The Gospel according to Jesus's Wife
marymary100 - 10-4-2014 at 20:13
no evidence of modern day fraud
the bear - 10-4-2014 at 22:50
But who's to say that the document is an accurate historical account.
If it is true dont you think it strange that a"wife" is not cross referenced in any of the bible books?
Regards the Bear
marymary100 - 10-4-2014 at 23:11
They are not claiming it is a primary source, just that it gives an account about what was being discussed at a later stage. It is not the only
document to make such claims. I find all such texts interesting no matter which religion or argument they espouse. Would Jesus being married make it
less or more likely that he was a deity? In whose interests would it be to make the women in the bible certain types but not have one of them married
It won't make any difference to me one way or another but I think that if it were eventually proven that Jesus was married, then questions about
priesthood would inevitably follow.
John Barnes - 11-4-2014 at 00:15
As our American friend Scholar would say if its not in book its not true, end of jmb
LSemmens - 11-4-2014 at 01:31
The fact that this is, possibly, the earliest reference to a wife, some 700 years after the even, would, to me, indicate that it is irrelevant. Was
Captain Cook married? (This, should, at least, be relatively easily verified, as cross referencing, and independent, materials from the era would be
available). The canon of scripture was produced from a list of independent documents written over different times all supporting the same hypothesis.,
so we must accept, at least, some of it as fact. A fragment no larger than a business card cannot contain enough information to either confirm, or
deny, its premise.
Nimuae - 11-4-2014 at 07:29
I do not remember ever reading in the bible that Jesus was not married - so why all the fuss? The bible is not a detailed year by year account of
his entire life anyway so who knows what he was doing before he began preaching and gathering his followers. It would have been normal - in those
times - for a man of his age to have been married and had a family so why not Jesus ? It would certainly make him seem more like a real person.
There is nothing in the bible that compels priests to be celibate either. I believe that was dreamed up by 'the church' to avoid having to support
widows and children.
John_Little - 11-4-2014 at 08:47
But then who is to say that any of the bible is an accurate historical account? I think the point is that this is prior to the censorship of the
bible by later church officials who wanted to emphasise the dominance of males and themselves in particilar.
Katzy - 11-4-2014 at 10:30
What went into the bible was decided upon by a group of men who all had their own ulterior motives.
It should be read as such, surely?
Nimuae - 11-4-2014 at 15:58
Very true !
LSemmens - 11-4-2014 at 16:05
Whilst many of your (generally) observations are valid. There is much to support the historical validity of the Bible, whether you believe the basic
premise or not. There was nothing in the Bible to forbid marriage or any reference to Jesus' marital status, whether he was married, or not, is
irrelevant. His message had nothing to do with celibacy, or otherwise, but more about how you treat your fellow man. It is only when the Roman church
under Pope Urban began a series of Crusades to reclaim
the Holy Land that things were done, "In the name of God", that God had no part in.
scholar - 11-4-2014 at 23:46
No, I don't say that. There are many topics about which true statements can be made, which the Bible does not cover exhaustively.
But, the New Testament surely would have mentioned if Jesus had been married. Please recall that Jesus' living family during His ministry was
mentioned--His mother, brothers, and sisters--but, no wife. When Jesus was on the cross, soon to die, He gave His mother to John's care--if He had a
wife, He would have spoken for her to be cared for, as well. Even Peter is known to have had a wife, because Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law. It
is more than improbable that any wife to Jesus would be omitted.
scholar - 12-4-2014 at 00:31
It would be more accurate to say that the documents gave independent witness (that is, their human authors each attested to the truthfulness of their
content). To call them "independent documents" sounds as if they were written completely separately without any of the authors having knowledge of
the others. According to the unanimous testimony of the early church, Matthew wrote first, and his Gospel was distributed. Mark wrote next, having
heard Peter's personal recollections as well. Luke wrote after that, and mentions that he read earlier accounts before he wrote his orderly account.
John wrote last, years later, and includes much material that the earlier gospels do not.
