4th century papyri Jesus had a wife

caught my eye at coasttocoastam.com

Translated legible text
not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe]
The disciples said to Jesus
deny. Mary is worthy of it
Jesus said to them, “My wife
she will be able to be my disciple
Let wicked people swell up
As for me, I dwell with her in order to
an image

The Jesus in this Sahidic Coptic papyri written around 300AD had a wife. The article mentions certain experts who vouch for its authenticity.

To me, this "Jesus" is undoubtedly the christian god. In all probability he was intimate with the referenced wife and raises the very real possibility that he had, at least, one child.

The article also notes the Vatican tenet:

that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus.

because, to me, obviously this ancient document contradicts this tradition.

I think this is evidence the Christian faith had been manipulated and distorted to suit someone's agenda. Even scholars agree that canon, which contradicts itself innumerable times, has evident later editors.

Original and historic christianity would most probably be unrecognizable to modern Christians. In the same way, modern Christianity would be beyond recognition to the historic Jesus imvho.

To me, this highlights the folly of religion and what it entails which is why I am no longer a fan of blind faith and fanaticism; especially one that makes everyone else who doesn't share your beliefs wrong, evil, and condemned to hell.
new york times

reply to post by reject


I don't see why Jesus having a wife, or kids, would be that big of a deal. It wouldn't surprise me.

On another note, I have been wanting to watch The Da Vinci Code again the past few days. Then this came out. Premonition or coincidence? Or maybe I just really like good movies.

Incidentally, we already know the bible has been manipulated over the centuries by kings, churches, etc... It's documented. Here's some links:

Changes to the Bible through the ages are being studied by New Orleans scholars

English Bible History

Jesus was Jew right? then all made no sense last 2000 years

and why there is no 1 evidence of Jesus from his life time? and and and... crazy world.

i think real Jesus was a black guy, have wife and kids, and was conspiracy theorist of his time... then he pay the price

reply to post by reject


So...

let me get this straight. You think that a document written 300 years AFTER Christ proves the invalidity of the documents written 30 years after Christ?

That's...

utterly nonsensical.

First the catholic view of priest is wrong, the bible it self refutes it.

Next it sure is funny that any find that matches up with the bible is seen as coincidence or out right fraud, yet one that contradicts it and well that's surely legit.

And even if he did as a poster said is not a big deal, even though it goes against whats in the current bulk of historical text, one document does not a air tight case make.

I guess Mr Dan Brown might not have been that far off in his book about this.
But as will all things like this, it will either be hushed, or discarded....

reply to post by reject


Always utilise the search feature before making any thread, there are 4 threads now dealing with this same topic.

Originally posted by Awen24
reply to post by reject

 

So...

let me get this straight. You think that a document written 300 years AFTER Christ proves the invalidity of the documents written 30 years after Christ?

That's...

utterly nonsensical.

Not at all. How many times have we seen something written 300 years later turn out to be more accurate that what was known 270 years prior? Many many times.

Originally posted by TempleCat

Originally posted by Awen24
reply to post by reject

 

So...

let me get this straight. You think that a document written 300 years AFTER Christ proves the invalidity of the documents written 30 years after Christ?

That's...

utterly nonsensical.

Not at all. How many times have we seen something written 300 years later turn out to be more accurate that what was known 270 years prior? Many many times.

Do you have many many examples?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by TempleCat

Originally posted by Awen24
reply to post by reject

 

So...

let me get this straight. You think that a document written 300 years AFTER Christ proves the invalidity of the documents written 30 years after Christ?

That's...

utterly nonsensical.

Not at all. How many times have we seen something written 300 years later turn out to be more accurate that what was known 270 years prior? Many many times.

Do you have many many examples?

Here's a list - Here

And some Here

And some things we thought were facts but were later proven wrong Here

There are also parts of the bible that have been proven incorrect or wrong. But the thing with the bible is that once you find an error it is blamed on translation. Yet no one questions the translations, or the many gospels that were removed from the bible over the centuries. Me, I'd want to know.

Kinda funny how this one little gnostic text not even connected to the Apostles in any manner gets this much attention. Like the wolves are baying at the fence the sheep are protected by. Or perhaps someone attempting to chum the water the kids are swimming in, luring in the bullsharks to the feast.

reply to post by TempleCat


You're kidding I hope. Those links don't even come close to the same situation. A situation where statements or letters about a person hundreds of years after the fact were more accurate than statements and letters written by that person's closest friends and family from their personal interactions with said individual.

Please lets not compare apples to catfish.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by TempleCat

 

You're kidding I hope. Those links don't even come close to the same situation. A situation where statements or letters about a person hundreds of years after the fact were more accurate than statements and letters written by that person's closest friends and family from their personal interactions with said individual.

Please lets not compare apples to catfish.

Nope. My point is that mankind doesn't know everything. Over the last 300 years we've learned a lot. What we once thought was true many times is now false.

Where is the gospel of Jesus? Why was what is considered the gospel of Jesus left out of the bible (Gospel of Thomas) when there was nothing heretical in it? What about all the other books that were left out? What if a scrap of paper or a manuscript led us to even older works from Jesus' time? Like, say, the "Gospel According To Mary" (120-180 A.D.) which is another that was left out. Finally, why would Jesus being married and having children suddenly make everything so scary for Christians? Was he not born of woman? Wouldn't you want to know the truth?

reply to post by Awen24


Actually, the date you are giving for mark and/or 1 thessalonians which is generally thought to be written, at the very least 40 years after jesus, is merely a scholarly "interpolation."

The first book written was probably 1 Thessalonians, written at around 50 CE.

link

Some manuscripts were only "mentioned" by reliable sources around 100-200AD which does suggest an earlier date BUT the earliest extant physical NEW TESTAMENT manuscript FRAGMENT is only dated 100-200AD also.

The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St. John's fragment, is a fragment from a papyrus codex, measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (8.9 by 6 cm) at its widest

link

The gospel of Jesus' wife is comparable in quality.

It was very small — only 4 by 8 centimeters.

But Dr. King was struck by phrases in the fragment like “My mother gave to me life,” and “Mary is worthy of it,” which resemble snippets from the Gospels of Thomas and Mary. Experts believe those were written in the late second century and translated into Coptic. She surmises that this fragment is also copied from a second-century Greek text

Given these characteristics, this document should be given almost as much weight as the other one, don't you think?