Did Jesus Christ have a wife? This relatively-stale (i.e. Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”) question has been given new life following Harvard Divinity School professor Karen King’s release of the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife,” a papyrus fragment that is getting international attention. But while media are buzzing about the prospect that the Christian savior was potentially married, there are numerous factors surrounding the story that deserve additional scrutiny, specifically when it comes to what’s not currently known.
TheBlaze interviewed Dr. Darrell L. Bock, senior research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and author of “Who Is Jesus?,” to speak further about this fascinating discovery and to better understand what, exactly, it tells us about Jesus. In addition to speaking with TheBlaze, Bock also highlighted eight points worth considering surrounding the recent find. We spoke with him about these sentiments in detail.
Bock makes the point that the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” is a small text with no context. With not-too-many lines of fragmented text, it’s difficult to discern exactly what’s being said in it. Also, without context, there’s no way to tell if, indeed, Jesus had a wife. Here’s what the translated text looks like, in full:
“‘… not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe] …’”
“The disciples said to Jesus, ‘…”
“deny. Mary is worthy of it” (Or: “deny. Mary is n[ot] 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 …”
“an image”
“my moth[er]”
“three”
“forth which …”
Obviously, with little to go on, a definitive story can’t truly be set around what’s currently known about the text. Based on what King has said, the papyrus fragment was likely written in Greek in the second century — but even this is theoretical at the moment.
We’re not even sure where, exactly, the text came from. King reports first learning about it from an email back in 2010. A private collector contacted her and asked for a translation of the papyrus. The individual who discovered it, as we’ve reported, doesn’t want to be identified for fear of being harassed by people who might want to purchase the text.

This Sept. 5, 2012 photo released by Harvard University shows a fourth century fragment of papyrus that divinity professor Karen L. King says is the only existing ancient text that quotes Jesus explicitly referring to having a wife. King, an expert in the history of Christianity, says the text contains a dialogue in which Jesus refers to "my wife," whom he identified as Mary. King says the fragment of Coptic script is a copy of a gospel, probably written in Greek in the second century.Credit: AP
Harvard University’s release about the discovery covers these items in detail:
The brownish-yellow, tattered fragment belongs to an anonymous private collector who contacted King to help translate and analyze it. The collector provided King with a letter from the early 1980s indicating that Professor Gerhard Fecht from the faculty of Egyptology at the Free University in Berlin believed it to be evidence for a possible marriage of Jesus.
King said that when the owner first contacted her about the papyrus, in 2010, “I didn’t believe it was authentic and told him I wasn’t interested.” But the owner was persistent, so in December 2011, King invited him to bring it to her at Harvard. After examining it, in March 2012 King carried the fragment to New York and, together with [colleague Anne Marie Luijendijk], took it to [Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World in New York] Bagnall to be authenticated. When Bagnall’s examination of the handwriting, ways that the ink had penetrated and interacted with the papyrus, and other factors, confirmed its likely authenticity, work on the analysis and interpretation of the fragment began in earnest, King said.
While Bock explained that, “we have no way of tracing where it came from,” he also said that it is likely a Gnostic Christian text. This, alone, provides more context worth examining. Religion News Service made the point that this same contention — that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a romantic relationship — is nothing new in Gnostic theology:
Some of the Gnostic gospels — ancient texts unearthed in the 20th century that are not included in the Christian canon — suggest that Jesus had an intimate relationship with Mary Magdalene. The apocryphal Gospel of Philip, for example, says that Jesus kissed Mary, and loved her more than the apostles.
But the Gnostics were often intimate in nonsexual ways. In the Gospel of Philip, for instance, Christians greet each other with kisses to convey the sense that they are a spiritual family, according to scholars.
Bock noted that, due to these elements and uncertainties, the papyrus fragment deserves expert opinion and analysis beyond what it has received thus far. He described the current scenario as “being in the first quarter of a game,” yet seeking comments about the whole game. Since the jury is still out — and will likely be out for quite some time — Bock believes that it’s premature to make any definitive conclusions.

Photo Credit: FILE
“It needs a larger public vetting by experts,” he said, going on to commend King for opening the discovery up for examination and scrutiny. Because it’s been made public, more eyes will be upon it, working to firm up the story surrounding the text.
All things considered, it’s important to note that the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” tells us absolutely nothing about the historical Jesus. While it’s tempting to begin constructing new ideas about the Christian savior and his character, the fact remains that this is a document, even if it checks out on the historical front, that was written centuries away from the timeframe during which Jesus lived.
“[King has] been very clear that this tells us nothing about the historical Jesus,” Bock continued. “The text is too late and it comes from a too fringe of a group.”
In the news release announcing the find, King did admit that Christianity has long-contended that Jesus was not married. While she conceded this point, she also said that there is “no reliable historical evidence [in existence] to support that claim.” However, one would assume that the absence of text from the time proclaiming that he was married is evidence enough that he wasn’t, in fact, wedded. Still, King’s point is technically valid.
“This new gospel doesn’t prove that Jesus was married, but it tells us that the whole question only came up as part of vociferous debates about sexuality and marriage,” King said. “From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether it was better not to marry, but it was over a century after Jesus’s death before they began appealing to Jesus’s marital status to support their positions.”
It’s entirely possible that this text, when placed into its context, was metaphorical in nature. Bock maintains that it is possible that this mention of Jesus’s wife is based on metaphor and not a literal claim.
“In Gnostic Christianity, there was a rite called the bridal chamber in which the church was seen as the bride of Christ,” Bock writes on his blog. “The whole thing could well be metaphorical with a disciple representing the place of the church. If that is the case, then it is not even a claim that Jesus was married in real life to a single person.”

Photo Credit: FILE
The Atlantic’s Eleanor Barkhorn also notes that there are numerous examples in the Bible in which Jesus mentions a “wife” of sorts, thus reaffirming Bock’s thoughts. Here’s a portion of her analysis (read all of the examples here):
The Bible itself refers to Jesus’ wife, repeatedly. Only that wife is not Mary Magdalene or any other earthly woman. It’s the church.
Christ calls himself a bridegroom throughout the New Testament. When the finger-wagging Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples don’t fast, he answers:
How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.In other words, Christ is the groom and his disciples are his friends—and it would be rude of them to abstain from eating while they’re in the presence of the groom.
Later, as Jesus foretells the coming of God’s kingdom, he also refers to himself as a groom: “The kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.” Again, Christ is the groom and his followers are the groom’s friends—there to celebrate the wedding with him.
“Let’s see if time and some additional reflection can help us understand what we have and do not have in this small fragment,” Bock concluded on his blog, reiterating this same idea in his interview with TheBlaze. Considering the lack of evidence to substantiate any conclusive view at this juncture, this is, so far, the best assessment in how to process King’s findings.
–
Related:




















































































































Comments (474)
MsCullen
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:26pmThe role of Jesus’ “wife” in the New Testament is a reference to the church. Ephesians 5:22-33 is a ¬¬passage using the relationship between a husband and wife as an analogy to the relationship Christ has to the church. In the following passages, John 3:29, Rev 19:7, Rev 21:2, Rev 21:9, Rev 22:17, “bride” and “bridegroom” are metaphors depicting Christ and His church. This current “new finding” is just another silly attempt by academics who want to re-imagine Jesus instead of understanding Him as the Savior of the world.
Report this comment
LibertyGoddess
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:35pmThere’s a great book by a Catholic woman, “Woman with the Alabaster Jar”, that has done years of research that the Catholic church has covered up, yet she did not renounce her faith. There are whole communities who celebrated a woman who was know to be the wife of Jesus. There are artifacts that have been well preserved. Once of the most compelling claims is that Mary dressed the body of Jesus before he was put into the tomb. It was against the law for any woman, other than a wife to prepare a body for a burial. There a plenty of other cultural facts that support Jesus being married. It’s not a horrible thing if he was.
