|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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?
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.
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?
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.
*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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
**Edit, I mean for a nonbeliever to understand why a believer would accept such a thing.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, do I get where you're coming from! The road to faith (or away from it) is often mental torture for the traveler. All I can say is that personal/subjective experiences make a huge difference along the way, and it's here where we run into difficulty in terms of the acceptance of a premise by one and rejection by another. I cannot deny the truth of my personal experiences. What I can do, however, is understand that others may not have had those same experiences. What I 'know' based on personal experience or subjective feeling is mine to own, not mine to attempt to use as evidence to convince someone else.
As usual, though, I have to say thanks for being so kind to me, even in our disagreement. If you keep that up, people might think you're gettin' soft!
I understand personal experiences are reason for beliefs claimed by a number of folks. By your own admittance though "understand that others may not have had those same experiences" should be reason enough to question those experiences for validity, not to mention coincidentally other believers have personal experiences within their religions. And often, those experiences would have us believe our physical laws have been violated.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to questioning personal experiences, subjective or otherwise as any reason for validating a belief.
And, while I agree it isn't evidence to convince someone else, but it certainly must be somewhere remotely near valid in order to convince you. Based on your posts here, I can't see how you would consider them valid.
I respect your honesty, which is not something shared by other believers. I would like to thank you for helping me trying to understand this phenomenon.
Well, in terms of questioning the validity of my own experiences, believe me, I have! In the end, I recognize that I'm a psychologically sound and intelligent person. I'm honest to an absolute fault (seriously, I couldn't lie to save my life). So, to accept certain experiences that I have had (from the POV of say, a nonbeliever), I would have to be either mad, unintelligent, or dishonest. Since I am none of those things, the experiences (in my opinion) have indeed been valid. Because they cannot be explained by any natural, logical or rational method, I have to chalk them up to the unknown.
Now, here is where you and I might take a different path. You might not accept their validity in the first place or continue to examine them until you've either proven or dis-proven that they actually even happened. That's the mental torture we were talking about earlier.
Because I believe in the possibility of the supernatural, in the same way a scientist might believe in the possibility of multiple, unknown dimensions and/or parallel universes, I am able to say with relative - note that I say relative - certainty that my experiences have been true and valid. In most cases, they have confirmed what I believe.
When it comes down to it, however, I can't hold those experiences out to someone and say they are proof that should convince them to believe as I do. I hate to say it this way, but in many ways, God is nothing but a theory - that I've tested in private. For me, personally, each test has shown God to be real. Can I prove that publicly? Not yet. The day may come in my lifetime when there's a breakthrough in the God theory (like there was with relativity), but I think it may take many more eons than that.
Perhaps, they can be explained by natural, logical and rational methods and I would suspect they can just like everything else. To say they can't would be to say that the physical laws of the universe can easily be violated.
Perhaps, but it isn't mental torture when one understands the evidence of our physical world and the laws that govern them, which is why we use evidence from other cases to invoke upon new cases. To attempt to prove an extraordinary claim that may already violate a physical law is pointless.
But, that really isn't the same thing. While some scientists hypothesize on parallel universe based on theoretical mathematics and physics, there is no hard evidence to suggest they exist. However, you will not get a single scientist to support the supernatural because they already understand the supernatural violates the physical laws that govern nature.
Yet, that isn't possible, therefore your perception of those experiences have led you to false conclusions, amongst a host of other explanations.
Unfortunately, God cannot be a theory, by definition. Not only that, God certainly can't be compared with relativity no matter how much time passes especially considering the supernatural would have to violate relativity, as it would have to do with so many other physical laws.
The only possible solution is an irrational belief that the physical laws can be violated. Once again, we come full circle to accepting one irrational belief over another.
You say perhaps they CAN be explained by natural, logical, and rational methods - okay, then I'll concede they cannot be explained by anything of which I am aware.
This might be a fair argument. IF you could without equivocation that you and/or the scientific community already understands all of the laws which govern our physical universe and all of its evidence. First, it's providing new evidence to be examined every day, which is why scientific theories are proposed and discarded. Most importantly, we come back to the 'attempt to prove.' I am not attempting to prove anything. Simply attempting to explain how there are indeed folks among you - myself included - who are intelligent, psychologically sound, and intellectually honest - who do not find it impossible or unpalatable to suspend our disbelief in the laws of the physical universe to believe in God.
