Pierce writes: "Another text has come to light that is likely to set folks to birthing cows all over the place."
This scroll, according to Harvard's Karen King, contains the passage: 'Jesus said to them, 'My wife …'' (photo: Karen L. King)
Jesus And the Wife
19 September 12
ack in the day, when I was in pursuit of the college degree that eluded (among other people) Scott Walker, I was required to take 12 class hours of theology as part of my core curriculum. I'd had a taste of all those lugubrious German dudes in high school and had no desire to spend dark Milwaukee winter afternoons reacquainting myself with them. However, I did find one guy, and I'm ashamed to say I don't remember his name, who taught Scripture history. The Dead Sea Scrolls. The Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi. Some of the work of the various Coptic fathers. Now, this was cool. This was theology that was half-archaeology. I took every course the guy offered. Among other things, this resulted in my being insufferably blase when the whole DaVinci Code thing blew up. The Gospel of Thomas? Honky, please. I was on that bad boy back in '73.
I developed a lifelong sweet-tooth for this kind of thing, largely because citing the undeniable proof that early Christianity was anything but a stable orthodoxy — and that Christian orthodoxy was first established on the point of the Emperor Constantine's sword — can make all the right heads explode. Now, though, another text has come to light that is likely to set folks to birthing cows all over the place....
She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said. But the discovery is exciting, Dr. King said, because it is the first known statement from antiquity that refers to Jesus speaking of a wife. It provides further evidence that there was an active discussion among early Christians about whether Jesus was celibate or married, and which path his followers should choose.
Karen King is a serious scholar and is clearly trying not to overstate what she has found here, saying only that early Christians may have argued about whether Jesus was married as much as they argued about practically everything else. It's also possible that this latest bit of documentation may allow us to trace back further how the essential misogyny of the Christian church first embedded itself.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 24 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 24 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Hardly make Jews any different from anyone else! ;-) Arguing is good if it is done fairly and civilly and hopefully while unarmed. If Jesus was a human male, then the fact that he would have a wife is fine with me, in fact since he had to be a "human male" if he existed, since I do not believe in magic or the supernatural, it would be odd if he did not. So odd people start to talk about Jesus being gay, or celibate ... people go crazy if they are celibate too long or when they want to be or their bodies cry out for sex ... so I hope Jesus the philosopher would not have been crazy. It's an interesting subject.
Except for those that continued to live with their mothers.
The Jews themselves kept very accurate records in their own purview, and while they denied the Divinity of Christ, certainly acknowledge Jesus' arrival and existence in the timeframe described in Christian accounts. The arrival of Islam produced documents certifying fact of Jesus of Nazareth.
Dame Isabel Piczec and a company of NASA scientists have determined features of the so-called "Shroud Of Turin" that reveal unexplainable occurrence.
Astronomy has uncovered evidence of celestial activity in line with date of April 33 Ad, in accordance with the crucifixion account. A "Garden Tomb" with features in accordance with N.T.accounts is extant.
Documented sufferings of the disciples/apost les of Christ reveal determination and dedication far beyond any reasonable level if Jesus were not an actual friend and teacher to them.
It is a curious thing that Muhammadanism would not for an instant countenance the denial and downright disrespect shown for Jesus Christ, in the case of THEIR revered prophet... Comments below are an example of disrespect that would incite Islamic fury!
Josephus, for example, was not even born until 36 or 37 CE. I doubt he started wring for at least another couple of decades.
Where are the writings of contemporary jews mentioning jesus?
You do not produce a bit of proof of anything. You believe because you want to believe, not from anything verifiable. To not believe wold be to admit you are wasting your life on a lie and myths.
I have often said that, presented with undeniable proof, I would change my position on religion or anything else. That's only being rational and intelligent. What would it take for you to change your position?
People will believe no matter the evidence of lack of it or no matter the science which dictates ALL life exists within natural laws. It matters not because much of humanity is scared to death (literally) of events over which man has no power; we are still scared of disease, we are still scared even more so now of weather events that kill us even with the most predictive sophisticated technology and ultimately most of us simply do not want to die. A belief is very helpful with the vicissitudes of life and to gain some power or at least ask OF some power for help with them.
