Jesus Wife Evidence

[fallingblood]

I made an assumption based on a couple of things.

Before this news, Jesus ''was not supose to'' have a wife; the bible did not mention it. (It might have, I am not sure, Im just guessing since this seems to be ''new'')

It made me think that if was actually the case then Jesus' whole story is a scam.

As some people still do nowadays, they call themselves prophets of god, they say that god spoke to them personally and they entitle themselves as leaders of sects where they gain fame and women. Jesus might of been the original conceptor.

There have been people for quite some time who thought Jesus was married. If he was married, we can be pretty sure that it was before his ministry, and really, it wouldn't have been a scandal at all.

As for making the Jesus story a scam, not really. The Gospels simply are silent on the matter. There is no wife mention, but that matters little.

Also, Jesus never was the leader of a sect. He was a religious leader, like ministers are today, but he didn't lead a sect.

 

[ron4711]

Just because it may be authentically from the time period and from a gospel does not mean it is true.

It could be from a gospel according to someone like the mormon John Smith or some other follower claiming to be his wife (spiritually or physically).
It could be about a different guy named Jesus.
It could be from someone trying to discredit Christianity.
It could be from a translation from a verbal story that is not authenticated.

I find it humorous how many Christians are eager to accept this, possibly because it agrees with their concept that priests should be allowed to wed or to bolster the status of women.

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

It could be about a different guy named Jesus.

Sorry, this was the first thing that came to mind when you said that.

 

[Gui10]

There have been people for quite some time who thought Jesus was married. If he was married, we can be pretty sure that it was before his ministry, and really, it wouldn't have been a scandal at all.

As for making the Jesus story a scam, not really. The Gospels simply are silent on the matter. There is no wife mention, but that matters little.

Also, Jesus never was the leader of a sect. He was a religious leader, like ministers are today, but he didn't lead a sect.

To me , a religious leader is the same as a sect leader. The only difference is that today, we know that someone who claims to have spoken to god or that he is descended from heavens is bogus. We did not know that back then.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Some interesting comments. I personally don't think it matters if Jesus had a wife, husband or lover. But I do find it entertaining to see some of the bickering over the issue, although sometime the viciousness some fundamentalists show can be scary.

 

[Xchristian]

Some interesting comments. I personally don't think it matters if Jesus had a wife, husband or lover. But I do find it entertaining to see some of the bickering over the issue, although sometime the viciousness some fundamentalists show can be scary.

That's how the whole Trinitarians came about, terrorism.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

That's how the whole Trinitarians came about, terrorism.

Back then it wasn't called terrorism, it was called Rome.

 

[waitasec]

it's neither here nor there to me...

didn't christ call the church his bride?

 

[fallingblood]

That's how the whole Trinitarians came about, terrorism.

That is not true at all. I have no idea what you've been reading, but it isn't credible.

The idea of the Trinity has some roots in Hellenistic Judaism. Daniel Boyarin has some excellent work on the subject, tracing the influences. However, long before Nicaea, the idea of the Trinity was accepted. And this was actually during a period of time in which the church, to a point, was being persecuted.

Later on, those who accepted the view of the Trinity (more importantly, what became the orthodox view of the nature of Jesus), became more powerful. And really, the fighting was not about Trinitarianism, but about forcing unity among Christians. And the backing of it was not even really by Christianity, but by Rome. So your argument just speaks volumes of bad research.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

That is not true at all. I have no idea what you've been reading, but it isn't credible.

The idea of the Trinity has some roots in Hellenistic Judaism. Daniel Boyarin has some excellent work on the subject, tracing the influences. However, long before Nicaea, the idea of the Trinity was accepted. And this was actually during a period of time in which the church, to a point, was being persecuted.

Later on, those who accepted the view of the Trinity (more importantly, what became the orthodox view of the nature of Jesus), became more powerful. And really, the fighting was not about Trinitarianism, but about forcing unity among Christians. And the backing of it was not even really by Christianity, but by Rome. So your argument just speaks volumes of bad research.

While over all I agree with what you say above I think its should be noted that while the Trinity was accepted pre-Nicaea, it was post Nicaea that the Trinity as a Godhead was accepted and the term Trinitarianism is associated with the acceptance of the Trinity as a Godhead. Anti-trinitarians such as us Unitarians have no problem with the concept of the Trinity, only with the concept of it being a Godhead.

As for what XChristian was saying, I interpreted it to be referring to the forced spread of Christianity by the Holy Roman Empire, which actually took place centuries later. I wouldn't say it was bad research, more like incomplete and possibly misunderstood.

