jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (44 posts)

Ancient text quotes Jesus explicitly referring to having a wife.

  1. profile image0
    Rad Manposted 4 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7175946_f248.jpg
    Karen King, an expert in the history of Christianity, said the text contains a dialogue in which Jesus refers to "my wife," whom he identifies as Mary. King says the fragment of Coptic script is a copy of a gospel, probably written in Greek in the second century named Gospel of Jesus's Wife. Why do you think this Gospel was excluded from the bible?

    1. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If this turns out to be indeed authentic, I'd guess that it was excluded from Scripture for the sole reason that someone in charge didn't like the idea of putting Jesus's marriage out there.  To support his/her own beliefs, to maintain a sense of authority over the Christian ideals of family and marriage.  Who knows?

      Ultimately, it would not change the message of Christ, but it would certainly be a shame if He wished His own marriage to be held up to the world as an ideal, and the entire thing was excluded by those who followed Him.  In believing that the Scripture is inspired by God, I would find it hard to believe that Jesus was indeed married and chose to have that left out of the Bible.

      That's just my take on it.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What human gets to decide which scripture is inspired by god? If they are all different then they can't all have come from God. What if the Gospels in the bible were the wrong ones?

        1. profile image0
          Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The leaders of the Church decided based on the belief that they were guided by the Holy Spirit.  I believe that as well.  Which is why I think that if Jesus was indeed a married man, that information would have been included - unless it is indeed inconsequential information.

          As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the only true religious text.  BUT, I believe, as do many/most/if not all Catholics that Scripture is a mixture of literary types.  There is allegory, metaphor, catechetical, inspirational, and literal material - all mixed in.  Those of us with faith believe that the Lord inspired the collection and creation of these texts.

          A 'gospel' according to anyone is their 'truth.'  To each individual, their gospel cannot be wrong. 

          As far as other religious texts are concerned, while I do not believe they are all from God, I do believe that they all contain elements of truth about how to live.  In my opinion, all truth leads back to Jesus, which eventually leads back to God.

          Make sense?


          *Edit - I may not always be the best person to discuss Scripture with because I'm not a literal fundamentalist when it comes to what's included, you know?

          1. Brandon Tart profile image60
            Brandon Tartposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If Jesus had a wife, I bet she was a good woman to have put up with the fact that he had nothing - not even a place to lay his head.  So, if he had a wife, she was a hippie, and the truest of all hippie-chicks.  The times that I have been unemployed were the worst times for my relationship.  Not even men like a free-loader woman.  But, seeing as how Jesus could turn water into wine, there should be no debate as to whether he could materialize a diamond to put on her oh-so-precious hand as a lolly-pop to keep her from nagging about the fact that "...All the other girls have them, Jesus...!"

            Otherwise, his wife was also not too concerned about his looks.  The OT makes it pretty clear that there was nothing especially winsome about his looks.  So, she was also either blind, or he was able to keep her in a state of ego-loss with Jesus-level-hypnotism. 

            Jesus was going to the cross, and he knew it.  Not many women would let their men go so easily if they loved them, even if they believed every word they spoke.  Consider this - even the Church (Jesus' metaphorical/spiritual bride did not want him to go to the cross, rather, they wanted him to stay with them.)  And for the record, I would imagine that his disciples were not sleeping with Him the way his wife would have. 

            But if Jesus wanted a wife, there would have had to be a good reason.  Jesus said that his Kingdom was not of this world, so, deductively I don't think he would have been setting up future genetic franchises, nor do I believe that he would have been having purely recreational sex since he was already fruitful... he would have been disobedient if he did not multiply... but he did in the Kingdom sense. 

            Jesus' wife would have been a pretty cool gal, but no gal I've ever met.

            1. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What a purely pragmatic response!  I like it. 

              I am a hippie chick in the truest sense of the word...lol  My hubby counts himself as a very lucky man.

              1. Brandon Tart profile image60
                Brandon Tartposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Deleted

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, maybe not in the truest sense....LOL  I don't generally smell.  Bad, anyway.

                  smile

          2. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting, a lot of people think they are guided by the holy spirit. They all can't be. Perhaps making it look as if Jesus did not have a wife was part of there agenda because they thought it would make Jesus look more God like. All they have to say was our decisions were inspired by God so you can't question us. There seems to be no reason to believe they were in fact inspired by God.

            1. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's a difficult thing for any nonbeliever to understand.  And an impossible thing for a believer to prove, as the only 'evidence' we have to put forth for it is Scripture itself.  So...it becomes one of those circular arguments.  It true because it says so in the Bible.  But how do you know the Bible is true?  Because it says so in the Bible....lol

              At the end of the day, this one is purely a matter of faith.  Something that can't accurately be proven or disproven.

              big_smile

              **Edit, I mean for a nonbeliever to understand why a believer would accept such a thing.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, non-believers do understand and can easily come up with a lengthy list of reasons and explanations as to why those men were not inspired by spirits or gods. It is believers who have no explanations at all other than what they are told in the Bible.