This is scant evidence and truly NO evidence that Jesus married and there is NO evidence that any of the Biblical texts hold veracity. Richard Dawkins writer of "The God Delusion" once told me when I waxed whiny about how comforting religion is and how man needs it that it was too bad man for the little time he has on earth cannot look to the scientific marvel of creation and leave it at that!
for me the real import is not whether Jesus actually lived but rather what he is said to have said which, if true, was a revolutionary message at the time and i would argue still is (basically an egalitarian message that called for the establishment of the kingdom of heavan on earth i.e., the battle/struggle s were over conditions in this world and not "the next".
Josephus doesn't mention Jesus. The passage is a later interpolation by a copyist who apparently thought he should have.
The Shroud of Turin reveals what kind of "unexplainable occurrence?" Unexplainable "evidence" of what sort?"
And what "evidence" for "celestial activity," the "April 33 AD" scenario and a "Great Tomb" supposedly recording this "perfect timing" of the celestial bodies "in line" with the crucifixion?
Jesus or Mohammad, Mohammad or Jesus. Disrepect can be a two-way street.
Doesn't the term "Islamic fury" incite a tone of melodramatics?
As for Jesus Christ, if he been married, single, straight, gay, or bi, that was his personal choice. After all, he was only human.
An excellent point.
Jews are likewise intolerant of anything outside of their very strange and exclusive faith and excommunicate as if they were dead, any of theirs marrying outside of it, especially the women.
Let's face it; all organized religions are about people control en masse and have a certain amount of almost Scifi/fantasy/f airy-tale "Weirdness" about their founding which the faithful are expected to swallow without question, thereby allowing exploitation of their members for financial, political and power-base gain.
The only exception I've found thus far have been the peace-oriented, non-preaching Quakers.
No argument from me there.
I personally consider what spiritual beliefs I do hold -and am still discovering- are deeply personal and precious, ongoing and shared only on sincere request.
Don't forget the Unitarian Universalists! Even more than the Quakers, we are a non-creedal denomination in which changing your beliefs doesn't mean you have to either shut up about it or get out.
Don't forget the Unitarian Universalists! Even more than the Quakers, we are a non-creedal denomination in which changing your beliefs doesn't mean you have to either shut up about it or get out.[/quote)
I went to a U-U event with a former girlfriend, featuring some Bhuddist Monks as guests, sharing their ceremonies and rituals, which was very enlightening.
And they do make their largest church available to many of the well-know progressive speakers who come through Portland, OR.
Thanks for reminding me; never felt pressured to join the U.U. but quite welcome nonethless.
* the paragraph is completely out of context with the paragraphs around it, and interrupts their story line.
* Josephus wrote extensively about many minor people of the time. A single paragraph or sentence for the Messiah is impossible.
Jesus is never mentioned by historian Pliny the Elder (CE 23? - 79). Pliny the Younger refers to Christians, not Jesus or Christ.
The Jews didn't write about Jesus until well after he was supposed to have lived. What they wrote then was based on the Christian mythology.
The Shroud of Turin is an obvious fake. It was carbon-dated to 1260-1390 CE - when it first appeared. Plus, it depicts a man 2 inches taller in the front than in the back.
The statement about astronomy and evidence of celestial activity has not backing evidence, and is false.
The stories of the disciples and apostles are largely just stories designed to inspire new followers.
As for Josephus and Pliny, they were working from sencond-hand, third-hand and even more remote sources.
Whether Jesus lived or not is not at issue. Whether he was literally the Son of God is, and was fiercely disputed among early Christians, as late as the sixth century A.D.
Shanti
BTW, I'm not religious. However, stupidity like assuming that Muslims disrespect Jesus can get someone killed in the wrong place, simply by mindlessly swearing. The fact is your garden variety Christian shows Jesus less "respect" than a Muslim would be permitted to in his own village.
Shanti
They are nor related but are used by Christiansbto gain an unjustified connection. Just as thet use another incorrect term "Judeo-Christan ." meaningless words to gain acceptance and put down The Jews.
We don't just argue...we also eat...that's why i always thought all of our holidays were basically the same...they oppressed us...we argued...we fought back...let's eat.
I think you will find when they publish the rest of the quote " My wife" which is "Take her please." You will know that Jesus was actually a standup comedian.
Unfortunately these early Greek influenced Christians were also Gnostics and Stoics and hated the whole idea of marriage, sex, and the body. If there were more of the fragment, it is likely that it would condemn marriage.
In the early days, The Church did not require priests to be celibate. (By the way, "celibacy" means "being unmarried". There seems to be a widespread misunderstandin g that celibacy means "never having sex". That's not celibacy. That's "chastity.")
