• 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

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.

Studying history, the historical Jesus, what the early Church actually taught, what the actual person of Jesus did and taught, what the actual New testament text says and where it comes from has nothing to do With organized religion, People of any religious background or even none study those Things, but if you have faith in Jesus it should matter what he actaully said and did.
 
Studying history, the historical Jesus, what the early Church actually taught, what the actual person of Jesus did and taught, what the actual New testament text says and where it comes from has nothing to do With organized religion, People of any religious background or even none study those Things, but if you have faith in Jesus it should matter what he actaully said and did.
Yep, that is why I have a bible thanks. Don't need all the extra gobbledygook.
 
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.
I am not sure why you quoted that particular part of my reply #52

Although the Gospels were written in the 1st century AD, IIRC no surviving text has been discovered from earlier than the 4th century, putting the OP papyrus on a chronologically par with surviving canon text. Also, it is reasonable to assume that the scribe who wrote the OP papyrus thought he was transcribing an account which relied ultimately on eyewitness accounts, just as the canon scribes did.
 
I am not sure why you quoted that particular part of my reply #52

Although the Gospels were written in the 1st century AD, IIRC no surviving text has been discovered from earlier than the 4th century, putting the OP papyrus on a chronologically par with surviving canon text. Also, it is reasonable to assume that the scribe who wrote the OP papyrus thought he was transcribing an account which relied ultimately on eyewitness accounts, just as the canon scribes did.

No we have the entire NT in Context siniaticus from the 3rd Century and we have plenty of fragments fomr the second Century.

this OP papyrus is from the 6th to the 9th and is a copy of a text written in the 4th Century, totally different from the NT documents.

The NT documents are also quoted in other writings all over the Place from the 1 to the 4th Century in the early Church fathers writings.
 
(reply #80):
No we have the entire NT in Context siniaticus from the 3rd Century and we have plenty of fragments fomr the second Century.
Here is a contradicting citation:

Codex Sinaiticus

(from link):
Codex Sinaiticus is generally dated to the fourth century, and sometimes more precisely to the middle of that century. This is based on study of the handwriting, known as palaeographical analysis. Only one other nearly complete manuscript of the Christian Bible – Codex Vaticanus (kept in the Vatican Library in Rome) – is of a similarly early date. The only manuscripts of Christian scripture that are definitely of an earlier date than Codex Sinaiticus contain small portions of the text of the Bible.



this OP papyrus is from the 6th to the 9th and is a copy of a text written in the 4th Century, totally different from the NT documents.
OP links don't work for me now, but I thought OPP was written in the 4th century, and how could anyone tell if when the work was originally composed?



The NT documents are also quoted in other writings all over the Place from the 1 to the 4th Century in the early Church fathers writings.
I agree the entire NT was probably originally composed in the 1st century.
 
When did Jesus supposedly get married?
 
Hints of the LDS concepts of pre-existence in the early church and God the Father is married:

An early Christian poem known as “The Pearl,” for example, begins: “In my first primeval childhood … I was nurtured in the royal house of my Father. … Then my parents sent me forth from our home in the East (the source of light), supplied with all necessities. … They removed from me the garment of light … and they made a Covenant with me, and wrote in my heart, lest I go astray.” 33
Text in Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1975), pp. 267–68

"in the great old Manichaean Song Book, Adam is received by a happy family on his return. On the other side, they have awaited him in high expectation, or the return of the first man with news from him. They have eagerly awaited news of Adam's victory, of the success of his mission; and they want to hear it from his own lips when he returns. On his part, Adam, being away from home, asks a Newsbearer of the Skies, as he is called, ""How is my Father, the Father of Light? How is my Mother,. the mother of the living whom I left, and her brethren also? Rejoice with me, ye holy ones, for I have returned to my original glory again." And again, in leaving the earth, he says, "My hour has come. They summon me. I will go from your midst and return to my true home." Accordingly, "The Sent One comes to take the soul of Adam back to the great first house of his Father to the place where he formerly lived." And so his children were admonished, "Arise, old soul, return to your original home, to the place from which you were planted. Put on your garment of glory. Sit down upon your throne. Dwell in the dwellings among the Uthras, thy brethren." And again, "Now arise and return to the place of thy family." "I came from the house of my Father," the Psalm of Thomas, "in a far land, and I shall mount up until I return to that land of the pure." There is a moving scene at the end of the Pearl, the most moving of all the early Christian Syriac writings, where the hero finally returns to his home, his mission accomplished. He's met at the gate of greeting and honor by his entire family. He bows and worships his father and the Christ of the Father "who has sent me the garments and given me the orders while I was on the earth." All the princes of the house were gathered at the gate. They embraced him with tears of joy as the organ plays and they all walk back to the house together."
And Gregor of Nyssa, one of the three great Cappadocians, writing about this, says that in his time, the Fourth Century, the church was very confused about these teachings. They were being rapidly lost. He says, "Christians are all confused about the preexistence. Some say we lived in families there, and in tribes just as we do here, and that we lost our wings when we came down here and will get them back again upon earth." So they mix up tenable and untenable things; all sorts of strange ideas get in the picture. Regardless of what the true picture is, we know that the early Christians did believe very strongly in the preexistence. The mysterious word propators, which they used a lot, is now recognized as not meaning the Father who was before our Heavenly Father but our Heavenly Father as our forefather, our propator---"the father of our preexistent spirit," says a quotation from a newly found work. "When they ask you who you are," says the Apocryphon of James, "say 'I am a son and I come from the Father.' And when they ask you what sort of son and from what father, answer, 'From the preexistent Father and I am a son of the Preexistence-' .... The spirit existed before the flesh," says a psalm. Commenting on the teaching of this doctrine, the Clementine Recognitions, the editors of the Patrologiae Graecae note that various fathers of the church represented every interpretation of the doctrine, from absolute acceptance to absolute denial. Most of the fathers temporized somewhere in between. Again, this is a good indication that we are dealing with an authentic teaching of the early church, since the early fathers are all for it. The later ones don't know; they are not so sure.-Old Testament and Related Studies-Nibley
 
