Jesus had a Wife!?

[guohua]

OK, folks, I guess the secret is out,,, Jesus Had A Wife,,,,,,, What about Kids?

SECRETS OF ANCIENT EGYPTIAN WRITING REVEALED IN 2,000-YEAR-OLD PAPYRUS SCROLLS

WOW!   
The Catholic Church is going to Implode!!!

A part of The Papyrus of Artemidorus, the exceptional artefact from the Ptolematic period, exhibited at the Palazzo Bricherasio in Turin, 08 February 2005. The Papyrus scroll was written towards the middle of the 1st century BC.
Source Watch the video.

That's the question that scholars are asking after a centuries-old scrap of papyrus surfaced with a reference to Jesus' wife—a subject of much speculation over the centuries but with no compelling evidence to back it up.

The final line of text includes the words: "And Jesus said, My Wife..." while quoting Jesus.

That sentence is cut off on the papyrus, which is thought to be a fragment from a larger piece of text. The incomplete sentence leaves a mystery about what might have been written—and who the wife may have been.
Source

[Mystic Wanderer]

I've heard about some texts out there that suggests Jesus had a wife, but I don't remember where I saw it.  Of course this is something the "church" would never allow to be released; it would destroy everything they say Jesus stands for. 

Oh yes, now I remember... it was in one of Sylvia Browne's books.

ETA: That was reported on Newsweek?!  Wow!  

[guohua]

I've heard it said that Jesus was in his 30's when he was Crucified. As my husband explained it to me.
Life was hard and to be 30 or more years old you were considered old I think.

So, a single guy then by the age of 30 is not married, you'd think he was gay or something by then,,, Right? 
He would have been past his prime.
JMHO

[Sol]

I had read at some point that during this period of our history, rabbis had to be married or they weren't able to preach.

Jesus was a rabbi in that part of the world and to not have been married would have been a very serious sacrilege.

The lost gospels of Mary Magdalene also pointed to that fact, as she would not only had been a wife but a disciple as well, pissing off Peter to the highest degree.

But as so many other things, we will never know the truth for sure.

Thus why I never did put much 'faith' in the Bible. For me, the stories it contains are somewhat as credible as some UFO stories we hear nowadays.

Which isn't much evidence. Lots of rumors and circumstantial evidence but never one solid smoking gun.

But that's just me. :)

Now you no longer need to wonder why I mostly never post in these religious threads, being called a 'heretic' isn't my forte.

.

[BIAD]

...The final line of text includes the words: "And Jesus said, My Wife..."
while quoting Jesus.

That sentence is cut off on the papyrus, which is thought to be a fragment from a larger piece of text. The incomplete sentence leaves a mystery about what might have been written—and who the wife may have been.

From what I can gather, the full sentence read:
"My wife... get in that kitchen and make me a ham sandwich"

I'm struggling to find the source.

[guohua]

...The final line of text includes the words: "And Jesus said, My Wife..."
while quoting Jesus.

That sentence is cut off on the papyrus, which is thought to be a fragment from a larger piece of text. The incomplete sentence leaves a mystery about what might have been written—and who the wife may have been.

From what I can gather, the full sentence read:
"My wife... get in that kitchen and make me a ham sandwich"

I'm struggling to find the source.

Yes, Yes,,,, while he kept her Bare Footed and Pregnant!!!  

[BIAD]

Yes, Yes,,,, while he kept her Bare Footed and Pregnant!!!  

I find it odd that the piece of cloth that would have offered further proof that Jesus was
married is missing. That's convenient!

It's a shame that being married was seen as a set-back in those days, I believe it would've
give Jesus more credibility as an historical figure.

[guohua]

Yes, Yes,,,, while he kept her Bare Footed and Pregnant!!!  

I find it odd that the piece of cloth that would have offered further proof that Jesus was
married is missing. That's convenient!

It's a shame that being married was seen as a set-back in those days, I believe it would've
give Jesus more credibility as an historical figure.

The Church probably has that piece of Cloth Locked Away or Burned Years Ago.

[Ninurta]

Convenient how they translate but one partial sentence. What does the rest say? What is the context that one bit of sentence is embedded in? I've got no problems with Jesus having been married, if he was. I'm not seeing how that would take the Church down. Most of the preachers at most of the churches I've been to were married, and it never rocked anyone's faith. They didn't fire 'em for being married or nothing.