Anyway, The Church eventually figured out that if priests did not marry and subsequently did not have offspring, then they would have no heirs and could be required to leave any wealth or property they had to The Church.
If Jesus was not a whole man --- if He was immune to the pleasures,, temptations and tribulations incorporated into sexuality, love, limerence, marriage, masturbation, procreation, fatherhood, and the many physical gifts that God bestowed upon we hu8mans b-- then his giving his life to wash away my sins was a meaningless gesture .. . . and possibly even a relief. Exactly what did He sacrifice?
Another Theologian
In what him being married or not can change that?
This thing of "dying for our sins" dates back to the good-ol'-days when every crime had to be punished fire, beheading or hanging. Guilt was not really relevant, and once someone - anyone - was executed for the crime, the matter was officially closed.
How convenient! But it's not much different today when courts'primary concern is money and closure. Justice is coincidental, if at all.
According to some Jesus was quoted as "celebRate, celebRate" but someone in the Catholic church dropped the "R" during 1500 year of handcopying.
Those 1500 years of scribes were, of course, writing in modern English, but couldn't spell. Did the Powers That Be fire all their teachers too?
;)
If Jesus really was married, that only means that he had found someone who he felt a kinship with. The spiritual had to come first with him, the sexual was simply the spontaneous physical expression of it. His wife would have been on the same spiritual level, and so there would be no conflict between them. He was an amazing individual, what a gift it must have been to those who walked with him.
Think about these three points before you walk away. They are heavy and fly in the face of organized religion:
1. Jesus's teachings ended religion as it was practiced up until His time. He supplanted formal religion with spirituality. Eg., "Love thy neighbor as thyself!" vice "Slaughter ye the Philistines!"
2. In all of the Universe, there is only one sin, and that singular, universal sin is: "The knowing, deliberate breach of trust with man or nature."
3. We are NOT punished FOR our sins, we are punished BY our sins.
How much simpler can it get?
#1 I agree totally. #2 When we are enlightened we see so clearly we would never harm anyone deliberately. #3 I don't agree with "sin", error is the correct word. With sin, a vengeful God punishes us. With error, a loving God enlightens us.
You are exactly right, we create our own reality, either through awareness or through ignorance, and we are entirely responsible for our own happiness or lack thereof.
PS: I am not "religious", I saw through that farce when I was five.
The sins for which I punish myself are independent of any independent judgement or forgiveness by anyone save myself. I see "sin" as a willingly undertaken breach of trust whereas an "error" is mis-judgement - a well meant shortcoming - as opposed to stupid & heedless blunder which is as bad as it gets.
Sexuality "must take a back seat if we are to are to evolve spiritually"? Say what? This notion is pure demagoguery laid upon us by thousands of generations of charlatans who correctly believe that if they can control the second-stronges t of all of our basic urges - admittedly, some modulation is called for - then they can control all else.
Finally: my "empty gesture" statement. If I or anyone else knowing & willingly performs a truly evil act, a reaction of sending ALLl of the sons of ALL of the worlds' gods to their deaths will NOT reverse the evil or relieve one from his responsibility for that action. Forgiveness - if there is to be forgiveness - comes only from within one-self - from "the God within" - or not at all.
BTW: I do not submit my doctrine as a universal revelation/pana cea to be adopted by all. My only direct statement is "Here's what works for me."
Error of any kind, is committed because we are asleep to the spiritual essence in our hearts. If we were awake (enlightened), we would not do "stupid and heedless" things. Karma is universal law, it cannot be escaped. Though it seems that way sometimes, it catches up with us sooner or later. In that sense, when we do "bad" things, we carry our own "punishment" with us.
Sexuality taking a back seat only means that it is not our dominant drive. It is part of our physical existence, but was not meant to have the power that it has in this society. Just as I said before, it is meant to be a spontaneous physical expression when two people are spiritually one. In this society it has become an earthly desire, separated from spiritual love for most people.
Forgiveness? Would you forgive a sleep-walker who stumbled and fell on you? We are all in various stages of spiritual sleep, and so all we need to do is to wake up.
I see you're angry about my comment, it was not my intention to offend you. So who is to blame for your angry reaction, me who meant no harm? Or you who reacted in anger? I am not responsible for your reactions, you are.