I’m not Catholic. I love history and I love searching the origins of scriptures. Truth doesn’t scare me. There is plenty of knowledge and writing about Christ in other places besides the scriptures. Refusing to study all knowledge leaves you open for misinterpretation of the Bible.
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:47pmFact is a married Jesus is no different than a single Jesus. Doesn’t affect his message one bit. Why make a mountain out of a mole hill?
Report this comment
rogwl
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:49pmI like your comments LIBERTYGODDESS!
Report this comment
v15
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:02pmJesus was marrried? Blasphemy!
There are no females in Heaven? Correct.
Angels have wings? Correct.
Humans are transformed into all-male half human half bird mutants aka angels? Correct
The Rapture? Correct.
People forever swimming in a lake of fire? Correct.
Considering this BS, I can understand why Christians who believe this are called delusional by other groups. And for a good reason – they ARE delusional. They are (mostly) well intentioned but still delusional.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:50pmYo V15:
Drink a V8 … might stimulate your stagnet brain cells …
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 21, 2012 at 5:04pmApologies …stagnant …before you so politely point this out … and no, I don’t need one either as I did correct my mistake … your turn!
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 21, 2012 at 5:21pmLibertygoddess, what are your sources for your statements: “Once of the most compelling claims is that Mary dressed the body of Jesus before he was put into the tomb. It was against the law for any woman, other than a wife to prepare a body for a burial.”
Each of the Gospels state that Joseph took the body down and dressed it. The scriptures further state that Joseph and Nicodemus placed Jesus’ body in the tomb after they had prepared it according to Jewish burial custom.
So what you claim about Mary’s involvement is not according to scripture.
Furthermore, according to The Jewish Mourner’s Handbook: “Before the body is buried, it is washed in a ritual act of purification called tahara. Just as a baby is washed and enters the world clean and pure, so do we leave the world cleansed by the religious act of tahara. Strict procedures are followed, which include the recitation of prayers and psalms. Men handle male bodies and women prepare female bodies; modesty is preserved even in death.”
Your claim that only the wife can prepare the body is also apparently against Jewish burial customs.
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 21, 2012 at 5:27pmV15, from what you claim to be “correct,” it is you that is delisional (or else severely deficient in your scriptural education and understanding).
I’m sure a local pastor could help you overcome your lack of a scriptural background on the issues you make false claims about.
Report this comment
Drives Like Jehu
Sep. 21, 2012 at 5:38pmThe Bible is a spiritual book; the physical world takes second place. Marriage (between one man and one woman) is a picture or symbol of the union between Jesus Christ and His beloved body of believers. Now why in the world would Jesus marry in the inferior physical when He will marry in the superior spiritual and to the “wife” given Him by God the Father??? The only reason for this gnostic garbage is to deceive and divert and cause confusion, which are tools used by their father, satan.
Report this comment
black9897
Sep. 21, 2012 at 7:08pm@V15
“Jesus was married”
No evidence of this. Seems highly unlikely since his mission was to die for our sins, therefore if someone believes this, it would be pure speculation.
“No females in heaven”
?? Of course there are.
“Angels have wings”
Could be. Some say yes, some say no. Doesn’t really matter.
“Humans are transformed into all-male half human half bird mutants aka angels?”
Not at all. No verses to support this.
“The Rapture?”
Yep.
“People forever swimming in a lake of fire?”
Very possible. Those who are not saved that is. I guess we don’t know exactly, but there are verses that speak to this.
Report this comment
v15
Sep. 21, 2012 at 7:12pm@My Haters,
I do not pretend to know more than the average person but I feel strongly that the Christians’ views on Heaven lack a degree of common sense. These are the same Christians that dismiss science, dismiss Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and who relentlessly bashed the Mormons for their “evil” and “crazy” beliefs.
I would like to hear what mainstream Christians believe living in Heaven is like – and be as specific as you can. Are there males and females in Heaven? Are there families? Are we sexless angels with wings playing harps? If we’re in Heaven for eternity then what do we do there?
Thanks in advance.
Report this comment
SLOGUY
Sep. 21, 2012 at 7:13pmV15, If you are serious you do not know what the Bible says about the topics you brought up. For instance people are not transformed into angels.
Report this comment
db321
Sep. 21, 2012 at 7:56pmI spend absolutely zeros time pondering whether or not Jesus was married. I do how ever spend a great deal of time pondering how Billy Halloway was ever chosen to head up the Faith section of the Blaze.
Hey Billy, Jesus will come back soon, why don’t you ask him or are you afraid, Jesus might say, “Billy, you confess to be Christian but I don’t know you.
Billy Halloway has done more to promote Atheism in America than Madalyn Murry O’Hair. Good job Blaze. Billy was quite a steal. I guess it was either Billy or a Muslim extremist you had to choose from.
Report this comment
Alessandre
Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:11pm@Liberty Goddess, I am Catholic & also not afraid of the truth & know that it’s necessary to read more than 1 book on such a claim. The 1 book you chose, “The Woman w/ the Alabaster Jar,” is riddled w/ mistakes. just 1 source for them is: http://www.amazon.com/review/R37PS95BAIRFVT/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm.
The story of Jesus having a wife comes up every so often. Usually today in the context of whether Catholic priests ought to be allowed to marry. In the 200 years or so following Jesus’ Ascension, it was often raised by those disputing over whether Christians ought to marry. In 1 Cor 7, Paul is probably responding to such a request. The 1st & most powerful response to whether Jesus was married is Matt 19:3-12, especially vss10-12. “The disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.’ But he said to them, ‘Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.’” In Israel, 1 BC, the disciples are not referring to people unable to have sex or to homosexuals, neither was Jesus. It makes no sense that Jesus would not be able to accept His own teaching & be a “eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven.” It’s time to exercise the brain.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:11pmYo V15:
Buzzzzzzz … wrong again … nobody that I see that responded to you did so out of PERSONAL hatred. Personally, I hate when scripture is spoken of incorrectly. Thankfully, christians don’t go rioting in the streets thereafter.
You say “WE”, are you a follower of Christ ? If not, you not part of the we. So I hope you can swim … just sayin what scripture says …
Do you ask sincerely … if so, I will be more than happy to respond with what scripture says … if not, I will not waste my time.
I will say this … we are changed in the twinking of the eye. Given a renewed, perfected body … what that is ???? One can only hope to find out. There are mysteries … even David said that he does not concern himself about those things that are beyond him … why should he/ we, we will not understand until the LORD reveils it. We probably insult the truth of it when we do so anyway.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:14pmYo DB321:
Why do you say what you said ?
Report this comment
ashestoashes
Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:39pmThere is no scriptural evidence supporting that Jesus had a wife except the Church..period…Paul..the chief apostle hand picked by Jesus Himself..said that is better to remain single as he was..for if a woman takes a husband..she seeks to please her husband and if a man takes a wife..then he seeks to please his wife and their interests become divided..he gave us marriage to keep us from burning with passion..Jesus was born into the world..which he created with Father God from the foundations of the world..he chose his own from the foundations of the world.. although there were those created to be destroyed..The Son chose to please the Father..Even in the Garden of Gethsemane..he sweat blood..asking the Father to let the cup which was before Him to pass from Him..but nevertheless..His Father’s will be done..Jesus said..if you see Me..then you see the Father..for the Father and I are one..He said “I did not come to judge the world..but to save the world..My word judges you.. The bride of Jesus is His body of believers..You can take it or leave it….The time is drawing near..
Report this comment
ZengaPA65
Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:42pmJesus was a Rabbi. Rabbis are married. We’ve known this all along. End of story.
Report this comment
Alessandre
Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:57pm@LibertyGoddess, it’s a fake: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-gospel-of-jesus-wife-how-fake.html.
