Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Ancient Papyrus Reveals Early Christians Belief That Jesus Was Married


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#31 Humble Rodent

Humble Rodent

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,792 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 06

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:37 PM

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Believing in freedom of expression in no way requires praising people for exercising that right.
  • 4

Posted Image


#32 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,012 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:17 PM

imo It shouldn't matter if the dude was married or not, as it shouldn't change the impact of his teachings. However, it will matter as we're living in an age where we like to ignore the fundamentals and focus on the trivial. There will likely be a new church dedicated to a married Jesus. There's probably one already. Nevermind what he had to say though.

This also calls into question on how much of the bible has been revised. All of it?

Doesn't this essentially throw all of it into question then? Nah. Blasphemy.

The church has no choice but to bury this and move on. Business as usual. Probably have Karen killed too.

Very hollywood.
  • 0
Posted Image

#33 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,191 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:04 PM

Posted Image
  • 3
Posted Image

#34 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:36 PM

...try harder next time Sharpshooter...


My response was more than sufficient the first time in order to not require a 'next time'.
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#35 Kent.S

Kent.S

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,658 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 10

Posted 19 September 2012 - 10:14 PM

Fake Jesus was fake married?!?
I guess it being old and written down must make it true.
  • 0

#36 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,377 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 19 September 2012 - 10:48 PM

Fake Jesus was fake married?!?
I guess it being old and written down must make it true.


Putting miracles aside and any refences to that, you don't think at least Jesus the man ever existed?

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion if that's what you mean.

Edited by TimberWolf, 19 September 2012 - 11:00 PM.

  • 1

I was saying Lu-Urns...

star-wars-hockey-goal.gif?w=284

#37 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 19 September 2012 - 10:50 PM

I wonder how common the name Jesus was back then. "No no you're looking for Jesus the Messiah, I'm Jesus the barber."
-Jim Gaffigan
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#38 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,191 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 12:19 AM

Isn't there a lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus in the first place? Some of the big names of Atheism make this claim and I haven't really heard any Christians rebuttal. Either because it's true or they don't know what contemporary means. Then again not understanding what something means or how something works hasn't stopped them from arguing against it. As Dillahunty says (I quote him a lot because the guy knows his 'stuff') "There is not a single contemporary account of Jesus. How can a man of his popularity live without being documented by a single person living at the time? Frankly, I don't care if Jesus existed or not, it's irrelevant to me, but it raises serious questions about him."
  • 1
Posted Image

#39 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,710 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 20 September 2012 - 01:37 AM

Up until recently women used to be very oppressed. He's not referring to mentioning women in the bible.


"Or was the need to keep women excluded back then so great that the bible was revised?"

Then please do elaborate on what that means, you or anyone else.
  • 0

#40 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,012 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:28 AM

Matt Dillahunty. Atheist. Here's a guy who preaches his beliefs ('words of wisdom'), has tons of followers, has a radio show focusing on religion, has an internet site that broadcasts his fanatical views on religion, talks A LOT about Jesus, etc.

Sounds like an ordained minister to me.

Oh wait, he is an ordained minister. http://stephenunfilt...rchive.html?m=1

Let's face it, Atheism is a religion, folks.

Smell the hypocrisy.
  • 0
Posted Image

#41 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,348 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:40 AM

Wondering why Jesus had to be a bachelor anyway. Isn't 'go forth and multiply' a prime directive? Or was the need to keep women excluded back then so great that the bible was revised?

Wondering if this information will be accepted by the church.

Catholics still believe Jesus was an only child, and Mary was a virgin her entire life (not just before Jesus' birth), despite there being evidence in the bible to the contrary.

I'm doubtful that this papyrus is genuine, never mind factual, but even if it were genuine it would never be accepted, especially by Catholics.
  • 0

#42 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:47 AM

Some things to consider:


According to an article in the Washington Post, an ancient manuscript claiming that Jesus had a wife has just been discovered. I’ll tackle this new discovery with some Q&A.

What is this new find?

Karen King, the Gnostic scholar who published the manuscript, has titled it the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife (see the scholarly article here). It is a very small fragment, only 12 partial lines, of an ancient Gnostic book. The fragment, written in Coptic, dates from the fourth century, but it is a copy of an older book, perhaps written in the late second century. According to the fragment, Jesus refers to “my wife.”

Is the manuscript genuine?

It’s too early to tell. When manuscripts are discovered, it usually takes some time of examination and scholarly vetting before forgeries are discovered. There are some concerns about Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’s unknown provenance and history of ownership, but the initial reports make it seem likely that this is a real fourth-century Gnostic document. That doesn’t mean that the document is true or has anything to do with Jesus!

How is this related to the so-called Gnostic gospels?

