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

[sojourner]

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?

See my previous post. They would still have been under the care of Jesus' head of household.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus was a bachelor.

But to ponder if he would've had a child, would the baby just be human?

Of course. Jesus was fully human. So would his wife be. Therefore, any offspring would be fully human.

 

[sojourner]

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.




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



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.



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.

John the apostle didn't write the gospel.

Not in that culture. They would have remained under the roof of Jesus' father or grandfather.

Celibacy didn't become church policy, I believe, until after this document was supposedly written.

 

[sojourner]

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?

Your logic is flawed for two very huge reasons. First, when you argue for the possibility that Jesus' children may be demigods, you automatically assume God's existence. Second, since you're assuming God's existence, you must argue from the parameters of accepted theological constructs that are consistent with tradition. Your post here violates both of those.

 

[sojourner]

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?

For our historical perspective, perhaps. But certainly not for the historical perspective of the ancients. For them, the question of divinity was part of history -- not separate from it or corollary to it.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Yeah, but you can't take a theological concept and divorce it from theology. Which is what you're trying to do here.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

**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.

It is a theological concept, that means it is a faith concept. You don't get to study it as if it were some mere scientific concept. Faith is no more subject to the microscope than Shakespeare's Sonnet LXXI.

 

[fantome profane]

For our historical perspective, perhaps. But certainly not for the historical perspective of the ancients. For them, the question of divinity was part of history -- not separate from it or corollary to it.

You can make the logical assumption that since I am posting this on the internet I am living in the 21st century.

 

[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 also observe that you are lumping the question of Jesus having a wife and the question of Jesus have children together as if it were one question. It is possible that he had a wife, but no children. I will admit that it may have been uncommon for a married man of 30 not to have children, but not so uncommon that we can dismiss the possibility.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I also observe that you are lumping the question of Jesus having a wife and the question of Jesus have children together as if it were one question. It is possible that he had a wife, but no children. I will admit that it may have been uncommon for a married man of 30 not to have children, but not so uncommon that we can dismiss the possibility.

The most profound question it raises is this: Was Jesus holy enough to interact with his mother-in-law without using profanity?

 

[roger1440]

I think it’s highly unlikely Jesus had a wife or was romantically involved with a woman. The canonical Gospels mention Jesus mother, father, brothers and sisters but no mention of a wife or lover. With most men a wife is the closest person to him, but Jesus never even hints at a wife. He had created many parables using every day things. He had the opportunity to incorporate a wife into any one of them, but never did. It would have been uncommon at Jesus age not to be married, but it is not something unheard of. The Essenes were celibate at least most of them were. Today celibacy is uncommon, but it does exist. Catholic priests come to mind. None of the non-canonical Gospels mention Jesus having a wife either. If we lump all the known Gospels together, there is more to support Jesus being single rather than being married.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

None of the non-canonical Gospels mention Jesus having a wife either.

Ummmm...about that. Some do hint at Jesus having a spouse or lover. Some even hint he might have had several.

 

[roger1440]

Ummmm...about that. Some do hint at Jesus having a spouse or lover. Some even hint he might have had several.

The most well-known verse from the non-canonical Gospels is from the Gospel of Philip. Many scholars believe this verse is a metaphor. I'm in agreement with them. A few verses later the author uses terms like “bridal chamber” and “marriage”. These terms denote union. Mary may represent the Holy Spirit. Jesus kissing Mary therefore represents the closeness Jesus has with the Holy Spirit. The author explains to his readers truth comes clothed in symbols. This kissing verse must be read in conjunction with the entire Gospel. Taken alone would give it an entire different meaning.

“The wisdom which (humans) call barren is herself the Mother of the Angels.¹ And the companion of the [Christ] is Mariam the Magdalene. The [Lord loved] Mariam more than [all the (other)] Disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth].² The other [women] saw his love for Mariam,c they say to him: Why do thou love [her] more than all of us? || The Saviorº replied,³ he says to them: Why do I not love you as (I do) her?” (Gospel of Philip, 59)

“The truth did not come unto the world naked, but rather it has come in symbolicº images. (The world) will not receive it in any other fashion….”(Gospel of Philip, 72)
The Gospel of Philip
​

You might find this article interesting:
Was Jesus Married? Part 11

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The most well-known verse from the non-canonical Gospels is from the Gospel of Philip. Many scholars believe this verse is a metaphor. I'm in agreement with them. A few verses later the author uses terms like “bridal chamber” and “marriage”. These terms denote union. Mary may represent the Holy Spirit. Jesus kissing Mary therefore represents the closeness Jesus has with the Holy Spirit. The author explains to his readers truth comes clothed in symbols. This kissing verse must be read in conjunction with the entire Gospel. Taken alone would give it an entire different meaning.

“The wisdom which (humans) call barren is herself the Mother of the Angels.¹ And the companion of the [Christ] is Mariam the Magdalene. The [Lord loved] Mariam more than [all the (other)] Disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth].² The other [women] saw his love for Mariam,c they say to him: Why do thou love [her] more than all of us? || The Saviorº replied,³ he says to them: Why do I not love you as (I do) her?” (Gospel of Philip, 59)

“The truth did not come unto the world naked, but rather it has come in symbolicº images. (The world) will not receive it in any other fashion….”(Gospel of Philip, 72)
The Gospel of Philip
​

You might find this article interesting:
Was Jesus Married? Part 11

I don't know. I have a different view of that verse but it is very close to yours.

I just want to leave you with an idea, even though the Lord Christ is God, he is still the Son of Man, so I would have no problem with him enjoying the fullness of human experience including falling in love, being married and having sex.

Heck, even though he was God, his mother still probably had to change his diapers when he was a baby. So he had that human experience.

 

[roger1440]

I don't know. I have a different view of that verse but it is very close to yours.

I just want to leave you with an idea, even though the Lord Christ is God, he is still the Son of Man, so I would have no problem with him enjoying the fullness of human experience including falling in love, being married and having sex.

Heck, even though he was God, his mother still probably had to change his diapers when he was a baby. So he had that human experience.

I’ll play the devil’s advocate. Let’s say Jesus had a lover and a child. Would this child be 100% God, 50%, 25%? How do we even do the math? Then that child grows up and has a child of its own. Now we have more math.

 

[Breathe]

“The truth did not come unto the world naked, but rather it has come in symbolicº images. (The world) will not receive it in any other fashion….”(Gospel of Philip, 72)

That is a wonderful verse.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I’ll play the devil’s advocate. Let’s say Jesus had a lover and a child. Would this child be 100% God, 50%, 25%? How do we even do the math? Then that child grows up and has a child of its own. Now we have more math.

100% human like Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

You can make the logical assumption that since I am posting this on the internet I am living in the 21st century.

You can make the logical assumption that the writers of ancient texts were not. You cannot logically read an ancient text through modern eyes and expect to garner the meaning.

 

[sojourner]

I also observe that you are lumping the question of Jesus having a wife and the question of Jesus have children together as if it were one question. It is possible that he had a wife, but no children. I will admit that it may have been uncommon for a married man of 30 not to have children, but not so uncommon that we can dismiss the possibility.

Here you go imposing modern standards onto ancient circumstances. It would have been HIGHLY likely, if Jesus were married, that he would have children. remember: Jesus was Jewish. For the ancient Jews, children = salvation/God's grace.

 

[sojourner]

I’ll play the devil’s advocate. Let’s say Jesus had a lover and a child. Would this child be 100% God, 50%, 25%? How do we even do the math? Then that child grows up and has a child of its own. Now we have more math.

That question has been asked and answered.