• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Possibility of Jesus's Wife: A Matter of Christian Debate Then and Now

If Jesus was not married....hanging around with a bunch of guys in dresses might seem a bit weird.
 
Our friend Mr. German guy’s command of written English is so good (much better than most Americans, in fact) that I fear insufficient clarity in my own writing may have at times led to misunderstanding.

Also, confusion may be arising from the word “apocryphal”. I use it here to mean the same thing as “non-canonical” and not to refer to that part of the Bible excluded from the canon by Protestants, but accepted by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

German guy said:
However, while there may not be many non-canonic sources mentioning a wife of Jesus, there are asfaik quite a few that at least give women among Jesus' disciples a much larger role that Paul and the church were willing to grant them. (That doesn't mean these sources are necessarily reliable, just saying it's possible.)
Click to expand...
I do not see how this could strengthen the argument that Jesus was married.



German guy said:
Just a hypothetical: *If* Jesus indeed had a wife, and the church suppressed this information, it wouldn't be an attempt to discredit Christianity, but an attempt to defend Christianity against the attempts by the church to abuse and falsify it. Because ... shouldn't the historical truth about Jesus trump church dogma?
Click to expand...
This type of hypothetical is an example of what I address in my previous reply as (1) “falling unacceptably short of rigorously attested fact” and as (2)“so vanishing unlikely as to be impossible”. If Christ had been married there would have to be too large a volume of documentation to eradicate mention of it. Consider the mass of non-canonic and heretical literature which has survived.



German guy said:
The rest of your arguments are circular reasoning: Your premise is that everything written in the canonic NT is fact, while everything that's not is not. Then you claim theology based on this premise shall prove that everything outside the canon cannot be true.
Click to expand...
I am afraid what I said I was entirely misunderstood.

My argument is inductive, not deductive:

(reply #76 from other thread):
Observation: A foundation premise of Christianity is that God lacks sexual appetite.
Inference 1: Denying this premise would be considered by Christians as an assault on Christianity itself.
Inference 2: Denying this premise would lead to theological uproar.

I do not believe either Inference 1 or Inference 2 is seriously disputable.

(reply #79 from other thread):
Observation: No canonic or non-canonic scripture was discovered, in the course of 1900 years of intense search and study, to provide evidence that Christ was married.
Inference: After so much effort over so long a time the possibility may be discounted that enough new evidence will be discovered to outweigh the old evidence.

I believe a dominant argument can be made for this inference.



German guy said:
Not saying it's a problem when you think the canon is sacrosanct (there are certainly good reasons to think so), just saying that this assumption will not answer the question how much merit non-canonical sources have.
Click to expand...
Addressed above, I think.



German guy said:
Theologians (who all base their theology on the premise of the infallability of the canon) cannot answer this question; you need religion scholars to do so.
Click to expand...
Theologians would be as well equipped as anyone to inform us of the reasons underlying belief in God’s asexuality.

Of particular interest is the need explain Genesis 1:27 “God created man in His own image”.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
This is a fascinating discussion that illuminates Christian debates both centuries ago and just yesterday. :peace


The Wife of Jesus Tale

An investigation into the origins of a scrap of papyrus raises more questions than it resolves
BY CHARLOTTE ALLEN

After an 18-month trial separation, “Jesus’ wife” is back with her man. Only this time with a postnup, a distinctly limited right to the marital property she has previously claimed, and a continuing unresolved debate over whether that big diamond on her ring finger is real or fake.

On the evening of September 18, 2012, Karen L. King, a professor at Harvard Divinity School and a longtime publicizer of Gnosticism and other “alternative Christianities” of the ancient world, surprised her fellow academics attending a Coptic conference in Rome with the unveiling of a papyrus document that she said dated to the fourth century a.d. The papyrus, actually a tiny 1.5-by-3-inch scrap apparently torn or cut from a larger sheet, appeared to state—for the first time in recorded history—that Jesus of Nazareth was married. Among the eight lines of choppy, crudely lettered text in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language, were the words “Jesus said to ...
Click to expand...

key Words here ... fourth Century a.d. .... that should say everything, already by the second Century all sorts of myths we're building around Jesus and gnosticism (a movement predating Jesus) took the figure of Jesus and Attached him to their movement, nothing to do With the historical Jesus.