Oh, no! We get along just fine. My last paragraph, above, & your first establish that clearly. Your comment deserves more time than I have right now. BBL
0
1. Already resolved.
2.Honest error, like a sleepwalker losing consciousness ---a rare occurrence--- is exempt from adverse moral judgement. My quarrel, is with those who habitually abuse private & public trust and benefit thereby. Eg., Stumbling over front door threshold is OK. Stumbling into bed with his wife is not---we do not go "forget" right & wrong - period!. The "Oops! I made a mistake" excuse is bogus 99% of the time. How does one "accidentally" violate a voluntary honor oath that states "I will neither lie, cheat nor steal."? These are conscience items which only psycho-& sociopaths generally ignore.
Maslow doesn't include sex in his hierarchy.n but we ,know that , when aroused, the procreation urges trump all others needs. And who is qualified to judge what was-or-was-not "meant" ? Sexual congress is the closest & most exquisite form of communication between individuals --- or WAS when I was growing up --- but again, some researchers view sexual attraction as an evolutionary tool for ensuring the survival of fittest & fairest.
Knowing that some poor schmuck was punished for my acknowledged transgressions does not translate into forgiveness for me. My allowing such a travesty to occur compounds the sin.
That's my position. Do not change yours without good cause.
I haven't read Maslow, but I have studied many, many books of philosophy, spiritual works, historical religions, psychology, etc., over the past two decades, and this has helped to expand my consciousness. But I am a work in progress, I have a lot more waking up to do. As for the sexual, I can only speak from my own viewpoint, my particular perspective. I cannot persuade you that my view is a true one, you have to experience it for yourself. To me it's plain as day, if the spiritual is not involved, it is simply a physical appetite.
Cont.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, I appreciate it.
Not all men married, still do not that is not new concept. Neither made them gay or strange. Perhaps just added to this Man who seem to bring Love out in People rather than Wrath.
Would you insult Pecos Bill for al the wild and often illegal things attributed to that fictional character?
If we have been 'ripped off' than we have allowed it to be so. Still do by not doing anything at all...differenc e between us and Him. He went amongst the People and taught.
Judaism changed significantly after the sacks of Jerusalem by Titus and Hadrian. The temple was destroyed, Jerusalem's role as a political and religious center ended and Judaism changed from Temple-based to synagogue-based , becoming more de-centralized as rabbis become more important. The key NT texts (and others such as Q) weren't being written down until this very period (~70 CE-early 2nd century). So teasing the significance out of such terms and practices is problematic at best.
As for saying that Jesus "did not agree with what was going on in Judaism" this is misleading at best...Jesus disagreed vehemently with the Jewish ruling elites and sided with the poor which made him a revolutinary Jew, one who was then opposed by both the foreign imperialist oppressors (the roman) as well as the indigenous Jewish ruling clas but he still considered himself a Jew and so was not disagreeing with Judaism but rather with the ruling elites that had taken it over (in the same way that the right-wing fundamentalists have to a large degree taken over Christianity, Islam and Judaism today).
PS God is pretend. And, the less you know, the more you'll believe.
You are wong!
"belief without proof"
Please explain Newton's
1-st law
2-nd law
and
3-rd law.
Can you "prove" any of them?
Newton was 1680 or so.
America awaits your wisdom.
America believes your stupidity.
The latter traditionally makes a claim based on blind faith and assumptions, but without going further to test the claim (I would think testing would be the most sensible thing to do.); and yet, it's additionally claimed there's proof. I'm still waiting for a logical argument reflecting truth of the untested claims. I think I'll be waiting for quite a long time.
Einstein refined the gravitation equations with his generalized relativity theory in 1925 and his model helps get deeper in the realms where Newton's is lacking.
We still use Newton's theory every day, thank you, and it is useful.
Science is based on the capability to predict effect from cause, repeatably and by other people. Faith is not based on observable facts.
The "fact' that you can see God does not mean you can show him to me.
Unfortunately, we evolved, not into much ..
Has eyes but still cannot see!
Faith is believing in something in spite of the facts. There is nothing "more" than factual. If there was, it could be proven, and then it would be a fact.
Religion is nothing but gossip of Biblical proportions !
Yeah, but i'll bet Kofax had a better fastball than either Moses or Jesus...
I also remember seeing a bumber sticker when i was kid that read: Jesus Saves but Esposito scores on the rebound.
If you're that outraged, move on.
