New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married

reply to post by DeadSeraph


You do the Godzilla Facepalm way too often. Maybe that's why no one listens to you; you make intelligent conversation far too harsh to be educational and far too brutal to be productive.

Learn to respect others as much as you respect your...*ahem* wit.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

I think it more appropriate that the ones who have created an entire religion based on this, where the priesthood is required to be celibate because of Jesus alleged celibacy, provide evidence of their claims than a quickly written "Ha! I knew it!" type of comment on a conspiracy forum, no?

I challenge you to find any evidence of Jesus celibacy though.

Well, I've read Dan Brown's works a few years back, but nothing in the books can be trusted really. We all know this. No, I based it on a much more reliable source of course.. a random guy on the internet . The thing about the 'companion' may be utter horse#, and I'm not gonna become a scholar just to find out... nevertheless I still stand by the rest of my comment though. To me, it is common sense. Jesus may have been a man of great spiritual prowess, but he was not god.

FYI I based my comment on the following:

The phrase ‘my wife’ challenges the settled portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a whore and the Christian concept of abstinence. It casts doubt “on the whole Catholic claim of a celibate priesthood based on Jesus’ celibacy,” King told Smithsonian Magazine.

"Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim," King said at a conference in Rome on Tuesday.
...
"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'," she says.

RT

In the text, Jesus appears to be defending her against some criticism, saying 'she will be my disciple'. Two lines later he then tells the disciples: 'I dwell with her.'

If genuine, the document casts doubt on a centuries old official representation of Magdalene as a repentant whore and overturns the Christian ideal of sexual abstinence.

Dailymail

The Nicea cree (325 AD) and similar meetings before that decided the doctrine of the christian faith. After the doctrine was decided whenever conflicting material surfaced it would have been called "heresy" and burned, especially during medieval times. The church was a powerful tool to control the people (and still is to an extent), conflicting evidence would have challenged core beliefs and bring the structure of control down. I'm sure they told themselves it is "for the greater good".

After over a thousand years of such dark times until the renaissance not much such material would have survived, and the rest would be securely locked up inside the papal archives. And no I will not provide a source for all this, this is pure logic based on history. Either you'll believe me, do your own research, or you don't.

reply to post by anno141

I challenge you to find any evidence of Jesus celibacy though.

Here we come to the crux of the issue this fragment really brings up. I'll concede that many people don't accept Christian historical sources on Jesus. I'll even accept that some people won't accept non-Christian first century sources on Christ that claim he existed. I disagree with you, but I'll accept it because it really has nothing to do with this fragment.

I'm not saying you're doing this, anno141, I'm just making a general observation here- but what I've seen on this thread and similar ones amounts to, 'I'm not a Christian, I don't believe it, but Jesus had to be married!' Really, now?

One could easily turn around and say, 'I challenge you to find any evidence of Jesus' non-celibacy.'

The problem here is that either way, this argument is a fallacy of defective induction. In other words, the premises are too weak to support the conclusion (argument ad ignorantiam).

reply to post by silo13


Jesus often referred to the church as his "bride"

reply to post by LeSigh


Well, you'd have to look no further than my previous post at the claims that she was a "whore" and what I just quoted in my previous post of Jesus saying "I dwell with her" for some evidence. That should be enough to at least raise your eyebrows.. But anyhow, I agree with you that this argument is pointless since we'll never know for sure.. unless we find the memoirs of Jesus.

Well I see the irony in your claim. But just to clarify, I am ex-chistian. I believe Jesus existed. But believe he was a man of great spiritual prowess, not god nor "the only begotten son of god" he might be "the son of god" but then we are all "sons of god". I don't really care much if he was married or not, I only have a 'problem' with decree of the Trinity of raising him to the pedestal of being god. I would accept "there is only one god" (either we a part of god or Jesus and mankind not a part of god) or "everything is god", not just trinity.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

You sir are no sayian

reply to post by Jordan River


That's pretty much the same philosophy Goku followed, and he was one of the greatest fighters in the universe...even greater than most of his fellow Saiyans. So your assertion is ridiculous. Steering this back on topic, the only purpose this "Jesus had a wife" possibility offers is that the Bible is wholly inaccurate to the point of being deliberately misleading. Other than that, there is no reason to even care that he had a wife or a child. Divine or not divine, his messages still hold true.

Unfortunately, most of the people who respect and adore him the most, are the people who place great emphasis on his purported divinity...tough luck, hardcore Christians.

reply to post by tzdub


Again, "wife" and "bride" were not the same things in the Hebrew language. The experts have made this clear. It is, in fact, one of the few things they were definitive about. Read the article!!