The reason historians studying Jesus use mainly the NT documents has nothign to do With them being in the bible, or being inspired, it's because they are the earliest documents we have, like it or not, the only other first Century documents we have are Josephus and Tacitus and MAYBE the gospel of Thomas.
 
USViking said:
My argument is inductive, not deductive:

(reply #76 from other thread):
Observation: A foundation premise of Christianity is that God lacks sexual appetite.
Inference 1: Denying this premise would be considered by Christians as an assault on Christianity itself.
Inference 2: Denying this premise would lead to theological uproar.

I do not believe either Inference 1 or Inference 2 is seriously disputable.

(reply #79 from other thread):
Observation: No canonic or non-canonic scripture was discovered, in the course of 1900 years of intense search and study, to provide evidence that Christ was married.
Inference: After so much effort over so long a time the possibility may be discounted that enough new evidence will be discovered to outweigh the old evidence.
Click to expand...

The problem is the evidence comes from the fourth Century from Egypt, by People who had nothing to do With Jesus or his apostles or anyone that knew Jesus ....it was written hundreds of years after Jesus, so it hardly Counts as good evidence at all.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is a fascinating discussion that illuminates Christian debates both centuries ago and just yesterday. :peace


The Wife of Jesus Tale

An investigation into the origins of a scrap of papyrus raises more questions than it resolves
BY CHARLOTTE ALLEN

After an 18-month trial separation, “Jesus’ wife” is back with her man. Only this time with a postnup, a distinctly limited right to the marital property she has previously claimed, and a continuing unresolved debate over whether that big diamond on her ring finger is real or fake.

On the evening of September 18, 2012, Karen L. King, a professor at Harvard Divinity School and a longtime publicizer of Gnosticism and other “alternative Christianities” of the ancient world, surprised her fellow academics attending a Coptic conference in Rome with the unveiling of a papyrus document that she said dated to the fourth century a.d. The papyrus, actually a tiny 1.5-by-3-inch scrap apparently torn or cut from a larger sheet, appeared to state—for the first time in recorded history—that Jesus of Nazareth was married. Among the eight lines of choppy, crudely lettered text in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language, were the words “Jesus said to ...
Click to expand...
I do find it interesting myself. The part I find interesting is the lengths some people will go to to discredit this finding. It basically means they have no faith. I saw some people attempting to discredit Harvard, one of the most prestigious schools in the country, to justify their lack of faith. I seriously doubt a school that lives on it's reputation would ever do anything to jeopardize it. If we found proof that Jesus had a wife and even children, what would it doto these people?

I would think a true believer, a person of real faith would see that it doesn't matter. Why would it matter? Did Jesus have a dog? Did Jesus go jogging in the morning? The details of his life aren't really that important. It's the message he delivered and the sacrifice he made.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I do find it interesting myself. The part I find interesting is the lengths some people will go to to discredit this finding. It basically means they have no faith. I saw some people attempting to discredit Harvard, one of the most prestigious schools in the country, to justify their lack of faith. I seriously doubt a school that lives on it's reputation would ever do anything to jeopardize it. If we found proof that Jesus had a wife and even children, what would it doto these people?

I would think a true believer, a person of real faith would see that it doesn't matter. Why would it matter? Did Jesus have a dog? Did Jesus go jogging in the morning? The details of his life aren't really that important. It's the message he delivered and the sacrifice he made.
Click to expand...

Harvard is studying the text and studying what People believed, specifically gnostics.

I guarantee you, People in the divinity School of Harvard, or People that study christian origins or historical Jesus studies, are not claiming Jesus actually had a wife on the basis of this fragment.

As far as religious People here on the forum not actually examining the evidence independantly ... what else is knew? It's unfortunate, I find studying and having an open mind actually strengthens my faith.