The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth created to fulfill prophesy, cobbled together out of stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths - created in the 40's and 50's by Paul of Tarsus (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, and the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.
If Jesus had actually existed, Paul (ne Saul of Tarsus) would have written about his life, disciples, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this. If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person fiction format. If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him.
The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Dionysus, Mithra, and Horus). Some early Christians attributed this to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity.
Who was writing these histories of the time. Romans cared less, they had thousands of Gods.
Jews were afraid to acknowledge Jesus, then and now. He was telling them off in Temples from childhood, cute then but no so when He started throwing Idols around and criticizing their gambling in Temples....prob ably why they allow Romney to bring the Muslim Movie, and make mockery of their faith.
They could not win the Christianity movement and will not stop the Muslim movement. They are the Cause and Effect of both.
Believe not, no big deal. It is just curious that none of the Apostles spoke of women in their lives, nor did they discuss Mary Magdellan It is almost like they were jealous, perhaps they were. But again women were not held up by these men.
I have often wonder how it was MM got to get away with the children of Jesus as the Jews were afraid of Him enough to pay Romans to Crucify Him. Imagine what they would have done to a male child. Perhaps the love was unrequited as Jesus knew he was going to be killed.
I wondered if his friend the Doctor didn't give Jesus a potion to put up with the crucifixion as there were enough to get him down, however, no one foresaw the Roman Cruelty or pay off of the actual spear wound.
Like so many Mysteries of this Founding of Catholicism, it is up to us to consider all facts
A Few Noticeable Events in the Life of Jesus
Herod’s slaughter of all the baby boys in Bethlehem.
Jesus’ triumphant entry in jerusalem, where the entire town welcomes him as their king.
Jesus casting out the greedy moneychangers. (in an area about the size of 34 football fields)
Two earthquakes his Jerusalem.
Supernatural darkness covers “all the land” for hours.
The Sacred Temple curtain tears from top to bottom.
All the dead holy men in the cemetery come out of their graves and wander Jerusalem, “appearing to many.”
And yet, contemporary historians in the time of Jesus didn’t write about any of this.
Again, not saying whether he was or was not a real historical figure but simply that your characterizatio n of "the Jews" as this monolithic block that did not accept and opposed Jesus is simply wrong and betrays the underlying anti-semitism of your assumptions
Christianity is founded upon myths and lies. That's why it demands instead of earns respect and why it forbids questioning and disdains anything like proof. Both of those are fatal to any religion.
Is there absolute primary source evidence? No, but then the birther controversy still lives despite evidence... was he a myth? perhaps. how can there be "reliable evidence" that something/one did NOT exist? the early 2nd century Roman historians Tacitus & Suetonius, using documents from the Imperial archives, reference the jesus person (albeit briefly ss "christ" & "chrestus"). proof? no; but they are more "objective" than religious texts built on belief. are T & S without error? no.
Paul preached in the 50s & 60s (executed under nero). Julius Caesar too had epilepsy; it's not about delusions. Much of christianity as a religion is indeed cobbled together from myths and cults. That's not evidence for or against his existence. the 1st person v 3rd person argument is spurious. Paul uses 1st person in his _letters_. the gospels are narratives (written later, yes). 3rd person does not mean fiction. Given the loss of 99.999999% texts from this period 2k years ago, the lack of extant evidence is not evidence of non-existence.
if we strip away the emotions, the politics, & the desire to believe or disbelieve without consideration, we might find a really interesting discussion. But that's not what this blog is about....
Christians with their narrow view
think Jesus' virgin birth unique,
but history shows more than a few
to those who would the record seek.
Fifteen centuries before Mary's crisis
in seeking a room at the inn,
Horus was born of the virgin Isis
and received neat gifts from three wise men.
And Krisna, one of the gods Hindu,
born twelve hundred years before,
was birth of Devaki, a virgin too,
on Pantheon became eighth avatar.
Adonis of Babylonian birth
(whom the goddesses would adore)
was born of Ishtar,virgin queen of earth
Goddess of heaven, love and war.
Eight hundred years ere Christ's advent
came Indra from a virgin in Tibet.
And like Jesus when he came to die,
also ascended into the sky.
Six hundred years before "the Son,"
Buddha was born of Maya the pure;
virgin born also was Quirrnus of Rome,
Zoroaster of Persia and Mithra for sure.
