The way I see it Jesus must have had a wife at some point

by sabastious 55 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Perhaps the early Church fathers were assholes enough to try to supress the "evidence" that Christ was married.

    Doesn't change that the oldeset writings don't mention it at all.

    While it is quite popular to see a conspiracy in things, if you look back to the 1st and even 2nd century, If Christ had been married it wouldn't of been a big deal.

    In many ways it MAY have even been a "selling" point in the cases where his existence was called into question ( although that only MUCH MUCH later on).

    And no, the Gnostic are NOT older than the gospels or Paul's or the apostles letters.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    In 1945 a discovery was made in Upper Egypt, near the town of Nag Hammadi. Fifty-two copies of ancient writings, called the Gnostic gospels were found in 13 leather-bound papyrus codices (handwritten books). They were written in Coptic and belonged to a library in a monastery.

    A few Gnostic scholars have gone so far as to assert that these recently discovered writings are the authentic history of Jesus instead of the New Testament. But does their faith in these documents square with the historical evidence? Let’s take a deeper look to see if we can separate truth from fiction.

    Secret "Knowers"

    The Gnostic gospels are attributed to a group known as (big surprise here) the Gnostics. Their name comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” These people thought they had secret, special knowledge hidden from ordinary people.

    As Christianity spread, the Gnostics mixed some doctrines and elements of Christian­ity into their beliefs, morphing Gnosticism into a counterfeit Christianity. Perhaps they did it to keep recruitment numbers up and make Jesus a poster child for their cause. However, for their system of thought to fit with Christianity, Jesus needed to be rein­vented, stripped of both his humanity and his absolute deity.

    In The Oxford History of Christianity John McManners wrote of the Gnostics’ mixture of Christian and mythical beliefs.

    Gnosticism was (and still is) a theoso­phy with many ingredients. Occult­ism and oriental mysticism became fused with astrology, magic. … They collected sayings of Jesus shaped to fit their own interpretation (as in the Gospel of Thomas), and offered their adherents an alternative or rival form of Christianity. 1

    Early Critics

    A mild strain of Gnostic philosophy was already growing in the first century just decades after the death of Jesus. The apostles, in their teaching and writings, went to great lengths to condemn these beliefs as being opposed to the truth of Jesus, to whom they were eyewitnesses.

    Check out, for example, what the apostle John wrote near the end of the first century:

    Who is the great liar? The one who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Such people are antichrists, for they have denied the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22, NIV).

    Following the apostles’ teaching, the early church leaders unanimously condemned the Gnostics as a cult. Church father Irenaeus, writing 140 years before the Council of Nicaea, confirmed that the Gnostics were condemned by the church as heretics. He also rejected their “gospels.” But, referring to the four New Testament Gospels, he said, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.” 2

    Christian theologian Origen wrote this in the early third century, more than a hun­dred years before Nicaea:

    I know a certain gospel which is called “The Gospel according to Thomas” and a “Gospel according to Matthias,” and many others have we read—lest we should in any way be consid­ered ignorant because of those who imagine they possess some knowledge if they are acquainted with these.

    Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the church has recognized, which is that only four gospels should be accepted. 3

    Mystery Authors

    When it comes to the Gnostic gospels, just about every book carries the name of a New Testament character: the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, and so on. But were they even written by their purported authors? Let’s take a look.

    The Gnostic gospels are dated about 110 to 300 years after Christ, and no cred­ible scholar believes any of them could have been written by their namesakes. In James M. Robinson’s comprehensive The Nag Hammadi Library, we learn that the Gnostic gospels were written by “largely unrelated and anonymous authors.” 4

    New Testament scholar Norman Geisler writes, “The Gnostic writings were not written by the apostles, but by men in the second century (and later) pretending to use apostolic authority to advance their own teachings. Today we call this fraud and forgery.” 5

    Mystery Versus History

    The Gnostic gospels are not historical ac­counts of Jesus’ life but instead are largely esoteric sayings, shrouded in mystery, leaving out historical details such as names, places, and events. This is in strik­ing contrast to the New Testament Gospels, which contain innumerable historical facts about Jesus’ life, ministry, and words.

