Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Was Jesus married?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
A scrap of 4th century coptic papyrus says so according to Karen King - and also refers to a female disciple:


A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of scripture: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife …'"

The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”


It's not as if Madeleine christianity is going to actualy replace Paulicine christianity any time soon of course, but even as an atheist I find the early history a fascinating topic just for hte history itself.




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Yup.

And he prolly had children.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I always assumed that he would have had to been married.
How can he judge us for adultery if he was never married and never tempted by adultery?
It`s easy to be perfect if you are never faced with the temptation to do wrong.

he wouldn`t be qualified to pass judgement on us if he didn`t face all the temptations we face and not succumb to them.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Not if he was smart...



By the way this has already been posted...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Jesus was considered a good Jewish man...that kinda indicates he would have married.

It freaks us out bc the thought of Jesus having marital relations is so.....ewww. But why should that be the case? Because we've been conditioned to believe that sex is somehow dirty and wrong.

I bet Jesus had a wife, and probably a child or two.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Not if he was smart...

Best argument against this theory I have ever heard!
Case closed!



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Was Jesus married?


Yes, Yes i was.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Was Jesus married?


Yes, Yes i was.




You are not my son - stop telling lies! :p



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Dad, i don't want to talk to you right now, The whole Crucifixion malarkey was the last straw!

I'm gonna go live with mum and Joseph, he was always my real father anyway you UN-godly reprobate!



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


Who are you and what did you do with the real Jesus??



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It's not as if Madeleine christianity is going to actualy replace Paulicine christianity any time soon of course, but even as an atheist I find the early history a fascinating topic just for hte history itself.


"Madeleine christianity"? What the heck is that?

Okay, let's put this into context. This is a scrap of papyrus smaller than a business card. It has eight lines of writing on one side and three words on the other. The scrap is missing the text which came after "my wife", which means it could have said anything (like "my wife, Mary" or "my wife, the church".) It is a Fourth Century document, written in Coptic, which immediately calls to mind Nag Hammadi and the Gnostic texts within, which this would fit with, by date, language and content.

In other words, while possibly interesting, this doesn't really mean anything, as regards new knowledge of Christ. It certainly doesn't mean that he was married... at best, it might mean that some people, centuries after his death, thought that he was married, just as they so speculate today.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Story is picking up speed and going round the bind.





www.huffingtonpost.com... d%3D207309

"The Gospel Of Jesus' Wife," New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married





posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Jesus was considered a good Jewish man...that kinda indicates he would have married.

It freaks us out bc the thought of Jesus having marital relations is so.....ewww. But why should that be the case? Because we've been conditioned to believe that sex is somehow dirty and wrong.

I bet Jesus had a wife, and probably a child or two.


Huh? We are conditioned to think that way? Only crazy people think that way.
I am a Christian and do not believe Jesus was married because there is no supporting evidence from the first century to support that idea. But if He were married, as you propose, then His sexual relationship with His wife is none of our concern.

But to assume He was married is actually a presumption. There were many people in the Bible who were not married, and many who were. We don't go ewwww when thinking of Abraham as an old man having sex with a younger Hagar, or even older Sarah.

Look at the source, it came from the Gnostics. The Catholic church did not cover up anything. And in fact, I remember the episode from the archeologist, what's his name? Josh something, anyway, he actually had a test done on the first Merovingian queen, and it came back NEGATIVE of any Jewish or middle-eastern dna. Let me find the link for that, but it was on tv. The Merovingian blood line was a legend that has been debunked.

The Bible in consistent over and over again that the Bride of Christ is the Church. Not the Catholic church, but the body of believers who were redeemed by Him. That hearkens back to the Kinsman Redeemer. Boaz bought the right to marry Ruth, in essence redeeming her inheritance. He did not buy it from Ruth, but her dead husband's kinsmen who could claim the right to marry her. Boaz redeemed her from that law and married her because he loved her so much he would do that. And in doing so, preserved her inheritance, it saved it from being taken away from her.

Jesus, by His own blood, redeemed His bride because He loves His bride.

