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

[TheGunShoj]

Yes. Jesus is fully God and fully man, but the two natures aren't mixed or hybridized. So His children wouldn't be demigods or something absurd like that.

Sarcasm? I mean, you can't possibly know that. First of all, it's largely debated whether God exists at all. And you are making claims about what traits its offspring would have and moreover, even calling it "absurd".

I can't make any claims about this based anything other than assumption, but logically it would seem that if a God and human mated, that some genes would be passed on to the child from both the mother and father just as genes are passed down when two humans procreate.

Where do you get this notion that it would be absurd if it were even possible? what basis do you have for that claim?

 

[Shiranui117]

Sarcasm? I mean, you can't possibly know that. First of all, it's largely debated whether God exists at all.

Did you expect a Christian to view God's existence as anything else but fact?

And you are making claims about what traits its offspring would have and moreover, even calling it "absurd".

I can't make any claims about this based anything other than assumption, but logically it would seem that if a God and human mated, that some genes would be passed on to the child from both the mother and father just as genes are passed down when two humans procreate.

Where do you get this notion that it would be absurd if it were even possible? what basis do you have for that claim?

Divinity isn't genetic. It's on a completely different level of reality. Jesus' human genes, though, could have been passed onto offspring. If you work off of the Christian doctrine of Jedus' hypostatic union, the conclusion I make is natural.

 

[BruceDLimber]

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

Correction: ONE of the sources of such knowledge!

Do you believe being celibate, unmarried makes someone more spiritual?

No, nor have I ever stated any such thing.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Did you expect a Christian to view God's existence as anything else but fact?

Divinity isn't genetic. It's on a completely different level of reality. Jesus' human genes, though, could have been passed onto offspring. If you work off of the Christian doctrine of Jedus' hypostatic union, the conclusion I make is natural.

Do you have faith in God? If you do, I wouldn't call it fact. Faith is not required when it comes to believing facts.

Regardless of Semantics, Can you give an example of an embodiment of divinity that has been observed and studied to determine that its traits are not genetic?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that he does exist for a fact, there is only one Jesus who is the only embodiment of divinity and according to you, did not reproduce. How can you possibly make a claim about what would happen if Jesus did reproduce with a human when he didn't and therefore you cannot examine the traits of his offspring?

We can't even predict exactly what traits a human child will get from its parents. You are throwing the supernatural into the mix, which we know nothing about and claiming to know with certainty what the outcome would be and stating that any opposing position is 'absurd'.

Do you really not see a problem with this position?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems to me that the current trajectory of this thread is a testimony to the irrelevancy of the OP.

 

[roger1440]

Scientist says a papyrus fragment that mentions Jesus's wife is likely ancient, probably dating between the sixth and ninth century, latest research shows.

Papyrus Mentioning Jesus's Wife Is Likely Ancient and Not Fake, Scientists Say


Now this is a bit interesting indeed, chaps and chappettes. I'm not saying Jesus did exist, or that he did have a wife, but it's quite interesting that some fellow in the 6th century would have been writing about it.

I suspect “The Gospel of Jesus Wife” is much older than the 6th century. The fragment in question might be a piece of a much older Gospel. Constantine the Great had made Christianity the state religion in the 4th century. During the 4th century Christian orthodoxy was well established. A heretical Gospel created in the 6th century is too late in the game. Therefore I suspect this Gospel was written before Christian orthodoxy was clearly defined.

Much of religious scripture is written on two levels of understanding. One level of understanding is the literal or exoteric. The other is the more mystical or metaphorical, esoteric. These levels of understanding must run parallel throughout scripture. It is likely the author of this Gospel could not figure out how to create two levels of understanding with “Jesus wife”. He then lost interest or gave up on it. This fragment appears it was torn off of a larger piece of papyrus. “Jesus wife” probably would have been the Holy Spirit in much the same matter as Mary appears in the Gospel of Philip.

This fragment is important to the understanding of the development of early Christianity. For nearly two millennium the loudest voice for Christians has been the so called orthodox. The last hundred years many more Gospels have been discovered. Modern man now knows these other voices had been silenced. It’s as if these voices have been resurrected from the grave.

 

[Muffled]

Scientist says a papyrus fragment that mentions Jesus's wife is likely ancient, probably dating between the sixth and ninth century, latest research shows.

Papyrus Mentioning Jesus's Wife Is Likely Ancient and Not Fake, Scientists Say


Now this is a bit interesting indeed, chaps and chappettes. I'm not saying Jesus did exist, or that he did have a wife, but it's quite interesting that some fellow in the 6th century would have been writing about it.

I believe the imaginative writing can be quite logically a true historical heirloom but it does not reflect the true lifestyle of Jesus.

 

[Shiranui117]

Do you have faith in God? If you do, I wouldn't call it fact. Faith is not required when it comes to believing facts

A question back to you: Do you have faith in your family, your friends or your loved ones? Of course you do. Does that means that your loved ones aren't real?

Regardless of Semantics, Can you give an example of an embodiment of divinity that has been observed and studied to determine that its traits are not genetic?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that he does exist for a fact, there is only one Jesus who is the only embodiment of divinity and according to you, did not reproduce. How can you possibly make a claim about what would happen if Jesus did reproduce with a human when he didn't and therefore you cannot examine the traits of his offspring?

Again, we know that divinity is not genetic, otherwise God would be a physical being with genetic material that we could analyze.

We can't even predict exactly what traits a human child will get from its parents. You are throwing the supernatural into the mix, which we know nothing about and claiming to know with certainty what the outcome would be and stating that any opposing position is 'absurd'.

Do you really not see a problem with this position?