The Gnostics wrote a number of short collections of sayings that they attributed to Jesus: the Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and others. Technically, these are not really gospels, at least when compared with the canonical gospels. The four gospels in the New Testament are full biographies of Jesus, directly tied to eyewitness accounts, and written within 25 to 60 years of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Gnostic gospels, in contrast, are short collections of sayings, with little or no biographical material. They are written by people more than a century removed from Jesus, with no connection to the eyewitnesses. Generally, these works are easily identified because they try to make Jesus sound like a Gnostic. This newly discovered fragment has a few lines that sound like the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

What does the document say about Jesus’ wife?

Not much! Here is the entire text of the document:

1 ] “not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe…”
2 ] The disciples said to Jesus, “.[
3 ] deny. Mary is worthy of it
4 ]……” Jesus said to them, “My wife . .[ [
5 ]… she will be able to be my disciple . . [
6 ] Let wicked people swell up … [
7] As for me, I dwell with her in order to . [
8] an image [
1 ] my moth[er
2 ] three [
3 ] …[
4 ] forth which … [


The ellipses indicate unreadable material. As you can see, there is very little to work with. However, as King points out, it seems that “My wife” in line 4 refers to “Mary” in line 3, although we can’t be certain. Although Mary was a very common name, the prominent relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus in other Gnostic documents makes it seem likely that this is Mary Magdalene and not some other Mary.

So the Gnostics thought Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene?

Not so fast. Marriage, kissing, and the “bridal chamber” were metaphors in Gnosticism related to enlightenment and their initiation rituals. Some Gnostics thought that all actual sexual intercourse was evil. So the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife may be using Gnostic metaphor. You may recall from several years ago that the Gospel of Judas was so packed with opaque Gnostic metaphor that scholars are still debating whether it portrays Judas as a hero or a villain.

Then does this document tell us whether Jesus was married or not?

All it tells us (sort of) is what Gnostics thought. Since Gnostics weren’t around until the second century, and Gnostics are notorious for making up sayings of Jesus, this tells us absolutely nothing about the real Jesus. Karen King, the scholar who published the fragment, partially agrees with this evaluation. You can bet that this important fact will be overlooked or downplayed when you see it on the cover of news magazines or watch the forthcoming Smithsonian documentary.

Aside from this manuscript, how likely was it that Jesus was married?

There are three reasons that Jesus was probably not married. First, the New Testament never mentions a wife. Since the NT authors mention Jesus’ mother, father, four brothers, some sisters, an aunt, and some cousins, it is very unlikely that Jesus had a wife and no one mentioned it. Second, Jesus described a special calling of celibacy to allow a greater focus on the kingdom of heaven (Matt 19:10-12; cp. 1 Cor 7:7-9). This strongly implies that Jesus was celibate. Third, the church fathers, some of whom had access to reliable oral tradition about Jesus, believed that Jesus never married (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Chrysostom, as King points out).

But wasn’t it the norm for Jewish men to get married?

Yes, it was strongly encouraged. In later Judaism (second century), it was almost a requirement. But there are significant examples of celibacy in Judaism, including Jeremiah, some Essenes, the female Therapeutae, possibly the prophet Bannus, and the second century sage Ben Azzai.

Does it really matter whether Jesus was married or not?

In one sense, it doesn’t matter. If the Gospels had told us that Jesus was married, it would not be disturbing, and we would consider it as part of his incarnation and genuine humanity. However, Jesus and Paul clearly thought that some people should fully devote themselves to kingdom service by abstaining from marriage. Jesus’ celibacy confirms what we already know about Jesus: that his entire life was completely and undistractedly devoted to advancing the Kingdom of God.

-Gary T. Manning Jr.

  • 3
Posted Image
Posted Image

#43 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,012 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:09 AM

Mary not a virgin. Check.

Mary had many children, not just Jesus. Check.

Jesus was married. Check.

Jesus fathered a child/children. Next?

The church would say otherwise, but these things things matter. It means that Jesus did not 'ascend into heaven to be at God's side.' It means that Jesus was just a man. And if Jesus was just a man, then how could he be the son of God?

Jesus was a good dude. But if he saw what we were doing to his legacy today, he'd say no thanks, brah. Unless he were a megalomaniac. But that doesn't sound good.

Jeez, maybe the Jews are right on this one.

  • 0
Posted Image

#44 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:12 AM

Mary not a virgin. Check.

Mary had many children, not just Jesus. Check.

Jesus was married. Check.

Jesus fathered a child/children. Next?

The church would say otherwise, but these things things matter. It means that Jesus did not 'ascend into heaven to be at God's side.' It means that Jesus was just a man. And if Jesus was just a man, then how could he be the son of God?

I don't see how if all four of those things were true it would negate the claim that Jesus was both man and god and that he ascended to heaven after his resurrection. Maybe my Bible skills are a little rusty but doesn't it say somewhere "he became fully man." ?
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#45 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,527 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:14 AM

Mary not a virgin. Check.