If you really love Scripture, then begin studying it. There’s much you can learn on your own, more by taking some courses &, if this is really where God is calling you, more you can learn at a really top school. But you’ll have to give up books that just make you feel good & read real commentary & real texts. Brazos & Intervarsity Press are good sources for non-Catholics. Other non-Catholics here can suggest other sources. Learning Greek & Latin would be useful. Begin by reading Prof. Goodacre’s blog & a few other scholarly blogs. I don’t know your faith, if any, but faith makes a big difference when studying Scripture – it helps protect us from latching onto stories that feel good while waiting to discover the truth. God bless you.
Report this comment
black9897
Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:58pmAny rational Bible believing Christian would never dismiss science. I strongly believe science and the Bible go hand-in-hand. The thing most Christians disagree with is the MACROevolution assumption many scientists accept as 100% fact. I don’t think anyone bashes Mormons, but you must understand that the reason so many feel strongly that the book of Mormon is not the word of God is because it’s mentioned nowhere in the Bible and lacks evidence to support it.
Well, no one knows exactly what it will be like, but it is mentioned. Before I go on I just want to say I don’t think it matters all that much what heaven will be like. What’s more important is that you know you are going there. So, while there might be disagreement on exactly what it’s like, it’s nothing to worry over.
Cont….
Report this comment
black9897
Sep. 21, 2012 at 9:00pmAre there males and females In heaven? I do not know. The Bible talks about how we will get a new body, so we could be gender neutral. Remember that our bodies now were made for this life (to have sex, eat, etc) so in heaven we won’t need those things. Then again, we could still be “male” and “female.” Or at least have our ‘male” mind and ‘female’ mind.
Are there families? Yes!! That is, God’s family which is everyone who is in heaven. We will be one big happy family.
Will we be angels? No. There is nothing in the Bible that says we become angels. In fact, it’s pretty clear God made angels separate from humans. In Matt 22:30 Jesus says that there is also no marriage in heaven and how we will become similar to angels in that. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Remember, this is not saying we become angels, but are LIKE them in these aspects.
In REV 21:4-8 it says that there will be no more death or crying or pain.
What will we do? Worship God in heaven. Other than that I’m not sure. We will be happy and enjoy in each other’s fellowship.
Remember God said he will make a new heaven and a new earth.
Report this comment
v15
Sep. 21, 2012 at 9:01pm@4TRUTH2ALL,
Yes, I was being sincere; however, after browsing through several Christian websites, I have a general idea of what Christians believe regarding Heaven. I was just making the point that Christians are quick to ridicule ideas presented by Darwin and ideas held by Mormons, yet the beliefs of mainstream Christianity are vague, simple, easy to criticize, and just as (if not more) ridiculous (except from their perspective).
Report this comment
trinklefinder
Sep. 21, 2012 at 9:03pmthank you sparky101!!!
Report this comment
Alessandre
Sep. 21, 2012 at 9:17pm@LibertyGoddess, sorry for this additional post. I’m really tired & realized I forgot a very important point. There are no hidden gospels. Most of the books referred to as “hidden” are in “The Pseudoepigrapha”, available for sale to any who want them. They are a group of late Gnostic books written by the Essenes & other groups which were not included in the Bible because there was no evidence that they were written by either 1 of the Apostles or 1 of their disciples at the behest of that Apostle. So, Clement I was a disciple of Peter & prolific writer (Brazos has an amazing collection of commentary by the Church Fathers; I use it often) but he’s not in the Bible. Other books that might be referred to as “hidden” are portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are also available to any who care to buy them. Some “hidden” books haven’t been unearthed & some haven’t been created yet.
The Church isn’t hiding anything from you or anyone else. I love pecan & have an awesome recipe for it but I don’t know every recipe & searched out the one that I love. You must do the same. Go online & look up Pseudoepigrapha. Read articles bout it, read it, read books by professors & ministers & priests & people w/ an education that gives them the knowledge to teach yo about what you call the hidden books. You won’t be reading stories, you’ll be educating yourself. It’s a wise thing to do before accusing the Church of hiding books.
Report this comment
ashestoashes
Sep. 21, 2012 at 9:46pm@ZENGAPA Jesus’s bride is the Church..Yes he was a rabbi..and he fulfillied all of the requirements except for taking an earthly wife.. Jesus was/is the only begotten Son of God….He did not serve 2 masters…sorry..
Report this comment
ashestoashes
Sep. 21, 2012 at 9:54pmThe five “key facts” in this article is that these are nostic gosphels..meaning that they were planted by Satan to deceive.. it is true.. I once ordered the Gosphel of Thomas..some Messianic Jewish friends of mine told me to burn it because not only did it come with the goshpel of Thomas,,but it came with other books which were blasphemous to God..Looking at pornograpy..doing drugs..messing with the occult..which is what these nostic gosphels are..will open the door to demons..You Do Not Want To Do That..I Promise You..
Report this comment
ThriCeSLewis
Sep. 21, 2012 at 10:20pm@V15. Questions are always good! I highly recommend the following podcast for you to listen to: Unbelievable? with Justin Brierly. The format is conversational debate between opposing viewpoints on Biblical topics. Mr. Brierly is an excellent moderator – intellectually sharp, a good listener, very gracious and thus fair. Check it:
itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/unbelievable/id267142101
@Everyone who professes Jesus as God yet sees no problem with him being married:
I’ve made this point elsewhere, but I believe it’s too important not to bring up again:
Are you willing to hold to this?
1. Jesus is God
2. God created humanity
3. Mary was a human being.
4. Jesus created Mary.
5. Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary.
Logical Conclusion: God had sex with his creation.
Are you willing to hold to this?
Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant and whoever would be first among you must be your slave even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matt 20:25-28
This betrays the character of Jesus…God became man to serve us not to have his cake and eat it too…
Report this comment
v15
Sep. 21, 2012 at 11:09pm@Sparky101, Am I delusional? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe go F*** yourself, you condescending *****.
@Black, Thanks for the feedback! I’m glad you have a more open perspective than many others here – I definitely agree with you that science and the Bible can go hand in hand rather than each one negating the other.
@THRICESLEWIS, I’ll definitely check out that podcast and here what it has to say – itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/unbelievable/id267142101. As far as Jesus = God…really not sure what to think about it. I’m still debating if Jesus and God are separate beings or one being. But, if they are one being, then I agree with your logic.
Report this comment
Wolf
Sep. 21, 2012 at 11:26pmUh-huh… keep believing the DaZVinci Code and other tripe aimed at denigrating God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It’s much easier for all you weak ‘believers’ to swallow than to believe the Bible, the Gospels especially. Any straw in a storm to mock your little faith.
Report this comment
YellowFin
Sep. 21, 2012 at 11:47pmWhy do so many want to believe Jesus was married when there is no indication or evidence of it?
Why do they want to manufacture a teaching that has no support in the Holy Scriptures?
Isn’t that what Satan has done, teaching things he ought not? Originating false religious ideas is his way of confusing the ignorant. It seems to be working here on the Blaze.
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 22, 2012 at 12:08amHey V15, you say “I was just making the point that Christians are quick to ridicule ideas presented by Darwin and ideas held by Mormons, yet the beliefs of mainstream Christianity are vague, simple, easy to criticize, and just as (if not more) ridiculous (except from their perspective).”
You are pretty full of yourself aren’t you. You have made no point other than to expose that you are a bigoted hater. Nice going pal.
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 22, 2012 at 12:17amV15, you say “@Sparky101, Am I delusional? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe go F*** yourself, you condescending *****.” Trust me, V15, I fully expected you to be such a teeny-weenie. Now go and sin no more.
Then you go on to say ” @Black, Thanks for the feedback! I’m glad you have a more open perspective than many others here – I definitely agree with you that science and the Bible can go hand in hand rather than each one negating the other.”
What a pompous, narcissistic attitude you possess. My feedback to you was to consult with a local pastor about those scriptural things you don’t understand. But, you show that your interest is not understanding, but to denigrate those with whom you disagree. Since you know so little about the Bible and how Christians really think, please don’t be telling us how you believe the Bible can go hand in hand with science. We really don’t care what uneducated haters think about the Bible.
