'Wife of Jesus' reference in Coptic 4th Century script

BBC Article

"An ancient scrap of papyrus makes explicit reference to Jesus having a wife, according to a renowned expert in Christian history."

Makes sense. Being a Rabbi, it would be against Jewish tradition to not be married.

Does this support an Early Christian Cover-up? Does this help support the Idea that the Council of Nacea did more than create the Trinity Doctrine, but also helped to eliminate and cover up other Facts and Teachings of Jesus that did not fit their vision?

Does this affect Jesus Divinity in the eyes of Christians if it turns out to be true?

Dude check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_bloodline

BBC Article

"An ancient scrap of papyrus makes explicit reference to Jesus having a wife, according to a renowned expert in Christian history."

Makes sense. Being a Rabbi, it would be against Jewish tradition to not be married.

Does this support an Early Christian Cover-up? Does this help support the Idea that the Council of Nacea did more than create the Trinity Doctrine, but also helped to eliminate and cover up other Facts and Teachings of Jesus that did not fit their vision?

Does this affect Jesus Divinity in the eyes of Christians if it turns out to be true?

Nuck81

oh you are asking for trouble on this one lol.

BBC Article

"An ancient scrap of papyrus makes explicit reference to Jesus having a wife, according to a renowned expert in Christian history."

Makes sense. Being a Rabbi, it would be against Jewish tradition to not be married.

Does this support an Early Christian Cover-up? Does this help support the Idea that the Council of Nacea did more than create the Trinity Doctrine, but also helped to eliminate and cover up other Facts and Teachings of Jesus that did not fit their vision?

Does this affect Jesus Divinity in the eyes of Christians if it turns out to be true?

Nuck81

No - Christianity is used to apocrypha.

Whether He was married is irrelevant to His reason for being here. As a Christian this doesn't influence me in any way.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"] No - Christianity is used to apocrypha.Nuck81

Theres much in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other apocrypha that could not be believed within Christianity. This is no different and won't cause any upsets.

There are books describing Jesus as a child that read rather like "the Omen", for example.

This angers me! I'm gonna go kill people!!!

:P

Was Jesus actually a rabbi? I assume that even then there was some training, some certification (or whatever equivilant they had) that one had to undergo and acheive in order to become a rabbi. So did Jesus actually do this?

sometimes the nice guy does get the girl! :'D

Was Jesus actually a rabbi? I assume that even then there was some training, some certification (or whatever equivilant they had) that one had to undergo and acheive in order to become a rabbi. So did Jesus actually do this?

worlock77

BBC Article

"An ancient scrap of papyrus makes explicit reference to Jesus having a wife, according to a renowned expert in Christian history."

Makes sense. Being a Rabbi, it would be against Jewish tradition to not be married.

Does this support an Early Christian Cover-up? Does this help support the Idea that the Council of Nacea did more than create the Trinity Doctrine, but also helped to eliminate and cover up other Facts and Teachings of Jesus that did not fit their vision?

Does this affect Jesus Divinity in the eyes of Christians if it turns out to be true?

Nuck81

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]

BBC Article

"An ancient scrap of papyrus makes explicit reference to Jesus having a wife, according to a renowned expert in Christian history."

Makes sense. Being a Rabbi, it would be against Jewish tradition to not be married.

Does this support an Early Christian Cover-up? Does this help support the Idea that the Council of Nacea did more than create the Trinity Doctrine, but also helped to eliminate and cover up other Facts and Teachings of Jesus that did not fit their vision?

Does this affect Jesus Divinity in the eyes of Christians if it turns out to be true?

BranKetra

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]

BBC Article

"An ancient scrap of papyrus makes explicit reference to Jesus having a wife, according to a renowned expert in Christian history."

Makes sense. Being a Rabbi, it would be against Jewish tradition to not be married.

Does this support an Early Christian Cover-up? Does this help support the Idea that the Council of Nacea did more than create the Trinity Doctrine, but also helped to eliminate and cover up other Facts and Teachings of Jesus that did not fit their vision?