 

[Xchristian]

The idea of the Trinity has some roots in Hellenistic Judaism. Daniel Boyarin has some excellent work on the subject, tracing the influences. However, long before Nicaea, the idea of the Trinity was accepted. And this was actually during a period of time in which the church, to a point, was being persecuted.

Later on, those who accepted the view of the Trinity (more importantly, what became the orthodox view of the nature of Jesus), became more powerful. And really, the fighting was not about Trinitarianism, but about forcing unity among Christians. And the backing of it was not even really by Christianity, but by Rome. So your argument just speaks volumes of bad research.

I am sorry, but I am quite sure about what I am talking about, please read the jesus wars by Philip Jenkins, .. Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years: Amazon.co.uk: Philip Jenkins: Books

anyways can you tell us what happened to Arius and Nestorus, where the documents of Marcion are? .. all burnt, .. it's terrorism my brother.
What happened to Galleleio? .. Tyndall? (that's pretty recent for you) ..
Read the introduction of Friedel to who wrote the bible, and see what happened to those who just as much as doubted that Moses wrote the penta.

 

[fallingblood]

I am sorry, but I am quite sure about what I am talking about, please read the jesus wars by Philip Jenkins, .. Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years: Amazon.co.uk: Philip Jenkins: Books

anyways can you tell us what happened to Arius and Nestorus, where the documents of Marcion are? .. all burnt, .. it's terrorism my brother.
What happened to Galleleio? .. Tyndall? (that's pretty recent for you) ..
Read the introduction of Friedel to who wrote the bible, and see what happened to those who just as much as doubted that Moses wrote the penta.

Actually, we do have some records of Marcion. That is how we know he existed, plus which books he kept.

Most of the works were never burnt anyway, but simply lost hold on people as they found something different.

Also, what happened to Tyndall had nothing to do with trintarism, nor does most of what you're saying.

Oh, and I have read Jenkins book. I have also read a plethora of different sources, as well as taken course on the history of Christianity.

If you want to bring up an actual topic, I would be happy to debate that, but I don't want feel any want to cover a bunch of topics you simply throw out. Not really worth the work.

 

[Xchristian]

Actually, we do have some records of Marcion. That is how we know he existed, plus which books he kept.

I would say you are telling me about the 'rebuttals' of their works, but not their works, otherwise you would have told me where they are too, wouldn't you?

Most of the works were never burnt anyway, but simply lost hold on people as they found something different.

quite strange, had they won, the current new testament would have been still available!

Also, what happened to Tyndall had nothing to do with trintarism, nor does most of what you're saying.

Oh, and I have read Jenkins book. I have also read a plethora of different sources, as well as taken course on the history of Christianity.

If you want to bring up an actual topic, I would be happy to debate that, but I don't want feel any want to cover a bunch of topics you simply throw out. Not really worth the work.

I will come to that at one time, and I will {if you allow me} invite you to the thread.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm really pleased to hear about this piece of papyrus. I've been waiting for the experts here (I believe some of you are....) to mention the book of Mary, but you haven't, so ..... 'is there a problem with it?' Was Mary possibly Jesus's wife? If so.... where is the problem for true followers of Jesus?

 

[fallingblood]

I will come to that at one time, and I will {if you allow me} invite you to the thread.

I think that would be great.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See: Harvard journal: Jesus 'wife' papyrus unverified and Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert.

 

[Storm]

Sorry, this was the first thing that came to mind when you said that.

I love this one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Relevance?

 

[Storm]

Just a tangent, Jay.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

See: Harvard journal: Jesus 'wife' papyrus unverified and Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert.

The first link is saying the obvious. It has not been scientifically tested.
The second link is pure opinion also unconfirmed.

At most the various scraps and the other hints of a possible wife elsewhere, taken in context with the Gospel of Mary. Lead one to suppose that by the end of the 2nd century there were conflicting views about the celibacy of Jesus.
Certainly there is nothing that proves he was married or that most Christians believed he was. Possibly, some Christian groups at that time might have believed and taught that he was married.
Nothing has changed at all, unless the scrap is genuine and dated no later than the 3rd century. Like most early scripts on Papyrus, it unlikely to be an original, but may have been copied at least once. ( as was the Didache)

There must be Questions to as is why this particular portion of a papyrus survived. and what might have given it particular importance to be treasured and saved.
If there was a systematic destruction of writings at the time, it might have had special significance to the person saving it. And it is small enough to be easily hidden.