I have no problem With this 4th Century text geing genuine, but what does that have to do With the historical Jesus?
 
German guy said:
I wonder why the thought is so absurd Jesus may have been married. True, the four canonical Gospels don't mention that, but they don't deny it either and there are many things they don't mention.

Before the canonization of the NT in the 4th century, there were many more scriptures in use in different regions. There were probably good reasons for discarding many of them, such as the obviously fabricated nature of many (think of the many "youth Gospels" about Jesus as a kid pushing around other people with his divine power), but you never know if other, more reliable sources were discarded too by the the church of that century because it contradicted their theology and authority -- such as their stance on women.
Click to expand...

See, I find that interesting, because the Gnostic writings tend to actually be pretty rough on women. For example, the Gospel of Thomas says women can't get to heaven on their own - they have to become like men. The Synoptics and John, however, consistently paint a picture of women as being in Jesus' inner circle, of having the courage to stay with him when the men all ran away, of being the first people He appeared to upon his resurrection (not Peter, which would have been convenient for the early Catholic Church, but a woman). Christianity was actually derided as a "womans religion" in the ancient Roman empire.

But because it's not feminist, we get confused and think that it was somehow rougher in it's treatment of women. Quite the opposite.

Not saying that's what happened, just saying it's possible. We have to keep in mind that *all* Gospels were written long after Jesus' revelation
Click to expand...

Long? :shrug: depends on how you look at it - a couple of decades? You're still dealing with primary sources in the New Testament.

I am convinced the Gospels contain a probably rather large true core, but we have to take that into account nevertheless if we're interested what *really* happened back then.
Click to expand...

Well, you get divergent details. But those are almost automatic when you are dealing with multiple accounts of the same series of events.
 
RGacky3 said:
Harvard is studying the text and studying what People believed, specifically gnostics.

I guarantee you, People in the divinity School of Harvard, or People that study christian origins or historical Jesus studies, are not claiming Jesus actually had a wife on the basis of this fragment.
Click to expand...
Who cares?

As far as religious People here on the forum not actually examining the evidence independantly ... what else is knew? It's unfortunate, I find studying and having an open mind actually strengthens my faith.

I have no problem With this 4th Century text geing genuine, but what does that have to do With the historical Jesus?
Click to expand...
Is there more than one Jesus?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Who cares?

Is there more than one Jesus?
Click to expand...

Who cares? People that care about what Jesus actually did and did not do, myself for one.

No there is only one Jesus, historical Jesus, but you also have the mythical Jesus of the gnostics, and others.

The point is, even IF Jesus did have a wife, this fagment wouldn't really be used for evidence, it's way to late and way to far from the actual historical Jesus to matter, chances are Jesus didn't have a wife, all the evidence Points to that.

This fragment is intersting because it tells us what certain gnostic sects believed about Jesus, but no one would take it seriously as a Source for the historical Jesus.
 
RGacky3 said:
Who cares? People that care about what Jesus actually did and did not do, myself for one.
Click to expand...
Really the only things that matter are already written down.

No there is only one Jesus, historical Jesus, but you also have the mythical Jesus of the gnostics, and others.
Click to expand...
that's two.

The point is, even IF Jesus did have a wife, this fagment wouldn't really be used for evidence, it's way to late and way to far from the actual historical Jesus to matter, chances are Jesus didn't have a wife, all the evidence Points to that.
Click to expand...
The bible, I have es written 1987 years after his death so I guess it's garbage also.

This fragment is intersting because it tells us what certain gnostic sects believed about Jesus, but no one would take it seriously as a Source for the historical Jesus.
Click to expand...
I don't really know about these multiple Jesus's
 
CLAX1911 said:
1. Really the only things that matter are already written down.

that's two.

The bible, I have es written 1987 years after his death so I guess it's garbage also.

I don't really know about these multiple Jesus's
Click to expand...

