Jesus....wife??

It is an open subject...eh? This is purported to be from about 400? they think copied from under 200... Was it amongst what was reviewed for canonization and not accepted? Who knows. Is a larger portion of this text in the Vatican Library? Who knows.

Do rabbi's normally marry? Yes....

Does the bible explicitly say Jesus wasn't married?

Of what concern of that is mine woman? Was it his concern because it was his wedding?

These things have all been asked and discussed for centuries....millennia even?

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??
 
I don't think there's a question of forgery, as much the context of the piece.

So far it's claimed that it's a late fragment in relation to the advent of Christianity, and Coptic, too.

I really don't think there's much controversy really to make here - there were a wide range of beliefs across the near east among disparate Christian groups, some of which were considered rather ... heretical, certainly in terms of doctrine.
 
Hi Wil —
It is an open subject...eh? This is purported to be from about 400?
So I'm told.

they think copied from under 200...
Really? Based on what?

Was it amongst what was reviewed for canonization and not accepted? Who knows.
Oh, I think we know. All sorts of things were discussed by the Fathers, including whether or not Jesus was married.

Is a larger portion of this text in the Vatican Library? 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?

But then who knows what will be found where in which museum? I was invited to peruse texts in a monastery in Scotland that haven't seen the light of day for over a thousand years.

Do rabbi's normally marry? Yes....
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.

Does the bible explicitly say Jesus wasn't married?
Again, absence of evidence is not evidence.

Of what concern of that is mine woman? Was it his concern because it was his wedding?
No.

If it was His wedding, His mother would not have put the burden on Him.

These things have all been asked and discussed for centuries....millennia even?
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.

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??
Like iBrian, I don't think it's a forgery ... but I don't think it's necessarily true.

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? :D

God bless

Thomas
 
It could be metaphor....

or more.... from the Gospel of Phillip
'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.

The three Mary's are aspects of the Holy Spirit?
Difficult to see how ... and nothing in the Tradition, which loves metaphor and analogy, to support it.

I find it more fruitful to think of Mary as the soul, so we have Mary the Mother, the personification of fidelity, Mary the Magdalene, the soul cleansed of 'the seven demons' and who became 'the Apostle to the Apostles', Mary the sister of Lazarus and Martha, the contemplative soul (then you get into Martha as counterpart ... )

God bless,

Thomas
 
Back
Top