Jesus was married? What are your thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brierpatch1974
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brierpatch1974

Guest
That is nonsense!, JESUS came from heavens where there is no marriage, and He said this:
(Matthew 22:30):
"At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

So that blasphemy is flawed.
 
While I agree lets do a what if. What if we find more ancient writings from that time period and teachings from authors we already know and trust. Do we dismiss them or accept them? What if they give us information that we havent had before? Is that a reason to say they are not to be used?
I think we all can agree that there are many mysteries still unsolved or unproven. And no matter what our theories are they can be proven wrong. I am not saying this article proves anything because you can never get proof from a fragment but we havent discovered everything yet. To say we can never find evidence to enlighten us on something we have wrong would be foolish. We are told to always seek knowledge. He will reveal his mysteries to us when he chooses. I will never be one to say the bible is complete or not because we have no way of knowing.
 
I’d say the same thing I say every time they discover a new non-Biblical text written hundreds of years after the Bible canon, like the Gnostic gospels… what a fascinating find that will enlighten scholars about some of the rival sects to Christianity that were dying out at the time. It most probably is genuine, though even stranger documents have been found in the past. As far as it changing doctrine or influencing the Catholic Church, however, it won’t, because it was left out of the canonical books of the Bible for the same reasons that all of the others were.

…Or did the Gospel of Thomas, Mary Magdelene, Judas, and all of the others suddenly become relevant to our doctrine somehow? After all, they’re “real” too. 🤷
 
brierpatch1974 said:
While I agree lets do a what if. What if we find more ancient writings from that time period and teachings from authors we already know and trust. Do we dismiss them or accept them? What if they give us information that we havent had before? Is that a reason to say they are not to be used?
I think we all can agree that there are many mysteries still unsolved or unproven. And no matter what our theories are they can be proven wrong. I am not saying this article proves anything because you can never get proof from a fragment but we havent discovered everything yet. To say we can never find evidence to enlighten us on something we have wrong would be foolish. We are told to always seek knowledge. He will reveal his mysteries to us when he chooses. ** I will never be one to say the bible is complete or not because we have no way of knowing**.
Click to expand...
We do know. The canon was closed at the Council of Trent.

The so-called fragment you refer to is more Gnostic nonsense and heresy. Only naive people would think this could even possibly be true.
 
The clue is in the first sentence. It’s a** 4th century** papyrus, meaning it was written **400 years **after Jesus died. If Jesus had actually been married I would think some mention of it would have been made long before that.
 
Jesus’ spotless bride is the Church. There is no other. Our Lord is not an adulterer.

***“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; **(Ephesians 5:31-32)

Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory.
For the wedding day of the Lamb has come,
his bride has made herself ready.
(Revelation 19:7)

**Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who have been called to the wedding feast of the Lamb." And he said to me, “These words are true; they come from God.” *(Revelation 19:9)

There is the Church for which Christ gave his life. There is no other. Case closed.

-Tim-
 
Like I said I am playing with what if’s here. as for " The canon was closed at the Council of Trent."" This is true btu how long did it take those men to pick and choose which Gospels they would put into the bible and which to leave out ? And why leave out anything at all to begin with? It is all relevant to what was being done and happening at that time period. it would seem the pick and choose what parts you want to believe and focus on started at the very begining. Just like today where people still pick and choose what they want to believe. Things havent changed much in 2000 years.
 
BP you need to get your facts straight. The canon was closed as of the late 4th century in the Councils of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397. The Council of Trent simply affirmed the canon of scripture because it had not come under attack until that time when various “Reformers” errantly wanted to tinker with it to suit their own equally errant new winds of doctrines of modern men.

Take a look at Original books of Bible
 
Sam_777 said:
That is nonsense!, JESUS came from heavens where there is no marriage, and He said this:
(Matthew 22:30):
"At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

So that blasphemy is flawed.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that Mormons believe that God has a physical body (along with the usual sexual accouterments) and actually had literal, physical intercourse with Mary to conceive Jesus. People are still wondering who those virile men called “The sons of God” were who were so taken by the beauty of women that they had to rape them (or seduce them) to bring forth the “Giants in the Earth,” one of whom may have been the infamous Goliath who David so easily dispatched with his sling and 5 smooth stones.

