to the Holy Bible.

That being said also, I refer you to Revelations. Why would the 144,000 be glorified with the statement that they had not defiled themselves with women? And aren't those 144,000 each 12,000 of each of the tribes of Israel? They were redeemed from the Earth! They were virgins, having not defiled themselves with women, and were glorified FOR IT. How much more is Jesus Christ worth His glory? So much more; and He is the One who gives glory and Jesus Christ is our example. Remember how Job is asked, "should man be more pure than his Maker?" Should the 144,000 be more pure than Our Saviour, Jesus Christ? Impossible. (Also recognize that there was no guile found in the mouth of the 144,000; so they were not only virgins, but they also had virgin tongues, so to speak. So they bridled more than just their sexual parts.)

Now also pay attention further. For the church, which is the body of Christ, and is called such for a reason, IS the bride of Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ is the bridegroom. So if Jesus Christ had a fleshly wife, then would He not have then participated in polygamy, which is not considered right in the eyes of God? For as it was in the beginning, Adam and Eve, man and his wife, such it should be. But considering the church, which is the body of Christ, is the bride of Christ, then Jesus Christ marries the church. This IS the beginning of the New Heaven and the New Earth; when New Jerusalem comes down from Heaven as a bride adorned for her groom.

Also, it is written that the body of the woman belongs to the man and the body of the man belongs to the woman; and neither can withhold from each other except in certain predetermined times, such as fasting and prayer.

If the body of the woman belongs to the man, then the body of Christ belongs to Christ. So for anyone who thinks the body of Christ means His actual body; no. The body of Christ IS the bride of Christ. However, also recognize how it also says that the body of the man belongs to the woman; that the body of Jesus Christ Himself belongs to the church. Is this not true? Did not only Jesus Christ give the world His flesh and blood, but also does He not give us the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of Christ, who is God? So therefore, God has given Himself to us as well; and then we have the boldness to state that He had chosen for Himself a woman of the flesh? It was enough that He chose to marry the flesh with His Spirit by means of being born by a woman; a virgin woman, especially, for it would not have been good for Him to be born through a woman that had already been defiled by a man!! So if Jesus Christ had defiled Himself with a woman, then why did He need to be born from a virgin??

It is not a sin for us to marry and to have sex - not at all. But it is wrong to take away from the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ; and to claim it is in favor of history and what is right when you haven't even read or prayed to discern what is right.

It is not the Catholic dogma which is harmed because theirs is a religion founded upon pagan ritualism.

But those who have the Lord now, do not be fooled by this nonsense.

reply to post by adjensen

Hello there, my old friend and opponent. I would like to ask you why it is so important to you that Jesus should have been a bachelor. I know you haven't said that's important to you, but your earnest activity on this thread indicates (to me, at least) that it is.

The article linked in the OP says this:

It was not until around the year 200 that Christian followers began to say Jesus was unmarried, according to a record King cites from Clement of Alexandria. In his writing, Clement -- an early theologian -- said that marriage was a fornication put in place by the devil, and that people should emulate Jesus by not marrying.

I am sure you know that the above is strictly true. We have no firm evidence, from the Bible or elsewhere, concerning the marital status of Jesus Christ.

As far as I know, no point of basic Christian doctrine is violated if Jesus actually was married, or 'in a relationship', or whatever. The justification for priestly celibacy might disappear, but that is a matter of concern only to Roman Catholics, and I suspect a great many of them, priests and lay folk alike would actually welcome the disappearance of the institution.

Is it just that some Christians find the idea of Jesus having sex repugnant? If so, I wonder why.

Of course, the Ancient Greeks held that the embrace of a god is always fertile...

Nemmine.

reply to post by Astyanax


I believe John the Baptist and John the apostle are possibly the same person.

John the apostle was the beloved apostle and Jesus said that John the Baptist was the greatest man to ever live in Matthew 11:11. I think there is a connection there.