Report this comment
The_Cabrito_Goat
Sep. 22, 2012 at 12:25amThis topic was tailor made for SirhanSirhan. I wonder where he is?
cookcountypatriot
Sep. 22, 2012 at 1:55amprogressives…they want to mess up everything…even the lord of lords ,,the king of kings,the alpha and the omega….the gall of these fanatics…
Report this comment
djpeyton21
Sep. 22, 2012 at 2:07am@V-15
I’m of the same opinion on the Bible and science. Actually the Bible is supported historically, archaeologically, and philosophically as well. I’m sure there are other supports and compelling arguments but I tend to stick around those. As for evolution and Christianity, those aren’t compatible. There are some that think they can be put together, called evolutionistic theists. I lean more towards Biblical creationism. If you want to talk more, would you like my email?
Report this comment
Drives Like Jehu
Sep. 22, 2012 at 2:38amOne final point…in one of the seven last phrases of Christ on the cross, He made provisions for His mother Mary. Now if He were married to an earthly wife, doesn’t it make sense that He would have also made provisions for her at the same time???
Report this comment
jzs
Sep. 22, 2012 at 3:01amWhy is Jesus always represented a white long-haired peace-loving hippie type of person?
Look at the depiction of Christ lovingly holding a meek and gentle lamb. Is that your image of Allen West or Sarah Palin? Embracing the helpless? Heck no! They’re going to kill that lamb for profit!
The lamb is a symbol of the gentle, the weak, the helpless. What Republican policy addresses those people symbolized in that graphic?
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 22, 2012 at 7:31amYo JZS:
Jesus was/is called the Lamb of God. He is also the Lion of Judah!
The LORD says … that if a man is unwilling to work then he should not eat.
I beleive that many Rep.desire this sort of policy … but then hey, your a christian it should also be your desire.
Why do you always seem to be looking for the detor ?
They are not unwilling to help, just unwilling to help those capble of doing so themselves. They want to raise the standard , not lower it …
Report this comment
db321
Sep. 22, 2012 at 8:02am4Truth2All – Why do I have doubts about Billy Hallaway the Faith Editor of the Blaze – Look at his past Articles on the Blaze. ” 95% of Christians would vote for an Atheist for Presidents” or “Chick Fil A Gives In” Billy goes out of his way to post Articles that you will not find anywhere else and they are all designed to poke and prod at Christians.
The icing on the cake is when I heard him on radio explaining the difference between Muslims and Jews – Billy’s source is anything but the Bible. I warn you to be ware of Billy Hallaway’s writings. Just saying.
I knew the Chick Fil A Story of them caving in was totally BS the moment Billy Hallaway release it – Thanks Billy Hallaway. This man has zero credibility. Beware!
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 22, 2012 at 8:12amYo V15:
“It is to the glory of God to concel a matter, it is to the glory of men to search that matter out.” (found in Proverbs)
Ever play hide and seek , why do you think we play THAT game … it is a reflection of heaven.
God desires that our learning/searching be enjoyable.
You say simple … this is in part true … what you do not seem to see is that those simplicities are endless. One piece of a puzzle does not make the puzzle. ( another reflection of heaven) There are verses in the bible where Jesus is telling His OWN diciples to “let the little children come to me”. God wrote in simplicities with this in mind … so that little children could understand and come to Him. We search out the complexities of how, but it should NEVER go against the simple.
People make mountians out of molehills !!!!!
True christians should be quick to correct and stand on the truth of scripture !
You say.. ” easy to criticize” … it’s always easy to criticize
THRICESLEWIS … speaks with simple logic based on the truth of scripture … it’s not complicated. Why so many do not see this is troubling . However, that understanding did not come in a moment .. it was searched for and found.
BLACK9897 … sticks to that truth and is willing to share
good day … enjoy the search for truth, and let nothing stop you short!
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 22, 2012 at 8:18amYo DB321:
Thanks for the reply … I have noticed that and elsewhere the inclination to “incite”.. a little bothersome … peace
Report this comment
Robert Hawk
Sep. 22, 2012 at 10:00amThat is a bunk, its not reference to “The Church”. The wedding is to occur with all those who are the bride of Christ, that includes all those who believe Christ is their husbandman. People choose individually to be espoused to Christ. This is not a bride as in a sexual orentation of flesh animals. Your soul is espoused to Christ, who you love as one would a husband…. starting to understand? Christ did not have a flesh wife, while he was on this earth, there would have been no point nor need. Read Ezekiel 16 where Jerusalem became espoused to our Father, in order to understand further.
Report this comment
Amarath01
Sep. 22, 2012 at 1:32pmJumping into this late but i have read the Greek text on this Jesus’ words are clear.
He simply wouldn’t take a wife, always was against marriage. Now the possessive form of woman, could indicate wife but it might just indicate people who are together.
Understand marriage means something at this point, it means you have to place this person above others. Jesus was opposed to this because we are supposed to treat each other equally, and place nothing above god; which marriage may do. So he warned its best to not marry (or more literally if you can accept it do not marry). However, like with many things including unnatural sexual desires (sodomy, other things, homosexuality) Jesus gave concessions that it god allows these things so that those of them may not be separated from god (more literally, so that they not come between them and god). Then in all these cases (note that this is recorded 4 times in the bible, by different writers (they they did barrow from each other) so its not just one mention). FYI Jesus then goes on to list things that DO separate man from god.
Also ps christian church Jesus makes it very clear divorce is not acceptable and far worse than homosexuality (its breaking your promise to god) yet i see no outrage.
Makes me sick that the church at larger chooses its values for self serving reasons over god’s values; with 50% divorce rate you limit your congregation teaching the word.
Report this comment
blakelewis
Sep. 22, 2012 at 1:40pmWhy was Mary the only one to see Jesus first after he rematerialized his body and told her not to touch him because he was not ready yet? To explain what I mean is Jesus dematerialized his body first, that’s why they found no body in the tomb and the stone was moved out of the way. Why should he not marry, he said nothing that would say he wouldn’t marry? A man and woman after marriage are to become as one, neither male nor female but as one soul.
Report this comment
black9897
Sep. 22, 2012 at 3:51pm@BLAKELEWIS
Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you implying that Jesus was married to Mary?
Well, his purpose on earth was to die for our sins. His mission was to tell us of his heavenly kingdom and how to get there; to give us an example to follow. So he really had no reason to get married. It would have been a distraction to his mission. He didn’t come to lead a “normal” human life.
Since there isn’t any evidence to suggest he was married, then believing he was is based on speculation. Not to mention it doesn’t make that much sense that he would have been. If he really was would it somehow be a horrible thing and cause the Bible to lose credibility? Certainly not. It is just highly unlikely. Besides, basing your belief he was married because he didn’t say anything to say he wouldn’t marry would be an argument from ignorance. Anyways, it shouldn’t be something we spend too much time on.
Report this comment
black9897
Sep. 22, 2012 at 3:53pm@V15
You’re welcome.
Report this comment
Amarath01
Sep. 22, 2012 at 4:28pm@blakeLewis
“Why should he not marry, he said nothing that would say he wouldn’t marry? A man and woman after marriage are to become as one, neither male nor female but as one soul.”
Actually Jesus did say you should not marry like him, as stated in my post above, i wonder do modern Christians read the bible at all or do they and just ignore inconvenient aspects of it that doesn’t fit their image of what it means to be christian.
Hello i am a christian i value the old testament over Jesus word because i didn’t like what he had to say. I also ignore all of the bible for come social practice because i do like what all of the bible has to say. Almost all of christian clergy, pastors, preachers, etc do this today in the US, i have given up looking for a church that doesn’t explicitly teach opposed to Jesus’ words. You also have to understand the context of this finding it was a time where some people argued (against Jesus’ teachings) on what is important, how to follow him and made the RULES the LAW (they forgot love and compassion) and said marriage is bad 0 marriage others on the other said said how could he be against marriage our society is form around it; marriage is good. Thus they argued and disagreed and made up cannon.