                Exactly. If we treated every concept with the same rationale, there would be no such thing as reason or logic, or even thinking.



                Perhaps, but they certainly aren't weighted the same, as in a 50/50 split considering that there is a lengthy list of explanations that totally outweigh the single one of having faith, and it would show the possibility of spiritually inspiration as a very small probability in comparison.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  In short, you're arguing my point, ATM.  There is a degree of irrationality that accompanies religious belief.  There is no legitimate, logical argument FOR it, because it is a matter of faith/opinion, not fact.

                  I'm not arguing that I'm right.  I'm pointing out that I don't claim this as fact, because there is no objective evidence that I'm able to put forth to support it. 

                  Many believers argue with circular logic all the time.  I don't.  I accept my faith as simply faith - simply belief.  Not fact. 

                  More or less, that post was my concession (which I have offered before) that there is no way to argue this topic logically from the POV of the believer.  Can I accept the evidence to the contrary?  Sure.  Can I be of the opinion that there isn't enough evidence to convince me otherwise?  Yup.  I recognize the irrationality.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That is exactly the kind of honest, thoughtful explanation I've come to hear from you. While it's easy to understand you recognize the irrationality, it's much more difficult to understand how one can accept it. And yet more difficult is where one can draws the line as to what other irrationalities are accepted.

                    For example, if one were to claim they flapped their arms and flew like a bird, we aren't compelled to believe they defied gravity. Yet, in another case we have accepted a claim in which the defiance of gravity was key to the validity of the claim, despite all evidence to the contrary.

                    It is this baffling element of what irrationality one accepts when the playing field is level that is most difficult to wrap one's head around. It can only leave one in a constant state of questioning every single thing case by case, yet never relying on the evidence of one case to affect the outcome of another, hence always having to start from scratch.

                    One case violates several physical laws while another does not, yet we accept the one that does and reject that one that doesn't. Again, baffling.

                    It would be mental torture. smile

            2. Brandon Tart profile image60
              Brandon Tartposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              to begin with - what would be the point of any all knowing god-man being to delve into human experiences?  What Jesus did was all divine - it is not like humans to stray from pleasure seeking, but if Jesus/God made all things, I bet He already had a good sense of what an orgasm feels like.  If that is the case, as the inventor of it why would he need to get smelly with a hottie in a robe to know the real joys of marriage?  God/Jesus is love, and he is in a mental state of love all the time.  Marriage really seems like a non-sequitur to me regarding Jesus.  In all honesty, and I am sure that Jesus can take this... I believe this is Spirit led, but Jesus would have been a let-down to a mortal woman, which is probably why he wants an eternal bride.  Sorry, but the glass-slipper does not fit a Bride of Christ, and sandals are far more intelligent...  If you break your shoe, you'd cut your foot... I don't think Jesus would go for that.  He made sex, he is sex in that sense.  Scrogging to the kink of kings would be like a redundant action.  I just think it's probably fairly orgasmic to be Christ as it stands.

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hmmmmm.  I'm going to have to give that some thought.  I do find it interesting that men and women of God over time who have been involved in contemplative relationships with God have often compared the ecstasy of prayer to the ecstasy of sex.

    2. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This would be the Testimony of M. Magdalene, unearthed recently in Egypt, yes? You will also find the Testimony of Tomas, and his ministry to India, the Sophia of Moshiach as well other texts. In fact, the Sophia notes the grumbling by the twelve as to why Moshiach kissed her on the mouth. Such an act was not criminal -even for a rabbi- but was bothersome because of the affection he had toward her. In her dream, after their encounter with Moshiach, post-resurrection, the text shows a dispute between some of the twelve and the validity of her dream. Seems she not only traveled with them, often, but was present at the Rising and several times, when Moshiach appeared to them. There is agreement among many that his own mother accepted her as a daughter and that she served/cared for the twelve, for a short time, while they were still in Jerusalem and was among this in the Upper room when the spirit re-entered them.

      There was nothing forbidding him from having [her as] a wife, nor his affection toward her, less relations outside of legal marriage, according to the Law. A silly thing to dispute, really. He had no time for a wife, as his ministry began and ended quickly, and the lengths he traveled were far and many. He would have met her near the end of his ministry, if the text is accurate.

      James.

      PS, again Scripture -emphatically- is strictly Torah. Everything else is considered additional to Scripture, including Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, SoS, Job, Proverbs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, all the Prophets, the Testimonies and Correspondences. None are wrong nor right. They are what they are -information. I wonder if it were the Vedas how readily people would despite its contents, like the poetic//parable-like//mystically written Upanishads. Or the Sumerian cuneiform. They are what they are: literal expressive .