Does this affect Jesus Divinity in the eyes of Christians if it turns out to be true?

BranKetra

Even if it were true there's no way it could ever be validated.

You know, as much as I imagine Jesus as being a celibate, I don't see Him having a wife doing anything to the story of His status as the Son of God. Unless there's a specific Old Testament or Jewish traditional prophecy that says otherwise.

I wouldn't be surprised. The bible just tells the basic story on Jesus and doesn't cover his personal life.

hey...........Mindstorm, what do you got?

sometimes the nice guy does get the girl! :'D

IcyToasters

What will happen when news of Jesus's gay lover gets out?

What will happen when news of Jesus's gay lover gets out?

Aljosa23

What will happen when news of Jesus's gay lover gets out?

Aljosa23

THis implies the man existed to begin with, which there is no good evidence for

Fourth century apocrypha. Should we also trust the late manuscript about the magical talking cross?

Now Nuck, we have patristics before hte council of NIcea that represent what the council of Nicea talked about. Why is that conspiracy theorists and mythisists will grab onto things which are so irrelevent and have NOTHING backing them up but reject the majority of the evidence we actually have that actual historians take into consideration? Probably because mythicists and conspiracy nuts have an agenda which they must bend reality to.

But how she says that there was a "Debate" about this in the second century from a fourth ccentury manuscript is beyond me. None of the patristics entertain such an idear and nor do they make reference to it or try to refute this supposed idea. Its irresponsible to say it comes from the second century. All it proves as of now that such an idea existed in the fourth century.

Fourth century apocrypha. Should we also trust the late manuscript about the magical talking cross?

Now Nuck, we have patristics before hte council of NIcea that represent what the council of Nicea talked about. Why is that conspiracy theorists and mythisists will grab onto things which are so irrelevent and have NOTHING backing them up but reject the majority of the evidence we actually have that actual historians take into consideration? Probably because mythicists and conspiracy nuts have an agenda which they must bend reality to.

But how she says that there was a "Debate" about this in the second century from a fourth ccentury manuscript is beyond me. None of the patristics entertain such an idear and nor do they make reference to it or try to refute this supposed idea. Its irresponsible to say it comes from the second century. All it proves as of now that such an idea existed in the fourth century.

Philokalia

You're lack of faith is a shame. Do you have so little conviction in your own beliefs that rather than discuss you simply attack. Here is a prayer for you Orthodox, so that you may find some peace in your heart that is filled with hate and doubt. O God! Refresh and gladden my spirit. Purify my heart. Illumine my powers. I lay all my affairs in Thy hand. Thou art my Guide and my Refuge. I will no longer be sorrowful and grieved; I will be a happy and joyful being. O God! I will no longer be full of anxiety, nor will I let trouble harass me. I will not dwell on the unpleasant things of life. O God! Thou art more friend to me than I am to myself. I dedicate myself to Thee, O Lord. Abdul-BaháNuck81

I have faith in the risen lord which has good reason to it, not single fragments from the fourth century unlike you, who would base an entire conspiracy theory around it to try and destryo the credibility of the great fathers of Nicea whom just years earlier were persecuted under Diocletion for their faith with more horrors than you or I will ever face. Yes I have conviction but I don't resort to Tenaka's style of arguing, as if to pathetically try and make my opponent feel guilty. But thats what most bahais do since they are unable to debate.

And No I prefer the great Doxology.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"] No - Christianity is used to apocrypha.Nuck81

.

Jesus was a Jewish peasent born under the oppressive rule of the Romans. Ancient Israelite Culture would have required him to have a wife and have children, especially if he was a Rabbi. Which was what he was called among his followers.

I do not see why Christians have a problem with this. It does not hurt your religion or the message of Jesus. He most likely married Mary Magdalen or whatever her name was.

for some reason this thought came to my mind.

"its a good thing we now know Jesus had a case of the not-gays"

and OMG :lol: to Sage of Fire's Koala response. Golden!

for some reason this thought came to my mind.