Actually it's exactly the same thing. '...scientists hypothesize.....there is no hard evidence...'
That's exactly what believers do. So you call it another dimension. He calls it Heaven. You both have a hypothesis you cannot prove.
Here's a definition of the word theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
God can indeed be a theory for someone who has heard of him but doesn't believe he exists. I'm not comparing God to relativity...just saying a theory is a theory. In the end, though, you are one hundred percent correct. I have an irrational belief that physical laws can be violated and God does exist. I also know there's no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, and no Tooth Fairy. How I can accept one irrationality and not others is explainable only through personal and subjective experiences. Which is why....unfortunately.....we can't ever convince the other that we're the right one. Ultimately, though, I think it just matters that we try and that we're kind about it.
Rather than try to re-write everything, I'll focus on the crux of the issue.
Yes, I think you're intelligent, psychologically sound and intellectually honest...
... except when it comes to accepting one irrational belief over another, which for the most part is centered around your religious beliefs. Of course, you can put forth intelligent and psychologically sound arguments, however it certainly isn't intellectually honest to invoke the supernatural based on personal experiences when the physical laws are being violated, and especially if no terrestrial explanation is readily available and when there are no sources to reference those conclusions.
The old adage, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck"
However, that adage fails if one has never seen a duck before.
In other words, if you have no sources of evidence regarding the supernatural, you can't invoke it as any kind of explanation and draw conclusions. It is quite intellectually dishonest to do so.
I get it. I promise I do. But, if I invoke the supernatural, I do it in private. I practice my faith quietly. If I were one of those who attempted to use my faith as a weapon, or one who believed that it was right and practical to govern a nation according to the tenets of my faith, I could see a willingness on both of our parts to continue to battle over who's right and who's wrong. BUT, I don't.
Here is where a believer and a nonbeliever who respect one another have to agree to disagree. While I respect your persistence, and I respect your refusal to compromise what you know and believe for something that cannot be explained by the physical laws of nature, I think it's only fair that you respect my belief as well. You don't have to understand it, condone it, welcome it, or agree to it. Just like nonbelievers want to be left alone to not believe, folks like me want to be left alone to believe - however irrational that belief may appear to others.
Like I said earlier, I will never attempt to convince you of the 'facts' of religious belief, because I can't. But I'll sure attempt to convince you that decent people - intelligent people, rational people, sane people - are all entitled to their own beliefs, or to not believe.
And, I'll tell ya - you have certainly been a joy to talk to. Again, I appreciate you trying to understand where I'm coming from. The dialogue has been really enjoyable on my part.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
Any entire holy work is scripture, you can say otherwise but you would be going against every dictionary and the understanding of most people.
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.
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>
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.
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.
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?
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.
I guess that depends on what you choose to believe.
Belief is not a choice. Would the new information change your belief?
Yeah, I know. You weren't asking me.
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.
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)?
You can choose to either believe or not believe depending upon what you DECIDE to believe.
"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.
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.
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.
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...
Motown, I had a response and lost it all when I got signed out. I'll try again later.
by Eric Dierker22 months ago
Can a normal human rightfully claim that their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one?Can this notion of "I am right and you are wrong" really exist in a healthy Christian? I am beginning to think...
by Eric Dierker2 years ago
I hesitate when I hear of see someone quote the Bible as their argument. I thought Jesus denied thatIf I lord the scripture over you, is that not exactly as the pharisees, scribes and Sadducee did, which resulted in the...
by Cranfordjs20 months ago
People, please stop using the question section to post. I hate leaving comments on questions because people take advantage of the one response rule to take a shot at the previous comments. This forum is inspired by a...
by graceinus2 years ago
How do we know if we understand the correct context when we study the Holy Bible?I have often wonder why we sometimes if not often misunderstand the context of chapters and/or verses when we study God's word. One can...
by mishpat3 years ago
I have enjoyed many "debates" with folks here on the Hub, but in the long run, its seems those that believe still believe and those that don't still don't. Why is this?Could it be, Christians, that we...
by JP Carlos3 years ago
What is the best way to explain the existence of God to an atheist?I've heard people try to convince atheists that there is a God by quoting the Bible or some other holy book. But quoting from such materials won't...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.