Gospel of Jesus’s Wife’

The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife’ A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a papyrus fragment in the Coptic language that she says contains the first known statement saying that Jesus was married. The fragment also refers to a female disciple.


Translated legible text
“

not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe]” “

The disciples said to Jesus” “

deny. Mary is worthy
of it” “

Jesus said to them,
“My wife” “

she will be able to
be my disciple” “

Let wicked people
swell up” “

As for me, I dwell with her in order to” “


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=1

Rogue wrote:The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife’ A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a papyrus fragment in the Coptic language that she says contains the first known statement saying that Jesus was married. The fragment also refers to a female disciple.


Translated legible text
“

not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe]” “

The disciples said to Jesus” “

deny. Mary is worthy
of it” “


Jesus said to them,
“My wife” “

she will be able to
be my disciple” “

Let wicked people
swell up” “

As for me, I dwell with her in order to” “


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=1

Leonardo da Vinci's "Last Supper" shows a woman on Jesus right which was where the most favored person was seated. Some people have claimed that the effeminate person to Jesus right was the Apostle John. In the Gospel of Phillip the Apostles complain about Jesus kissing his closet apostle on the lips.

When Jesus lived people were known by their first name ans the village where they were from. Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph of Aramathia, Simon of Cyrene, etc. Only two people in the Bible have been given a last name, and both were villains. Mary Magdalen and Judas Iscariot.

Slicef18 wrote:

Rogue wrote:The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife’ A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a papyrus fragment in the Coptic language that she says contains the first known statement saying that Jesus was married. The fragment also refers to a female disciple.


Translated legible text
“

not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe]” “

The disciples said to Jesus” “

deny. Mary is worthy
of it” “


Jesus said to them,
“My wife” “

she will be able to
be my disciple” “

Let wicked people
swell up” “

As for me, I dwell with her in order to” “


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=1

Leonardo da Vinci's "Last Supper" shows a woman on Jesus right which was where the most favored person was seated. Some people have claimed that the effeminate person to Jesus right was the Apostle John. In the Gospel of Phillip the Apostles complain about Jesus kissing his closet apostle on the lips.

When Jesus lived people were known by their first name ans the village where they were from. Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph of Aramathia, Simon of Cyrene, etc. Only two people in the Bible have been given a last name, and both were villains. Mary Magdalen and Judas Iscariot.

what a interesting tid bit. I never considered mary magdalen a vilain though. And I dont have it in front of me, but I know they found another piece that was supposed to prove that Jesus wife was Mary M. This may be part of that, im not absolute yet. I havnt studied it yet, just thought it was interesting and something different to talk about.

if nothing else archeology is of interest to me.

When Jerome the Vulgate was commissioned to take the various sacred scrolls and translate them so one single text called the Bible. Mary of Magdella and known close friend of Jesus was written in as Mary Magdalen a prostitute. Judas Iscariot had been known as Judas of Kerioth, son of Simon of Kerioth in southern Judea. Judas was one of Jesus most trusted Apostles and the banker for Jesus. Judas was the one sent ahead to make accommodations for Jesus and his followers. Some of the scholars read scripture as Judas was in on Jesus plot to be arrested for thirty pieces of silver.

Slicef18 wrote:When Jerome the Vulgate was commissioned to take the various sacred scrolls and translate them so one single text called the Bible. Mary of Magdella and known close friend of Jesus was written in as Mary Magdalen a prostitute. Judas Iscariot had been known as Judas of Kerioth, son of Simon of Kerioth in southern Judea. Judas was one of Jesus most trusted Apostles and the banker for Jesus. Judas was the one sent ahead to make accommodations for Jesus and his followers. Some of the scholars read scripture as Judas was in on Jesus plot to be arrested for thirty pieces of silver.

yes, but isnt it also in the bible that mary weeped at jesus feet and washed them with her tears and dried them with her hair?

and did he not later defend her, saying the famous words of 'cast the first stone'?

(1)yes, but isnt it also in the bible that mary weeped at jesus feet and washed them with her tears and dried them with her hair?

Yes, but that is after she was made out to be a prostitute and then made repentant. Remember the Catholic Church was and is a highly patriarchal organization. They could not have any woman being one of Jesus inner members. That was to be reserved for men only, as it is today. Over the centuries women have been treated with great prejudice. As Europe was beginning to establish law and rules of inheritance, the Pope demanded all married Priests to abandon their wives and children so no church property could be inherited.

