Was Jesus Married?

H

Haiku

Makes the ganglia twitch.
This is an interesting article...

Strong Evidence Jesus Was Married Sends the Christian Right into a Tizzy

When a papyrus mentioning Jesus's wife surfaced, the revelation that he Son of God might be married posed a great challenge to the Church.
October 5, 2012 |

Was Jesus married? The question is ancient—perhaps as old as the question of his divinity. On September 18, at a conference in Rome, Harvard historian Karen L. King, unveiled an ancient scrap of papyrus with Coptic script in which Jesus refers to his wife. As they do in such situations, academics began debating whether the scrap was authentic or fraudulent and discussing the features and tests that would incline them one way or the other. Scholars of religion are interested in two sets of questions. One set has to do with the papyrus itself: Who wrote it, when, and why? Which of the many early Christian traditions might it derive from? Does it inform our understanding of Christian history and if so, how? The second set of questions has to do with Jesus: Assuming the existence of a historical Jesus, ( some scholars don’t ) what are our best hypotheses about who he was and how he lived? Was he indeed married? How should such a question affect the priorities of Christians today?

While antiquities scholars await further test results, popular Fox News commentators and conservative Christian clergy went into high gear dismissing the relevance or authenticity of the scrap – or both. The Vatican called it a fake. They don’t like the idea of a married Jesus, don’t really care what the scholars ultimately conclude, and so have gone straight into damage control mode. Why?

What is the threat? Here’s what: At a symbolic level a Jesus with a human wife would be a polygamist. Conservative Christianity is scripted around a Jesus who metaphorically is “married” not to some short, illiterate Semitic woman of the first century, but to believers themselves. Evidence aside, the thought of competition for his affections simply doesn’t sit well.


Read the rest here http://www.alternet.org/belief/strong-evidence-jesus-was-married-sends-christian-right-tizzy
Click to expand...

I find this kind of thing interesting, maybe others do as well.
 
An interesting article discussing the history of christianity and how this relates today.

The case for a married Jesus may be far from definitive, but the reaction of conservative Christian commentators should give us pause. It is precisely the same reaction that the arbiters of orthodoxy have had since the beginnings of time: dismiss competing perspectives; ignore or –when possible -- destroy contradictory evidence; denigrate and marginalize dissenters (aka heretics). It is the same reaction that conservative Christians have had to archaeological and scientific findings that call any of their prized beliefs into question. Indeed, this reaction—played out through millennia—may explain why so little evidence for a wife of Jesus exists.
Click to expand...
http://www.alternet.org/belief/stro...-married-sends-christian-right-tizzy?page=0,2
 
strong evidence

that is laughable

your article is nothing but a smear piece...as if only right leaning christians have a problem with this claim. such dishonesty is seemingly becoming more common among liberals.
 
How is it a smear piece? Dishonest how? Let me guess, you've never taken a comparative religions course have you...or a history of civilization course.
 
Haiku said:
How is it a smear piece? Dishonest how? Let me guess, you've never taken a comparative religions course have you...or a history of civilization course.
Click to expand...

I have.....and the professors would have laughed at this article.....at least the author was correct when he admitted the "evidence" was messy......
 
Haiku said:
How is it a smear piece? Dishonest how? Let me guess, you've never taken a comparative religions course have you...or a history of civilization course.
Click to expand...

as i explained...it singles out only the christian right that is a smear and a dishonest characterization of the issue.

it is nothing more than a political hate piece designed to smear right leaning christians. there are numerous left leaning christians who take issue with this claim, so to single out only right leaning people shows its true colors.

and, i've taken several comparative religion courses and several history of civ courses. guess again.
 
It's a discussion of what's been found and what's happening with some religious folks (Faux News) in the meantime...why would they be so freaked out? Then some discussion of why that would be. So sensitive...it makes the point that the discussion of marriage concerning Jesus has been going on a long time...now there's new 'evidence'...I found it interesting. Too bad you didn't.
 