    Who would you be more likely to believe—someone who says, “Hey, I’ve got some secret facts that were mysteriously revealed to me,” or someone who says, “I’ve searched all the evidence and history and here it is for you to make up your mind on”? Keeping that question in mind, consider the following two statements, the first from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (c. 110-150 A.D.) and the second from the New Testament’s Gospel of Luke (c. 55-70 A.D.).

    • These are the hidden sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Judas Thomas the Twin recorded. 6
    • Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught. (Luke 1:1-4, NLT)

    Do you find the open and aboveboard approach of Luke appealing? And do you find the fact that it was written closer to the original events to be in favor of its reliability? If so, that’s what the early church thought as well.

    And most scholars concur with the early church’s view that the New Testament is the authentic history of Jesus. New Testament scholar Raymond Brown has said of the Gnostic gospels, “We learn not a single verifiable new fact about the historical Jesus’ ministry, and only a few new sayings that might possibly have been his.” 7

    Thus, even though the Gnostic writings have impressed some scholars, their late dating and questionable authorship can’t compare with the New Testament. Such contrast between the New Testament and the Gnostic writings is devastating to those pushing conspiracy theories. New Testament historian F. F. Bruce wrote, “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament” 8


    Endnotes

    1. John McManners, ed., The Oxford History of Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 28.
    2. Darrell L. Bock, Breaking the Da Vinci Code (Nashville: Nelson, 2004), 114.
    3. Bock, 119-120.
    4. Ibid.,13.
    5. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 156.
    6. Quoted in Robinson, 126.
    7. Quoted in Lutzer, 32.
    8. Quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life, 1999, 37.)
  • sir82
    sir82

    Maybe try to slow down and read what is actually written?

    older than any copy of the gospels

    I.e., the gnostic texts pre-date manuscripts of gospel texts.

    The gospels themselves were writen in the 2nd half of the 1st century, prior to the gnostic texts. However, the earliest complete manscripts of the gospels date to just the 3rd or 4th century.

    There is a period of 100-300 years between when the gospels were first penned, and the oldest known manuscripts of them. It's likely that they are largely intact as written - but that's an awfully long time....church fathers with an agenda could have made some alterations.

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    Psac, please take a look at the verse in question again. It is clearly stated that lust within the mind constitutes adultery. It is you that are taking an angle on the scripture containing this bold statement. To use your comparison, if I think about stealing I am not committing the act of stealing that is a logical impossibility. However, If I choose to steal then it would most definitely have started out as a thought, but that's not the point. I have to call red herring on ya

    Jesus made a very bold statement in that scripture and it shouldn't be sugar-coated with some philosophical angle on what he said. The stories of Jesus in the Gospels paint a man with incredible integrity possibly even to a fault. They depict a man with a well thought out position who, imo, would never engage in any kind of hypocricy.

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    I don't personally see a difference between committing adultery and committing adultery within one's heart.

    If I came home to my wife and told her that I "committed adultery" and only after letting her explode did I explain that nothing actually happened because it was "just in my heart" she would be pissed for misrepresenting the situation. She also wouldn't immediately think that our relationship was over. Yet, if she heeded Jesus words about "adultery of the heart" then she would be forced to leave because according to Jesus' wild generalization there's no turning back once the thought has been had.

    Maybe there are religious or philisophical differences between the two, but as regards to actual human marrital relationships there is no difference mainly because it's an actual recognized contract.

    Say someone in Jesus day had a lustful thought about another woman after hearing Jesus say it was adultery in his heart. Now also say this man feels guilty and comes clean to his wife about it. The wife is devistated not only because she is not enough for her man, but also because the son of God said that the thoughts her husband had is grounds for legal adultery.

    How would Jesus handle this situation if the couple approached him? Would he indeed say that the wife has legal grounds for a breach of contract or would he tell the woman that she doesn't have grounds because her husband hasn't actually committed the sin yet?