Report this comment
mamatango
Sep. 22, 2012 at 6:51pm@WarMunger_Al
Why make a mountain out of a molehill?
God is not a polygamist! The New Covenant tells us THE CHURCH is the BRIDE of Christ! He and The Father YHWH are one, as stated in the Shema.
YHWH made a marriage covenant at Mt. Sinai with Israel, which they accepted. Over and over in the Old Covenant it details how Israel went after other lovers, meaning other gods of the countries they were scattered to, and forgot YHWH. So, through His Spirit, He sent His Son in a physical body to dwell with them and teach the “lost sheep of Israel” His truths.
Jhn 18:14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
But what they didn’t consider was that God knowing all things past and future, had in fact come to die in the place of all sinners–to redeem them back to God. He came to fulfill the old Covenant, by giving Himself for a new Covenant–the Gospel of the Good News, for those who would repent.
God is a Spirit who manifested in the flesh, not as the lion they expected, but as the lamb, Immanuel in the flesh–meaning “GOD WITH US.” And He’s coming again to reign on Earth!
Through Adam came sin which = death, Christ came to be the blood sacrifice to defeat sin for all who would believe in Him, and He will raise them to eternal life on the last day!
First the natural, then the Spiritual.
First natural Israel, then Spiritual Israel of all who will believe-made up of any believing
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 22, 2012 at 8:16pmYo Black9897:
How you doing? Hey, anytime I can povide some laughs it’s good.
Going to disagree with you on the heaven thing, and the reason being this … Jesus returns to earth to set up His Kingdom which was the idea from the beginning. Men lost it , Jesus got it back.
He will rule here for a thousand years. Prior/at His return the world will be a mess. His people will be involved in restoring the planet to prestine condition … that’s the short.
If you disagree … bring it baby … peace
Report this comment
black9897
Sep. 22, 2012 at 9:14pmHey TRUTH, I’m doing pretty well. No, I don’t disagree with that.
Report this comment
MormonPiper
Sep. 22, 2012 at 10:19pmWouldn’t being married fall into the category of coming to earth to live as a man? Just because a male lead middle ages catholic church erased everything they didn’t like, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Frankly, a married Yeshua would mean more to me than a single man.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 23, 2012 at 8:42amYo Black9897:
Glad to hear … my apologies if I mis-understood … but I am disappointed that I cannot straighten you up … peace
Report this comment
Robert Hawk
Sep. 23, 2012 at 11:23amClose explanation however the after reading Revelation chapters 1 and 2 its not difficult to understand that Christ did not support 5 of the seven churches named there. I find it interesting how “THE CHURCH” always seems to place its self between mankind and our Father or Christ. Espoused is a metaphor, yes, however its more like a figure of speech and no its not a metaphor for Christ and the church, its a metaphor which aligns with the parable of the lamps in Matthew 25. There is no church system mentioned there. Being espoused to Christ is explained by John the best when he identifies the bridegroom you will find that written in John 3 starting with verse 29. John never mentions the church or a church system there.
Report this comment
ConservativeChristianB1954
Sep. 23, 2012 at 5:22pmAmen!
Report this comment
1TrueOne55
Sep. 24, 2012 at 3:01am@LIbertyGoddess:
We should also remember the fact that it was the Catholic Church in the 16th Century that created the modern collection that we call the Bible today. There are many other writings that are not included because they did not fit the Catholic interpretation as to what was allowed or not allowed in the “Bible” over time. In the third century you did not find the Book of Revelation in any authorized collection but it did appear in the Gnostic versions.
Jesus and his family may have been part of the Gnostic tradition of the Essene sect outside of Jerusalem even John the Baptist was believed to be a follower of the Essene culture, especially his baptism rituals.
Jesus was also a Jew of the first order and would have followed that tradition of either being engaged or married to a woman without sexual encounter, ie betrothed but not have had the ceremony.
Report this comment
BIG-REV
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:21pmThe Apostle Paul who under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote 2/3 of the New Testament, warned the various Churches in his day to avoid those who teach a Gospel other than the one you have heard and received from us. He said to avoid these people and their teachings, that they were not of God. We are still dealing with this spirit of deception 2,000 years later. The cannon of the Bible we have today is the full and perfect cannon of God. These Gnostic Gospels are nothing more than a new attempt by an ancient spirit to deceive and confuse. Finally the Church of Jesus Christ is also called the Bride (wife) of Christ. Christ’s Church is Christ’s one and only Bride.
Report this comment
Copo
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:35pmHe wrote 2 thirds of the books, not the actual text. The largest contributor in terms of content to the new testament was luke (luke acts)
Report this comment
WhiteFang
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:43pmWhat do we learn from this fragment?
This fragment of papyrus has words on it that proves nothing.
We have to ask Who wrote the words? When was it written? What is the context surround the words? Who was being written about? Was it about the wife belonging to Jesus the shoemaker? Or Jesus the cousin of the man writing it in the fourth century?
The fragment proves nothing and the only thing about it is, it is an old piece of papyrus with words on it, that’s all.
The determination of evil ones to try to paint a erroneous picture of the Anointed Son of God is really evil and suicidal. They should honour the Son, not be lying about him.
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:52pmand the canon that is the bible of today wasn’t compiled until way later. Selected from the vast amount of “gospels” that were in circulation at the time. It doesn’t make the gospels rejected less or more true. Most of the gnostic Gospels just really don’t add anything important to christianity and I can see why they were left out. Some are downright weird.
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:09pmThe canon of the Bible, is what the Catholic Church has said is canonical. They settled on this canon somewhere around 400AD, at the Council of Nicaea. It is at this Council, where the issue of Jesus’ divinity was settled.
Early Christian history is fascinating. Not all was as you wish it to be, after 2000 or so years of indoctrination and inertia. Deal with it.
Could Jesus have been married? Sure!
Does his being married, detract from his message or his teachings? Nope.
If you accept the idea that Jesus was married, what comes along with that notion?
Jesus was human, and lived the human experience. Perhaps this experience helped to perfect God’s understanding of Man, as Jesus’ death and resurrection helped us to better understand God. Is that so bad?
Jesus considered women to be important, heart and soul, to the Church, and to be able vessels to hold and transmit his teachings. I fail to see anything wrong with that notion, either.
What would it HURT, if Jesus was married? Leave aside inertia and dogma which, if you look back at the early Church and early Christianity, is a bit of a mess. What would Jesus’ status as a husband (and father?) actually hurt? This is a serious question.
Report this comment
WhiteFang
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:16pmThe Jewish historian Josephus of the first century C.E. mentions some twelve persons, other than those in the Bible record, bearing the name ‘Jesus’.
An ancestor of Jesus Christ, evidently in his mothers line is mentioned in Luke 3:29 as having the name Jesus. Many people had the name Jesus, as they also do today.
So what person named Jesus is this papyrus fragment, written in the fourth century, talking about?
Report this comment
DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:43pm@whitefang
Talk about an erroneous picture, both literally and figuratively. The picture they paint is someone who was married. Which would actually be keeping the commandment “be fruitful and multiply”. Married or not it does not change Messiah’s message. You and the xians however do. There was nobody in Scripture ever named “jesus” and there is no translation in ANY language for the name “jesus”. His name was/is Yeshua.
And what’s the all the Anglo looking picture on this page? HE WAS/IS A JEW!
Report this comment
WhiteFang
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:55pmJesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous’ which corresponds to the Hebrew, Yeshua’ or Yehohshua’ and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”.
DTOM, you said; “There was nobody in Scripture ever named “jesus” and there is no translation in ANY language for the name “jesus”. His name was/is Yeshua.”
DTOM, Prove to us all that There was nobody in Scripture ever named “jesus” and there is no translation in ANY language for the name “jesus”.
Report this comment
God_Is_Not
Sep. 21, 2012 at 6:17pmHis name was Yeshua.
