Jesus was married

[Michchamp]

Short summary: 8th Century Egyptian papyrus fragment containing a quote from Jesus where he refers to his wife, Mary, was declared genuine. Link.

He was saying "Take my wife... please!" it was a joke. he was actually the first one to use that line.

"The Review also published a rebuttal by Brown Egyptology professor Leo Depuydt, who points to "gross grammatical errors" he says no native speaker of Coptic would make, the New York Times reports. (More criticism of the papyrus here.)"
​

I don't think that's a fair rebuttal. there are a lot of dumb christians out there, and they make gross grammatical errors all the time.

 

[Slick]

probably dipped his stick in a lot pussy...he and his disciples probably ran train on bitches.

 

[Michchamp]

hey hey! Slick's back.

 

[Slick]

hey hey! Slick's back.

:tup:

 

[zyxt9]

I was just reading about this. Some Christians are proclaiming he was referring to The Church when he said My Wife. It is difficult to know for certain based solely on this piece of paper.

However, from a Jewish historical perspective, Jesus probably was married in his teens, a period of time unfortunately glossed over in Christian studies from my experience. It was a very common practice for Jewish males to be married between the ages of 13 and 18 in those days - the earlier the better - with the marriage likely arranged by the parents, often aided by a Yenta (yes, like in Fiddler on the Roof).

Still nothing is 100% on this topic, so I'm sure some will disagree.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Of course Jesus was married, didn't you guys see that movie Hudson Hawk?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Of course Jesus was married, didn't you guys see that movie Hudson Hawk?

Check that; I meant The Da Vinci Code.
I always get those two movies mixed up.

They're both about the Vatican, and the investigation of ancient mysteries, and secret organizations and conspiracies and Da Vinci, and shit like that...

 

[Michchamp]

Check that; I meant The Da Vinci Code.
I always get those two movies mixed up.

They're both about the Vatican, and the investigation of ancient mysteries, and secret organizations and conspiracies and Da Vinci, and shit like that...

I saw Hudson Hawk a long time ago. was weird... I just remember not liking it and being bored.

never saw the Da Vinci Code. funny story about that though... I remember when the book came out years ago. I had a dating profile on match or some site like that, and some cute chick had in her profile "I never read the da Vinci Code on principle." I was thinking "Hey! I never read it either on principle!" ... my principle being: "I only read real literature, not pulp mass-market fiction garbage" so I emailed her ... turns out though that her principle was that it wasn't faithful to Catholic teaching. it didn't go anywhere between us.

she would probably be pissed to learn that Jesus was married.

 

[Thumb]

You guys should have seen the bachelor party he had. He turned the Dead Sea to wine, then walked out onto the middle of it and him and the Apostles had a break dancing competition, then the whores showed up. It was off the hook. His dad found out about it though, and forsake him.

 

[Michchamp]

... It was off the hook. His dad found out about it though, and forsake him.

yeah but he only got mad because it made the local gossip pages. I don't think he cared otherwise. he had his own reputation for raising hell, back in the day

 

[tinselwolverine]

I was thinking "Hey! I never read it either on principle!" ... my principle being: "I only read real literature, not pulp mass-market fiction garbage" so I emailed her ... turns out though that her principle was that it wasn't faithful to Catholic teaching. it didn't go anywhere between us.

she would probably be pissed to learn that Jesus was married.

In my experience the primary principle of Catholic girls (or women I should say) when it comes to dating is they generally put out right away.

I think it may be the Catholic upbringing that makes them that way.

 

[Michchamp]

In my experience the primary principle of Catholic girls (or women I should say) when it comes to dating is they generally put out right away.

I think it may be the Catholic upbringing that makes them that way.

We never connected for a date. But yes... That was usually what happened... But only after a lot of pretending like they wouldn't put out.

 

[kalinecountry]

We never connected for a date. But yes... That was usually what happened... But only after a lot of pretending like they wouldn't put out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMdhWRO4-dQ
FZ Catholic Girls.

 

[Monster]

There are dozens of books taken out of the bible. Monarchies decided which were appropriate. Books about judas not being a traitor, eve not being the first woman and not at fault for the tree of knowledge thing.

Edit: also one where jesus was married.

 

[TheVictors]

My best friend went to the catholic HS in town after his parents moved him from the public school so he could be a four sport letterman, have smaller class size and ...have church stuff at school.

Those girls were definitely one way when parents were around and another when not

 

[KAWDUP]

There are dozens of books taken out of the bible. Monarchies decided which were appropriate. Books about judas not being a traitor, eve not being the first woman and not at fault for the tree of knowledge thing.

Edit: also one where jesus was married.

