Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jesus' Wife ?
#1
Papyrus Referring to Jesus’ Wife Is More Likely Ancient Than Fake, Scientists Say
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#2
Must be that Christmas or Easter is coming for this one to come up again...
Reply
#3
Why doesn't the NY Times run articles about Mohammad and his 9 year old wife just before Ramadan?
Reply
#4
Alright, I haven't had time to read the article yet, but from what I remember, Mary Magdalene was the one I believe. There is a gospel that was found in the numerous Missing Gospels that seem to indicate this, and it too is from antiquity.

Have you all watched that series I posted on Sodom and Gomorrah, The Exodus, and lastly(the one I am referring to, "The Lost Gospels"?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#5
Ok, I read the atricle. No mention of just who is supposed to be the 'wife', and only the phrase "My Wife" calling this into question.

Here's the video I am talking about. Its very fascinating, to say the least. My guess is that the number of missing gospels will only continue over time, as more archeology digs others up.



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#6
(04-10-2014, 05:25 PM)John L Wrote: Have you all watched that series I posted on Sodom and Gomorrah, The Exodus, and lastly(the one I am referring to, "The Lost Gospels"?

No, but I liked this one.


Reply
#7
I'd would not take this too seriously... if dating is correct, it is 4th-8th century, by that time there were a lot of variant Christianities, including Islam.

Here is another one for Easter (or rather Passover):

3rd Temple.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#8
(04-10-2014, 06:07 PM)mv Wrote: I'd would not take this too seriously... if dating is correct, it is 4th-8th century, by that time there were a lot of variant Christianities, including Islam.

Here is another one for Easter (or rather Passover):

3rd Temple.

OH, I can just see this starting to occur, sometime before 2016. MacDaddy would have a hysterical cow. I can imagine the anti-Jooooo fanatics climbing walls, just to beat their bare chests, proclaiming "Death To Israel".

And I haven't even gotten to the Islamo-Kooks yet. Can you imagine the razing of al-Aqsa Mosque, and Dome of the Rock in order to make room for the Third Temple? Oh-Hoo, all of us could hear the sound waves all the way across the Atlantic Ocean.

This could be "Velly Intellesting".



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#9
Does he mean wife in Christ, sort of like brothers in christ, etc?
Reply
#10
(04-11-2014, 01:04 AM)Gunnen4u Wrote: Does he mean wife in Christ, sort of like brothers in christ, etc?

Every year before Christmas and Easter articles are released about relic documents that date back to half a millennium after the death of Christ. We as Christians are suppose to buckle under the premise that someone living 600-500 years after Christ had the scoop on his sex life.

I say the same thing at least twice a year; the old British saying: Tell it to the Marine.
Reply
#11
It is funny how the timing is almost always around Christian holidays.

There are gnostic writings( which John is alluding to in the "Lost Gospels") a couple of which make this claim. This isn't the sole source even though it is a late source.

What you don't get with this scrap of paper( and at least do with the entire document of Thomas) is the gnostics also thought Jesus to be a ghost/spirit or some saw Jesus as a human who had the "Christ spirit" come and go to and from Him( in other words, Jesus isn't "the Messiah/Christ" to them, the "Christ/Messiah spirit" is).

Many paleographers think it is an ancient forgery on ancient papyrus because it appears to be lifted from "the gospel of Thomas" with some of the same "lingual errors" Thomas has:

http://markgoodacre.org/Watson4.pdf

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/0...ervations/

As MV pointed out, there were several "variant" Christianities starting around 200 AD and lasting up until the 5th century AD and even today we have the Jehovah's witnesses who see Jesus somewhat like an ancient gnostic did, He was a human, but, arose as a spirit only. You can discern insipient gnosticism even in a couple of Pauline&Johanine epistles where they are warning about this movement.

The first big time gnostic back then was Cerinthus(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerinthus) who appears to have been at spiritual war with John the author of the John bible writings.

There are several interesting points about this issue for modernists.

Cerinthus represents pretty much what an ancient pagan would have imagined about Jesus or any other deity figure and Jews began a pretty significant movement called "kabbalah" which is their version of ancient paganism throwing a ghost Jesus in the mix centuries later in Spain and other areas turning that version into "Christian kaballah", Madonna is one of these.

"Noah" is a kabbalah evangelization tool. The producer is said to be an atheist, he appears to be into kabbalah.


http://drbrianmattson.com/?offset=1396360800000

Islam sees the crucifixion like some of the gnostics. Allah did a head fake on the people observing the crucifixion and substituted a look alike for Jesus, this idea was originated with one of the earliest gnostic texts, forgot which one now.



The more things change, the more they remain the same in some ways.
Reply
#12
There were many (hundreds of) false manuscripts produced even in antiquity. Scholars and translators had to analyze each one to make sure they were authentic, before including them in the Bible. Apparently there were unscrupulous persons who thought they could get their views taken more seriously if they claimed the authorship was by an Apostle or someone similar. Some of the ones with more questionable authorship were included in the Apocrypha, accepted by Catholics but rejected by Protestants. Even Catholic scholars had a lot of reservations about the Apocrypha, and almost did not approve of including it. But it does provide some interesting information--such as the details that the Prophet Jeremiah and his comrades took the Ark of the Covenant at night and hid it in a cave, to prevent it from being captured by the Babylonians, just before Babylon conquered Judah and carried its population away as captives, and destroyed the temple. I know of at least one passage in the Apocrypha that seems to be advocating reincarnation. A manuscript that contradicts the teaching of the accepted Bible should always be discarded. Doctrinal consistency with the rest of the Bible, and other accepted books quoting from the book or portion of a book in question, generally were taken as validation. The study of canonicity is an interesting one.