LSemmens - 12-4-2014 at 01:28
That holds true, only for the gospels, Scholar but not so for the remaining books of the Bible
the bear - 12-4-2014 at 09:00
When a man is without a wife he's incomplete, when he's married he's finished
Regards the Bear
Katzy - 12-4-2014 at 09:44
Not it if didn't serve the aims of the compilers, who lived in male-dominated societies and for whom women were little more than chattels.
marymary100 - 12-4-2014 at 10:03
And, let's be honest, in the eyes of some sections of society little has changed on that score...
Nimuae - 12-4-2014 at 10:42
Nimuae - 12-4-2014 at 10:43
Sadly - that is also true !
scholar - 12-4-2014 at 12:55
Actually, no. And, I'm sure you'd agree, if you just thought about it.
Several of the human authors wrote more than one document, so they are not independent. Paul wrote the most, his several letters. John wrote a
Gospel, three letters, and Revelation. Luke wrote Luke and Acts. Peter wrote two letters (and reportedly was a source to Mark for Mark's Gospel.
In addition, one of the epistles has a section which so closely matches another, by a different author, that it seems likely one is borrowing from the
other (or--less likely, in my opinion--each is borrowing from a third source).
I reference the Gospels in my earlier post because they would be the expected place to find mention if Jesus had a wife.
scholar - 12-4-2014 at 13:36
Actually, this is mistaken on two counts.
The first is that the documents were written by people who recorded teachings that went AGAINST the way they had been living, which put them and their
own thoughts and lives in an unflattering light. So, the disciples look stupid again and again. They frequently don't understand Jesus' teachings,
in stories, and must have Him explain them. When He tells them to beware the yeast of the Pharisees, they think He is talking about bread. Peter
tries to walk on water, but doesn't have enough faith. Jesus' hand-picked group mostly deserts Him when He faces crucifixion. Peter denies Him,
after saying he never would do such a thing. Saul/Paul's life was turned upside-down when he realized that the One whose followers he was
imprisoning to be killed was actually the miracle-working true God of Israel. Jesus' teaching, given in person during His ministry and afterwards
through the apostles was first, and His followers conformed to that--painful and humiliating though it might be, in view of their own failures and
short-comings. You DON'T see Jesus' teaching edited to agree with what others would find comfortable--quite the opposite, you read in the documents
what His teachings were, which left His followers more than uncomfortable. It left them with no hope, with respect to thinking themselves good enough
to deserve heaven. They had to depend on faith in Jesus, as God and Savior. Most of the New Testament--including all four canonical Gospels--were
universally accepted from the very beginning because they were authentic in their teaching and known to be Apostolic. They were not compiled so much
as acknowledged for what they known to be.
[I have read most of the excluded, non-genuine documents. They are not even close in teaching and quality. Comparing them to the genuine Gospels is
like comparing fan-fiction written by children to actual television screen-plays of shows like Star Trek. To give an example, one has Jesus as a
little boy getting angry at some of the other children and changing them into little goats--does that match Jesus in the real Gospels, who prayed on
the cross that God forgive those who arranged to crucify Him?]
And, the New Testament elevates women, in spite of the fact that these ideas were inimical to the prevailing thought of the day. So, women are
mentioned for their loyalty to Jesus at the crucifixion. They are the ones who go to the tomb to anoint His body. A woman is the first to see Jesus
after His resurrection. Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman at the well, even though the Pharisees avoided speaking to women in public, especially if
the woman was not your own wife. Paul wrote in Galatians that "In Christ, there is neither . . . male nor female."
marymary100 - 12-4-2014 at 15:09
Women are shown in subservient roles and in an unflattering light in the NT. Annointing, serving food, weeping - "Better to marry than to burn" etc
etc. Where's the elevation you speak about, exactly?
In earlier times women and their genitalia were venerated. For example, Egyptian and Japanese goddesses would lift their skirts and give a flash of
their privates to increase crop yields and ward off evil. Compare that with Tertullian - "Woman is the gate to hell and her gaping genitals the
yawning mouth of hell."
