What's new
By:

Jesus May Have Been Married

Funny that a fragment the size of a business card holds something controversial that is found nowhere in the bible.
Not saying it isn't true, just very ironic, if it is.
 
How could people change their fundamental beliefs on life based on some writings of a man/men thousands of years ago? That's crazy talk.
 
I wonder what Whisky would have to say about this, or whether this really changes anything for the Catholic faith or not.
 
Mary may not have been a virgin. Just sayin'.
 
PKM said:
I think it's fake, myself.
Click to expand...

Why would you automatically assume that? I have no idea as to its provenance but the statment contained therein is hardly brand new or unheard of.

Some gnostic texts from the 2nd and 3rd century make reference to Mary Magdalene as Jesus' "special companion" or "wife" (depending on translation) and many very old documents refer to Jesus as having loved her more than any other disciple.

To be honest I'd be very surprised if there weren't a handful of 4th Century texts floating around simply because the small handful that could read or write may have been exposed to the older texts.

On the other hand, what's Mark Hofman doing these days?
 
Extremely interesting article, thank you. I would guess that they papyrus is a small fragment of a collection of "gospels" similar to the ones of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, and Philip. These writings are normally considered the writings that Eusebius wrote about in the fourth century as "fictions of heretics" since the document seems to be from the fourth century. Also, I believe similar gospels were also written in Coptic.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/about_coptic_text.html

More from Eusebius...

we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.
- Eusebius The Church History 3:25
Click to expand...

I really wish that the Church's response to these writings was to preserve them for historical purposes rather than destroy them... oh well, nothing I can do about that know.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Why would you automatically assume that? I have no idea as to its provenance but the statment contained therein is hardly brand new or unheard of.

Some gnostic texts from the 2nd and 3rd century make reference to Mary Magdalene as Jesus' "special companion" or "wife" (depending on translation) and many very old documents refer to Jesus as having loved her more than any other disciple.

To be honest I'd be very surprised if there weren't a handful of 4th Century texts floating around simply because the small handful that could read or write may have been exposed to the older texts.

On the other hand, what's Mark Hofman doing these days?
Click to expand...

Right up front (post 2) I admitted that it could be authentic.

To answer your question, it just seems contrived to me. A highly controversial papyrus emerges, the size of a business card, that just happens to contain the smoking gun. Again, just seems contrived. I made no judgement, I shared an opinion.
 
PKM said:
Funny that a fragment the size of a business card holds something controversial that is found nowhere in the bible.
Not saying it isn't true, just very ironic, if it is.
Click to expand...

The Bible was pieced together by the same geniuses who developed the Trinity theory.
 
While I have you all together in one spot ..

Just want to say what's up to all my atheist homeys!
 
On another note, the article mentions that this evidence will have an effect on celibacy in the catholic priesthood specifically, however, that is extremely unlikely.

1) Historically, the catholic priesthood was open to more than just celibates. In fact, Peter (the first pope in catholic tradition) was married. Celibacy and marriage were acceptable and practiced disciplines of priestly life for the first 12 centuries. It was not until 1139 that Gregory VII required priests to practice the discipline of celibacy. This discipline can be lifted at any time by Pope Benedict 16, or the next pope, or the next pope, or the next pope...

2) Currently the discipline of celibacy models two individuals, Jesus and Paul. IF Jesus were married this argument to living a celibate life would take a serious impact, but it wouldn't destroy it... because of

3) ... Scripture. The New Testament speaks about the discipline of celibacy. Specifically, Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7.

I do think that the Catholic Church will eventually reassess mandatory celibacy, however, it is not going to be because of any new information. Celibacy is a discipline... it is not a dogma.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top