Ancient gospel of Jesus' Wife 'not a fake'.

[Jayhawker Soule]

The criteria of non embarrassment, we needn't be embarrassed by such things, therefore Jesus existed and was married.

That is - literally - nonsense. :beach:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is - literally - nonsense. :beach:

Sometimes people parody other people. Sometimes they even poke fun at entire fields of scholasticism.

Keep an eye out for it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is - literally - nonsense.

Sometimes people parody other people. Sometimes they even poke fun at entire fields of scholasticism.

So it was intentional nonsense. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So it was intentional nonsense. Thanks for the clarification.

Yes. Just as Swift's "A Modest Proposal" was intentional nonsense.

Sometimes people enjoy poking fun at unintentional nonsense (Criterion of Embarrassment, for example) with intentional nonsense (Criterion of Non-Embarrassment).

 

[BruceDLimber]

Assertion is not fact.

And one of the titles of Jesus in the Baha'i scriptures is "He Who never married."

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Windwalker]

Assertion is not fact.

And one of the titles of Jesus in the Baha'i scriptures is "He Who never married."

Peace,

Bruce

There is no such title in the Bible which is the source of knowledge about Jesus.

Actually however, to make this more interesting there was a title that was given to Jesus in the Aramaic language of his immediate followers. That title was Ihidaya, which means “the Single One.” However this does not mean non-married, celibate, monastic, etc. Single One, "Ihidaya" means "Unified One", or in more common terms a Nondualist Realizer. He was "One with God". Single One, as opposed to a dualistic two, with him here and God there.

I personally believe it is through Jesus intimate relationship with Mary Magdalene that he become who he was. This does not mean he was married to her, which he could have been for all anyone can know, aside from making stuff up and calling that revelation. He may have just been in a deeply spiritual relationship with her and never had any sort of physical intimacy, or he may have. It doesn't really matter either way, does it?

Do you believe being celibate, unmarried makes someone more spiritual? Let's get to the real heart of this question, okay?

 

[Tumah]

There is no such title in the Bible which is the source of knowledge about Jesus.

Actually however, to make this more interesting there was a title that was given to Jesus in the Aramaic language of his immediate followers. That title was Ihidaya, which means “the Single One.” However this does not mean non-married, celibate, monastic, etc. Single One, "Ihidaya" means "Unified One", or in more common terms a Nondualist Realizer. He was "One with God". Single One, as opposed to a dualistic two, with him here and God there.

I personally believe it is through Jesus intimate relationship with Mary Magdalene that he become who he was. This does not mean he was married to her, which he could have been for all anyone can know, aside from making stuff up and calling that revelation. He may have just been in a deeply spiritual relationship with her and never had any sort of physical intimacy, or he may have. It doesn't really matter either way, does it?

Do you believe being celibate, unmarried makes someone more spiritual? Let's get to the real heart of this question, okay?

In Hebrew יחיד, Aramaic יחידא, Syriac יחידיא, all just means "individual" or "single." It has no other implications. And can be used in a variety of cases. Unless you think "דיקלא יחידא" (found in the Babylonian Talmud) or "single date-palm [tree]" actually refers to the tree's "Oneness with G-d"?

 

[Shiranui117]

The big reason I still don't buy that Jesus was married, even though there are ultimately no theological problems with it from an Orthodox perspective, is that when He died, He already had to have St. John care for His Mother. If He was married and died at 33 years old, then He would have left His wife and young child(ren) behind with no one to care for them. There was no such thing as a social safety net back in those days, and they would have been left with no one to care for them, which would have been too hard to bear for any family that Jesus may have had. I believe He chose out of considerateness not to be married, so as not to place that burden on a wife and children. It would already have been enough with Jesus out traveling place to place for 3 years, but to have Him die, resurrect and ascend to Heaven, too?

 

[fantome profane]

Assertion is not fact.

And one of the titles of Jesus in the Baha'i scriptures is "He Who never married."

Peace,

Bruce

Thank you for sharing with us the fact that there is an assertion in the Baha'i scriptures.

 

[yoda89]

The big reason I still don't buy that Jesus was married, even though there are ultimately no theological problems with it from an Orthodox perspective, that when He died, He already had to have St. John care for His Mother. If He was married and died at 33 years old, then

Problem is Mary was dead by the time John wrote his gospels. That or she was around 100 at least. Considering he began writing it around 90 ad and based his books upon those of Matthews and Luke. Never actually meeting them.

He would have left His wife and young child(ren) behind with no one to care for them. There was no such thing as a social safety net back in those days,
and they would have been left with no one to care for them, which would have been too hard to bear for any family that Jesus may have had. I believe He chose out of considerateness not to be married, so as not to place that burden on a wife and children.

With the amount of followers he had someone would have taken in his children and wife.

It would already have been enough with Jesus out traveling place to place for 3 years, but to have Him die, resurrect and ascend to Heaven, too?

Jesus was not originally resurrected and ascended in the book of Mark. Which is the first written gospel. His resurrection along with the virgin birth was added by Matthew and Luke around 80 ad.