Actually, I don't see any problem. We don't need to know everything about something to know what it is not. Even science, when speaking about the universe, or evolution, gravity, medicine or anything else, throws out wrong theory after wrong theory before it gets to the right theory that accurately describes things, and even then, having that one right theory doesn't tell us anything there is to know about the thing we're studying--we still know very little about how the universe works, or even what's in the 97% of the ocean we haven't explored yet, and we've already thrown out a lot of wrong theories and hypotheses. In the same way, we don't need to be able to understand everything about God in order to understand Who and what He is not.

I understand your scientifically inquisitive line of thought, but science also is able to make statements about what is wrong without knowing what is right.

 

[TheGunShoj]

A question back to you: Do you have faith in your family, your friends or your loved ones? Of course you do. Does that means that your loved ones aren't real?.

I guess you could call that faith if you want to twist words to make your point. I would rather say that I have an appropriate amount of trust in these things that has been earned over time. And my friends and family are testable. I can hear them, see them, smell them or reach out and touch them. I can also speak with them and make many other testable claims.

Again, we know that divinity is not genetic, otherwise God would be a physical being with genetic material that we could analyze.

How do we know that divinity is not genetic? Does god not interact with the physical word to answer prayers or to enforce his will? If he does, these are testable claims that we can analyze.

Actually, I don't see any problem. We don't need to know everything about something to know what it is not. Even science, when speaking about the universe, or evolution, gravity, medicine or anything else, throws out wrong theory after wrong theory before it gets to the right theory that accurately describes things, and even then, having that one right theory doesn't tell us anything there is to know about the thing we're studying--we still know very little about how the universe works, or even what's in the 97% of the ocean we haven't explored yet, and we've already thrown out a lot of wrong theories and hypotheses. In the same way, we don't need to be able to understand everything about God in order to understand Who and what He is not.

I agree that we don't need to know everything. However when you know nothing about a subject, it's a big stretch to imply that I'm saying we need to know everything.

I understand your scientifically inquisitive line of thought, but science also is able to make statements about what is wrong without knowing what is right.

Correct! And I would wager that the majority of scientists would not agree with you about divinity because we have no examples of it. How can we know what is right or wrong about something that we have literally never observed?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Sarcasm? I mean, you can't possibly know that. First of all, it's largely debated whether God exists at all. And you are making claims about what traits its offspring would have and moreover, even calling it "absurd".

I can't make any claims about this based anything other than assumption, but logically it would seem that if a God and human mated, that some genes would be passed on to the child from both the mother and father just as genes are passed down when two humans procreate.

Where do you get this notion that it would be absurd if it were even possible? what basis do you have for that claim?

Since you obviously know zilch about theology, why do you argue it?

 

[fantome profane]

Since you obviously know zilch about theology, why do you argue it?

Theology? Is that what you think people in this thread are talking about?

 

[Shiranui117]

Theology? Is that what you think people in this thread are talking about?

Ultimately, it does come back to theological issues. The (perhaps unspoken) question in this thread goes: If Jesus were married and perhaps even had children, then how would that affect Christian claims about His divinity?

 

[fantome profane]

Ultimately, it does come back to theological issues. The (perhaps unspoken) question in this thread goes: If Jesus were married and perhaps even had children, then how would that affect Christian claims about His divinity?

I am thinking of this question from more of a historical perspective. Questions of how this would affect his divinity are not an appropriate way to determine a historical issue.

But that being said, how exactly would the idea of Jesus being married it affect claims about his divinity? It is impossible to conceive a full range of common human experiences?

 

[Shiranui117]

I am thinking of this question from more of a historical perspective. Questions of how this would affect his divinity are not an appropriate way to determine a historical issue.

But that being said, how exactly would the idea of Jesus being married it affect claims about his divinity? It is impossible to conceive a full range of common human experiences?

Yeah, my point was, it wouldn't affect claims about His divinity at all. So there's no reason for Christians to knee-jerk reject it as a danger to our faith, which I know many do.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Since you obviously know zilch about theology, why do you argue it?

How do you know my level of understanding of theology? Also, to answer your question, to learn.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

How do you know my level of understanding of theology? Also, to answer your question, to learn.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of theology understands the concept of hypostatic union. The concept just seems to evade you.

 

[TheGunShoj]

The concept just seems to evade you.

to answer your question, to learn.

Well you're right. I actually hadn't heard the term until I came into this thread. So I'm learning already, which is one of the main purposes of my being here on this forum. Mission accomplished.

**edit** also, I do get the concept. However, that's all it is, right? Just a concept? I'm just wondering why I would concede this point as fact in a debate when there is no evidence for it as there hasn't ever been an example of this studied anywhere in the world.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of theology understands the concept of hypostatic union. The concept just seems to evade you.

Actually I am the world's leading theological authority, and I have never heard of hypostatic union.

 

[sojourner]

If it were true, we'd know exactly who Jesus' wife and children were, who their descendants are and where they lived... The Church would have never suppressed Jesus having a family, especially since during the early days of Christianity, the Church was having trouble against people like the Gnostics and Docetists who denied that Jesus was even human. Jesus having a wife and children would be pretty good proof that He was human...

I have to respectfully disagree. Ancient, Near East families weren't organized and conceptualized the same as ours. Families were multigenerational, in a patriarchal organization. Jesus may not have been "head of household, had he been married. Joseph may not even have been "head of household." The eldest living male would be head of household. Could have been Joseph or Joseph's father. If that were the case, when Jesus died, his wife would remain living with Jesus' "head of household," as well as any offspring.

Since that "head of household" probably wasn't part of the "Jesus movement," when Jesus died, his offspring would have been reared according to the religious views of the head of household. In other words, Jewish. The fledgling church wouldn't have had claim to the offspring, or even had access to the offspring.

 

[sojourner]

It seems to me that the current trajectory of this thread is a testimony to the irrelevancy of the OP.

Can't frubal you for this, but I wish I could.