You'll forgive me for looking at women's role in the NT with a jaundiced eye.
Katzy - 12-4-2014 at 15:10
Drawing on the opinions of St. Augustine, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree which was, appropriately, called, "The
Decree of Damasus".
In that, said Pope listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible
translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.
ROME HAD SPOKEN!
It was compiled by the Roman church for the benefit of the Roman church.
They wouldn't let silly things like facts get in their way, either.
For example, the Gospel of Thomas presents itself as a collection of sayings of Christ as written by Thomas the apostle. The church considers that a
few of these sayings are genuine because they were taken from the canonical Gospels. (You see? The other gospels are considered "Truth". Why should
one be considered truth and not the other?). Others combine bits of things said in the "true" gospels. Still others are wholly made up, not only
lacking any basis in the gospels but also contradicting things taught in them.
That, surely, is opinion stated as being fact.
"Truth" is what the Roman church decided was truth. Facts had little, or nothing, to do with it.
scholar - 12-4-2014 at 20:04
Your most important question is, "Why should one be considered truth and not the other?" and has a simple answer--that which is genuine, matching
the actual Christian teaching from Jesus and His hand-picked Apostles, is the truth = the true Christian teaching. The accepted books of the New
Testament preceded the Decree of Damasus. Saying that Rome determined the New Testament canon because they recognized it is like saying our years are
counted as 365 or 366 days because the London Times reckons by those dates. In truth, the year determined what the London Times counts, not the other
The four genuine Gospels have remarkable agreement with each other. (I recall that, years ago, a non-Christian lawyer had the idea of comparing the
four Gospels with a view toward discrediting Christianity. He found that, on the one hand, they had the remarkable agreement he was accustomed to
finding when different witnesses gave true accounts, in court, of the same events. On the other hand, he found the kinds of small differences which
different witnesses will make in their remarks in accord with what seemed more important to them; he didn't find the kind of word-for-word patterned
agreement which false witnesses use when they work together to invent a false story. He was convinced of the Christian verity, and published a book
of support for the faith, instead.)
Matthew was himself an apostle; Mark had some contact with Paul, but church history says he had more with Peter; and Luke traveled with the Apostle
Paul. These accounts are in such detailed agreement that they are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels (synoptic = one view). John's Gospel agrees
with the first three, but supplements them--filling in some events and teachings that were not covered by the others. This makes sense--the other
genuine gospels had been circulated for years before the Gospel according to John was written. These Gospels have numerous small details that mark
genuine eye-witness accounts. For example, Mark's Gospel mentions that, when Jesus showed His glory on the mountain, His clothes became whiter than
any launderer could bleach them. This is exactly the kind of expressive detail that would come naturally to a writer who has done laundry. John's
Gospel mentions the exact number of fish the disciples caught one time when they saw Jesus, after His resurrection--exactly the kind of detail that
would stick in the mind of a former fisherman.
The Gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, is crap. It mainly lists supposed sayings, without any context of events--in contrast to the real Gospels,
in which the settings give contextual richness to the meaning. It is pseudoepigraphic, attributing to Thomas's pen ideas which the Gnostics had
begun to try to push after his time in Christian guise. The Gospel of Thomas is later, trying to ride the coat-tails of Christianity with different
One of the false passages I find greatly distasteful is "Any women who makes herself a Man will enter into the Kingdom of God." Rubbish! Jesus
would never approve of such a thing.
LSemmens - 13-4-2014 at 01:11
The role of women is anything but subservient, as Scholar has stated, in the new Testament, and in context of the era in which Jesus lived, the women
with which he had contact were very liberated. I keep referring to the canon of the entire Bible, not just the New Testament. Read Song of Solomon,
sometime, that is certainly not putting women down, but rather putting them on a pedestal to be admired.
Katzy - 13-4-2014 at 14:04
At the time, no. But, when the council of Nicaea did it's thing, how many women were involved? You can count them on the fingers of a man with no
marymary100 - 13-4-2014 at 16:40
And you've still not said how women were elevated by comparison to earlier versions of belief systems.