Yep and it's been in the news for the last couple of months or so...this was the first article about it I've read that talks about it and the reaction by some sects of christians.

In particular I find this reaction curious...

While antiquities scholars await further test results, popular Fox News commentators and conservative Christian clergy went into high gear dismissing the relevance or authenticity of the scrap – or both. The Vatican called it a fake. They don’t like the idea of a married Jesus, don’t really care what the scholars ultimately conclude, and so have gone straight into damage control mode. Why?
Click to expand...

From the link....this is one of the Faux News contributors...of course

"This changes nothing in the portrayal of Christ and the gospels. This is not an event that has any influence on Catholic doctrine," he said.

In Baptist churches throughout the country, meanwhile, pastors will speak on the matter as they see fit.

"Each [Baptist] church is autonomous," said Thomas White, vice president of student services and communications at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. "So there's really not going to be any guidelines."


But White and prominent Baptist leaders have made their rejections of the finding clear.
"I think preachers should handle this by telling members of their churches that the Bible that we have is reliable," White told FoxNews.com. "This document that's come to light is a suspect document from the fourth century. We don't know who translated it. We don't know who wrote it. It's only eight lines, smaller than a business card."

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., issued a statement on King's finding that was more conspiratorial.

"This is sensationalism masquerading as scholarship," Mohler said in a posting Thursday on his website. "The energy behind all this is directed to the replacement of orthodox Christianity, its truth claims, its doctrines, its moral convictions, and its vision of both history and eternity with a secularized - indeed, Gnositicized - new version."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/2...-status-after-newly-discovered/#ixzz28euFKUmL
Click to expand...

Gee, that sounds familiar. If the bible is literal then this is a problem I guess.
 
Last edited:
Haiku said:
It's a discussion of what's been found and what's happening with some religious folks (Faux News) in the meantime...why would they be so freaked out? Then some discussion of why that would be. So sensitive...it makes the point that the discussion of marriage concerning Jesus has been going on a long time...now there's new 'evidence'...I found it interesting. Too bad you didn't.
Click to expand...

who said anyone was freaked out? oh yeah...your left leaning smear piece. and you continue with it referring only to fox news, when in fact, other outlets have talked about it.

the evidence is not strong and i believe it has already been debunked. if it hasn't, the only evidence is 8 lines that is only BELIEVED to be authentic. it has not even been authenticated and your lefty site is claiming it is strong.

do you not see the propaganda of the left?
 
The evidence is there and it is presenting a challenge to conventional wisdom regarding Jesus...how is that propaganda from the left?
 
Haiku said:
The evidence is there and it is presenting a challenge to conventional wisdom regarding Jesus...how is that propaganda from the left?
Click to expand...

how many times do i need to explain this to you? i never said it was propaganda, i said it was a smear piece as painted ONLY right leanign christians in a bad light.

it is evidence, but is NOT strong evidence. did i make it clear to you?
 
I doubt left leaning christians are as challenged by it...that's just a guess, maybe you could explain to me the difference between right leaning christians and left leaning christians because I don't think the article makes that distinction.
 
Haiku said:
The evidence is there and it is presenting a challenge to conventional wisdom regarding Jesus...how is that propaganda from the left?
Click to expand...

why do you consider it evidence?......a scrap of parchment from the 4th century that says "Jesus had a wife"......with no indication it even refers to Jesus of Nazareth.......maybe it was Jesus from Philadelphia.......maybe Jesus from Philadelphia living in the 4th century had two wives.....what is its provenance?......
 
cannabis said:
why say christian right....if not to smear them? why not just christians?
Click to expand...

the true idiocy of the article is the choice of the word "strong"......so far it can't even be classified as evidence until its been dated and verified as part of any theological text......it could be part of a letter some guy named Jesus was writing to his mother to complain about her daughter in law's cooking in the year 300.......
 
That's very true...however there is all this myth that is believed...and people are ready to fight over it. It's amazing stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top