    Jesus' position is logically problematic. The more I think about it the more it sounds like an outburst of emotion and less of hard fast rule or even heuristic. Now if you give Jesus a dead wife the outburst makes perfect sense, imo.

    -Sab

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    PSac, that post about the Gnostic Gospels is just about the most biased load of crap I have ever read.

    Paul said that the story of Sarah and Hagar is an ALLEGORY.

    For the meat-eaters, this is a bit more accurate:

    Gnosis And Christianity:

    Pre-Christian Systems

    http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/christianity/Pre-ChristianSystems.html

    The First Christians

    http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/christianity/TheFirstChristians.html

    Christos And Sophia Achamoth

    http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/christianity/ChristosSophiaAchamoth.html

    Jesus- Logos - Christos

    http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/christianity/Jesus-Logos-Christos.html

    Oriental Kabala

    http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/christianity/OrientalKabala.html

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Psac, please take a look at the verse in question again. It is clearly stated that lust within the mind constitutes adultery. It is you that are taking an angle on the scripture containing this bold statement. To use your comparison, if I think about stealing I am not committing the act of stealing that is a logical impossibility. However, If I choose to steal then it would most definitely have started out as a thought, but that's not the point. I have to call red herring on ya

    Dude, you are not understanding what I am saying, either that or I am NOt understanding what you are are saying, LOL !

    Jesus was stating that the intent to do something IS a sin, not just the ACT of doing it, do you agree or disagree?

    Jesus made a very bold statement in that scripture and it shouldn't be sugar-coated with some philosophical angle on what he said. The stories of Jesus in the Gospels paint a man with incredible integrity possibly even to a fault. They depict a man with a well thought out position who, imo, would never engage in any kind of hypocricy.

    Agreed.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    PSac, that post about the Gnostic Gospels is just about the most biased load of crap I have ever read.

    LOL! Pot meet keetle !

    And those links aren't biased?

    Dude, I have NO vested interest in disproving gnostcis or legitimazing gospels.

    Believe which side you want.

    I.e., the gnostic texts pre-date manuscripts of gospel texts.

    No evidence of that.

    The gospels themselves were writen in the 2nd half of the 1st century, prior to the gnostic texts. However, the earliest complete manscripts of the gospels date to just the 3rd or 4th century.

    yes, that is true, the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are dated to mid 300's.

    There are much earlier texts that are NOT complete of course.

    There is a period of 100-300 years between when the gospels were first penned, and the oldest known manuscripts of them. It's likely that they are largely intact as written - but that's an awfully long time....church fathers with an agenda could have made some alterations.

    That is a possibility with ANY writing, including the gnostic ones too of course.

    There is no evidence of that however, unless you know of some?

  • LongHairGal
    LongHairGal

    Sab, Awen:

    I also tend to think Jesus did have a wife and it is also quite possible that a big lie has been told over the centuries. It isn't so hard to believe. The church ruled with an iron fist for centuries over people who were largely ignorant, superstitious serfs. Anything could have been told and perpetuated generation after generation.

    I heard the theory of Jesus being married long before that famous book and movie came along. I remember an uncle telling me he thinks Jesus was married when I first told everybody I had become a JW.

    Even with just a little reading and research I can believe Jesus had a wife. We may never know for sure but so what?

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    The the church was confronted with many issues and heresies is a fact of historical record, that we KNOW this shows that there was no "cover up" of all THOSE issues.

    That they had to deal with controversy from the very beginning is also a fact.

    That there were various views is also a fact.

    Look, I know it is fashionable to view the church of the frist 200 years as we view it NOW, but that was NOT the case.

    It was persecuted and 1000's died, it was far more concerned about survival than cover ups.

    ONLY when the chruch became the religion of the state and started to have power and was free from persecution ( late 4th century) can we begin to see the beginnings of the monolith it would become BUT that was NOT even close to how it was before that.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit