Jesus had a wife

[OzSpen]

Brought to us by the same level of higher intellects the provided the various (potential) gospel(s) of Q theories.

Sometimes what these people propose is a bit beyond crazy or revolves around lopsided emphasized interests in particular fields such as history or archeology. But because they have some heavily stamped educational sheep skins hanging in their offices they get by with various long postures of potential redactional speculations of every sort.

And we should also be aware that people in higher education make their living by making such speculations and eventually publishing all their nonsenses, getting grants, selling books, educating people in their field by hammering out such creditials, etc etc.

And then follows all their adherents who think that because they read and follow these people they are now experts too. (think N.T. Wright and his clan of hyper scholarly historical emphasis pumpers)

If we think Jesus had a wife and the entirety of O.T. and N.T. writers neglected to mention it (other than the Bride, the Church members) and base that instead off a side bar of institutional pursuits where they make their livings conjuring up this stuff I'd say a lot of it if not the majority of it is a side track. There are probably millions of such side tracks.

If it were not for OT Hebrew-Aramaic and NT Greek scholars, you wouldn't even have a Hebrew OT or a Greek NT or English Bible translations. You are engaging in dangerous activity in putting all scholars in your unpopular or disagreement baskets.

 

[reba]

closed for moderator review,,,,

 

[JohnDB]

Re-opened.

Please address issues instead of people...being aware that some broad brushes will attack those with whom you are discussing matters.

I know that this is an Apologetic thread instead of Theology and many are not accustomed to discussing these sorts of topics but I want substantive proofs and backed up assertions of opinions.

My posts on this thread may not appear to be backed up by facts but actually were summary statements taken from the articles the OP posted links to.

Apologetics are a necessary part of why we believe what we believe. This thread discussing the fraud of "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife" is important. Of course Jesus was not married. But this thread responds to Dan Brown's book which uses this fragment of fraud as a factoid to make a sensational movie.

 

[By Grace]

Brought to us by the same level of higher intellects the provided the various (potential) gospel(s) of Q theories.

You may not be aware, but not every school of higher education is equal. Just as there are junior colleges and community colleges, there are major differences among universities and grad schools. Having graduated from a conservative grad school, and having studied at a liberal grad school, there are great differences in the fundamental principles that each operate from.

As a conservative in a liberal school, I was not "throttled" nor was I disparaged in any manner. All I needed to do was to back up my opinions with evidence and sound reason. And that taught me that scholarship in any endeavor is concerned with truth and evidence. While the opinions may differ, the facts do not lie.

You may not also know that the ivy league seminaries are universally liberal, and they have hitched themselves to the social gospel, and the documentary hypothesis, which says that there were 4 different authors of the Pentateuch; none of them was Moses.

So it is not "educated people" who are at fault in this; rather it is educated liberal people.

And we should also be aware that people in higher education make their living by making such speculations and eventually publishing all their nonsenses, getting grants, selling books, educating people in their field by hammering out such creditials, etc etc.

The primary job of a person with a Ph.D is to publish new studies if that person is a professor. The creed is "publish or perish". There is nothing wrong with that because any grad student looks for experts in their particular field so they can get a better education. Then when their turn comes to publish their dissertation, it is those high profile professors who both mentor and examine the candidate before granting the student his/her own PhD.

There are two primary problems with what she wrote:
1) She was publishing something that was out of her field of knowledge
2) She could not read the Coptic Language (used by Egyptian Christians), and instead relied on secondary sources.

Here is an excerpt from the article which demonstrates what I wrote above: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...o-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/

Critics had argued for years that errors in Coptic grammar, similarities with the Gospel of Thomas, and other problems pointed to forgery. But King had placed her faith in the opinions of expert papyrologists, along with a series of carbon-dating and other scientific tests, at MIT, Harvard, and Columbia, that had turned up no signs of modern tampering or forgery.
​

She is not the first academic to be duped by a con artist, nor will she be the last. But it is my hope that this will help to give you (and others) a different perspective.

 

[turnorburn]

If the people that foster stories such as this story knew who Jesus is.. they probably wouldn't have published it to begin with.. Its an attack on his deity..

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

[smaller]

As a conservative in a liberal school, I was not "throttled" nor was I disparaged in any manner. All I needed to do was to back up my opinions with evidence and sound reason. And that taught me that scholarship in any endeavor is concerned with truth and evidence. While the opinions may differ, the facts do not lie.

Demanding scripture to submit to various filters of academia will never compute. Scholars think history is a locked cut and dried field but in fact it is filled to the brim with the suppositions of the scholars and the victors who prevailed. Seldom is it actual truth and even less so when applied to scripture.