Report this comment
RedHotFuzz
Sep. 21, 2012 at 6:52pm” The cannon of the Bible we have today is the full and perfect cannon of God.” – Big-Rev
Hmm. Which version exactly? http://www.allbibles.com/bibleversions.asp
Report this comment
RedHotFuzz
Sep. 21, 2012 at 6:56pm“Christ‘s Church is Christ’s one and only Bride.” – Big-Rev
Where did He say this? Do you have a chapter/verse?
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:22pmYo Redhotfuzz:
One of a number …John 3:27-36 gives a complete explination.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:39pmYo Copo:
Luke = 52 chapters
Paul = 79 chapters ( not including Hebrews , which most attribute to Paul)
So long as my math is correct you are partically correct …peace
Report this comment
YellowFin
Sep. 22, 2012 at 12:03amWhitefang,
Frustrating isn’t it? Trying to defend God’s Word the Bible against the huge tide of irreverent thinking is difficult.
Keep the faith my brother. Philippians 3:18-19
Report this comment
RedHotFuzz
Sep. 22, 2012 at 1:01am@ 4truth2all: I see nothing in my Bible (King James Version) in the verses you referenced that gives any definitive indication whatsoever that Big-Rev’s assertion is correct.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 22, 2012 at 8:24amYo Redhot:
Not sure what to say …it’s right there
Please explain with a little detail
Report this comment
The Jewish Avenger
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:18pmIt doesnt matter if this piece of papyrus says Jesus has a wife or all homosexuals should eat at Chik Fil-A All that matter is that as long as people try to put God into a neat little box through rationalizing, then they can put him in a corner and forget about him. But until they can, all of the accusations and assumptions have perverted God to be even as far HINTED that he is homosexual.
Sadly, this was brought up when that stupid Hanks movie about treasure was written and when Peter was accused in the movie of being a girl, it was aquired that maybe they were trying to portray that Peter was feminine and therefore His lover… where at time, I wish I had an Elvis moment and shot the TV, luckily, I remember that there was an off switch but not before the “damage” was done. I think it was that PBS gal that rolls her eyes everytime she mentions something positive about God.
any way… as you can see… you have to take into consideration that somewhere out there are people perverting God’s morals and ways strictly just to confused and confound the general public so badly that the thought of considering giving yourself to God is not only to them laughable but also cynical.
Report this comment
LeadNotFollow
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:17pm…
Whether Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ best friend or his wife, does not matter to me.
What matters is, she did not turn her back and run away, when the going got tough. She was loyal. She stayed by his side during his persecution, his crucifixion, his burial, his resurrection, and his ascension into Heaven. The only person on Earth who loved Jesus more than Mary Magdalene, was his Mother Mary.
Report this comment
G.E.R
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:14pmBecause of very poor translations they couldn’t even get his name right. How are they going to get the rest of this fiction right.
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 22, 2012 at 12:22amSo now you are an expert on Biblical translations? NOT.
Report this comment
G.E.R
Sep. 22, 2012 at 9:45amThe bible is based on the translations from Greek and Hebrew texts. Christ in Greek means messiah. Also in the Greek texts Jesus wasn’t crucified, he was put on a stake. And Mary wasn’t a virgin but a young girl. The whole translation was screwed up from beginning and has just gotten worse.
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 22, 2012 at 8:44pmI think it’s your translations that are faulty – especially the “stake” bit. Where do you get your information?
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 22, 2012 at 8:49pmWhy do you not mention texts written in Aramaic? Do they get a pass from you?
Report this comment
Hydra
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:14pmI just find it funny that the words “facts” and “Jesus” were used in the same headline. LMAO
Report this comment
TRONINTHEMORNING
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:31pmAre you saying Jesus was not a historical figure or that He was/is not the Son of God? Just wondering what your position is. If you wanna be right, it’s ‘yes’ to both. And what made you LYFAO anyway, I missed the humor, I guess.
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 22, 2012 at 12:26amHydra, you find your bellybutton funny, so what’s your point?
Report this comment
lel2007
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:13pmI’ve read that ancient Jews (and I assume orthodox Jews) expect that a Rabbi marry. And I’ve read that “not only are rabbis allowed to marry, they are obligated to marry. “Be fruitful and multiply” is a command to all, regardless of career or position in the community”. Jesus was called Rabbi, though the meaning of the word ‘Rabbi’ does not require the expert/teacher be married ….. “. Would Jesus have taken a wife while knowing his future would be a short life?
Report this comment
SeekerEmerald
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:48pmLook up the average life expectancy for a male around 100BC and then consider if his life was all that short. Yes, it was cut short, but his age was not young in those days, and 33 years was already longer than many men lived.
I’m not taking sides on the marriage question, just saying “short life” argument does not really apply here imho.
Report this comment
QuincySmith
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:17pmlel2007;
During Christ’s time people married quite young. I learned that Mary was in her mid to late teens when she married Joseph. As you pointed out Rabbis were/are expected to be married. Considering that teen-marriage was common, and Christ’s ministry began when he was 30, his marital status probably would not have caused biblical writers to comment, unless he married during His ministry. We know of three incidents prior to His ministry 1) Birth, 2) Temple incident at 12 years old, and 3) His ministry at age 30, yet many comments (previous story) seemed to assume that His marriage took place during His last three years, when biblical comment would have been likely. That leaves three possibilities 1) He was never married; 2) He married at an early age, thus removing charges that He was not thoughtful knowing he would soon depart; or 3) He married during His ministry. I can live with any scenario, because not one precludes his Divinity.
Report this comment
G.E.R
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:12pmThere’s nothing to ponder because it was written 200 years after his death.
Report this comment
mcsledge
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:28pmWhat was written 200 years later? The gospels were written decades after Christ’s death. The writings of Paul in that general time line. The writings of John the Beloved even later. It is obvious that for these writings to line up so well after that amount of time that the spirit of revelation was involved.
We should appreciate what we have rather than claim we have enough or too much.
Christ’s name was known from the foundation of the world. It was acknowledge in the writings of prophets in America approximately 560 years before his birth. Christ appeared to this people after His own resurrection in Jerusalem. It is no mystery that the inhabitants of America, decendents of this people, were knowledgeable about and waiting the return of the White God.
Report this comment
G.E.R
Sep. 21, 2012 at 5:15pmI’ve always thought that anyone who believes in this superstitious metaphysical non-sense(regardless of faith) was a little more delusional than most people. But you truly are a nutbag.
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 21, 2012 at 5:37pmGER, I’m sorry to be the one to tell you, but you’ve always thought wrong.
Report this comment
G.E.R
Sep. 21, 2012 at 7:53pmSparky
I was trying to be polite. I think you’re all nutbags and not just a little.
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 22, 2012 at 12:28amG.E.R., sorry to burst your bubble, we couldn’t care less about what you think. Haters and narcissistic bigots have very little worthwhile to say.
Report this comment
G.E.R
Sep. 22, 2012 at 9:35amIt’s not hate. It’s more of a sympathetic contempt mixed with wonder and pity
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 22, 2012 at 8:53pmNope, it’s an elitist attitude where you actually think your beliefs and opinions are better than the beliefs and opinions of others. When you get that tingle up your leg after denigrating others, is when childish elitism becomes narcissism. You are close.
Report this comment
Denise Matthews
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:11pmJesus would not have needed a wife. He knew everything from the beginning before the foundation of this world age; He told us in heaven there is no giving & taking in marriage; it’s a human thing not an angelic thing. Women(womb man) were created in the flesh for their purpose but in heaven there are no females.
If He would have been married it would have been recorded. It’s really important that everyone get back in touch with the Word of God and research it for yourself don’t rely on preachers to do it for you; it’s a personal relationship that is established when GOD sees us wanting to learn more about HIM.
Report this comment
v15
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:45pmThere are no females in Heaven? How many Christians share this belief?
The beliefs held by the LDS church make more sense – families, eternal progression, etc.