I'm going to have to agree with Jayhawker here. That scrap proves nothing. Even if Jesus was married, it wouldn't put a dent in Christian claims; in fact, if He was married, that would have been very helpful to the Church in the early centuries of Christianity, and we would be touting that proudly today.

It would put a large dent in the claims. Considering he is claimed not to be married. It was not helpful because at one time priests held a lot of power and passed it down through family. To discourage this and take the money the catholic church denied priests marriage and become chaste. A unmarried savior is a better role model for unmarried men.

 

[Sleeppy]

The big reason I still don't buy that Jesus was married, even though there are ultimately no theological problems with it from an Orthodox perspective, is that when He died, He already had to have St. John care for His Mother. If He was married and died at 33 years old, then He would have left His wife and young child(ren) behind with no one to care for them. There was no such thing as a social safety net back in those days, and they would have been left with no one to care for them, which would have been too hard to bear for any family that Jesus may have had. I believe He chose out of considerateness not to be married, so as not to place that burden on a wife and children. It would already have been enough with Jesus out traveling place to place for 3 years, but to have Him die, resurrect and ascend to Heaven, too?

Jesus' wife would have gone to his brother after death-- or perhaps one of his disciples, as in the case with his mother.

 

[Sunstone]

I wonder if they'll circumvent the ahem* physical side of a marriage
Puts a whole new meaning on coming before the lord. Yes I went there

I almost fell out of my chair laughing! I wish I weren't out of frubals.

 

[Shiranui117]

Jesus' wife would have gone to his brother after death-- or perhaps one of his disciples, as in the case with his mother.

Jesus had no brother by blood, though. James and the rest were all half-siblings from Joseph's prior marriage.

 

[Shiranui117]

Problem is Mary was dead by the time John wrote his gospels. That or she was around 100 at least. Considering he began writing it around 90 ad and based his books upon those of Matthews and Luke. Never actually meeting them.

John certainly knew Matthew. See Acts 1:

When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.

Jesus was not originally resurrected and ascended in the book of Mark. Which is the first written gospel. His resurrection along with the virgin birth was added by Matthew and Luke around 80 ad.

No, St. Mark's Gospel originally ended with His tomb being found empty--meaning, He was risen. The Gospel of Mark ends with the angel telling the women that Christ is risen in verse 8. The Resurrection was by no means a later addition.

The original ending of St. Mark's Gospel:

2 Very early on the first day of the week, they *came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 Looking up, they *saw that the stone had been rolled away, [b]although it was extremely large. 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

It would put a large dent in the claims.

I was talking about theology here. Not sure if you got that. My point was that if Jesus WAS married, then the Church would never have hidden that fact, least of all during the early centuries of Christianity when they needed to prove His true humanity against Docetists and Gnostics.

Considering he is claimed not to be married. It was not helpful because at one time priests held a lot of power and passed it down through family. To discourage this and take the money the catholic church denied priests marriage and become chaste. A unmarried savior is a better role model for unmarried men.

Meanwhile, the Orthodox have always had married men becoming priests, so this objection isn't really an issue for us. Priestly power was only an issue in the West because the literate priests tended to be very helpful in government. Mandatory priestly celibacy in the West didn't become a thing until the 1200's.

 

[outhouse]

Forgot to mention.

It is not a 100% solid that this piece is not a forgery.


Its still up in the air and is still really 50/50 and very undecided. Scholars are afraid to take a stand one way or the other, and at the moment more scholars state its a fake then the few stating authenticity, to which the date is no where near agreed upon.

 

[Sleeppy]

Jesus had no brother by blood, though. James and the rest were all half-siblings from Joseph's prior marriage.

Do you think she would not go to James?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I'm going to have to agree with Jayhawker here. That scrap proves nothing. Even if Jesus was married, it wouldn't put a dent in Christian claims; in fact, if He was married, that would have been very helpful to the Church in the early centuries of Christianity, and we would be touting that proudly today.

Would be slightly annoying though with people searching for all the God-children that would be running around the planet.

Can you imagine some young descendant of Jesus running about turning water into alcohol at college parties? Not a good idea at all.

 

[fantome profane]

Jesus had no brother by blood, though. James and the rest were all half-siblings from Joseph's prior marriage.

Any evidence that Jesus had no full biological brothers? This is another question for which I believe there is no evidence either way. But if I would be interested if you can provide some.

 

[Shiranui117]

Any evidence that Jesus had no full biological brothers? This is another question for which I believe there is no evidence either way. But if I would be interested if you can provide some.

Well, there's the obvious bit that if Mary had any other children besides Jesus, then they would have taken care of Mary. She wouldn't be entrusted to the care of someone completely unrelated like John if she had other children to provide for her.

 

[Shiranui117]

Would be slightly annoying though with people searching for all the God-children that would be running around the planet.

Can you imagine some young descendant of Jesus running about turning water into alcohol at college parties? Not a good idea at all.

Their Ancestor would be very disappointed.