(2)and did he not later defend her, saying the famous words of 'cast the first stone'?

I didn't think the identity of that woman was reveled. I could be wrong. Notice it was the woman that was to be stoned to death for adultery. Men were not punished because they are tricked into committing adultery by the woman. A woman was executed two weeks ago in Afghanistan using the same logic.

Slicef18 wrote:(1)yes, but isnt it also in the bible that mary weeped at jesus feet and washed them with her tears and dried them with her hair?

Yes, but that is after she was made out to be a prostitute and then made repentant. Remember the Catholic Church was and is a highly patriarchal organization. They could not have any woman being one of Jesus inner members. That was to be reserved for men only, as it is today. Over the centuries women have been treated with great prejudice. As Europe was beginning to establish law and rules of inheritance, the Pope demanded all married Priests to abandon their wives and children so no church property could be inherited.

(2)and did he not later defend her, saying the famous words of 'cast the first stone'?

I didn't think the identity of that woman was reveled. I could be wrong. Notice it was the woman that was to be stoned to death for adultery. Men were not punished because they are tricked into committing adultery by the woman. A woman was executed two weeks ago in Afghanistan using the same logic.

I dont understand the comment about the catholic church. Do you think the catholic church altered the bible to not reflect women approperietly?

and you are correct, I cant see where the woman was named for whom jesus said cast the first stone. I think many scholars agree he may have been referring to Mary M though.

I dont have a lot of time, its about to be busy season here and I chose this topic to reply to right now becuase Im about sick of politics and Im not in the mood to argue.

The church needed a definite Latin bible, one that was accurate, sanctioned and easily understood. In 383 Pope Damascus asked Jerome, a trilingual scholar of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Jerome collated many different works, compared them to Greek versions and worked hard to remove crude or parochial language and dubious interpretations. In 384 he had completed the four gospels and already made large changes.
We don't know how much more of the New Testament Jerome revised – it may have been only a little - because between 385-9 he worked on a new translation of the Old Testament based on the Septuagint Greek; he only completed Job, Chronicles, Solomon before stopping. Since Damascus’ death in 384 Jerome had worked on his own initiative, and he now felt that the Septuagint was insufficient: a true, correct translation of the Old Testament would have to be based on the Hebrew original.
In many circles of the late Roman world, the Greek version of the bible was considered as holy and inspired as the Hebrew original, so when Jerome because discussing with Rabbis and working from the real source some fellows, including St. Augustine, were deeply critical. Nevertheless, by 405 Jerome had finished everything he deemed canonical. The new text contained readings that were very different from the old, as Jerome translated meanings rather than swapping word for word.

Slicef18 wrote: The new text contained readings that were very different from the old, as Jerome translated meanings rather than swapping word for word.

I know it will be taken as blasphemous to even ask this, but wouldn't that introduce a whole lot of uncertainty into whatever the original writings were?
When the original writings have now gone through so many levels of re-interpretation, how could we ever be certain of the credibility of any of it after all this time?

Bob wrote:

Slicef18 wrote: The new text contained readings that were very different from the old, as Jerome translated meanings rather than swapping word for word.

I know it will be taken as blasphemous to even ask this, but wouldn't that introduce a whole lot of uncertainty into whatever the original writings were?
When the original writings have now gone through so many levels of re-interpretation, how could we ever be certain of the credibility of any of it after all this time?

Your point is spot on. Not to mention most Bibles were the works of monks who were seated at long desks where they would try to keep up with a Priest or Brother who would read from a copy of the Bible in a dimly lit room. Lunch as it was, consisted of course dark bread with beer to wash it down. I suspect the afternoon copies were not as accurate as the morning copies. The Sean Connery movie "Name of the Rose" covered some of this process.

A young monk arrives in a monastery where he is put to work as a copyist.

After a few days, he notices that the monks making copies of the scriptures are all working from copies -- not the original. This alarms the young monk because he thinks of how easy it would be for mistakes to be repeated. And so he goes to the Head Monk and expresses his concerns.

"Yes, brother," replies the Head Monk, "you have a valid point. But this is the way we've always done it. Still, I better check to make sure there are no errors."

So off he goes to the cellar where he spends the entire night carefully consulting the original scriptures. In the morning all of the brothers go down to the cellar and find the Head Monk crying.

"What's the matter?" they ask.

Between the loudest of sobs, he groans: "The word is celebrate!"

Yomama wrote:A young monk arrives in a monastery where he is put to work as a copyist.

