Zealots should count their blessings. At least he didn't have a husband. Imagine how awesome that would be!
Study Claims Papyrus That Says Jesus Had a Wife is Real
- Thread starter Alex Co
- Start date
In other news:
Luke Skywalker had a wife.
Master Chief had a husband.
Commander Shepherd had a harem.
My lawn chair and bucket of popcorn are ready...
Luke Skywalker had a wife.
Master Chief had a husband.
Commander Shepherd had a harem.
That would certainly cause a stir. I kind of wish that had been the case.Adam Jensen said:
My lawn chair and bucket of popcorn are ready...
Its very simple the new testament is 500 years older this new gospel so no christian will care about this document whatsoever. The only people who will care about this is shouty internet atheists lacking any kind knowledge of the new testament who don't know that its will join all the other so called gospels that are entirely ignored. Just because someone in Egypt wrote a gospel saying Jesus was married 500 years after the current new testament and 700 years later than the new testament gospels were written, isn't going effect with anyone with basic knowledge of the christian faith.Jasper van Heycop said:
The sooner we get this document under a black light, the sooner Tom Hanks and Nick Cage can team up for a buddy treasure hunting movie!
From what I learned in my most recent theology class, a lot of the early Christian church had an emphasis on the power of women, but most of it was thrown out by the time anything got organized. I don't see why Jesus wouldn't have a wife, and I certainly don't see how it goes against anything else in the Bible.
That said, though, we have texts predating this one that said Jesus rose from the dead, and also did many of his most famous acts the exact same way at two completely different times in his career. I'm not sure we can count these things as 100% reliable.
That said, though, we have texts predating this one that said Jesus rose from the dead, and also did many of his most famous acts the exact same way at two completely different times in his career. I'm not sure we can count these things as 100% reliable.
As a liberal Christian this is somewhat intriguing, but I highly doubt its authenticity, here's the facts. There are around two hundred lost gospels that never made it into a canonical bible. just because it's an old and written on papyrus doesn't mean anything. The old Gnostic Christians liked to tell stories about Christ all the time. In the gospel of ST. Peter, for example, when Christ was resurrected the cross appears at the tomb with Christ and two angels where it and the three stretched (like stretch armstrong) into the sky. I'm just wondering what the significance really is, really if you want discussion for the importance of women in Christianity go to the gospel of Mary Magdelene, who in the old Gnostic faith was said to be Christ's favorite disciple.
You know, there really shouldn't be too much controversy over the idea that Jesus had a wife. Jesus made no declarations of celibacy as recorded in the canonical Gospels. What would really be interesting and provoke discussion is if it came to light that he had children, as that raises the question of whether or not his children were born with a sinful nature.
In any case, this paper was dated to the eighth century. Not very convincing of its historicity.
In any case, this paper was dated to the eighth century. Not very convincing of its historicity.
I could have sworn Marcus Fenix had a husband, not Master Chief (who I thought was rendered non-sexual due to cybernetic enhancements). Either way, good stuff.Vigormortis said:
As for the issue at hand, isn't it a commonly held belief or, conspiracy or, rumor that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene? Then again, a quick wiki search also mentions how a 13/14th Century Monk liked to think she was married to St. John the Evangelist...There isn't enough here for me to get a good sense of context. I don't know how male-centric religion was back in the olden-days so for all I know this may have been a way of saying 'women can join in because Jesus says so'. It says something about Jesus and Wife but isn't quite explicit enough to say who it was or how many there were...I'm just going to assume this will have little to no impact on Christianity in general only to be surprised when the local news reports on it.
Well, that's very interesting and all, but is there some massive impact that I'm not aware of, even speaking as a Catholic? What, if I might ask, is the big deal?
You do understand that everything we know about this guy is from hundreds of years after his death right? Not to mention that the gospels were slapped together in a book after some editing where the more ridiculous chapters were removed, pet dragon anyone?Sight Unseen said:
The thing I find funny about this is how people will argue that it's not valid because it was written after the gospels or after the death of the street preacher that was Jesus. Dabbling in that delicious irony. Maybe this will be the evidence that gets the Catholics to drop celibacy and stop molesting children.
I'd call that the discovery of the century.
Since I am an atheist, I think you may have misunderstood my point1337mokro said:
. I was saying that this document being legitimate may make it a real historical artifact for its time ( which was well after the time frame where Jesus may have actually lived) as a piece of writing. But it's historical merit for saying anything concrete about Jesus is nonexistant since a) it's way more recent than Jesus so anything it says about him is most likely inaccurate and been passed through dozens of generations of verbal transfer and b) (as far as I know) we dont even know who wrote this or if the person had any authority or real knowledge on the matter so it can't be used as a credible source.And just to be clear, I'm skeptical that Jesus even existed since there's no historical record of him other than the Bible and writings from hundreds of years after he supposedly died, even though several prominent historians were alive concurrently.
