There were three who always walked with the Lord; Mary, his mother, and his sister and Magdalene, the one who was his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.
The three Mary's are aspects of the Holy Spirit?
So I'm told.It is an open subject...eh? This is purported to be from about 400?
Really? Based on what?they think copied from under 200...
Oh, I think we know. All sorts of things were discussed by the Fathers, including whether or not Jesus was married.Was it amongst what was reviewed for canonization and not accepted? Who knows.
I think your conspiracy theory imaginings are running away with you ... you know all the texts in the Vatican Library are open to insperction?Is a larger portion of this text in the Vatican Library? Who knows.
OK ... but not compelling. We're pretty sure Jesus, whoever He was, was not your run-of-the-mill kind of guy. He wasn't a rabbi, we know that.Do rabbi's normally marry? Yes....
Again, absence of evidence is not evidence.Does the bible explicitly say Jesus wasn't married?
No.Of what concern of that is mine woman? Was it his concern because it was his wedding?
If it was His wedding, His mother would not have put the burden on Him.
Not really. In the last fifty years we've had Christ was Married/Not married/Gay/Any other permutation ... it reflects the nature of the time. Our times has a different agenda from times before.These things have all been asked and discussed for centuries....millennia even?
Like iBrian, I don't think it's a forgery ... but I don't think it's necessarily true.The debate is reopened...if this is found not to be a forgery (current, or even a forgery from 400) if some dealer cut pieces to sell 'piecemeal' will more turn up??
Here's my view.
Maybe this was written by the Wil of 200AD, or 400AD, who assumed Jesus must have been married, because every man of age was?
You have told me before that we have good reason to doubt the veracity of materials written 20 years after the event. So anything written 200 years later, or 400, is off the clock, surely?
God bless
Thomas
'Sister' is dubious I think, but then I would say that. It's more likely the author got confused about the women. Scripture mentions more than one Mary, but not a sister called Mary? And what about the other non-canonical sources, no mention there either, and Philip is suspect, being a very late text.
Difficult to see how ... and nothing in the Tradition, which loves metaphor and analogy, to support it.The three Mary's are aspects of the Holy Spirit?