Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Imaginarynumber1

Papyrus refers to Jesus' wife

160 posts in this topic

Here here!

..lol... Leave it to a guy anyway to marry a gal just like his mamma. Well with the same name and temperament anyway..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys I`m still not really convinced Jesus would have been married to Mary Magdalene or that she was the beloved disciple .If Jesus did have a wife she was totally out of the picture, or just not mention.Like said there were many women and Marys that followed and supported Jesus, however if there was any true documentation of a marrige, his wife would have been abled to take his body.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would have his mother. He wasn't just any old political capital punishment victim. He was THE political capital punishment victim. That body had quite a lot of significance attached to it and the Romans weren't keen on any more "hero worship" going on.

Three women only at the cross. Jesus addressed one of them as "the beloved disciple". "He kissed her often on the mouth", in the presence of others. If not his wife, then who was Magdalene to Jesus under those descriptions anyone can find in the Bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, “Woman, behold thy son!” Then saith he to the disciple, “Behold thy mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. (Jn. 19:25-27)

The way I reading it Matthew ,Mark and Luke have three women standing afar and looking from a afar and do not say Jesus`s mother was one of them,where as John the only one states three women, one as Jesus`s mother and the beloved disciple were at the cross.

Perhaps this refers to a later period much closer to the moment of Christ’s death. John’s account refers to a time when perhaps the mockery and fierce outbursts of anger had died down a bit and the beloved disciple with the women could move very close to the cross. There is historical evidence that indicates it was not uncommon for Roman soldiers to allow relatives and friends of the person crucified to come near the cross to mourn and sympathize for the victim. So it does`nt rule out that this beloved disciple may have been a he as was said, John Mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me to late to edit :)

The way I reading it Matthew ,Mark and Luke have three women standing afar and looking from a afar and do not say Jesus`s mother was one of them,where as John the only one thats states four women, one as Jesus`s mother and the beloved disciple were at the cross.

So I reading it as later the three women,plus Jesus`s mother and the beloved disciple went up to the cross.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are conflicting accounts. Which is unfortunate. Which one to believe eh? Then you look at the clever artist of the last supper. At Jesus's right hand is a woman:

Da_Vinci__the_Last_Supper.jpg

You read the account naming just three women "near the cross" [conflicting with more people and the three women being "afar".] You read accounts of the other disciples specifically naming Magdalene as closest to Jesus, his "beloved disciple" ...the talk of jealousy from other disciples of how close she was to Jesus...do the math..And look at the picture.

Edited by SSilhouette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would a artist of the 15 century know? And please don`t give me that Dan Brown stuff :):) its been proven he was all wrong.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in related news:

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican newspaper has added to the doubts surrounding Harvard University’s claim that a 4th century Coptic papyrus fragment showed that some early Christians believed that Jesus was married, declaring it a “fake.”

The newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published an article Thursday by leading Coptic scholar Alberto Camplani and an accompanying editorial by the newspaper’s editor, Giovanni Maria Vian, an expert in early Christianity. They both cited concerns expressed by other scholars about the fragment’s authenticity and the fact that it was purchased on the market without a known archaeological provenance.

“At any rate, a fake,” Vian entitled his editorial, which criticized Harvard for creating a “clamorous” media frenzy over the fragment by handing the scoop to two U.S. newspapers only to see “specialists immediately question it.”

Read more

As we are surprised :innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that the Vatican city is going to acknowledge the fragment as real if they want to keep its follower's from jumping ship

If they acknowledge the fragment as real then they (the Vatican) prove themselve's to be deceitful and dishonest, which in my opinion they will NEVER say it is real even if it is real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would an artist of the 15th Century know? Maybe by reading the same passage at the crucifixion where only three women are named there and Jesus addresses one of them as "the beloved disciple"...and Philip's accounts of Magdalene being Jesus's favorite disciple. And of all the disciples given large family histories only "John the anonymous beloved disciple" is given without any history at all. Funny tribute to a "man" who was the closest to Jesus, while his lessors were given the red-carpet treatment. Maybe Da Vinci knew how to read? Or more importantly, maybe he also knew how to read between the lines..

Maybe he studied the gnostic gospels and using those accounts did the painting? If you look closely, you see there appears to be a division centered precisely over the presence of Magdalene next to Jesus. The one's to the right seem to be pointing accusing fingers in her direction. The ones on the left seem to be consoling her. While Jesus seems to be sitting in the middle with a look on his face that says, "Oh Jesus, not this again *sigh*..."...lol

Edited by SSilhouette
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would an artist of the 15th Century know? Maybe by reading the same passage at the crucifixion where only three women are named there and Jesus addresses one of them as "the beloved disciple"...and Philip's accounts of Magdalene being Jesus's favorite disciple. And of all the disciples given large family histories only "John the anonymous beloved disciple" is given without any history at all. Funny tribute to a "man" who was the closest to Jesus, while his lessors were given the red-carpet treatment. Maybe Da Vinci knew how to read? Or more importantly, maybe he also knew how to read between the lines..

Maybe he studied the gnostic gospels and using those accounts did the painting? If you look closely, you see there appears to be a division centered precisely over the presence of Magdalene next to Jesus. The one's to the right seem to be pointing accusing fingers in her direction. The ones on the left seem to be consoling her. While Jesus seems to be sitting in the middle with a look on his face that says, "Oh Jesus, not this again *sigh*..."...lol

I first want to qualify this response by saying it is not my opinion, rather that of others.