1. I don't get what you're saying here.
2. What's Your point? There is one historical Alexander the great, the actual flesh and blood person, and there is the myths created about him later on, so what?
3. The bible you have is a translation of a greek texts, based on ancient manuscripts which scholars believe are copies of writings done in the first cenutry CE .... don't be silly.
4. Are you playing semantics games? Or do you really know understand what I'm saying.
 
RGacky3 said:
key Words here ... fourth Century a.d. .... that should say everything, already by the second Century all sorts of myths we're building around Jesus and gnosticism (a movement predating Jesus) took the figure of Jesus and Attached him to their movement, nothing to do With the historical Jesus.

The reason historians studying Jesus use mainly the NT documents has nothign to do With them being in the bible, or being inspired, it's because they are the earliest documents we have, like it or not, the only other first Century documents we have are Josephus and Tacitus and MAYBE the gospel of Thomas.
Click to expand...

Fine. Thanks.:peace
 
RGacky3 said:
1. I don't get what you're saying here.
2. What's Your point? There is one historical Alexander the great, the actual flesh and blood person, and there is the myths created about him later on, so what?
3. The bible you have is a translation of a greek texts, based on ancient manuscripts which scholars believe are copies of writings done in the first cenutry CE .... don't be silly.
4. Are you playing semantics games? Or do you really know understand what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
1) having trouble with English?
2) But there is only one person.
3) And this bit of papyrus isn't? (your comment about me being silly is an incredibly lazy dodge.)
4)I think I made it clear what I was saying but just to clear it up... IT DOESN'T ****ING MATTER!!! savy?
 
CLAX1911 said:
I do find it interesting myself. The part I find interesting is the lengths some people will go to to discredit this finding. It basically means they have no faith. I saw some people attempting to discredit Harvard, one of the most prestigious schools in the country, to justify their lack of faith. I seriously doubt a school that lives on it's reputation would ever do anything to jeopardize it. If we found proof that Jesus had a wife and even children, what would it doto these people?

I would think a true believer, a person of real faith would see that it doesn't matter. Why would it matter? Did Jesus have a dog? Did Jesus go jogging in the morning? The details of his life aren't really that important. It's the message he delivered and the sacrifice he made.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's quite as simple as that, but thanks.:peace
 
CLAX1911 said:
1) having trouble with English?
2) But there is only one person.
3) And this bit of papyrus isn't? (your comment about me being silly is an incredibly lazy dodge.)
4)I think I made it clear what I was saying but just to clear it up... IT DOESN'T ****ING MATTER!!! savy?
Click to expand...

1.
Really the only things that matter are already written down.
Click to expand...
Is that a statement that you believe or what?
2. Yes, and if we want to know about the one Jesus, this document won't be much help for us.
3. No, it's written in coptic and it's from a document which has been lost to us, and actually most scholars date the fragment from the 6th to 9th Century, and believe the lost document was written in the fourth Century CE (a Whole lot later than the first Century CE), I would say that documents dating from the first Century CE in the area around where which Jesus lived in living memory of the eye witnesses are a tad bit more reliable than a scrap from the 4th Century from Egypt.
4. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but for People that care about history and what Jesus actually did and said and who he actually was here on Earth, it does.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. Is that a statement that you believe or what?
2. Yes, and if we want to know about the one Jesus, this document won't be much help for us.
3. No, it's written in coptic and it's from a document which has been lost to us, and actually most scholars date the fragment from the 6th to 9th Century, and believe the lost document was written in the fourth Century CE (a Whole lot later than the first Century CE), I would say that documents dating from the first Century CE in the area around where which Jesus lived in living memory of the eye witnesses are a tad bit more reliable than a scrap from the 4th Century from Egypt.
4. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but for People that care about history and what Jesus actually did and said and who he actually was here on Earth, it does.
Click to expand...

1) it's a statement that says the following, "Really the only things that matter are already written down."
2)Meh
3)I have a bible written 1987 years after his death in modern English.
4)He was God. Nothing else matters.
 
CLAX1911 said:
1) it's a statement that says the following, "Really the only things that matter are already written down."
2)Meh
3)I have a bible written 1987 years after his death in modern English.
4)He was God. Nothing else matters.
Click to expand...