After a few days, he notices that the monks making copies of the scriptures are all working from copies -- not the original. This alarms the young monk because he thinks of how easy it would be for mistakes to be repeated. And so he goes to the Head Monk and expresses his concerns.

"Yes, brother," replies the Head Monk, "you have a valid point. But this is the way we've always done it. Still, I better check to make sure there are no errors."

So off he goes to the cellar where he spends the entire night carefully consulting the original scriptures. In the morning all of the brothers go down to the cellar and find the Head Monk crying.

"What's the matter?" they ask.

Between the loudest of sobs, he groans: "The word is celebrate!"

lol

This is pretty much blasphemy against Christians, but I wonder how many riots, protests, killings and sodomizing of ambassadors will take place over this incident?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:This is pretty much blasphemy against Christians, but I wonder how many riots, protests, killings and sodomizing of ambassadors will take place over this incident?

That truly is an excellent point, pacedog. It's literally the truth that if we were saying the very same thing about mohammed in most places in the middle east that the ayatollah and the supreme leader and all their minions and masses would have already put a death warrant on our heads and we'd probably be stoned to death by tomorrow. Either that or we'd have to go in the witness protection program like salmon rushdie did.
It really is mindboggling to realize this shit still happens in the 21st century. and not only happens but is actually the status quo.

Slicef18 wrote:The church needed a definite Latin bible, one that was accurate, sanctioned and easily understood. In 383 Pope Damascus asked Jerome, a trilingual scholar of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Jerome collated many different works, compared them to Greek versions and worked hard to remove crude or parochial language and dubious interpretations. In 384 he had completed the four gospels and already made large changes.
We don't know how much more of the New Testament Jerome revised – it may have been only a little - because between 385-9 he worked on a new translation of the Old Testament based on the Septuagint Greek; he only completed Job, Chronicles, Solomon before stopping. Since Damascus’ death in 384 Jerome had worked on his own initiative, and he now felt that the Septuagint was insufficient: a true, correct translation of the Old Testament would have to be based on the Hebrew original.
In many circles of the late Roman world, the Greek version of the bible was considered as holy and inspired as the Hebrew original, so when Jerome because discussing with Rabbis and working from the real source some fellows, including St. Augustine, were deeply critical. Nevertheless, by 405 Jerome had finished everything he deemed canonical. The new text contained readings that were very different from the old, as Jerome translated meanings rather than swapping word for word.

This is fascinating. I never knew that or thought to even think of it. I know the bible is constrewed due to several pieces of literature/stone writings/scrolls and I beleive some acrcheological statues.

But it never occured to me that the pope is responsible for having it all put into one translation. This opens up some questions for me as I see it did for bob.

There is very little mention of women in the bible, and all the angels are always men in the bible. See, I never agreed with that and it was something that is deep in my heart to just know from faith.

I think of the bible as a tool. Not something that should be taken as word for word literal as much is it a story about guidance. The ways of those days certainly influenced the men writing it as if we were to write osmething today and try and have it read hundreds of years ago, it might not come out the way we intened it to for the readers. Their perceptions would be different.

I dont think this is blasphamy.

I think it would be blasphamy if we did not seek the truth.

and never the less its still interesting on many levels and you are correct pace, no one will get killed over this.

But women all over may rejoice at knowing the possiblity that we may have more of a place in all of this than previsouly mentioned.

What a load. Women are a big part of the Bible. Many are even given positions of honor. They fought they stood strong they were examples of courage and wisdom. What Bible are you reading. Oh and there were women Angels in the Bible. Sheeesh

Rogue wrote:

I think it would be blasphamy if we did not seek the truth.

I think that's one of the most profound statements you or anyone else has ever written here, chrissy.

Bob wrote:

Rogue wrote:

I think it would be blasphamy if we did not seek the truth.

I think that's one of the most profound statements you or anyone else has ever written here, chrissy.

Thank you

I happen to beleive that.

I'm not the stereotypical bible thumper as defined and we all know it. I have my own beliefs. I do think the bible is useful though.

I am very interested in this new information about the possibility of women being left out of the bible. Because they could of left out many other things too.

When the prostitute was brought to jesus and they wanted to hang her, jesus acted as if to ignore them, and he said he would not condem her and simply told her to go and not sin no more. <this clearly shows that jesus was merciful but more than that, its almost as if this did not bother him at all>

Here;s some female angels spoken of in Zech.

⁹ Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven.

Also they were not going to hang the prostitute they were going to stone her...details...

