• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence that Jesus had Wife Emerge

Skwim

Veteran Member
Don't put words in my mouth I never said.

Its not honest, and I expect more from you.

I have studied this at high levels from credible academia, but thank you.
That you have "studied this at high levels from credible academia" doesn't excuse you from criticism, and if you don't like to be criticized for what you say then I suggest you not say anything.

And just for the record, you said, "The unknown status of jesus REAL life does not change because some 4th century Hellenist created fiction." A conclusion that, at most, only carries credibility if coming from someone with years as an ecclesiastical history scholar. And having "studied this at high levels from credible academia" doesn't qualify. In other words, your claim doesn't carry any weight, at least with me.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Which is my exact point here.

The piece IF real, can only show what later people far removed from any actual event, created and believed. There is s a lot of pseudepigrapha from these periods and they serve as a reflection of the LATER evolution of the movement.
And I would say "The piece IF real, can only show what later people far removed from any actual event, created and believed.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Does the number of these "many scholars" significantly outnumber those who have not concluded the papyrus is a modern-day forgery? If so, evidence of this would be appropriate. What ya got?
Even if we were to grant you its authenticity it still proves absolutely nothing. What do you really think a random fragment written centuries after the canonical gospels proves? That heretical movements existed, and that they had their own texts? That's not news to anybody.

I know you're eager to see Christianity discredited, but this is just silly.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Even if we were to grant you its authenticity it still proves absolutely nothing.
I'm pretty sure that everyone here already knows this. Welcome to the club, I guess.

What do you really think a random fragment written centuries after the canonical gospels proves?
Not a thing.

I know you're eager to see Christianity discredited, but this is just silly.
Then you don't know squat. In my opinion, Christianity never had much credibility to begin with.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
And what criticism would that be?

What I have stated is the current status of this probable fraud, that changes nothing to what is known and unknown for the Galilean.
Ah, so it's no longer "fiction," but now "probable" fraud. :rolleyes:
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
The existence of heretical texts is nothing controversial. Especially texts that cannot be traced earlier than centuries after the fact. Assuming this isn't an outright forgery that is.

Isn't every biblical text heretical by that definition, since the original works of people like Moses (if he even existed) have long been lost/destroyed? :cool:
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
As to Jesus having a wife...who cares? He was human and if he wanted to get married and get his groove on, that would not make him any less "divine" for those that believe in such.
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Your post makes no sense.

Only to those who don't know history.

The original works of people from the OT (like Moses, who supposedly wrote the first five books) are called the Autographs. Those works were destroyed long ago, many when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem during his reign as the Persian king over the Babylonian Empire. There is not a single written work in existence today that can be traced back to the time of Moses. Everything that we have comes from a copy, and those copies are subject to human error. Since you brought up being traced back to an era, I thought I would just point out that nothing can be traced back to the originals.

Add to it the fact that religions during that era were jockeying for position and influence. Who is to say that some of those copies and/or translations were intentionally falsified? In other words, everything that you read in the Bible (especially if it is not in Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek) is most likely a distortion of what the original works actually say.

Lastly, you mentioned Christianity...

Are you aware that Christianity was considered a heretical movement against Judaism by the Pharisees? Are you aware that the Romans put to death those who would try and stir up a rebellion against the Empire, and that Jesus' actions were considered rebellious? While we are at it, ask yourself why Pilate would try to save Jesus' life, when he was known as a cruel and vengeful man, and was actually called to Rome to answer for some of his most diabolical acts as governor (never to return). He did not give a rat's *** about the Jews or Christians. He had at his disposal the Roman Legions and they could have easily crushed anyone that stood before them.

Clearly the Christian writers were trying to paint Pilate (who later became a saint according to the GO and Ethiopian churches) as a good guy, so they could place the blame on the Jews...which is a far different picture than what history tells us.
 
Last edited:

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
What do you really think a random fragment written centuries after the canonical gospels proves?

About the same thing as those canonical gospels prove...nothing. They were written by anonymous authors (and no eye witnesses) years and/or decades after Jesus' death. It is easy to spin a story after it has already happened. Hell, the current media does it all the time.

Now before you rupture some important blood vessel in your head, I am not out to discredit Christianity. I am a Christian...just with a modern deistic outlook. I focus on rational reasoning instead of blind faith.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Can I ask you something Deist Mentor? Do you know what this conversation is even about?

We have the OP, who has presented us with a text (of very questionable authenticity) that is claimed to be dated anywhere between the sixth and ninth centuries. Centuries after Jesus and the apostles lived. He would like to establish this as evidence that Jesus was married thus bringing orthodox Christianity into question. However, the mere existence of heterodox texts is neither news, nor has it any significance for the validity of the canonical texts. Whatever you believe about Jesus doesn't change the fact that heterodox and Gnostic texts have no value in telling us anything historical about Jesus. It simply tells us there were heretical groups that believed all sorts of different things.

Big whooping deal.

About the same thing as those canonical gospels prove...nothing. They were written by anonymous authors (and no eye witnesses) years and/or decades after Jesus' death. It is easy to spin a story after it has already happened. Hell, the current media does it all the time.
The question has nothing to do with the truth of the canonical gospels (pay attention) but the validity of a dubious text supposedly dated five to eight hundred years after the canonical texts. The answer is none whatsoever.

Now before you rupture some important blood vessel in your head, I am not out to discredit Christianity. I am a Christian...just with a modern deistic outlook. I focus on rational reasoning instead of blind faith.
You're really giving yourself too much credit if you think you can upset me.

And anyone who goes out of their way to tell me how rational they are isn't convincing me.
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Can I ask you something Deist Mentor? Do you know what this conversation is even about?

