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
Waspie_Dwarf

'Jesus' wife' fragment is not a fake

67 posts in this topic

'Jesus' wife' fragment is not a fake, scientists claim

A Harvard professor is claiming a fragment of papyrus seemingly mentioning that Jesus had a wife is an ancient document and not a forgery, following a series of tests.

The text is written in Coptic and contains a dialogue in which Jesus refers to "my wife."

Karen King, a professor at the Harvard Divinity School, writes in the Harvard Theological Review that the papyrus is almost certainly a product of ancient Christians and probably dates to eighth-century Egypt, based on carbon dating and chemical tests on the ink.

arrow3.gifRead more...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The eigth century separates the gospel from the acts of Jesus by 800 years - more than enough wiggle room for scholars to dismiss it as a poorly transcribed document based on previously poorly transcribed documents by layman scribes of sub-sects that were by then considered heretic by the main religious institutions anyway - it's doesn't really matter if it is authentic, it will change no ones mind about Jesus' life and times.

Edited by libstaK
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eighth century christians? Not exactly a contemporary record, is it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

eighth century christians? Not exactly a contemporary record, is it.

No one is claiming that it is.

However what it does show is that a belief that Jesus had a wife is not a modern invention but dates back more than a millennium.

It is also important from the point of view of the place of women in the Christian church. Twelve hundred years ago there were writings that claimed that women could be disciples of Jesus. This shows that the view that women can be priests is not necessarily a modern view either.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rather pointless post don't you think, as no one is claiming that it is.

However what it does show is that a belief that Jesus had a wife is not a modern invention but dates back more than a millennium.

Rather pointless? The argument I was trying to make was that it's not much evidence to support that theory, is it, if the best evidence they can find is something eight hundred years after the events it purports to relate, You may as well say that any modern fiction about King Arthur is evidence to support his existence. (* and N.B., please note I'm not trying to argue that there's no proof for Jesus' existence, I'm talking about this theory about "Jesus' wife".)

I don't think that's rather pointless to say.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:no: My gay friends will be so disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why Christians give a crap for him having a wife.

God or not he was still a human man, with human needs.They must think he never ate as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an unmarried rabbi in his thirties would have been almost unheard of 2000 years ago I'm guessing.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most of Christianity was based as a man's supremacy over women. Why this is so controversial is because this evidence supports that Jesus indeed believed in equal rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why Christians give a crap for him having a wife.

God or not he was still a human man, with human needs.They must think he never ate as well.

All Christians don't have an issue. Catholics are the ones that have the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter. The council of Nicea edited the bible and the gospels hundreds of years ago.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an unmarried rabbi in his thirties would have been almost unheard of 2000 years ago I'm guessing.

It was absolutely unheard of, which has been the main argument for the fact that Jesus must have been married. Jesus was certainly called Rabbi many times in the new testament but there is much debate as he clearly did not strictly adhere to Rabbinical law. Even he himself said let no one call you Rabbi for you have one teacher. That fact that so many called him Rabbi is not conclusive proof that he was married. Personally I believe he was married but it's very difficult to prove without knowing to whom.

It was the church's view on property ownership that really prompted the exclusion of women in the early church. The only woman they couldn't escape venerating was Mary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catholics are the ones that have the issue.

Now it's getting interesting....................................... Watch this Tares Among the Wheat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wep1KFb3wns

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was absolutely unheard of, which has been the main argument for the fact that Jesus must have been married. Jesus was certainly called Rabbi many times in the new testament but there is much debate as he clearly did not strictly adhere to Rabbinical law. Even he himself said let no one call you Rabbi for you have one teacher. That fact that so many called him Rabbi is not conclusive proof that he was married. Personally I believe he was married but it's very difficult to prove without knowing to whom.

It was the church's view on property ownership that really prompted the exclusion of women in the early church. The only woman they couldn't escape venerating was Mary.

Yes, he was hardly one for following the rules to the letter, which was something that an ordained, or the equivalent, Rabbi would have had to do. It was generally used a term of respect for someone particularly learned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about Jesus having a wife but I've heard many theories that Yahweh had a wife: Asherah. There have been artifacts of altars that depict Yahweh and a spot for Asherah as well. Tiny female figurines have been found as well though it could be debated they are fertility statues.

As far as Jesus having a wife goes, if he were real and was a prophet it would not be surprising.

If it were the biblical son of god type Jesus I wouldn't think he would take a wife but I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It was the church's view on property ownership that really prompted the exclusion of women in the early church. The only woman they couldn't escape venerating was Mary.