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Huge fan of the series myself, have them all, mostly. I was kidding because I love Godzilla and you pooped on him about his pic (rightfully so) but then again, avatar and all.

reply to post by Jordan River


Haha right. I see your gist. what's your view on this whole "married Jesus" deal?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


It doesn't affect nothing on Catholic dogma if accepted as true. and that plenty of text speaking of Mary and Jesus being married (created somewhere closer to the time of Jesus) was burned by high officials of early Christianity/Angry jews and that the fourth century is a copy of a copy of a copy....

Woman were the ones that started early christainity and they were together in high numbers, this changed when man took over through leadership bishop/pope/etc. Church was raped from peoples home and built into a building

reply to post by anno141


Mary Magdalene was never a whore.

One of my posts from one of the other threads about this:

Christ had women disciples. In the Orthodox Church we refer to her as the Great and Holy Myrrh-bearer, Mary Magdalene, Equal to the Apostles. We also say that she was the apostle to the apostles, as she proclaimed the resurrection to the apostles themselves.

Here's who Mary Magdalene wasn't: She wasn't Mary of Bethany (sister of Lazarus), neither was she the prostitute that anointed Jesus' feet and wiped them with her hair. The Eastern Church has always known these three women to be very different people.

The Church Fathers have always maintained that Mary Magdalene helped John the Theologian as an evangelist, and that she died in Ephesus.

Where Mary Magdalene appears in the Christian scriptures: Luke 8:2,3; Matthew 27:55-61; Mark 16:1-10; John 20:1-18

reply to post by LeSigh

I always thought she wasn't, I only thought it was something like badmouthing out of jealousy. But it seems you are right. I was under a misconception and thought they were all the same person. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

You do the Godzilla Facepalm way too often. Maybe that's why no one listens to you; you make intelligent conversation far too harsh to be educational and far too brutal to be productive.

Learn to respect others as much as you respect your...*ahem* wit.

I'm not the one who's been spamming threads with it. You mistook my sarcasm for an attempt at wit.

This find seems to lend credence to the discovery of what many believe was the Lost Tomb of Jesus, which seemed to indicate that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that they had a son named Judah who died in adolescence. Of course, since historical evidence does not agree with Christian Doctrine and Dogma, it will be denounced as a fake and an attempt to discredit the Church.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
This find seems to lend credence to the discovery of what many believe was the Lost Tomb of Jesus, which seemed to indicate that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that they had a son named Judah who died in adolescence. Of course, since historical evidence does not agree with Christian Doctrine and Dogma, it will be denounced as a fake and an attempt to discredit the Church.

That's interesting. I've heard of this before but never heard about the son named Judah. I'll have to take a look at this in more depth when I have time (swamped with homework right now). Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
This find seems to lend credence to the discovery of what many believe was the Lost Tomb of Jesus, which seemed to indicate that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that they had a son named Judah who died in adolescence. Of course, since historical evidence does not agree with Christian Doctrine and Dogma, it will be denounced as a fake and an attempt to discredit the Church.

Yes, I posted this on page 4 about this documentary. Very good documentary, by the way. Had a ton of critics, though.

reply to post by texasgirl


Naturally it had a lot of critics since it claimed that not only had they found the tomb of Jesus, but he was still in it, which kinda disproves the resurrection story as well as the Ascension. As that is one of the prime foundations of Christianity, it stands to reason that they would try anything to discredit it.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by texasgirl

 

Naturally it had a lot of critics since it claimed that not only had they found the tomb of Jesus, but he was still in it, which kinda disproves the resurrection story as well as the Ascension. As that is one of the prime foundations of Christianity, it stands to reason that they would try anything to discredit it.

I completely agree. I am just happy to see someone on here who actually saw this documentary!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


I'm still doing a lot of reading on this discovery but it seems it's not quite the slam dunk it's being portrayed as. I'm not saying it's fake (it's obviously a real tomb), but certain aspects of the claims made about the tomb don't really seem to indicate that it is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

I have a lot more reading to do, but at the moment I am skeptical (based mostly on the claim that the inscriptions on the ossuary labeled as belonging to Jesus dates to between 1BC and 1AD, and thus couldn't belong to the biblical Jesus). I still have a lot of fact checking to do, of course. But so far I remain somewhat skeptical.

I'm not sure if you are the type to read rebuttals on these kinds of issues, but there are few you can read here (neither of which claim this tomb is fake, but rather point out certain flaws in the argument it belonged to the family of the biblical Jesus):

www.joezias.com...

bible.org...