If there are no females in Heaven, then I do not want to live there (because it would be Hell). BTW, if you believe angels have actual wings, then you’re delusional – And this comes from the same people that denounce anything related to Evolution. Sad.
Report this comment
QuincySmith
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:33pmDenise;
You will recall that “… God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them….” Gen 1:26-27.
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 22, 2012 at 12:37amV15, what is truly sad is your propensity to show your lack of a grasp of scripture, while trying to convince knowledgeable people otherwise. That’s sad. Go get some true understanding and then you won’t have to make a such fool of yourself.
Report this comment
djpeyton21
Sep. 22, 2012 at 2:20amV-15
Judging from the other comments and this I’ve seen you write, I’m beginning to wonder as to what your fascination is with heaven. Nothing wrong with that but I’d be happy to share what mainstream Christianity actually teaches. The little story book pictures like to make things confusing for actual thinking people so I understand your search for truth. Yes heaven exists. I have not been there personally unfortunately but there are several books I can refer to you if you’d like to read more on it. From my understanding, angels may or may not have wings although it’s widely accepted that they do. However, keep in mind that they are just spirits so they can take on different forms to fit the situation. They generally appear male when they do make appearances. I’ve not yet heard of one appearing female. However both men and women, when we die, do not turn into angels, but we receive a new spiritual body. Our perfect body. From some stories I’ve read, there are no old people in heaven. Everyone is young. The whole point of all of this though is to finally be in a close face to face relationship with God. I understand you have trouble reconciling the idea of the Trinity. If you’d like to talk more, please let me know. It’s a bit difficult to speak here. I already offered to speak via email if that’s up to you. I simply find it more convenient. God bless, sir
Report this comment
toidiegalliv
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:10pmIt seems interesting to me that at the time in this nation when adultery and divorce where shameful, homosexual activity was kept very private and in the closet, families were perceived as crucial, the murder of the unborn was not sanctioned by this nations law, foul language was considered unmanly if used in front of a woman, etc., etc., the finding of an out of context fragment would have carried little or no weight in an American’s perception of the Lord Jesus the Christ. The find at that time probably would not have even been news worthy. We have come far, but in what direction? Hey gang, how do things really look for our kids?
Report this comment
RationalLogo
Sep. 21, 2012 at 6:22pmYes, those were the good old days when having morals was a good thing. When a child could actually watch television and not be embarrassed. Children do not need to be subjected to the filth on television and adults don’t either.
Report this comment
child of God
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:10pmThe belief that the church is the bride of Christ is not just a gnostic belief, all Christians believe that.
Report this comment
mcsledge
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:19pmYes, but under the same pretense Christ is the Father. Not the Father of our spirits, but the Father of creation, salvation and redemption. Is Christ the literal Father – the Father of our Spirits? NO!
Are you suggesting that because Christ refers to His Church as His bride that he cannot have a literal bride? After all, we already have one Father. Do we need two?
Report this comment
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:08pmIt was not uncommon for Jewish Rabbis, in the 1st century, to have a wife. It was the Catholic church that, during the middle ages, decided that sex and cleanliness were not desirable traits in religion. They were the people that decided what would go in the Bible and what would not.
Report this comment
Experiment626
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:56pm“It was the Catholic church that, during the middle ages, decided that sex and cleanliness were not desirable traits in religion. They were the people that decided what would go in the Bible and what would not.”
As the article states the questions about whether Christians should marry were raised right after the death of Christ. The early Christians thought that the second coming would happen in their lifetimes.
The question of which books to include in the Bible was decided before the fall of Rome. St. Jerome finished translating these books into Latin in 385 AD. (He would continue to write commentaries on Bible verses the rest of his life.)
I hope no one would believe your statement about sex and cleaniness.
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:59pmOrthodox Christian priests get married as well. the Roman Catholics changed that and a few other things liturgically. And it has been all downhill ever since.
Report this comment
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Sep. 21, 2012 at 6:40pmOK EXPERIMENT,
I should have said the early church. The early Christians did not want to be like the Romans, who had running water, including plumbing, hence cleanliness. In many Christian’s opinions, Catholic priests turned a natural act of sex into something “dirty” and should not be done. This also helped the Catholic church save ernses of having to pay for a priest’s families, instead of a single priest. It’s no miracle how much money the Catholic church has, the gold leafing in the Vatican, the collections.
I am guessing you are Catholic?
Report this comment
NewLife56
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:08pmFirst, I don’t care if he ever married, second, I wish someone would publish the fact that back then, it was common to call many woman who did chores for men, that at times they were called wife by them.
Report this comment
Shocka
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:07pmAs one who is part of His Bride who is currently awaiting His return, I don’t buy it! Like Him, I don’t tolerate cheating! Just saying.
Report this comment
mcsledge
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:06pmThere is but two considerations:
1) Christ was and is the only sinless Son of our Heavenly Father, and
2) God made it clear to Moses when he revealed the following … Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
(Christ reiterated this statement when the subject of divorce came up — found in the Gospels).
Report this comment
saranda
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:03pmkind of amusing that theblaze story makes no reference to the fact that Dr. Bock has made a career out of defending his belief that Jesus was not married. his comments are in no way free from bias. i personally believe Jesus was not married but one would hope gb would at least try to offer an expert that was less bkased.
Report this comment
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:03pmOur library carries a gospel of Mary Magdalene as well as a couple others that aren’t in the current Bible.
Report this comment
trinklefinder
Sep. 21, 2012 at 9:12pmand there is a reason they didnt make it into the bible.
Report this comment
RumsfeldFan
Sep. 21, 2012 at 2:57pmThe ignorrance of so called theological experts astounds me. Has none of these experts read the bible? Has nobody read of the marriage of the Lamb? Has nobody read that Christ will take a bride? Has nobody read Song of Songs that describes Christs love for his bride? Hard to call yourself an expert when you ignore the obvious evidence that is right in front of you.
Report this comment
contkmi
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:21pmNot a big one for imagery, are you?
Report this comment
Witness1974
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:30pmThe marriage supper of the lamb takes place in Heaven and the bride is the Church–composed of all true believers who are redeemed by the blood of The Lamb regardless of denomination. Song of Songs is about Christ and the Church. It’s interesting to me how big a deal people make of something like this. It is nearly unintelligeable, but unbelievers will grasp at anything that seems to cast doubt on the veracity of the Word of God—available at a bookstore near you.
Report this comment
RumsfeldFan
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:13pmNot really. But thats what a personal relationship with Christ affords one. Clarity.
Report this comment
TSUNAMI_22
Sep. 21, 2012 at 2:46pmSeems to me that if the media can convince enough people that Jesus was married the next logical narrative that they’ll try to push is whether or not Jesus was the originator on the war on women’s right to contraception.
Satan has figured out that he can’t get rid of God, so Satan has to find a way to conscript Jesus and demonize him in order to redefine the narrative of what salvation and sacrifice means to the female population.
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:19pmWhy would a married Jesus, necessarily be a demonic force?
Are you insinuating that women, much loved by Christ (you know, he had a mother whom he loved very much,) are evil?
Report this comment
TSUNAMI_22
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:34pmNo, what I’m saying is that the MSM may eventually try to use this newly fabricated narrative of Jesus ever having a wife as a tool to use against Jesus by turning women against God.
Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Sep. 21, 2012 at 2:46pmThe ultimate answer is that the gospels and the good book itself has no mention of Christ being married at all. He came to earth to preach the message of his father and of salvation; to die and be raised on the third day for all of us to have a means of coming home again; and thus to have fulfilled the prophecies of his coming, his life, death and ressurection mentioned through the old testament.
This idea of Christ having a wife and even a family is the same kind of insanity behind such films and books of the ‘Davinchi Code’ and have been around in one shape or form or another for centuries.
PeachyinGA
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:07pmYou’ve expressed my thoughts Snowleopard. Why are so many people willing to ignore the fact that in roughly 2000 pages of records left behind for Christians (the Bible) not one word says Jesus was married, yet they are willing to believe one unverified piece of mystery papyrus? True Christians and honest non-Christians will see this hoax for what it is.