Do you have any idea why these books were not included in the bible? I believe you are misrepresenting these actions by saying Monarchies decided.

Sure you can Google First Council of Nicaea, and Council of Trent etc. but have you ever read the documents and decrees (their translations, of course) that came out of these Council's? If not then you are just spitting back what some Christian hater has informed you of to cast aspersions on the Bible.

BTW - so you know - it makes no difference to my World or Religious view whether Jesus was married or not, or whether Eve was at fault or not.

 

[Thumb]

Do you have any idea why these books were not included in the bible? I believe you are misrepresenting these actions by saying Monarchies decided.

Sure you can Google First Council of Nicaea, and Council of Trent etc. but have you ever read the documents and decrees (their translations, of course) that came out of these Council's? If not then you are just spitting back what some Christian hater has informed you of to cast aspersions on the Bible.

BTW - so you know - it makes no difference to my World or Religious view whether Jesus was married or not, or whether Eve was at fault or not.

What difference does the reason they were not included make? Either they were omitted to hide something, or because they contradicted some other belief.

But I'm sure you will have some lame excuse for how I'm just a "hater", and can never understand why the attempt to suppress the other gospels was actually what Jesus wanted, hundreds of years after his death.

 

[KAWDUP]

What difference does the reason they were not included make? Either they were omitted to hide something, or because they contradicted some other belief.

But I'm sure you will have some lame excuse for how I'm just a "hater", and can never understand why the attempt to suppress the other gospels was actually what Jesus wanted, hundreds of years after his death.

Figures you would answer with mostly stupidity. I'm sure those are the only two reasons. Sheesh!

The difference is the veracity of the author's, as the most likely reason. There is a reason Matthew is the first book of the New Testament. Why don't you tell the class why that might be Thumber, since you are so good at putting words into other people's mouths?

Maybe you are driving at the fact that history, in general, is written by the winners, so how do you know, or how can you possibly think, that what is there, is the truth?

Never going to convince you, but that's OK. Leave you with this thought. Whatever books were chosen to be in the Bible sure have lasted a long damn time haven't they?

Oh wait I forgot, the papacy has been involved in a 2000 year old conspiracy to make you act a certain way. Those bastards.

 

[Thumb]

Figures you would answer with mostly stupidity. I'm sure those are the only two reasons. Sheesh!

The difference is the veracity of the author's, as the most likely reason. There is a reason Matthew is the first book of the New Testament. Why don't you tell the class why that might be Thumber, since you are so good at putting words into other people's mouths?

Maybe you are driving at the fact that history, in general, is written by the winners, so how do you know, or how can you possibly think, that what is there, is the truth?

Never going to convince you, but that's OK. Leave you with this thought. Whatever books were chosen to be in the Bible sure have lasted a long damn time haven't they?

Oh wait I forgot, the papacy has been involved in a 2000 year old conspiracy to make you act a certain way. Those bastards.

You know, I try to stay away from insults, but since you don't afford anyone else the same courtesy, I'll just say what I really think, and that's you really are an asshole. I didn't put any words into anyone's mouth, you did that when you said Monster's mentioning was "just spitting back what some Christian hater has informed you of to cast aspersions on the Bible."

And I never said those were the only reasons, I just listed them as what I believe are the main reasons. And sure, the books of the bible have lasted a long time, probably because for centuries upon centuries anyone who cast any doubt on them was branded a heretic and burned, beheaded, hanged, drawn and quartered.....yeah, you get the drift.

Also, wise up to the fact that maybe when someone disagrees with your beliefs, it's not necessarily an attack on those beliefs, just someone saying what they believe themselves, funny how that's not a 2-way street.

 

[Monster]

Do you have any idea why these books were not included in the bible? I believe you are misrepresenting these actions by saying Monarchies decided.

Sure you can Google First Council of Nicaea, and Council of Trent etc. but have you ever read the documents and decrees (their translations, of course) that came out of these Council's? If not then you are just spitting back what some Christian hater has informed you of to cast aspersions on the Bible.

BTW - so you know - it makes no difference to my World or Religious view whether Jesus was married or not, or whether Eve was at fault or not.

Yes, I do know the reasons the books were not included in the bible. I know the stated reasons, but most of those stated reasons could apply to just about every book in the bible.

I'd argue that even though it isn't important to you, it is extremely important. Eve, the woman who brought sin to man, has been blamed for all of the world's problems since the story was first told. God gave command to men over women because woman came from man. He gave pain to women in child birth because of Eve. If Jesus was married and had children, there may be actual proof of God in his descendant's DNA.

I'd also add that if the church or a king can edit book at will, the text you read is nowhere close to being the original word of God (if that's what it is). So yes, I think it is very important.