Who are Catholics really worshipping here ?

The supposed word of God or the Views of the Vatican which clearly places itself above that,and is not bowing to a statue of Mary clearly idolatry or does the church make exceptions to it's own ends ?

Jesus was Married and was clearly mortal,Christianity is based on the biggest lie ever told,the Resurrection.

That is my own opinion and my own belief.

Edited by shaddow134
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Christians don't have an issue. Catholics are the ones that have the issue.

I didn't say "all" Christians. But neither did I say "some" Christians, so point taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need to bring crudity into the discussion. I am sure a person can make their point without one line innuendos.

Please stay on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is claiming that it is.

However what it does show is that a belief that Jesus had a wife is not a modern invention but dates back more than a millennium.

It is also important from the point of view of the place of women in the Christian church. Twelve hundred years ago there were writings that claimed that women could be disciples of Jesus. This shows that the view that women can be priests is not necessarily a modern view either.

That is a very important perspective, the evidence suggests that a patriarchal structure was imposed over time into a belief system that was inherently egalitarian in its view of male and female roles within clergy and congregation. This has huge implications about the motivations of the early church and it's possible deliberate displacement of woman in it's hierarchical structures.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very important perspective, the evidence suggests that a patriarchal structure was imposed over time into a belief system that was inherently egalitarian in its view of male and female roles within clergy and congregation. This has huge implications about the motivations of the early church and it's possible deliberate displacement of woman in it's hierarchical structures.

Well said!

I wish there were individual words for "church organizing authorities", a church person, and a church body of believers... lol

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guys, women who were indeed celebrated and powerful in the very early church would be:

The Mary's

Aquilla and Precilla

The prophetess who predicted Paul's arrest and bondage when in Jerusalem

Timothy's mother

(I am sure there are many others especially if one relates those mentions in Non-canonical Scriptures...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unless history has been reinterpreted, it is my understanding that the rabbinical order (verses the name Rabbi) was a response to the dispersion of the people after the Second Jewish Revolt. It was developed by a Rabbi around the time Josephus was writing the history of the revolt.

Correct me if I am wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad (or funny) thing is, there will be some people who in one breath will use this text to prove to Christians that Jesus had a wife, and in the very next breath will paradoxically tell the same Christians that the gospels were written far too late to be accurate recollections of Jesus' life.

It seems to me that text was written to counter the disparagement of women. All Christians, whether male or female, are children of God. We are all disciples of Christ, members of Christ's church, and priests to all the people of the earth. Which is a fair reason for such a text to exist. But as a historical evidence, it's virtually useless in telling us about the life of Jesus.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad (or funny) thing is, there will be some people who in one breath will use this text to prove to Christians that Jesus had a wife, and in the very next breath will paradoxically tell the same Christians that the gospels were written far too late to be accurate recollections of Jesus' life.

It seems to me that text was written to counter the disparagement of women. All Christians, whether male or female, are children of God. We are all disciples of Christ, members of Christ's church, and priests to all the people of the earth. Which is a fair reason for such a text to exist. But as a historical evidence, it's virtually useless in telling us about the life of Jesus.

Considering that it was written a few hundred years after Jesus, that's a very rash claim.

But one thing is for sure. The landscape of earlier Christian church was nothing like the church authorities want you to think.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that it was written a few hundred years after Jesus, that's a very rash claim.

But one thing is for sure. The landscape of earlier Christian church was nothing like the church authorities want you to think.

I need only go as far as Emperor Julian. He actually complained in one of his letters that Christians were making him look bad because they were giving charitable aid to everyone, regardless of their nationality or religious beliefs, whereas Rome wasn't even giving charitable aid to its own people.

That's what I need to know about the early church! It is what I would expect the early followers of Christ to have done, but having it said by the most powerful man in Rome, a hater of the Christian movement, simply confirms it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need only go as far as Emperor Julian. He actually complained in one of his letters that Christians were making him look bad because they were giving charitable aid to everyone, regardless of their nationality or religious beliefs, whereas Rome wasn't even giving charitable aid to its own people.

That's what I need to know about the early church! It is what I would expect the early followers of Christ to have done, but having it said by the most powerful man in Rome, a hater of the Christian movement, simply confirms it.

Virtually no one read the Bible as we know it back then. Bear in mind that the radicalization of Islam after Crusade came in when Muslims actually started reading the Quran.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew it, I knew it, I KNEW IT!!!!... All throughout history MAN has been the smarter gender... -LoLzzz

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.