I'm just not seeing how it would present a difficulty to Christians. I CAN see how it would be a problem for Catholics, since they don't allow priests or nuns or popes to get married (which explains why there are so many sex scandals among Catholics through the centuries - they can't, and don't have to - in fact are not ALLOWED to - stick to just one). But that's THEIR problem, not mine... and I don't for the life of me see how it would shake Jesus up and make him fizz. What does Jesus have to do with the Catholic Church other than maybe having a name plate in them here and there?

Can someone more religiously savvy than myself please explain to me how it would be a problem for Jesus to have been married?

The "Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene" thing was, as far as I can tell, started by Dan Brown in some work of fiction he wrote.

Christians are a funny lot. They read things into their Bible that are simply not there all the time. Another good one is the tale that Mary Magdalene was a hooker. I've not been able to find that in the Bible, yet there are Christians who will argue till they're faces turn purple that it was so. Might be, for all I know, but there's nary a shred of evidence for it.

And that BS about "God is love" and "God loves everyone"- where do they get THAT from? It is clearly written that "God loved Jacob, but hated Esau". Now, if God loves EVERYONE, but hated Esau, does that mean Esau was not "someone"? If so, how many other "not someones" are roaming this Earth? Logically, God cannot "love everyone" and "hate Esau" at the same time.

And that silliness about a "Trinity" - how do they torture THAT out of their Bible? Common sense tells us that if something dies, and is really, really dead, it can't very well raise ITSELF from the dead. So, if Jesus WAS God, and really, really died at the crucifixion, then their whole premise for salvation has to be a sham. It has to have failed. The Bible clearly DOES say that "the dead know nothing", and if someone knows nothing, then of course they cannot know how to make themselves UNdead. However, if Jesus was NOT God, but what the Bible actually claims he was instead, then it can all work out. In that case, it is possible for a God to have raised him, being an external being to himself.

I'm going to pop some popcorn and watch 'em running around screaming. This ought to be fun to see reality bump up against fantasy. One of 'em HAS to explode.

.

[guohua]

@"Ninurta"  I'm thinking the Catholic Church is looking for a way debunk this report or call it a Fraud.

[Ninurta]

The Newsweek article has apparently been edited - it no longer bears any reference to Jesus at all.

I believe the papyrus you are referring to is "The Gospel of Jesus Wife"

It was dated to the 4th Century AD (300's AD), rather than the middle of the First Century. The Harvard scholar who first sensationalized it has now recanted and says she believe it to be a modern forgery written on an authentic medieval papyrus. See the link above for more information.

The text in full says:

...not [to] me. My mother gave me life...The disciples said to Jesus,...deny. Mary is (not?) worthy of it. ...Jesus said to them, "My wife...she is able to be my disciple...Let wicked people swell up...As for me, I am with her in order to...an image ...

The opposite side of the text reads, word-for-word:

...my moth[er]...three...forth ...
The next two lines of this side feature illegible ink traces

This probably isn't the smoking gun.

[BIAD]

If there was only a piece of cloth that explained how Jesus was ordered by his wife to put the
Christmas tree up on his birthday, now that would be proof.


By the way, Ninurta... weren't you and BIAD at his birth? I'm sure I read somewhere...

[Ninurta]

If there was only a piece of cloth that explained how Jesus was ordered by his wife to put the
Christmas tree up on his birthday, now that would be proof.


By the way, Ninurta... weren't you and BIAD at his birth? I'm sure I read somewhere...

Aye, that we were. The tale of the encounter is written elsewhere, but you might have heard it from BIAD himself in some of his mumbling ramblings that he upon times engages in. BIAD was there for the blessed event, and all I got was mistaken for an angel. It was a bit embarrassing, to tell the truth. How in the world does one ever live something like that down? I mean, I got a reputation to uphold, and angelic ain't it!

.

[BIAD]

Aye, that we were. The tale of the encounter is written elsewhere, but you might have heard it from BIAD himself in some of his mumbling ramblings that he upon times engages in. BIAD was there for the blessed event, and all I got was mistaken for an angel. It was a bit embarrassing, to tell the truth. How in the world does one ever live something like that down? I mean, I got a reputation to uphold, and angelic ain't it!

Forgive me for going off topic, but the accounts of Ninurta being mis-identified as an angel, are actually true during the incident
that became known as 'The Nativity' and were deliberately omitted from serious texts.

For centuries, those who controlled the discipline of the early Christian faith tried fervently to expunge any reference to his
participation due to the diametrically-positioned situation of implying a compassionate servant of God against the reality
of Ninurta's... shall we say, 'less lenient' personality!

However, certain evidence still got through, as seen in a redacted paragraph from Mathew's account.

"...And it came to pass that when the snow hid the blood of Herod's fallen men, the Angel that slew them
entered the haven of the Christ-child and bode within...'

Only two other mentions exist to indicate Ninurta's involvement. One is from a scroll discovered in Ethiopia:

'...It seemed that with great ardor, the determined celestial-being wielding a hand that roared thunder
and spat pearls of wrath, brought low the Centurians. The breath of God was felt by all and the growling
guardian looked upon the trembling sheep-herders with taciturn eyes...'

And the only other reference is this from a forgotten papyrus connected to Luke's Gospel and religious theologians have
postulated that the source may include Boy In A Dress!:

'...The apparel spoke of rough-shod trails and the Talon of the Lord was strapped to his waist.
Wide in gait and without fear, the Angel protected those within and his smiling devil walked with him...'

I have yet to confront BIAD on the actual account and I'm sure that as the 25th December approaches, he may
relate more.
If that's okay?

[guohua]

Aye, that we were. The tale of the encounter is written elsewhere, but you might have heard it from BIAD himself in some of his mumbling ramblings that he upon times engages in. BIAD was there for the blessed event, and all I got was mistaken for an angel. It was a bit embarrassing, to tell the truth. How in the world does one ever live something like that down? I mean, I got a reputation to uphold, and angelic ain't it!

Forgive me for going off topic, but the accounts of Ninurta being mis-identified as an angel, is actually true during the incident
that became known as 'The Nativity' and were deliberately omitted from serious texts.

For centuries, those who controlled the discipline of the early Christian faith tried fervently to expunge any reference to his
participation due to the diametrically-positioned situation of implying a compassionate servant of God against the reality
of Ninurta's... shall we say, 'less lenient' personality!

However, certain evidence still got through, as seen in a redacted paragraph from Mathew's account.

"...And it came to pass that when the snow hid the blood of Herod's fallen men, the Angel that slew them
entered the haven of the Christ-child and bode within...'

Only two other mentions exist to indicate Ninurta's involvement. One is from a scroll discovered in Ethiopia:

'...It seemed that with great ardor, the determined celestial-being wielding a hand that roared thunder
and spat pearls of wrath, brought low the Centurians. The breath of God was felt by all and the growling
guardian looked upon the trembling sheep-herders with taciturn eyes...'

And the only other reference is this from a forgotten papyrus connected to Luke's Gospel and religious theologians have
postulated that the source may include Boy In A Dress!:

'...The apparel spoke of rough-shod trails and the Talon of the Lord was strapped to his waist.
Wide in gait and without fear, the Angel protected those within and his smiling devil walked with him...'

I have yet to confront BIAD on the actual account and I'm sure that as the 25th December approaches, he may
relate more.
If that's okay?

Ask BIAD if he had Spurs on his sandaled feet,,,,,, that made a noise like,,,,,, Jingle,,, Jangle,,,, Jingle,,,,,,

[Ninurta]

Some of you are aware that I do amateurish DNA and genealogical research in my spare time. It is with some degree of trepidation that I must report that this concept of "Jesus had a wife" has reared it's contentious head in that research.

Through my own research I had pushed back some branches of my family tree to 7 - 10 generations. All of them have grown to at least 5 generations before the trail runs cold, others are outliers at 16 to 17 generations. There is a website, "My Heritage" I think it is called, that is operated by, I believe, the Mormons. They have stored a few million family trees, as Mormons are wont to do. What happens there is you go and plug in as much of your family tree as you know, and an algorithm searches the database of family trees for connections to the one YOU just input, and matches found are attached to what you input yourself to extend your tree to the limits of their supposed knowledge. The farther back you have, the more likely connections will be found.

So I did it, thinking this may be the lazy man's way of extending knowledge of my ancestry. Let other folks drive for a while.

What was produced were some unexpected results which I am not altogether comfortable with or confident in, but it's been fun tracing these branches down to see where someone else says they lead to. By doing that, I have found alleged "connections" to, among others, Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror, a "Sir Baldwin Fulford" (who was beheaded 9 Sep 1461 in Devon for maintaining loyalty to his buddy Henry VI against the usurping Edward IV - Eddie won, and set about eliminating the opposition... I guess he wasn't a very gracious winner), Rollo Duke of Normandy, Ragnar Lodbrok (semi mythological) through his son Ivar the Boneless (documented to have really existed, even if his dad isn't), Charlemagne (estimated to be in the ancestry of every single living European - so no real surprise there), Charles Martel (if you've got Charlemagne, you've got Charles Martel), Boudicca and Prasutagus, and, among others... Jesus Christ himself!