It’s interesting, this mixing of deities, sex, and women. It’s also somewhat suggestive that angels always seem to be presented as male – Gabriel, Michael, and others. Satan and demons are never seen as female.

Would also like to point out that Jesus (who was also God) was male – his prepuce from birth was actually an object of worship in one of the early churches. (Honest!) As a physical male, he had testicles which would have produced semen that in turn would have led to – well, you know! It seems likely that having a brain with a hypothalamus he would have experienced pleasure from eating, drinking, and – well, you know! The Bible does say that he “hungered” and “thirsted,” but no mention is made of lusting.

It’s also never mentioned whether Jesus had “wet dreams” although, again, he seemed normal in other ways, so he must have. It would be interesting to learn the content of those dreams. I think it’s unlikely he was gay.

Now on to Satan. How the devil was able to have sex with witches was a puzzle since it seemed impossible that Satan would have a penis. For what purpose? Just to fornicate with witches? Urinate? What?

Kramer (Malleus Maleficarum thought he borrowed one from a priest and had intercourse with witches in this way. It’s unclear if there were any “sons of Satan” roaming around from this disgusting union. (Although there are some who I think could easily qualify. )

This is really an interesting thread! Thanks for introducing it!
 
Church_Militant said:
BP you need to get your facts straight. The canon was closed as of the late 4th century in the Councils of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397. The Council of Trent simply affirmed the canon of scripture because it had not come under attack until that time when various “Reformers” errantly wanted to tinker with it to suit their own equally errant new winds of doctrines of modern men.

Take a look at Original books of Bible
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link. I guess what I am having trouble getting my mind around is how did they decide what to use and what to leave out. Especially things written at the same time period. I know they worked hard and prayed about it but it was still man who chose what to put inand leave out. And I am sure they debated it long and hard which means some people where happy and others where not so that means one side got their way and the other side didn’t. Its the nature of man.

A lot of things are oral history and not written . And human nature changes as each person tells a storyand slight differences can occur. Having faith that it never changed from one man to the next for three hundred years or so is hard for me. While the core and the meaning may be the same the exact details get fuzzy.

While I believe everything in the bible I still feel as if we are missing some important information. But then some mysteries are not meant to be solved I guess. But no matter how strong the faith it would be unwise to say a new discovery < on any subject not this particual one > is simply fraud and fake and is an attempt to discredit the Church is just silly.

We do not know all the answers and never will. To think things can’t change or new knowledge can’t be found and proven is just arrogance. The Lord will reveal to us what he wants us to know and there is no man made time line for this knowledge to be revealed. Miracles happen every day.
 
brierpatch1974 said:
I know this is not enough information to prove anything but I am sure it will start a lot of debates in the future or add more fuel to current debates. So I was wondering what everyone thinks about this. Personaly I see it as a fragment that doesn’t provide enough information and we have no clue on what it was referring to as a whole context.

foxnews.com/science/2012/09/18/harvard-scholar-discovery-suggests-jesus-had-wife/#ixzz26u37P92j?test=latestnews
Click to expand...
Check this thread in the Non-Catholic forum…it is already being discussed…forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=712447
 
brierpatch1974 said:
Thank you for the link. I guess what I am having trouble getting my mind around is how did they decide what to use and what to leave out. Especially things written at the same time period. I know they worked hard and prayed about it but it was still man who chose what to put inand leave out. And I am sure they debated it long and hard which means some people where happy and others where not so that means one side got their way and the other side didn’t. Its the nature of man.

A lot of things are oral history and not written . And human nature changes as each person tells a storyand slight differences can occur. Having faith that it never changed from one man to the next for three hundred years or so is hard for me. While the core and the meaning may be the same the exact details get fuzzy.

While I believe everything in the bible I still feel as if we are missing some important information. But then some mysteries are not meant to be solved I guess. But no matter how strong the faith it would be unwise to say a new discovery < on any subject not this particual one > is simply fraud and fake and is an attempt to discredit the Church is just silly.