Last edited:
More hints from scripture and other ancient sources for the LDS concepts of pre-existence and Council in Heaven:


“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:4, 5)


And there was war in heaven: Michael [one of the noble spirits] and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan]; and the dragon fought with his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Rev. 12:6-9.)


Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? (Hebrews 12:9.)


Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. (Acts 17:29; italics added.)


The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. (Romans 8:17.)


When resurrected, he [Jesus] told Mary Magdalene: “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God” (John 20:17; italics added).


Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jer. 1:5.)


"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." (Job 38:4)


"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7)




The book of Enoch was considered to be scripture among both the Jews and the early Christians, and it is quoted often in the Bible. The book of Enoch has much to say concerning man’s pre-earth life:
"And everything which is found in this world has been before and has passed before him and has been arranged [organized] before Him... all the creations of the world which have existed in each generation, before they came into this world, have existed before him in their true form..., even all the souls of the children of man have been before they came down to the world, have all been formed before Him in heaven in the very likeness that they have in this world.” (Quoted in Nibley [1986], 242.)


These early Jewish writings not only speak of man’s pre-existence but like the LDS Book of Abraham and the Bible they also speak of foreordination.
In the pseudepigraphic book of the Assumption of Moses the preexistent selection of Moses is recorded: “Accordingly He designed and devised me, and He prepared me from the foundation of the world that I should be the mediator of His covenant.” (Robinson and Robinson, 46.)






Nibley illustrates that the “newly discovered Jewish and Christian Apocrypha have so much to say about the council in heaven and the plan laid down at the foundation of the world that every student should be aware of the very great antiquity and wide ramifications of the idea.... It is not too much to say that the dominant theme of the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls is an ecstatic contemplation of the wonder of man’s participation in heavenly affairs going back to the beginning.” (Nibley [1978b], 27-28.) The doctrine of man’s pre-existence and his participation in the heavenly council has been found to be so dominant in early Jewish and Christian writings that (non-Mormon) R.H. Charles claims that “all apocalyptic writing conceives of the whole human history as being ‘determined from the beginning in the counsel of God....’” (Nibley [1978a], 160.) Likewise non-Mormon J. Fichtner has recently “pointed out that the preoccupation with ‘Yahweh’s plan’ [Jesus’ plan of salvation] is the very core and center of Isaiah’s thinking, and scholars are now noting that the presence of a heavenly council from the beginning has been part and parcel of Jewish thought from the earliest times.” (Nibley [1978b], 30.)




Hastings-Scribner from A Dictionary of the Bible who wrote that “‘to affirm that Jews in Christ’s time did not believe in a pre-existence is simply inaccurate.’” (Seaich [1983], 29.) Likewise, Vestal and Wallace quote Jewish scholar, Hayim Schauss:
“In talmudic times (the first centuries of the Common Era) the belief was current among Jews that man’s soul was independent of his body, existing eternally in the past and in the future. Only for a short, limited time is it placed in the body of a certain human being. All the souls of the world pre-exist in heaven in a kind of spiritual reservoir...” (Vestal and Wallace, 229.)
“...so realistic was their conception of pre-existence,” explains Seaich, “that contemporary [at the time of Christ] Jews described the very chambers (Hebrew guf, araboth) in which these souls dwelled, awaiting their turn to descend into bodies.” (Seaich [1983], 32.) Robinson and Robinson note:
 
(reply #80):
OP links don't work for me now, but I thought OPP was written in the 4th century, and how could anyone tell if when the work was originally composed?

I agree the entire NT was probably originally composed in the 1st century.

From the language, writing style, assumptions and so on.
 
Nobody knows, very few care, and many wonder about the point of this.
 
It's as simple as that.

I'm agnostic so I don't care, but I suspect those who believe Jesus was/is divine would object to the idea that he would have an earthly sexual relationship. That would change the nature of Jesus in their eyes.:peace
 
I'm agnostic so I don't care, but I suspect those who believe Jesus was/is divine would object to the idea that he would have an earthly sexual relationship. That would change the nature of Jesus in their eyes.:peace

Not to me.
 
I'm agnostic so I don't care, but I suspect those who believe Jesus was/is divine would object to the idea that he would have an earthly sexual relationship. That would change the nature of Jesus in their eyes.:peace
they don't reallyhave much faith than.

There is nothing sinful about having a wife in fact the bible encourages it. So it wouldn't really hurt my faith in the least
 
(reply #80):

Here is a contradicting citation:

Codex Sinaiticus

(from link):

Ok, 3rd or fourth, shall we compare it to other ancient texts? The NT is still the earlist and best attested ancient text wehave.

OP links don't work for me now, but I thought OPP was written in the 4th century, and how could anyone tell if when the work was originally composed?

They look at the Language, the grammer, certain Words and so on.
 
Back
Top Bottom