The Talpiyot tomb findings are a serious challenge to traditional Christian denominations. Catholics have held as a matter of doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and that she remained a virgin. The use is the phase "brothers and sisters," they argue must be taken in a "wide" sense of "friends and followers." Many traditional Protestants beg to differ with Catholics on this score. Most claim that Jesus was never married, but scholars of 1st century Judaism now argue that one had to be married to preach in the synagogue, and that is something Jesus did on many occasions (Luke 4:16). The single implication of the Talpiyot findings that strikes traditional Christianity at its root is that, if indeed this is Jesus of Nazareth's ossuary and bone fragments, then Jesus was not raised from the dead. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: 13-14: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228135009.htm

That is so true, but as St Paul wrote in Corinthians 3:2 said, "I fed you with milk, not with meat; for you weren't yet ready" There are many who are not ready to see God in a greater light. As for the comment about a Christian wouldn't be killed because of something they said and did. Actually, Christianity has already gone through the period of such violence. There was a time when any non-cleric caught with a copy of the bible was subject to a death sentence.
Side note: if you've ever attended a Catholic High Mass, just before communion the Priest would light an incense burner and walk around the alter area waving the incense burner back and forth fill the air with an aromatic smoke. Well, Europe is a cold place in the winter and the early Christians didn't bath for many months so the had very strong body odor that was offensive the the Priests. The incense covered the stench of the unbathed people. The Catholic church is big on rituals and this one continues.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Here;s some female angels spoken of in Zech.

⁹ Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven.

Also they were not going to hang the prostitute they were going to stone her...details...

It would have been nice if you could have shared this when I got my ass kicked when I was telling about a female angel figure that came to me in my near death experiance on YOUR thread. And I got shouted at saying no woman were angels

stone, hang, I was quoting verbatim. beat her ass, kill her, take your pick.

and yes, there are women in th bible, my mother was named after one, so is my youngest daughter.

but none were apostalitic.

Slicef18 wrote:That is so true, but as St Paul wrote in Corinthians 3:2 said, "I fed you with milk, not with meat; for you weren't yet ready" There are many who are not ready to see God in a greater light. As for the comment about a Christian wouldn't be killed because of something they said and did. Actually, Christianity has already gone through the period of such violence. There was a time when any non-cleric caught with a copy of the bible was subject to a death sentence.
Side note: if you've ever attended a Catholic High Mass, just before communion the Priest would light an incense burner and walk around the alter area waving the incense burner back and forth fill the air with an aromatic smoke. Well, Europe is a cold place in the winter and the early Christians didn't bath for many months so the had very strong body odor that was offensive the the Priests. The incense covered the stench of the unbathed people. The Catholic church is big on rituals and this one continues.

I have never gone to a catholic mass.

I have to say I really dont like all that ritual stuff, reminds me of witchery.

I wonder if catholics now even know of this pompus act of incensing the unbathed people is occuring, would they find it offensive. I bet most of them think they are getting blessed or something lol

Rogue wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:That is so true, but as St Paul wrote in Corinthians 3:2 said, "I fed you with milk, not with meat; for you weren't yet ready" There are many who are not ready to see God in a greater light. As for the comment about a Christian wouldn't be killed because of something they said and did. Actually, Christianity has already gone through the period of such violence. There was a time when any non-cleric caught with a copy of the bible was subject to a death sentence.
Side note: if you've ever attended a Catholic High Mass, just before communion the Priest would light an incense burner and walk around the alter area waving the incense burner back and forth fill the air with an aromatic smoke. Well, Europe is a cold place in the winter and the early Christians didn't bath for many months so the had very strong body odor that was offensive the the Priests. The incense covered the stench of the unbathed people. The Catholic church is big on rituals and this one continues.

(1)I have to say I really dont like all that ritual stuff, reminds me of witchery.
Most of the rituals served the purpose of giving illiterate (and most of Europe was illiterate) a way to follow along with the Mass or other religious service.

(2)I wonder if Catholics now even know of this pompus act of incensing the unbathed people is occuring, would they find it offensive. I bet most of them think they are getting blessed or something lol

The official explanation today is that the incense rises as a pleasing aroma to God.

I remember the chosen were told to bury their poop because god walked about the camps at night....I am beginning to wonder about their god, does he even have a nose and feet ?...hummm.They also said that god liked the smell of sacrifices...how is it that a holy divine deity likes burnt meat ? Of course I could say it's obedience he likes but hummm.