We do not know all the answers and never will. To think things can’t change or new knowledge can’t be found and proven is just arrogance. The Lord will reveal to us what he wants us to know and there is no man made time line for this knowledge to be revealed. Miracles happen every day.
Click to expand...
Actually, as an historian myself, I can tell you that we know quite a lot about the selection process. It worked like this. Most books could be grouped into a few categories:
  1. Those which pretty much everyone agreed as legitimate. This included the four canonical Gospels, and most of the Letters of Paul. This legitimacy was also confirmed by their age. Most were written no more than 30 years after the fact. ALL of the canonical New Testament books were written before the year 100 AD.
  2. Those which were absolutely clear forgeries. Some forgeries were easy to pick out, and everyone agreed. These were either books that were written hundreds of years later, or had ridiculous content, or both. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a great example of this. It purports to tell the story of Jesus’s life as a child and teen. It was regarded, even at the time, as little more than a collection of folk tales made up to fill the gaps in the Bible. (Call it early fan fiction if you like.) The behavior of Jesus in the book is so ridiculous at times as to not be credible.
  3. Those which were rejected because they were Gnostic. This included many false “Gospels” that might contain elements of the original Gospels, but were distorted to conform with Gnostic ideas. Almost all were written a good 100-200 years after the canonical Gospels, and cannot be traced back any further than that. Gnostics believed that only by deciphering secret wisdom or knowledge in the Bible could one get into heaven. In other words, salvation was NOT for all, but a select, learned few. It also was completely independent of behavior often times, so, it didn’t matter if you were Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler… crack the Bible code, and you make it to heaven. (There’s shades of Gnosticism in Scientology, although the two are unrelated.)
  4. Those which contained some true knowledge, but also contained clear falsehoods. These were problematic documents. Some of the information might be true, but because they were written down much later than the canonical books, other information was exaggerated or false, making it impossible to decipher what parts were genuine and what weren’t. As a result, they were left out of the Bible out of an abundance of caution. However, there are tidbits that come from these books that are almost certainly true. For example, it’s where we learn about the upside-down crucifixion of Peter.
  5. A few books which were highly debated, and eventually accepted or rejected. There were a select few books that everyone was on the fence about. They included the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation, and the Didache. Of these controversial books, only Revelation made it in. The Didache is one of the oldest genuine Christian documents out there, but it was rejected for being more of an early catechism. In other words, while it accurately described first century Christians, it contained no inspired knowledge that would help one achieve salvation, so it was left out to remain an historical document of the time. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were included by some early on as canon, but were eventually left out due to an abundance of caution due to some mildly controversial theological statements. They are, however, also considered genuine statements and ideas of the early Christian community.
 
HERE WE GO AGAIN

Why is it that whenever there is allegedly “new evidence” that “Jesus had a brother”, or that “Jesus was married”, the main stream media jumps all over it and so do protestants. However when this same "new evidence " is determined to be false or a fraud, there isn’t so much as a peep from these same media outlets or from protestants?

The most recent example is the supposed papyrus that claims that, “Jesus refers to having wife, named Mary”.

Most scholars have already discredited this “evidence” and yet a major cable news outlet reported one side of the story… that it’s real and left out the other, namely that it has been discredited by exports.

Another example is the “Ossuary of James” that was inscribed- “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”. This turned out to be a fraud and the person creating it went to prison.

Your thoughts?
 
Jimmy_B said:
HERE WE GO AGAIN

Why is it that whenever there is allegedly “new evidence” that “Jesus had a brother”, or that “Jesus was married”, the main stream media jumps all over it and so do protestants. However when this same "new evidence " is determined to be false or a fraud, there isn’t so much as a peep from these same media outlets or from protestants?

The most recent example is the supposed papyrus that claims that, “Jesus refers to having wife, named Mary”.

Most scholars have already discredited this “evidence” and yet a major cable news outlet reported one side of the story… that it’s real and left out the other, namely that it has been discredited by exports.

Another example is the “Ossuary of James” that was inscribed- “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”. This turned out to be a fraud and the person creating it went to prison.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Yeah, how did Protestants “jump all over” this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top