Mary had many children, not just Jesus. Check.

Jesus was married. Check.

Jesus fathered a child/children. Next?

The church would say otherwise, but these things things matter. It means that Jesus did not 'ascend into heaven to be at God's side.' It means that Jesus was just a man. And if Jesus was just a man, then how could he be the son of God?

Jesus was a good dude. But if he saw what we were doing to his legacy today, he'd say no thanks, brah. Unless he were a megalomaniac. But that doesn't sound good.

Jeez, maybe the Jews are right on this one.


Mary was a vigin when she conceived Jesus. Check Mate.
  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#46 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,428 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:25 AM

Mary was a vigin when she conceived Jesus. Check Mate.


Sure she was mate... :picard:
  • 1
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#47 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,012 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:26 AM

According to whom?
  • 0
Posted Image

#48 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,527 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:30 AM

A good read:

http://www.patheos.c...-real-evidence/

"Nevertheless, there are some who argue that the silence of the New Testament gospels should be taken as strong evidence for the marriage of Jesus."

"In 1970, for example, William E. Phipps published Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition. In this book Phipps argued that the silence of the New Testament about the marital status of Jesus indicates that Jesus was in fact married. Why? Because virtually every Jewish man in Jesus’ day did marry, especially those who were considered to be Rabbis."

But, Mark Roberts goes on to conclude that Jesus wasn't married based on evidence in canonical and non-canonical texts...
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#49 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,428 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:39 AM

"My made up literature say's he was married" B)

"Mine say's he wasn't!" :frantic:

Who cares.....? :rolleyes:
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#50 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:47 AM

Another thing to think about. Jesus loved to set an example for how we should treat and love others. He was basically known for accepting sinners, low life's, and people who the regular Jewish community shunned. If Jesus did marry Mary he would be setting the ultimate example of non-judgement, forgiveness, acceptance, and love (as it is commonly believed she was a prostitute). You can bet that Pharisee's mouths would have dropped at this. And also given the attitude of the disciples towards Samaritans, Romans, and other's it wouldn't be surprising that Jesus was arguing with them about her being his wife and disciple.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#51 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,012 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:49 AM

Mark Roberts had responded to the Da Vinci Code, but has he already discredited this new evidence?

It seems that the more we dig up the past, the more the church doesn't like it. However, all they would have to do is reject/discredit the findings and move on. Faith doesn't require proof.
  • 0
Posted Image

#52 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,527 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:53 AM

Mark Roberts had responded to the Da Vinci Code, but has he already discredited this new evidence?

It seems that the more we dig up the past, the more the church doesn't like it. However, all they would have to do is reject/discredit the findings and move on. Faith doesn't require proof.


Not that I know of - my point was since the 70's people have been discussing / writing about whether Jesus was married or not.

So this new (un proven for authenticity) evidence is nothing new.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#53 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,012 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:54 AM

Since the 70's eh?

Damn women's lib...
  • 0
Posted Image

#54 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:00 AM

Since the 70's eh?

Damn women's lib...

Next thing we know Jesus is going to turn out to have been female...
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#55 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,527 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:00 AM

Since the 70's eh?

Damn women's lib...


Interesting that the book by William E. Phipps came out in 1970 - that's the same time the "time" for Unix clocks started - coincidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#56 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,527 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:02 AM

Next thing we know Jesus is going to turn out to have been female...


Or both?

http://www.tntmagazi...aims-new-theory
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#57 Tystick

Tystick

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 12

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:03 AM

Mary not a virgin. Check.

Mary had many children, not just Jesus. Check.

Jesus was married. Check.

Jesus fathered a child/children. Next?

The church would say otherwise, but these things things matter. It means that Jesus did not 'ascend into heaven to be at God's side.' It means that Jesus was just a man. And if Jesus was just a man, then how could he be the son of God?

Jesus was a good dude. But if he saw what we were doing to his legacy today, he'd say no thanks, brah. Unless he were a megalomaniac. But that doesn't sound good.

Jeez, maybe the Jews are right on this one.


Idk if I agree entirely.
I believe Jesus was one of the "ascended masters", and because there were and are many of them, different religions formed. I think even if he was married, had kids, etc. he would still be able to ascend. The reason he was given the name Christ is because he achieved Christ Consciousness.

I don't think he ascended to be "at God's side", because I believe God is a part everyone and is more of an energy than an entity, but then again, who really knows for sure.
  • 0
Posted Image

#58 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:19 AM

Revealed as forgery by Alin Suciu, an expert in papyrology.
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#59 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,323 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:21 AM

Who's this Jesus guy?


Plays 2nd base for the Cubs....
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#60 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,428 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:38 AM

So this new (un proven for authenticity) evidence is nothing new.


It certainly isn't!

Posted Image
  • 2
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.