The last virgin birth before JC's,
according to our miracle lore,
Attis was born of the virgin Nama,
in Phrygia, two hundred years before.
By the time Joe and Mary found shelter,
and amid oxen their tired bodies sat,
virgin births, wise men, and ascensions,
had become, for the most part, old hat.
(by Ronald G. Crowe)
No virgin-born god he, the Celts
Far too wise for such tomfoolery
But lord of raven, wind and tree
Whose severed head bespoke
Eighty-seven years of prophecy
Enchanted by that unique timelessness
Cast by music exquisite beyond all words:
The song of the Birds of Rhiannon.
It's amazing how ancient mythologies dressed in religious garments are still blindly adhered to during our historical period when there have been great advancements in other areas of human understanding. Desire for immortality and fear of the unknown, augmented by lust for control of others, makes zombies of an otherwise advanced species.
But with or without Apostle's acknowledgement or any Jewish Historian writing of Christ or a marriage....it matters not.
What we do know is this Woman, Mary Magdellan had a special place in Jesus' life. His knowing that He will most likely die from his own apostle, his own ancestors out of fear, Jesus may well have spared her the life she in that time period would have had to live with.
I have believed they had children, again she with others help had to run to keep them alive. Whether any survived is the question. Perhaps they are now Palestinians, Muslims, so many to chose from since Jesus had friends in many of the Areas now so hated by his ancestorial background.
Jesus was a threat, that would not be wise to admit to in any History. Why bother giving him notoriety of any sort.
Let His short life be written by His Apostles nothing more.
She was considered a Harlot by those outside Jesus' group. A woman to use her dressing gowns, to be close and no formal wedding...no one to betroth her to him...she had nothing of value, therefore her worth meaningless. This Hate continues today only just new names, same countries and faiths
Historian joke then and now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9w-xJfSOyc&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL81AAEE5D1D76A09D
http://tombofjesus.com/en/
My opinion for the day.
Do environmentalis ts hate Paul Bunyan for cutting down all those trees? Try to think up more reasonable insults, bible-thumper.
Jesus was not recognized. He brought fear into Judaism. He was sold to Romans to crucify. Romans were amused They had no Fear of their God, they had thousands of Gods. One God and now an immortal born to a mortal...good story.
Virgin Birth, oddly strange wording. Perhaps Mary was raped and to honor her husband, they renamed it for their books.
Could have been .... His regard for His Parents was very good.
Jesus had no time as a young man to marry, he had to help his family. There was little time, if He knew He was to die for God, for Us or because of the Fear He saw growing...the latter being closer.
Our Sins, yes He did die for Man's Sin of paying to have another executed out of Fear. I have no problem thanking this noble, kind man for doing this, not running, He could have.
Bits and Pieces...that is what our lives are made of. If this is a leaked story, written or passed on, it was between family and deep friends.
Married, I do not know if He would have allowed this as He knew what was going to happen. We all know when Power of any type is happening and others are in fear. He definitely stirred up some pots.
how can you know what Paul would have written? We don't know very much about early Christianity because the Roman Catholic church deleted any gospels and passages that did not fit with what it wanted people to know and understand.
Jesus was not an uncommon name at that time and in that place so can the writing be authenticated as being about Christ? Also, it would have been odd for a man of Jesus' background to not have married.
She perhaps fled after to Palestine, or other Places he traveled. Perhaps one of the Apostles took her with, she considered just a servant, after all she was just woman.
Whatever the life, the woman and children if she had any more than likely succumbed to disease, war, hardships. If any possible link now to Jesus, it is better kept as it is. We have enough Wackos, Fear Mongers, Haters in the World.
Nice to know that perhaps a little piece of History was found. This piece of History was noted by a Historian just not the Fear mongers of that time.
I believe the author's boorishness shows.
So smart he cannot remember that which you would remember. So RSN a better story from regular Media would have been adequate. After all it is a fragmented piece of History, nice in a time filled with so much hate stories.
A hope that Jesus had a loving wife and family. Just not likely that is was for long.
Celibacy was from some need among Apostles to prove that they would serve their God and not allow themselves the beauty of Marriage. It is sad since I believe many may have been married, and left to spare Family further pain after taking allegiance to Catholicism.
Neither would have wanted this as teachers, they would have wanted their followers to experience life
In which context note how the the spiral that denoted the goddess resembles the micro-galactic spiral of the light show that occurs within one's mind during the most intense orgasms. This parallel between abstract symbol and internal vision can scarcely be coincidence.