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago
  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    Any entire holy work is scripture, you can say otherwise but you would be going against every dictionary and the understanding of most people.

  4. lone77star profile image89
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    Perhaps it was left out because it would've been a distraction from the mission at hand.

    Jews were expected to get married and at an early age -- far earlier than 30 years of age.

    These bodies are not what God is after. God created us in His image and likeness and God is not Homo sapiens. Let that point sink in for awhile.

    Religious truth is superior to reality fact, every bit as much as a painter is superior to his canvas.

    The problem, though, is that interpretation is frequently not worth much. Too many people bring their own garbage or centuries of stale dogma to the interpretation. Frequently, interpretation is too literal and misses the spirit of the message. And as scripture says, the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

    Personally, I think the idea that Jesus had a wife is not that unusual, but based on the New Testament, there seems to be a great deal of evidence against it. Of course, that's based upon fallible interpretation.

    The key point is that the focus of the message and the mission is on spiritual reawakening of the non-physical child of God within. Once that happens, the physical body is of little use. And no need to get another one, for the cycle of suffering (Buddhist samsara) has ended.

  5. grand old lady profile image91
    grand old ladyposted 4 years ago

    It was one among many scriptures that were not included during the Canon of the Bible. I mention some of this and stuff on the Da Vinci Code in my article on <link snipped - no promotional links>

  6. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    The Universal religion which Constantine constructed in 326 AD was the first of its kind.                This new religion was created by the political authority of the time.

    A group of men  voted yes or no as to whether or not certain religious writtings  would be acceptable to their new Universal religion.They then proceded  (attempted) to destroy any and all other documents which were not acceptable to their new doctrine.

    Whether or not Jesus was maried was decided upon in 326AD.
    In 326 AD a world leader established a universal religion and presided over it.
    This new religion says that this "WILL"  happen at some time in the future; AND if possible, will fool even the elect.

  7. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 4 years ago

    If Jesus was as much human as he was divine, why wouldn't he experience marriage as a young adult as most people did in his culture?  He was only in ministry for three years.  Many wives have been asked to stay behind while a husband fulfilled a duty that ended in his death.  Even if they had children, they would only inherit Jesus' physical qualities.  For me, Jesus being married changes nothing.  I'd like to think he had that joy in his life.  That  male-dominated society throughout history decided to leave that information out of the cannon of the Bible would not be surprising.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Pretty sure it doesn't matter what evidence or proof is found - many people really need to believe the nonsense of eternal life if they are "saved," and will continue to do so regardless.

      Why would the children not inherit the majik juju as well?

  8. sparkster profile image93
    sparksterposted 4 years ago

    Research seems to indicate that Jesus may have actually been born in 7B.C. and may have been married to Mary Magdalene and no, I didn't get this information from Dan Brown.  It actually comes from a research paper called The Hidden History Of Jesus And The Holy Grail from a lecture by Sir Laurence Gardener.

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The question is, does it matter?

      1. sparkster profile image93
        sparksterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I guess that depends on what you choose to believe.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Belief is not a choice. Would the new information change your belief?

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nope.

            smile

            Yeah, I know.  You weren't asking me. 

            tongue

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Your free to answer. Your answer was no surprise to me.

          2. sparkster profile image93
            sparksterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Belief is a subconscious choice, based upon past experiences.  Everything that happens in your life ultimately comes down to your values and beliefs which are influenced by your own past experiences - everything is a belief system.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Belief is not a choice. Putting green pants on in the morning is a choice if you also have a red pair. Here is the question I've posed in the past to illustrate the choice.

              Could you chose not to believe in God (assuming you do believe and assuming your honest)?

              1. sparkster profile image93
                sparksterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You can choose to either believe or not believe depending upon what you DECIDE to believe.

                1. sparkster profile image93
                  sparksterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Belief is a subconscious choice, based upon past experiences.  Everything that happens in your life ultimately comes down to your values and beliefs which are influenced by your own past experiences - everything is a belief system."

                  Psychology is entirely based on this.

                2. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Not everything is a choice. I can't chose to stop my heart. I can't chose to believe in the tooth fairy. Sure it's subconscious, no doubt, but it's ones conscious mind that makes the choice.

                  1. sparkster profile image93
                    sparksterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, technically yes you can choose to stop your heart (but why would anyone want to do so?), quite easily actually. What you're referring to here is the way we have been 'pre-programmed' for survival, this is not a necessity and is not to do with being subject to society, religion, establishment, etc - it's not influenced unless you specifically want to influence it.

  9. Greek One profile image77
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    They recently found a parchment that attaches perfectly to the one in question, and it completes the sentence....

    The exact translation of the first documents read "and then Jesus sat his followers down and said "Take my wife...."

    The second piece reads...

    '...please".

  10. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago

    Motown, I had a response and lost it all when I got signed out. I'll try again later.

    1. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No worries.  smile 

      Looking forward to it.

 
working