"its a good thing we now know Jesus had a case of the not-gays"

and OMG :lol: to Sage of Fire's Koala response. Golden!

SaudiFury

I would laugh my ass off so hard if there was definitive proof that jesus existed and that he had a husband...or two...or three

Jesus was a Jewish peasent born under the oppressive rule of the Romans. >ShadowMoses900

i still lol.. still a great comedy.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Jesus was a Jewish peasent born under the oppressive rule of the Romans. >SaudiFury

i still lol.. still a great comedy.

The aquaduct!

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Jesus was a Jewish peasent born under the oppressive rule of the Romans. >SaudiFury

i still lol.. still a great comedy.

Jesus was a Jewish peasent born under the oppressive rule of the Romans. Ancient Israelite Culture would have required him to have a wife and have children, especially if he was a Rabbi. Which was what he was called among his followers.

I do not see why Christians have a problem with this. It does not hurt your religion or the message of Jesus. He most likely married Mary Magdalen or whatever her name was.

ShadowMoses900

He was not required to have a wife, it would have been normal but not neccessary. And there is no evidence he married Mary Magdalen more so than he married the sisters of Lazurus or any other woman in the New testament that he had contact and communion with.

Dude check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_bloodline

Mike-uk

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Jesus was a Jewish peasent born under the oppressive rule of the Romans. Ancient Israelite Culture would have required him to have a wife and have children, especially if he was a Rabbi. Which was what he was called among his followers.

I do not see why Christians have a problem with this. It does not hurt your religion or the message of Jesus. He most likely married Mary Magdalen or whatever her name was.

Philokalia

He was not required to have a wife, it would have been normal but not neccessary. And there is no evidence he married Mary Magdalen more so than he married the sisters of Lazurus or any other woman in the New testament that he had contact and communion with.

What difference would it make if he was married anyway?

Surely 400 years down the line they can't even be totally sure. So perhaps yes this does suggest a cover up during the First Council Of Nicaea but it doesn't mean that even that Coptic Script is correct.

I'm sure Jesus got mad p*ssy.

"An ancient scrap of papyrus makes explicit reference to Jesus having a wife, according to a renowned expert in Christian history."

Makes sense. Being a Rabbi, it would be against Jewish tradition to not be married.

Does this support an Early Christian Cover-up? Does this help support the Idea that the Council of Nacea did more than create the Trinity Doctrine, but also helped to eliminate and cover up other Facts and Teachings of Jesus that did not fit their vision?

Does this affect Jesus Divinity in the eyes of Christians if it turns out to be true?

Nuck81

#1. According to the Bible Jesus does indeed have a wife: the church. Throughout the Scriptures the people of God are referred to as the bride of Christ. Sometimes Jerusalem is referred to as the Bride of Christ. Take for instance Revelation 21:9 which refers to Jerusalem as "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb" which is Christ Jesus. As such, there is very much a possibility that it is merely taken out of context. #2. The date of this papyrus is too late. This papyrus is from the 4th Century and is several hundred years late. Personally speaking, I do not put near as much weight on anything regarding the life of Jesus beyond about 100 AD. That stated, I am very much persuaded that the entirety of the New Testament was written before 100 AD. #3. Even despite the fact that I do not believe this to be true, it does not effect anything regarding my theology even if it is true. Roman Catholics may have some issues due to their understanding of celibacy but as a Protestant in no conceivable way do I see how Jesus being married could negate him being the Son of God, God incarnate. Marriage is not a sin, it was instituted by God, and thus it does not negate such doctrines as the Trinity or the Atonement.mindstorm

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]"An ancient scrap of papyrus makes explicit reference to Jesus having a wife, according to a renowned expert in Christian history."

Makes sense. Being a Rabbi, it would be against Jewish tradition to not be married.

Does this support an Early Christian Cover-up? Does this help support the Idea that the Council of Nacea did more than create the Trinity Doctrine, but also helped to eliminate and cover up other Facts and Teachings of Jesus that did not fit their vision?

Does this affect Jesus Divinity in the eyes of Christians if it turns out to be true?

LJS9502_basic