Thus the suppression and often (as by Saint Paul), demonization of sex and sexuality: it was by far the most vital aspect of suppressing the Old Religion, precisely as noted by Barbara Mor in her cutting-edge work "The Great Cosmic Mother."
That said, because I know something of rabbinical traditions, I have long suspected Jesus was married, though also knowing something of Dark Ages nobility, I rather doubt the Merovingian kings were amongst his descendants.
But what struck me most about this fragment is how it focused my mind on the unmitigated horror and anguish a wife would have felt upon learning of her husband's crucifixion, her emotions magnified to a heart-wrenching intensity we cannot begin to imagine had she watched him suffer this most hideously prolonged and agonizingly contorted mode of death.
How unspeakably cruel of the Christians to suppress this O-so-poignantly human element from their unnaturally chaste narratives.
There is a historical narrative that many who call themselves Christian try to fit in.
However someone did a lot of successful talking to prevent a woman from being executed with a then legal punishment, and a bunch of other things that no expected prophesy would full fill.
Jesus is someone who was supposed to have had great effect socially, politically, religiously, and performed several miracles. Then there was the very public trial and execution. But not one word, either officially, or in surviving private correspondence has appeared.
The first mention of any jesus is in the gospel of Mark, written from 40 to 110 years, depending upon which biblical "scholar" you believe, after the "facts".
As stated by Dr. Bart Ehrman, Professor of religious studies at the University of North Caroline, Chapel Hill, NC said, "In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never appears in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!"
I believe the first writer to mention Jesus was Paul of Tarsus, starting about the year 40 C.E. Paul's letters predated Mark, Matthew, Luke and John (and we don't even know who wrote these so-called synoptic Gospels, only that the first one, Mark, was written in the year 70 A.D. or later.
However, Paul seems to have known nothing about Jesus the person, nor seems to have any interest in Jesus' history on earth. He claims to have met Jesus in a vision, but obviously never met him in life. And it shows. Paul never says anything about Jesus's human history on earth. And he seems to have no respect for or interst in Jesus's disciples.
Myths about Jesus? There are some incredible stories told about Abraham Lincoln. Some people think that Elvis Presley and John Kennedy are still alive in some nursing home.... Was Jesus married? We don't even know if Fidel Castro is married. We know very little about the personal life of a long list of famous people.... Jesus is a mysterious figure in the past - like Hippocrates, or Robin Hood - who will always be mysterious and a source of inspiration. That's what matters.
However, if Jesus did exist it is clear that he was a revolutionary figure (calling for the Kingdom of Heavan on earth i.e., in this life and not the next or his anger at the money changers in the temple or his siding with the poor over the rich or saying that all are equal, etc) and a threat to both the romans and the ruling jewish eltes which, assuming he did in fact exist, would have been why both went after him (crucifixtion was more commonly a punishment for political crimes against the romans who would not really care that Jesus was considered heretical by some other Jews).
On the other hand, imagine if priests were allowed to marry. Then the pope would have a wife--and there goes the doctrine of papal infallibility, shot down by Mrs. Pope. "Oh, HE'S infallible? Yeah, right."
An overnight rest in a tomb with bandages and healing ointments might be enough to recover from a coma. From there would proceed one of the biggest cover ups in history to prevent the wholesale slaughter of every follower. Wild story?? Just as likely as any of the others!
1. Has Pat Robertson's head exploded yet?
2. Has Glenn Beck's exploded yet?
3. Has John McCain called for the bombing of the site this information was found yet?
The church made no concentrated attempt to promote priestly celibacy until the 10th-11th centuries. Until then most priests and some bishops were married, but Medieval inheritance customs worked against getting good priests in the next generation. Too often they were handed down as "legacies" to younger sons who hadn't the slightest qulification for service to a congregation.
In distant lands like Scotland and Iceland, many rectors and vicars ignored the innovation. They were wed by a friendly priest, sometimes paid a small yearly fine to the local archdeacon but otherwise lived a normal family life--which may be why "McPherson" (son of the parson) is so common a Scots name. Celibacy was ignored in the rest of Europe, too, where clergy--priests , monks and friars--resorte d to whorehouses. Some priests brought concubines to live with them on their glebe land, without benefit of clergy. In these circumstances the women were sometimes insulted by villagers, but probably not in villages where the concubine was a well-liked local woman.