Yes.

We have the OP, who has presented us with a text (of very questionable authenticity) that is claimed to be dated anywhere between the sixth and ninth centuries. Centuries after Jesus and the apostles lived. He would like to establish this as evidence that Jesus was married thus bringing orthodox Christianity into question. However, the mere existence of heterodox texts is neither news, nor has it any significance for the validity of the canonical texts. Whatever you believe about Jesus doesn't change the fact that heterodox and Gnostic texts have no value in telling us anything historical about Jesus. It simply tells us there were heretical groups that believed all sorts of different things.

Big whooping deal.

The question has nothing to do with the truth of the canonical gospels (pay attention) but the validity of a dubious text supposedly dated five to eight hundred years after the canonical texts. The answer is none whatsoever.

I was just pointing out that the same could be said of the Gospels...or really any part of the Bible for that matter.

You're really giving yourself too much credit if you think you can upset me.

Not trying to upset you, but some people are so wrapped up in their beliefs that if anything contradicts or even questions them, they get bent out of shape. Not saying that you are that way...but it is better to err on the side of caution.

And anyone who goes out of their way to tell me how rational they are isn't convincing me.

I am not trying to convince you of anything and could care less what people think of me...and I certainly did not go out of my way. :D
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
I was just pointing out that the same could be said of the Gospels...or really any part of the Bible for that matter.
How can the cannon be heretical when heresy is defined by the Church? We are not talking about what is and is not true, but what is heretical. The Bible cannot be heretical because it is the Church that defines its authority as scripture.

Whether or not the claims of the gospels are true is not the question.

Not trying to upset you, but some people are so wrapped up in their beliefs that if anything contradicts or even questions them, they get bent out of shape. Not saying that you are that way...but it is better to err on the side of caution.
Dismissing a dubious fragment possibly from the sixth to ninth centuries as significant (yet alone evidence for anything) is not being wrapped up in blind faith. My beliefs have nothing to do with this, it's you and Skwim who are trying to make this a religious thing.

Actually give reasons why this "fragment" has any significance. It's not even established as authentic.

To re-answer the OP, no it's evidence of squat.
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
How can the cannon be heretical when heresy is defined by the Church?

I am assuming by "cannon" you actually mean "canon"?

When you say "The Church" I am going to assume you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church. I am not going to turn this into a Catholic bashing thread. I have my issues with Catholicism, but the same could be said of all religions/denominations, so Catholics are not being singled out by me.

Simply put, there is not a single church organization on the planet that will dictate to me what is or is not heresy. I am intelligent, moral and can think for myself.

Dismissing a dubious fragment possibly from the sixth to ninth centuries as significant (yet alone evidence for anything) is not being wrapped up in blind faith. My beliefs have nothing to do with this, it's you and Skwim who are trying to make this a religious thing.

I could care less about any man made scrolls, parchments, fragments, etc. I was just pointing out that you have to take the Bible on blind faith because we do not have the Autographs to compare anything to.

Actually give reasons why this "fragment" has any significance. It's not even established as authentic.

Neither is anything from the OT. Every single source comes from a copy. Again, just pointing that out.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
I am assuming by "cannon" you actually mean "canon"?
I didn't catch that, but of course you well know what I meant.

When you say "The Church" I am going to assume you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church. I am not going to turn this into a Catholic bashing thread. I have my issues with Catholicism, but the same could be said of all religions/denominations, so Catholics are not being singled out by me.
Not exactly. By the Church I mean the churches that maintain valid apostolic succession and uphold the orthodoxy defined by the ecumenical councils, this includes the eastern church.

Simply put, there is not a single church organization on the planet that will dictate to me what is or is not heresy. I am intelligent, moral and can think for myself.
You're missing the point. It's not about what you think, you are irrelevant. The bulk of Christians throughout most of history owed allegiance to either either the eastern or western church. All valid churches draw their authority from the apostolic succession of the one church founded by Christ. Although the Church has fragmented, the legitimacy of the succession is still maintained in both communions. It is this teaching succession, or magisterium, that defines canon and the magisterium cannot be its own heresy.

The canon cannot be heretical, because what is heretical is decided by the Church whether you like it or not.

The Catholic/Orthodox Church has defined orthodoxy and whatever you as an individual choose to accept or reject is frankly irrelevant. The fact is, the Catholic Church's rulings carry more weight than yours for more Christians. No one cares about what you believe.

Neither is anything from the OT. Every single source comes from a copy. Again, just pointing that out.
Those copies have a well attested tradition. Random Gnostic gospels do not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
You're missing the point.

No I'm not. I know exactly what you are saying. I am just throwing some additions in there.

It's not about what you think, you are irrelevant.

As are we all, including your magisterium. They are after all, human as well.

The fact is, the Catholic Church's rulings carry more weight than yours for more Christians.

More and more people are waking up and starting to think for themselves. You'd be surprised how many people agree with me (if you actually sit and listen to me "preach"). There is a reason why (just as an example) Catholic attendance to mass has gone from 55% in 1965 (US numbers) to 24% in 2014. Granted, this decline is world wide and in every denomination. Churches are having to close their doors left and right because they can't afford to keep them open.

Do you know who Father Reginald Foster is? He is an American priest that served at the Vatican for 40 years as the Pope's official Latin expert. Go read up on his opinion of the RCC and traditional Christians beliefs in general. He is a maverick...and quite an eye opener.

Those copies have a well attested tradition. random Gnostic gospels do not.

Tradition is fine. However, traditional does not necessarily mean biblical.
 
Top