The idea that Jesus had a wife is contradicted by all four accepted gospels, but has been revived from time to time by sensationalists. The Apostle Paul and other Bible writers make it clear that the only wife Jesus has is His Church. Faithful souls have always constituted the Church, in Old Testament times and New.
Reply
#13
Ron,

Some of the apochrypha is quoted in the NT and it is part of the Codex Sinaiticus. The Catholics didn't decide to include it, the ancient Jews included it in the original LXX text and the Catholics have always held the LXX closer than the MSS text which didn't come into existence until ~850 AD.

The Catholics consider the apochrypha "deutero canonical", of secondary importance and not canonical . So did Jude and Peter when they quoted from sections of it. Some of it is awesome information, some is silly. It is not an either or situation.

Protestants began removing it from codexes only because Catholics kept it, they didn't realize some NT quotes are from apochrypha.
Reply
#14
Palladin, could you cite a passage or two in the accepted New Testament that are from the Apocrypha? I only know of one case--in the book of Jude where there is a quote from something containing the words of "Enoch, seventh from Adam"--but no one today knows where this quote came from. Merely because a manuscript we have today claims to be the book of Enoch, doesn't mean it is the same one quoted in Jude. Also, we know the book of Daniel is a legitimate book of the Bible, but the accepted canon only recognizes 12 chapters. Extra chapters are included in the Apocrypha. There were reasons why the additional chapters were not accepted, but I do not recall what they were. Jesus quoted from Daniel 12:11, showing that He believed it had last-day application.

It is interesting that Jews do not accept the Apocrypha either.
Reply
#15
There are a few quotes from Enoch here, but actually there are many more.

Search for "jesus quotes enoch" for more.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#16
Ron,

As MV demonstrated, Jude 14-15 are direct quotes from I Enoch. I can't recall off the top of my head, but, I or II Peter has another passage about the "watchers"(1/3 of I Enoch is about them) that is borrowed from I Enoch.

Is there a great, non biblical book you've read that gave you spiritual insights? Was it canonical? No? That's how apochrypha is to lots of folks, it is not an either or thing like you see it( and like I was raised with, same view).

Most Christian researchers see I Enoch as fascinating and Wisdom of Solomon, too. Many early church fathers considered both part of the OT because it was attached to the LXX scroll before there was ever a "Catholic denomination".
Reply
#17
The alleged citings in the Biblical canon of vaguely similar passages in the book of Enoch are not very convincing. Only the direct quotation in Jude is indisputable--but again, the authenticity of the book of Enoch that we have now is very much in question. Some of the similarities cited look more to me more like they were written after the time of Christ, and someone unscrupulously tried to backdate it. I very much doubt that Enoch ever wrote any book. Genesis does not mention anyone before the Flood using writing. The preservation of any of Enoch's prophecies could only have been by word of mouth, which someone later collected and wrote down (like Moses did with Genesis and Job). The confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel after the Flood, meant that probably no one still spoke the same language that Enoch did. Even the Hebrew spoken by Abraham and his descendants underwent great change over the centuries--so much so that at the dedication of the Second Temple after the return from Babylonian exile when the Scriptures were read to the people, scribes had to translate the Scriptures to the people so they could understand them.

Look today at how much the languages of Europe have changed. Linguists say that 1000 years ago, English and German were the same language. Languages never remain static. Scholars conversant in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic are well aware of the vast and profound changes that took place in the meanings of words over the course of a few centuries, with new vocabulary being added, and older words falling into disuse, or coming even to have opposite meanings from what they originally had. Scribes had to continually update the text, to preserve the original meanings. This is one of the reasons why I do not believe the Bible is "verbally inspired" word-for-word, even in the original languages. The Bible writers were God's penmen, not His pen. He inspired the human writers with thoughts, and the humans expressed them in human terms as best they could, in the language in which they were conversant in their times. For this reason, God is not on trial in the Bible. The only thing He ever wrote with His own hand was the Ten Commandments. He might also have written the handwriting on the wall at Belshazzar's Feast, though that could have been done by an angel.
Reply
#18
No one thought Enoch wrote it, it's definitely a pseupigraphal writing. That was common back then. Most all the apochrypha are pseudapigraphal. The Jude quotes are exact quotes and don't come from any other Hebrew writings we know of.

It was written around 200 BC.

Haven't you ever heard of the LXX? It's added there, too. Compare it to what is in a Catholic bible and see for yourself. I'm fairly sure there is at least 1 fragmentary DSS Enoch scroll. LXX and DSS precede Catholicism.

It is what it is.

No big deal to me because I've come around to the view the bible always was more "dynamic" than we've thought. It was meant to be changed, it was changed with additional info, some dialectic stuff bringing in anti Babylonian gods polemics and dropping some stuff and it only stopped around the 5th century AD with the final copy of John which has the pericope added about the adulterous woman.

Ron, oral tradition is how the ancient world worked, almost no one could read and oral tradition is flexible in minor things and fixed in major things. Oral tradition is what the bible is, just documented. It changed. For our good as God saw fit for different generations, IMO.
Reply
#19
The oldest copies of the Book of Enoch, dating from the third century BCE, were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

However: keep in mind that the Book of Enoch in Judaism was not considered sacred.... just like every other OT book beyond the first five.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#20
I believe, in accord with the way Ellen G. White depicted things, that people before the Flood had better minds and memories and attention-spans, as well as longer lives, than we do. When virtually everyone has eidetic (photographic) memories, there is not as much need for written records. Even 2,000 years ago, it was evident that most people had greater attention-spans than people do today. Just look at the length and complexity of the sentences the Apostle Paul employed in his epistles in the original language (Greek). No one writes that way today. No one could "get it."
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)