It seems so to me especially in view of the latest documentaries from the Science Channel I have taped on the phenomenal-beyo nd-words physicist Stephen Hawking. Not only is this man a genius but he is paralyzed from head to toe by ALS making him utterly astounding. He never gives up.
There are several episodes on his proofs of black holes and the controversy of the matter that is in them.
Religion with its 6 BILLION different conjectures and assumptions to me seems idiotic. But it has gravity and incredulity in that men have killed each other by the thousands over something that can never be proven, defies science in many of its claims and most probably were written by many different mortal men.
I'd rather read those who have the great minds to understand particle physics so they can translate that into a language I can understand. Science has always been MY god if not my expertise to say the least. It is, though, truth staring each of us in our face IF one would only pay attention and derive what one can in the face of it! I am not indicting any religion. If it helps one by all means use it for good and use science to test the veracity of those artifacts we may discover about it.
If the "gospel" is just about the personal life of the man Jesus, it is absolutely devoid of significance and meaning.
Surely, anyone identifying with Christ's message of Love;
to the rich young ruler,
to the the multitude that witnessed his address recorded in Matt. 25,
and his very succinct summary of "ALL the law and the prophets" when he said "Love God with all your heart and your neighbor AS your own self,"
cares little for this sensational distraction.
Yeah, prior to Constantine, there were no Popes, no catholic church, so what are we looking at here except the gnostic interpretations ? On the other hand, I wouldn't want to step on any sensitive toes, folks who hold particular beliefs. It's only that, generally I'm fascinated with the 'mystery' religions.
Ed
There is also fairly new archeological evidence that appears to substantiate classic old Testament stories. I am not a Christian, but I do revere Jesus, and I find the new information fascinating. Curiously enough, when I tried to talk to the Episcapol Bishop in my geographical area about these new findings, she knew nothing about the recent scholarship, and had no interest in educating herself. I was quite startled as I had always assumed Christians loved Jesus. Naive,huh?
Don't ask me for citations; I am not a Biblical scholar. But it is easy to research on-line just google the subject. It is all there for the taking, and requires minimal effort. They have even found fragments of a gospel of Mary (Magdalene).
BTW, Buddhist historians chronicled the life of Jesus in ancient times; they consider him a Buddha, or an enlightened being (just not
the one and only enlightened being).
One other BTW; it is no big news to us intuitive spiritual types that Jesus loved women.
My pleasure.
A must-read about how religious texts are formed is found Bart Ehrman's "Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are". The author, a former fundamentalist Christian who is now an atheist, collates 150 years of biblical scholarship yielding evidence of forgery in both the Old and New Testaments. Many ancient texts were considered for inclusion in the New Testament, but relatively few were chosen. Basically, the chosen texts that would comprise the New Testament "canon" were voted in - it had nothing to do with them being "the Word of God". Many forgeries were written in the name of famous apostles and while those who cut and pasted the New Testament tried to weed out Gnostic texts with their unpopular beliefs along with other questionable texts, they didn't always succeed.
To me, it seems logical that Jesus and Mary Magdalen were a couple, and probably married. She was the queen of his heart. Why shouldn't we want the best for Jesus? Why imagine him to be this dour guy who was constantly in the company of men who were often quarrelsome, and some of whom not even brave enough not to blow his cover? And this doesn't even get into the short shrift given the Magdalen, and subsequent reputation she suffered at their hands. Good that so many have gone outside the box of currently accepted gospels to get the bigger picture. Question Authority. Eschew Obfuscation.
My church is a denomination that loves theology and religious history, and two friends in my small parish of fewer than 100 have graduate degrees in Theology. I got mine in Medieval Theology, and have followed Gnosticism with interest. The Nag Hammadi gospels, the Gospel of Judas, and perhaps this recently located one (if it proves to be authentic) should be read, along with the Dead Sea Scrolls, by anyone genuinely interested in the roots of modern Judaeo-Christia n thought.
As for Dan Brown's dull novel, I quit after page 50, it was so poorly-written and boring. You couldn't have paid me to see the movie.
2. is Jesus God or just a real man? If God, what sacrifice was made?
3. how to believe any unsubstantiated info.? Did he suffer at the hands of the Evil Jews or is that part of the sales pitch?
4. If he had to die, what's the big deal?
5. Why domChristians put emphasis on thought and not deed?
RSS feed for comments to this post