And here I had been telling folks all these years that I just came from a long line of horse thieves and cutthroats! Imagine my surprise!

Here's how that happens: After a certain point, actual relationship records get "spotty" at best. That point is different in different places, depending on when the locals thought it was a good idea to start keeping records. In England, that point probably occurs around the time the Domesday Book was recorded, or maybe just slightly before. Beyond that point, "stories" like sagas and mythologies are substituted for actual records by some folks, and mythologies creep into family trees when those folks introduce them.

Some of those stories and mythologies involve Jesus Christ and his alleged wife Mary Magdalene, and a daughter they are alleged to have had named "Saint Sarah" (usually) whose progeny went on to found a royal dynasty (Merovingians) in Europe that lasted 300 years or so before being overthrown by the Carolingians. Enter Jesus Christ himself into my family tree via the magic of mythology.

On my mother's side, this spurious lineage traced back through the Merovingians to "Yeshua ben Yussuf", whose father is listed as Joseph, a carpenter. Another branch on my father's side leads back to the same individual, but who is there listed as "Jesus the Christ", whose father is listed as "Elohim" - so this mythological connection has been salted into that database at least twice, by two separate people, who list the names differently. In that one, Jesus is listed at the 69th generation, with "Elohim" listed as the 70th generation, which I gather to be some sort of magic number to Christians.

As I said above, I have no evidence either way that Jesus was married, and still fail to see why it would upset Christianity if he was - that's not supposed to be the important part of their story, and it couldn't take anything away from what they are supposed to be preaching. It would just be a thing, not an important or earth-shaking thing, just a thing. On the other hand, I find no evidence to support the notion, either... because it's not supposed to be important to Christians. No reason to record it either way.

What DOES grind my grits at this point is that some unscrupulous folk are using the mythologies built up around the notion as actual "history", and trying to insert it into the historical record by nefarious means, mucking up perfectly functional genealogical research in the process of trying to prove their contention.

That kinda burns muh biscuits.

.

[guohua]

@"Ninurta" 
Interesting Family Tree,,,,, I would have stayed with the Horse Thieves and Cutthroats.

I don't think all of the Christian religions would have been upset if Jesus did get Married. I think they were upset because someone said Mary was a Whore, was she or wasn't she?
Could have been a Jealous Disciple that started that rumor.  
Except the Catholics, who basically have a male dominated church in my view.

But who really cares, Jesus was a Cult Leader in my way of thinking. Religion is Overrated But,,,,, that is,,,, JMHO.

[Ninurta]

@"Ninurta" 
Interesting Family Tree,,,,, I would have stayed with the Horse Thieves and Cutthroats.

I don't think all of the Christian religions would have been upset if Jesus did get Married. I think they were upset because someone said Mary was a Whore, was she or wasn't she?
Could have been a Jealous Disciple that started that rumor.  
Except the Catholics, who basically have a male dominated church in my view.

But who really cares, Jesus was a Cult Leader in my way of thinking. Religion is Overrated But,,,,, that is,,,, JMHO.

I'm not sure why the notion that Mary Magdalene was a whore would upset them, either. If she had been, then she'd be a perfect example of "salvation", which is exactly what they are supposed to be preaching. Also, I think it was Paul who said in one of his books that "the believing spouse sanctifieth the unbeliever" - now who would be more "believing" or able to sanctify someone than Jesus himself in that religion?

Some folks are funny, stuffy, and take themselves far more seriously than they ought to.

.

[guohua]

@"Ninurta" 
Interesting Family Tree,,,,, I would have stayed with the Horse Thieves and Cutthroats.

I don't think all of the Christian religions would have been upset if Jesus did get Married. I think they were upset because someone said Mary was a Whore, was she or wasn't she?
Could have been a Jealous Disciple that started that rumor.  
Except the Catholics, who basically have a male dominated church in my view.

But who really cares, Jesus was a Cult Leader in my way of thinking. Religion is Overrated But,,,,, that is,,,, JMHO.

I'm not sure why the notion that Mary Magdalene was a whore would upset them, either. If she had been, then she'd be a perfect example of "salvation", which is exactly what they are supposed to be preaching. Also, I think it was Paul who said in one of his books that "the believing spouse sanctifieth the unbeliever" - now who would be more "believing" or able to sanctify someone than Jesus himself in that religion?

Some folks are funny, stuffy, and take themselves far more seriously than they ought to.

.

Absolutely The Truth, I again Agree With YOU,,,, DAMN, I Need Another Whiskey Sour. "Yells to my husband,,,,I'm Empty, need a Refill!"