Boaz bought it with his shoe, Jesus bought it with His blood. The most interesting thing about marriage in those days was that when a woman and man married, to prove her virginity, the sheet they had sex on was shown to the people, proving that her blood was there. That proved her virginity. But Christ is not married to a virgin church. Instead of showing her blood, His blood was shed. He did that because He loves His bride.

So when it says "wife", then it refers to the Bride of Christ. I don't go ewww when thinking about sex, because I am grown up and can look at that from an adult perspective. If people dislike it, then they are not grown up enough and still thinking carnally.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It's not as if Madeleine christianity is going to actualy replace Paulicine christianity any time soon of course, but even as an atheist I find the early history a fascinating topic just for hte history itself.


"Madeleine christianity"? What the heck is that?

Okay, let's put this into context. This is a scrap of papyrus smaller than a business card. It has eight lines of writing on one side and three words on the other. The scrap is missing the text which came after "my wife", which means it could have said anything (like "my wife, Mary" or "my wife, the church".) It is a Fourth Century document, written in Coptic, which immediately calls to mind Nag Hammadi and the Gnostic texts within, which this would fit with, by date, language and content.

In other words, while possibly interesting, this doesn't really mean anything, as regards new knowledge of Christ. It certainly doesn't mean that he was married... at best, it might mean that some people, centuries after his death, thought that he was married, just as they so speculate today.


They meant Magdeleine, from Mary Magdalene. and you are right, it is Gnostic. And yes, speculation. When they say "He was Jewish, therefore had to be married" is purely speculative, We know not all Jewish men today are married and some of them are even gay. Orthodox Judaism is not a prerequisite to marriage, or the other way around.

Marriage is an honorable idea to the Jews, but not a requirement. The Catholic Church was not always against priests marrying, it was only instituted because some guy had the idea that priests were not capable of being a good priest while being married. Even the priest grandfather of St. Patrick was married.

There should never have been restrictions on marriage for priests, because they could still live very fulfilled lives while being married. It does happen.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Yes I believe he was married, I think most Jewish men traditionally were known to be married quite early in their twenties...................



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
I always assumed that he would have had to been married.
How can he judge us for adultery if he was never married and never tempted by adultery?
It`s easy to be perfect if you are never faced with the temptation to do wrong.

he wouldn`t be qualified to pass judgement on us if he didn`t face all the temptations we face and not succumb to them.


hmm..

For your Maker is your husband—
the Lord Almighty is his name—
Isaiah54



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
It actually makes more sense to me that he would marry. He came to Earth in human form. With that human form, he ate, he drank, he walked, he talked, he breathed, he slept, he wept, he laughed, he urinated, and blah blah blah... Why would he NOT have sex? It is a normal human activity. Why leave that one out?

To those who say there is no distinct evidence that he was married, I say there is no distinct evidence he was a bachelor.

We just don't know, but based on all of the other 'normal human activities' listed above we know he DID do, I'd have to side with the "he was probably married" crowd.

And I bet his wife thought he was just DIVINE in the bedroom. (Sorry, couldn't resist! God DOES have a sense of humor- hope you do too!)
edit on 9/18/2012 by new_here because: typo



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by new_here
 


Reasonably, Christ is represented in the Bible as being free from sin. He was the only one who, in material form, was able to say "no" to everything that separates us from God (which is all sin is, that which separates us from God.)

So, given the testimony of the historical evidence, and the logic of what we might expect Christ to behave like, it isn't unreasonable to assume that he did not have sex.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by new_here
 


Reasonably, Christ is represented in the Bible as being free from sin. He was the only one who, in material form, was able to say "no" to everything that separates us from God (which is all sin is, that which separates us from God.)

So, given the testimony of the historical evidence, and the logic of what we might expect Christ to behave like, it isn't unreasonable to assume that he did not have sex.


Sex is not a sin within the context of marriage.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by new_here
Sex is not a sin within the context of marriage.


Except that there is no indication, whatsoever, that Jesus was married. He asks John to take care of his mother when he is dying on the cross, don't you think that he'd have made similar arrangements for his wife? And if the church "scrubbed the Gospels" to remove statements that Jesus was married, why didn't they similarly remove references to Peter's being married, as he was the founder of the church?





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join