Report this comment
RumsfeldFan
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:09pmIf the idea of Christ having a bride is insanity why does he call himself the bridegroom? In revelation then what is the marriage of the Lamb?
Hmmm?
Report this comment
mcsledge
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:13pmJohn states in his Gospel that the Bible does not contain a fraction of what Christ performed. Are you suggesting that if it’s not in the Bible it didn’t happen. How arrogant!
Also, why would Christ need to be baptized if baptism was necessary for the remission of sins of which he had none.
To assume it was impossible demonstrates how little you know about the Bible, God’s commandment to marry, the role of the family unit and the very purpose of life.
Report this comment
PeachyinGA
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:12pmWell, thank you for schooling me McSledge! If being arrogant means that I believe what is in the Bible, then I’ll embrace that accusation. BTW, my arrogance must also include that I have absolutely no doubt that my beliefs in Jesus assures me Eternity with my Father in Heaven. Instead of ripping me, why can’t you just post your own opinion?
Report this comment
djpeyton21
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:21pmMcsledge- You’re right about John, however you would think that the Gospel writers would mention something as auspicious as Jesus’ marriage. They focused on his ministry but also showed us His private moments such as the Garden of Gethsemane. God is said to have been married to Israel as referenced in Hosea. God said that Israel was like Gomer, Hosea’s wife: adulterous and unfaithful in their marriage. Did the Father take a single person in marriage? No, and as Jesus follows His Father’s example, neither shall He. He is to be married to His ekklesia, His church. As for His baptism, consider this: the sacrifices at the temple do not free you from sin anymore than a blessing from a priest. Baptism wasn’t meant to heal you from your sin. In and of itself, it’s worthless. It’s a symbol for being washed clean of your sin by coming before God with a humble heart. Jesus, who is without sin, did not need to be baptized to free himself from it. Baptism indicates being immersed in the Spirit so it is more like Jesus was showing us how we are to begin our “ministry”, or our walk with God. In fact, Jesus’ life was an example on how to live. I, too, would hold that Jesus never had an earthly marriage because He is to be married to His church just like God married Israel.
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:24pmYours is the same sort of mind which states:
A book, which contains teachings not in or of the Koran, is blasphemy, and must be burned.
A book, which contains teachings also found in the Koran, is redundant, and must be burned.
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:30pmPlease square these statements:
“Go forth, be fruitful and multiply.”
“Jesus gives us an example of how to live.” (in this context, meaning unmarried)
In order for Rabbi Yeshua to live a Godly life, following the Word of the Father, might he not have been married?
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:47pmErr… it seems that my last reply was misplaced. Should have been in a different thread.
Report this comment
djpeyton21
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:47pmWell then Norm it’s certainly a good thing we don’t follow the teachings of the Koran ^_^ In fact, Paul made great use of of examples that weren’t located just in Scripture during his address on Mars Hill located in Acts 17:22-34 when he spoke about an altar belonging to an unknown God. Paul told them that their desire to reach out the spiritual was due to their souls’ tugging from God. Paul even recognized their poets in the same chapter, Acts 17:28, where he uses a phrase from the poet Aratus. This, among other places, only serves to help the Bible. That’s why the Bible receives so much support from archaeological finds as well as from other sciences and extra-biblical material.
Report this comment
djpeyton21
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:59pmNorm- Jesus has been fruitful and multiplied. In the Spirit. Why else do you think there are so many Chriatians today? Because we are “born” of the Spirit. John 3:6, “Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit.” We are called Christians not because of a blood connection but because of a spiritual connection.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:45pmYo Norm
“Be fruitful” applys to the creation not the creator
Paul also said that it was good to NOT marry and Paul was speaking for the Lord (inspired)
Report this comment
Sparky101
Sep. 22, 2012 at 12:53amMcSledge, if you wish to know why Christ was baptized, he tells us his reason in scripture. He assumes John knew the pathway to become a priest. His reason for being baptized is different from our reason for being baptized, and that John proceeded indicates he understood and accepted Christ’s answer.
Report this comment
Evileye
Sep. 21, 2012 at 2:46pmWhat would be so wrong if he were Married,Is that a normal thing for a Rabbi.
Report this comment
chips1
Sep. 21, 2012 at 2:45pmSounds like MSNBC is editing ancient text. I’m sure they will tell us what to think. Freedom of thought is illegal in the NWO.
Report this comment
Fire Them All
Sep. 21, 2012 at 2:42pmThe idea of Jesus having a wife doesn’t change anything for anyone other than the Catholic Church who for some reason have taken his being single to mean that priest should remain single. Something that personally I believe has caused them a great deal of unnecessary grief.
Jesus was Jewish, and he was called Rabbi by his followers. If indeed he was a Rabbi, then Rabbi’s marry. There was no Christian religion when Jesus walked the earth, instead he was seen as a rogue Rabbi by those in power in the Jewish Church. ROME created Christianity.
I am a Christian who left the Catholic Church at 18 after a big fight with the priest who was teaching me. When he said the Catholic church was the only true church I responded with the above information. He was furious. I understand that as a result of Jesus the Christ, we now have Christianity which is a new religion based on his life, but the truth remains, Jesus was a Jew.
Report this comment
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Sep. 21, 2012 at 3:24pmThat’s because it would have broken the bank of Rome to support a priest ALONG with a wife and family. It was a good plan with good intentions that went wrong and suppressed these young men’s natural urges. It’s no wonder so many pedophiles happen to be Catholic priests.
Report this comment
djpeyton21
Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:34pmFire them all- I’m also a former catholic(I consider myself non-denominational although I go to a baptist church now) so I understand your arguments with the Catholic Church. They’re basically an offshoot of what Chriatianity is supposed to be about. They were corrupted by Rome’s legality. That’s why they’re so works oriented. And while I have my disagreements with them I understand a little bit about where they’re coming from. Go to 1 Corinthians 7 and show that to your priest. While Paul says its better to remain unmarried, he also says that there’s nothing wrong with marriage so long as one is faithful in their relationship. But nowhere in the Bible does it say you CAN’T get married. In fact the Bible is the biggest evidence against the Catholic Church which is why they wrote their own version called the Latin Vulgate which was held by the Church until the Reformation started giving the common man a Bible that stayed true to the original transcripts. Martin Luther even published a Bible with Greek and I think it was German so that you could cross reference. God bless, sir
Report this comment
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Sep. 21, 2012 at 6:57pmThank you, DJ.
I’m just a common sense Christian with observations of the Catholic church. I know many ex-catholics who say the exact same thing.
Report this comment
MONICNE
Sep. 21, 2012 at 2:38pmWhat people do NOT know about our Lord God, Jesus Christ, could fill a book!
Today is the day we honor the POW?MIA Families and Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command workers, and remember those unsung American Patriot war fighters we left behind long ago.
POW/MIA 21-9-12
Joey8
Sep. 30, 2012 at 2:51amnot just one book, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen”
Report this comment
Taurnil
Sep. 21, 2012 at 2:38pmI really don’t care if he was or was not married. It really does not change who he is. It would not surprise me in the least if other sources are found that say he was. Yeah, OK… so what?
Report this comment
Erica
Sep. 21, 2012 at 2:59pmYeah I agree. It would be very uncommon in that time for him NOT to be married. So its not some big deal. What does it change about Him? Nothing. Marriage is very sacred in God’s eyes. Jesus was the perfect example for us. So it would make sense he was married. The fact is, the Bible doesn’t tell us either way really. So I don’t see why it matters.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Sep. 22, 2012 at 8:32amThe scriptures and the Holy Spirit DO INDEED tell us … not in exact words spoken in a sentence but in understanding the whole of scripture … it is in fact a big deal …. and again, that you do not see that would indicate you do not know your scripture well … I DO NOT say this in condemnation …peace
Please see the post above of THRICESLEWIS ( first thread)… he states it very simply based on the truth of scripture.
Report this comment