Leonardo’s esoteric interests and orientation have now been well established. He has been described as an early Rosicrucian. His biographer, Vasari, called him a man with “an heretical cast of mind.” He subscribed to, for example, the ancient tradition that Jesus had a twin and in his Last Supper, he painted two identical Christs. He is also listed as the 12th grand master of the secret organization, the Prieure de Sion. If he was indeed the grand master, it is more than possible that he had access to ancient information and references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Christan I like to know the truth of the matter if Jesus was married, however nothing points to it. The later gospic writers and painters want to make him more out of man then a god, but that does not make him as married as nessasarily true.

The gospel of John gives the witness as a man standing at the cross, the beloved?

John-19 35 And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it did! It's the redacted gospel. ..lol..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Joesph and Mary were of the Essenes that did not always marry, until the census was required for the taxes. Jesus may have been a Essene and and chose not to marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Joesph and Mary were of the Essenes that did not always marry, until the census was required for the taxes. Jesus may have been a Essene and and chose not to marry.

Josephus tells that the Essenes lived in "great numbers" throughout Roman Judea. Their policy of welcoming anyone into their community could well be where Jesus was during his missing years. Some of the Essenes promoted the idea of celibacy which might explain why Jesus would have been unmarried (if we are to accept old Church tradition).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josephus tells that the Essenes lived in "great numbers" throughout Roman Judea. Their policy of welcoming anyone into their community could well be where Jesus was during his missing years. Some of the Essenes promoted the idea of celibacy which might explain why Jesus would have been unmarried (if we are to accept old Church tradition).

Your problem here is "could" and "would". The papyrus fragment, on the other hand, is pretty real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your problem here is "could" and "would". The papyrus fragment, on the other hand, is pretty real.

As far as I know the dating research is not yet complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will people argue over next?....A scrap of pulped leaf with some scrawl inked on it, the size of a credit card.....Oh, wait!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in related news:

As we are surprised :innocent:

If you're interested in the original article, here you can find the link to the official Vatican journal (in English):

http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?JSPTabContainer.setSelected=JSPTabContainer%2FDetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2012/223q12-Il-testo-copto-con-la-presunta-allusione-al.html&title=Un%20papiro%20alla%20deriva&locale=en

I agree with questionmark, what an unusual answer from them, isn't it?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the traditional church, claims of Jesus marriage rank with all other heresies. Their problem is that in modern times they can't solve it in the same way as they did with the Cathars.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the traditional church, claims of Jesus marriage rank with all other heresies. Their problem is that in modern times they can't solve it in the same way as they did with the Cathars.

Where we have to add that the Cathars followed the Manichean-Gnostic teachings, therefore the perfects were not married either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Christan I like to know the truth of the matter if Jesus was married, however nothing points to it. The later gospic writers and painters want to make him more out of man then a god, but that does not make him as married as nessasarily true.

The gospel of John gives the witness as a man standing at the cross, the beloved?

John-19 35 And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say “nothing points to it.” Nothing points to the idea that he wasn’t married, either. According to Judaic custom at the time it was not only usual, but almost mandatory, that a man be married. Except for certain groups of Essenes, celibacy was vigorously condemned. In the early part of the first century, celibacy was compared with deliberate murder. It was as obligatory for a Jewish father to find his son a wife as it was for him to ensure that his son was circumcised.

If Jesus had not been married, it would have been conspicuous to the society with which he had contact. It would have drawn great attention and be used as part of the description to characterize him.

In the Book of John we find the story of the Wedding of Cana. The bride and groom are not mentioned by name. But strangely, Jesus is “called” to this wedding even though he had not yet started his ministry. Equally strange, his mother is also in attendance. By Hebrew custom, the bride, her mother and future mother in law and their friends arrive first to prepare everything for the ceremony. The mother of the groom is in charge of the event. Second to arrive are the invited guests and last to enter is the groom and his entourage. Once joined to his new wife in matrimony, all his responsibilities to his parents have ended and he embarks upon a new life as husband and future father. At the wedding at Cana, Jesus mother is apparently in charge because they go to her when all the wine has been consumed and they want more. She goes to Jesus and he openly says, “What do I have to do with thee?” He finally agrees and performs his miracle of the wine but we should note that Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus says, so she is obviously in charge of the wedding, just as the mother of the groom would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where we have to add that the Cathars followed the Manichean-Gnostic teachings, therefore the perfects were not married either.

More damaging was not the basic beliefs of the Cathars (reincarnation, Jesus was not the son of God, etc.) but the legends surrounding them, the most damning one being that Mary Magdalena taught them the prime elements of their faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More damaging was not the basic beliefs of the Cathars (reincarnation, Jesus was not the son of God, etc.) but the legends surrounding them, the most damning one being that Mary Magdalena taught them the prime elements of their faith.

But that is part of the Gnostic teachings, where the New Testament consists of the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Maria besides the Gospel of Thomas and the Manichean teachings.

In any case, the Gnostic considered having children and therefore marriage as a sin because a soul was trapped into a body by that. A concept taken over by the Cathars, who practiced a little watered down version wherein only the perfects had to abstain from sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is part of the Gnostic teachings, where the New Testament consists of the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Maria besides the Gospel of Thomas and the Manichean teachings.

In any case, the Gnostic considered having children and therefore marriage as a sin because a soul was trapped into a body by that. A concept taken over by the Cathars, who practiced a little watered down version wherein only the perfects had to abstain from sex.

What I'm saying is that the thing that led to the slaughter of the Cathars was the idea that they had been taught these things by Maria Magdalena. If the idea grew and it was believed that a woman who walked with Jesus taught that he was not really the son of God, the doctrine of the Church would be questioned and perhaps eventually ignored. The Cathars were, after all, winning political elections and gaining social power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.