1. ok .... I still don't know what the point is of that statement.

2&3. Obviously you don't care about historical facts and how we know them at all, you're bible printed in 1987 is a translation of a greek texts, based on ancient manuscripts which scholars believe are copies of writings done in the first cenutry CE around the area where Jesus lived in living memory of his disciples, the fragment this thread is about is a copy, written in coptic in the 6th to the 9th Century CE, of a lost document written in the 4th Century in Egypt by gnostics .... Now if you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to tell you.

4. If that's the extent of Your theology I feel sorry for you, you're no better than the king James only People or fundementalists who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and then just plug their ears and Close their eyes.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. ok .... I still don't know what the point is of that statement.

2&3. Obviously you don't care about historical facts and how we know them at all, you're bible printed in 1987 is a translation of a greek texts, based on ancient manuscripts which scholars believe are copies of writings done in the first cenutry CE around the area where Jesus lived in living memory of his disciples, the fragment this thread is about is a copy, written in coptic in the 6th to the 9th Century CE, of a lost document written in the 4th Century in Egypt by gnostics .... Now if you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to tell you.

4. If that's the extent of Your theology I feel sorry for you, you're no better than the king James only People or fundementalists who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and then just plug their ears and Close their eyes.
Click to expand...
1) Having difficulty with English?
2-3)So prove this isn't a translated fragment of an ancient manuscript.
4)Just because I don't think your bull**** is necessary means I am a fundie?

I don't think I wish to talk to your hateful petty self any more. Please stop responding to my posts.
 
CLAX1911 said:
1) Having difficulty with English?
2-3)So prove this isn't a translated fragment of an ancient manuscript.
4)Just because I don't think your bull**** is necessary means I am a fundie?

I don't think I wish to talk to your hateful petty self any more. Please stop responding to my posts.
Click to expand...

1. What's Your point With that statement?
2,3. It is ... it's translated from a fourth Century manuscript, based on what most scholars who have studied it say (based on the Language, writing style and so on), I'm going With the scholars here.
4. No because you're theology is independant from any actual empirical evidence.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. What's Your point With that statement?
2,3. It is ... it's translated from a fourth Century manuscript, based on what most scholars who have studied it say (based on the Language, writing style and so on), I'm going With the scholars here.
4. No because you're theology is independant from any actual empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
1) Having difficulty with English? My point is the only things that matter were written down. That is why I posted that statement.
2) blah blah blah, don't care.
4) impractical evidence isn't really important when considering spiritual beliefs.
 
CLAX1911 said:
1) Having difficulty with English? My point is the only things that matter were written down. That is why I posted that statement.
2) blah blah blah, don't care.
4) impractical evidence isn't really important when considering spiritual beliefs.
Click to expand...

1. Matter to whome?

2. Of coarse you don't, then why are you even posting in this thread

3. Yes it is, since I take it you base Your belief that Jesus is God on some actual historical evidence, i.e. there was a person named Jesus in the early first Century who made certain claims and had a certain teachings, and did certain Things.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. Matter to whome?

2. Of coarse you don't, then why are you even posting in this thread

3. Yes it is, since I take it you base Your belief that Jesus is God on some actual historical evidence, i.e. there was a person named Jesus in the early first Century who made certain claims and had a certain teachings, and did certain Things.
Click to expand...
1) Christians.
2) Because it's an open thread and I can, why are you posting here?
3) No it isn't. I base my belief that Jesus is God upon my faith, nothing more.
 
CLAX1911 said:
1) Christians.
2) Because it's an open thread and I can, why are you posting here?
3) No it isn't. I base my belief that Jesus is God upon my faith, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Ok so you're obviously not interested in textual scholarship of religious documents the historical Jesus or anything like that, fair enough.
 
RGacky3 said:
Ok so you're obviously not interested in textual scholarship of religious documents the historical Jesus or anything like that, fair enough.
Click to expand...
I don't study religion, I frankly find organized religion is for people that are too simple minded to think for themselves. I am normally to busy studying things that are worth while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom