The Gospel of Jesus' Wife

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faith1960 said:
Remember a couple of years ago there was all that hoopla about a fragment of papyrus that some thought meant Jesus might’ve been married?
Does anyone have any new information on it that points it to be false?

From what I read, it’s unlikely to be a forgery.

Are there any non-Biblical sources that support Jesus being single?
Click to expand...
It turned out to be a fake.
 
Why would we expect anything other than the argument from silence if Jesus was truly never married? Most people don’t waste pen and paper on things that never happened. Why would they? The burden of proof rests with those claiming that someone did in fact happen rather than the other way around.

I’m having trouble finding any apostolic writings disproving that St. Peter was a reptilian alien. Maybe he was in fact a reptilian alien! This is rather important, so why were the Early Church Fathers silent on this?
 
Word has it that there will be news about this, after tests have been done, in the next Harvard Theological Review. Speculation is that the tests have come back positive, for it to be authentic. If so, then…what?
 
Faith1960 said:
Word has it that there will be news about this, after tests have been done, in the next Harvard Theological Review. Speculation is that the tests have come back positive, for it to be authentic. If so, then…what?
Click to expand...
Then it is a very old document. That’s all.

-Tim-
 
Faith1960 said:
How are we to know for certain that it’s not true, that Jesus was never married?
Click to expand...
None of the gospels ever mention Jesus’ wife so we have absolutely no reason to believe he was married. It’s like you asking “how do you know for certain that fairies don’t live in the garden”.

The tiny piece of parchment dubbed the gospel of Jesus’ wife has been dated to the 4th century after Jesus. Don’t you think mention would have been made of this person closer to the actual time they lived?

Here’s a good article about the fragment of parchment in question. It might answer your questions.
 
seagal said:
None of the gospels ever mention Jesus’ wife so we have absolutely no reason to believe he was married. It’s like you asking “how do you know for certain that fairies don’t live in the garden”.

The tiny piece of parchment dubbed the gospel of Jesus’ wife has been dated to the 4th century after Jesus. Don’t you think mention would have been made of this person closer to the actual time they lived?

Here’s a good article about the fragment of parchment in question. It might answer your questions.
Click to expand...
One of the answers in the q&a portion says that it wasn’t even said the st Jesus was unmarried until the late 2nd century.
 
Faith1960 said:
One of the answers in the q&a portion says that it wasn’t even said the -]st /-]Jesus was unmarried until the late 2nd century.
Click to expand...
Again, why would they mention Jesus was unmarried? People are all unmarried, until they get married. That is what would have been recorded, the marriage. They also did not mention if he was right or left handed. Does that mean he was ambidextrous? No? Then why did they not mention he was not ambidextrous? They didn’t say he was left handed so that must mean he was right handed? Do you see what I mean? There is no mention of Jesus having a wife so a logical conclusion would be, he did not have one.
 
Faith1960 said:
How are we to know for certain that it’s not true, that Jesus was never married?
Click to expand...
Why should we believe he was married?

I think if Jesus was married, the people around him would have noticed. Especially his mother Mary. Even more so, if he had a wife, she would have known about it as well.
 
Why would one assume that the “Jesus” mentioned in the fragment refers to Jesus of Nazareth? Jesus was not an uncommon name ( Jesus is actually the Anglicised version of the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua )
Do you think there was nobody else named Joshua in 1st Century Palestine?
 
prodromos said:
Why would one assume that the “Jesus” mentioned in the fragment refers to Jesus of Nazareth? Jesus was not an uncommon name ( Jesus is actually the Anglicised version of the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua )
Do you think there was nobody else named Joshua in 1st Century Palestine?
Click to expand...
Because the fragment is a cleverly crafted fake, designed to cast doubt on Jesus Christ and also the Church. It is not the first time this has happened there is also the secret gospel of mark.
 
Here’s what is said…

The text, which is cut off at both ends, reads as follows:
  1. … not me, my mother gave to me li …
  2. The disciples said to Jesus, "…
  3. … deny. Mary is worthy of it … (or, alternatively, Mary is not worth of it …)
  4. …" Jesus said to them, "My wife …
  5. … she will be able to be my disciple …
  6. Let wicked people swell up …
  7. As for me, I dwell with her in order to …
  8. … an image …
 
Faith1960 said:
One of the answers in the q&a portion says that it wasn’t even said the st Jesus was unmarried until the late 2nd century.
Click to expand...
That same portion says right at the beginning
this fragment does not provide evidence that Jesus was married. (emphasis mine) The comparatively late date of this Coptic papyrus (a fourth century CE copy of a gospel probably written in Greek in the second half of the second century) argues against its value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus.
Click to expand...
.

Be that as it may, I think the most compelling reason to think that Jesus remained unmarried is because (as another poster pointed out) the New Testament is full of references of the Church as bride and Jesus as bridegroom. For example, here’s a list of references. If you study the bible at all you know that symbolism is very important and used to convey God’s relationship with his people. Jesus would have to be unmarried, otherwise he is an adulterer.
 
I don’t see where anyone ever argued that Mary wasn’t considered a disciple of Jesus Christ. I do see where the gnostic writings are somewhat consistent in the accent on women’s rights. I also see where its a stretch to the women’s priesthood and the latitude contended for today,it would subvert the sacred foundations, and transmute its very nature. These type of questions along with others always existed, such as celibacy, sexuality and marriage. The idea of writing’s existing to support different positions also seems on-going as the Gospel of Thomas has similar consistency. In the end I think its the subtle dissent of Gnostic thinking which extends to other beliefs in religious spirituality.

The Apostle Paul, Galatians 1:7 this can only mean, that certain people are causing disquiet among you, in their eagerness to pervert the gospel of Christ. 🙂
 
Faith1960 said:
How are we to know for certain that it’s not true, that Jesus was never married?
Click to expand...
Hi again Faith1960,

With respect, I feel like this thread is going in circles. There are clear references in Scripture to the Church being the bride of Christ. Even if this document in question were completely authentic and true (which is a HUGE leap) that only shows that at one point in time Jesus said “My wife…”. He could’ve said “My wife is the faithful flock I lead to my Father.” Or perhaps “My wife is all of you and your descendents.” There is nothing in these few lines of translated text that even remotely contradict Church teaching.

In short, this document is very questionable in it’s authenticity, but even if true does not contradict Church teaching. So then why is this particular document such a stumbling block for you?

Perhaps if myself and other contributors on this thread understood better where you’re coming from, we can help you understand why Jesus was celibate. It’s a good thing! 🙂
 
Faith1960 said:
How are we to know for certain that it’s not true, that Jesus was never married?
Click to expand...
The idea of the Second Person of the Trinity having a mortal, created person as a wife contradicts the most basic ideas of our faith. It is inconsistent with both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It contradicts everything given to us in the deposit of faith.

TTherefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

Jesus did not leave the Father. He and the father are one.

Jesus did not leave his Mother, but assumed her into Heaven to be with him.

Jesus did not become “one flesh” with a woman. Jesus says “eat my flesh” not “eat the one flesh which my wife and I have become.”

The Church is the Bride of Christ. If Jesus also has a human wife then he is an adulterer or a polygamist. Jesus cannot be unfaithful to his Church. It would invalidate our entire faith.

If Jesus had a human wife then we can all stay home on Sunday and watch football because our religion is a lie.

-Tim-
 
seagal said:
None of the gospels ever mention Jesus’ wife so we have absolutely no reason to believe he was married. It’s like you asking “how do you know for certain that fairies don’t live in the garden”.

The tiny piece of parchment dubbed the gospel of Jesus’ wife has been dated to the 4th century after Jesus. Don’t you think mention would have been made of this person closer to the actual time they lived?

Here’s a good article about the fragment of parchment in question. It might answer your questions.
Click to expand...
The fragment is,said to probably be a copy of an earlier time, probably in the second century. We’ll know more soon. It being mentioned in the Harvard Theological Review sometime this month.That should tell us whether or only it’s a modern forgery, which is doubtful.
 
smichhertz said:
Hi again Faith1960,

With respect, I feel like this thread is going in circles. There are clear references in Scripture to the Church being the bride of Christ. Even if this document in question were completely authentic and true (which is a HUGE leap) that only shows that at one point in time Jesus said “My wife…”. He could’ve said “My wife is the faithful flock I lead to my Father.” Or perhaps “My wife is all of you and your descendents.” There is nothing in these few lines of translated text that even remotely contradict Church teaching.

In short, this document is very questionable in it’s authenticity, but even if true does not contradict Church teaching. So then why is this particular document such a stumbling block for you?

Perhaps if myself and other contributors on this thread understood better where you’re ucoming from, we can help you understand why Jesus was celibate. It’s a good thing! 🙂
Click to expand...
I guess because I’d been away from the Church for YEARS and came back about 8 years ago. In the years when I was away I was agnostic, atheist, dabbled in New Age, and Protestantism. I want to be sure that what we’re being taught is the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top