So this papyrus may be a neat artifact that may be a window into the time when it was written, but it says nothing at all about Jesus.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Now see...that's just what they[footnote]I don't know who "they" are.[/footnote] want you to think. They[footnote]Still don't know who "they" are.[/footnote] have to say that about the Chief otherwise the dude-bros of the world wouldn't want to play Halo.Shoggoth2588 said:
It's okay for the dude-bros to fawn and pine over a hyper-masculine character so long as that character is heterosexual or nonsexual. Or so their logic goes.
As for Marcus, he wants Dom to like him. He yearns for his affection. But Dom's pesky wife keeps getting in the way. (I still think Marcus was the one who turned her over to the Locust.)
I guess he'll have to settle for Dizzy. :/
So... Does that mean the "second coming" would actually come with a "married" couple holding hands and descending from heaven?
But seriously, if more info about Jesus's wife get discovered, we could make another Jesus movie revolving around her! #hollywoodlogic
But seriously, if more info about Jesus's wife get discovered, we could make another Jesus movie revolving around her! #hollywoodlogic
REALLY hard to make out anything from those few measily snippets of text...
I mean, Jesus is probably talking about the topic of women, but beyond that is more "anyone's gues" than clear cut meaning.
By the way, most bibles where written 2-3 centuries after Jesus supposedly died, so if this is around 4th century that makes it perfectly valid.
I mean, Jesus is probably talking about the topic of women, but beyond that is more "anyone's gues" than clear cut meaning.
By the way, most bibles where written 2-3 centuries after Jesus supposedly died, so if this is around 4th century that makes it perfectly valid.
The papyrus was written in Greek and all the earliest copies of the new testament texts we have found are written in Greek. Jesus was the Hellenized version of Yeshua which would have been the original version of his name. It's just the common way of using is name. Regardless of Jesus existence or not that is the name we have. I have used articles from the journal so I would give it credence. Also the missing context could mean that the context was Jesus telling a parable among other things. This in my opinion is a lot of huff over a piece of evidence that is far too fragmentary to really get anything meaningful from it.BigTuk said:
I fail to see how Jesus being married has any real impact on peoples faith. Sure it might muck things up for the catholic church, as I believe Jesus not being married might be the base for why their priests are to be celibate. Which in turn is something they came up with when priests wages where bleeding the church dry, and since men with no family can really make do on just bed and board it was one brilliant way to cut costs.
As for the text itself; sure, it might be that Jesus was married. It would hardly be surprising for a Jewish man at that time, especially in his thirties. But the content of the text seems to say that women can be apostles, which in turn would mean they can be ordained as priests. Also something that only really bothers the branches of Christianity that says women can't be priests, because Jesus having no recorded female apostles is (I think) the reasoning for why women can't be priests.
Besides, women have been edited out of the bible quite a few times. Mary Magdalena used to be 3 different women, but the pope didn't like that around the 16th-17th century (might have been earlier), so it was edited out. So debates about women's validity for priesthood among early Christians should come as no surprise.
As it stands this is at most circumstantial evidence to the pile, interesting for sure, but it proves nothing. It's just part of what appears to be a debate.
The only way we'll ever get close to the truth would probably be if someone where to find the original gospels - the ones that make up the Bible - so we can see what they said before centuries of editing. Or an account from the time when Jesus was supposed to be doing his thing, and it had to be the right Jesus too... because he was hardly the only bloke walking around with that name at the time. But solid proof of deeds over 2000 years ago is sadly - as one might imagine - hard to come by. Still, interesting find. But also - like theology in general - pointless, aside from being fuel for a debate that leads nowhere.
As for the text itself; sure, it might be that Jesus was married. It would hardly be surprising for a Jewish man at that time, especially in his thirties. But the content of the text seems to say that women can be apostles, which in turn would mean they can be ordained as priests. Also something that only really bothers the branches of Christianity that says women can't be priests, because Jesus having no recorded female apostles is (I think) the reasoning for why women can't be priests.
Besides, women have been edited out of the bible quite a few times. Mary Magdalena used to be 3 different women, but the pope didn't like that around the 16th-17th century (might have been earlier), so it was edited out. So debates about women's validity for priesthood among early Christians should come as no surprise.
As it stands this is at most circumstantial evidence to the pile, interesting for sure, but it proves nothing. It's just part of what appears to be a debate.
The only way we'll ever get close to the truth would probably be if someone where to find the original gospels - the ones that make up the Bible - so we can see what they said before centuries of editing. Or an account from the time when Jesus was supposed to be doing his thing, and it had to be the right Jesus too... because he was hardly the only bloke walking around with that name at the time. But solid proof of deeds over 2000 years ago is sadly - as one might imagine - hard to come by. Still, interesting find. But also - like theology in general - pointless, aside from being fuel for a debate that leads nowhere.
Agreed. It's obvious a ton is missing from that translation. Literally anything could have been said between those lines. He could confirm or deny a wife. He could be saying "If I had a wife". It could be someone's bad Jesus Fanfiction for all we know.Kenjitsuka said:
This.Sight Unseen said:
One of the reasons that the New Testament is usually considered reliable is because the books were written within 70 years of Jesus' time... not 700. 70 years is not enough time to cement a myth, 700 is.
That said, I'm pretty interested to find out why this "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" exists.