Scripture is a unique subject that deals in a much different arena. Thankfully beyond the grasp of those types of academia.

In scripture the smartest guys in the room are probably going to be the last to submit to IT'S precepts because those precepts will not fit into their demanded boxes. Just because some scholar claims to understand everything about Aramaic Greek doesn't mean they really do and most of the people in the field do have many variances of sights.

You may not also know that the ivy league seminaries are universally liberal, and they have hitched themselves to the social gospel, and the documentary hypothesis, which says that there were 4 different authors of the Pentateuch; none of them was Moses.

So it is not "educated people" who are at fault in this; rather it is educated liberal people.

I wouldn't disagree with that statement at all. A watered down Gospel suits the liberal agendas.

The primary job of a person with a Ph.D is to publish new studies if that person is a professor. The creed is "publish or perish".

I pointed that out earlier and of course there is always the ever present "new thing" to publish/peddle to make a name or a mark in the field. The errors in that type of system setup can be ever self perpetuating. It's called one upmanship and it never ends. That's basically what split older orthdoxy as well. Scholars coming up with new slants and hence variations and variance. 3 or 4 little words at variance with religious scholars (who are the smartest guys in the room) split millions of believers. And that same activity continues to split denominations today by the score. Continual new angles always being derived. Not saying that some aren't legit either.

There is nothing wrong with that because any grad student looks for experts in their particular field so they can get a better education. Then when their turn comes to publish their dissertation, it is those high profile professors who both mentor and examine the candidate before granting the student his/her own PhD.

Indeed. And they must "tow" the party lines or their peers ain't letting them into their clubs. I once read a seminary students doctoral thesis about "Law" and there was not a single mention of the lawlessness of the devil and his messengers as it is presented in scriptures.

I just had to shake my head at the ignorance. But you see that particular aspect of scripture does sell well to the masses. Never has, never will. And there are scriptural reasons why that are given to explain why this won't be accepted by the masses. Nobody really wants to hear that their sin is actually demonic. And just how is a "bible scholar" going to empirically prove this? They can't. Sin is not a forensic or empirically proven matter so it won't fit academia.

There are two primary problems with what she wrote:
1) She was publishing something that was out of her field of knowledge
2) She could not read the Coptic Language (used by Egyptian Christians), and instead relied on secondary sources.

That's a broader problem with higher education. Everyone is a high order specialist but such specialization may not be the best approach to gain collective knowledge. You end up with a bunch of specialized idiots who are not allowed to authoritatively speak or enter into other areas that are past their specialized educational fence. This is a very real problem in many sectors. Knowledge can get sparse and what knowledge is gained can be captured and exploited by others, the overlords of the systems.

Here is an excerpt from the article which demonstrates what I wrote above: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...o-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/

Critics had argued for years that errors in Coptic grammar, similarities with the Gospel of Thomas, and other problems pointed to forgery. But King had placed her faith in the opinions of expert papyrologists, along with a series of carbon-dating and other scientific tests, at MIT, Harvard, and Columbia, that had turned up no signs of modern tampering or forgery.
​

She is not the first academic to be duped by a con artist, nor will she be the last. But it is my hope that this will help to give you (and others) a different perspective.

I smelled dupe without even reading the material based on the nonsense of the claim itself.

 

[reba]

I smelled dupe without even reading the material based on the nonsense of the claim itself.

yup

 

[By Grace]

Demanding scripture to submit to various filters of academia will never compute. Scholars think history is a locked cut and dried field but in fact it is filled to the brim with the suppositions of the scholars and the victors who prevailed. Seldom is it actual truth and even less so when applied to scripture.

In this instance, Scripture is irrelevant because the discussion is about a liberal acholar who claimed evidence for a "wife of Jesus" using a forged document

Scholars coming up with new slants and hence variations and variance. 3 or 4 little words at variance with religious scholars (who are the smartest guys in the room) split millions of believers. And that same activity continues to split denominations today by the score. Continual new angles always being derived. Not saying that some aren't legit either.

Your posts SEEM to be critical of scholarship in general, and it is that perception that I am addressing.

Indeed. And they must "tow" the party lines or their peers ain't letting them into their clubs. I once read a seminary students doctoral thesis about "Law" and there was not a single mention of the lawlessness of the devil and his messengers as it is presented in scriptures.

Your posts seem to be disdainful of academia in general, and I can say that because despite giving you an insight into it, you remain somewhat hostile.

That's a broader problem with higher education. Everyone is a high order specialist but such specialization may not be the best approach to gain collective knowledge.

Opinions are one thing but personal experience is quite another matter.

Here is an excerpt from the article which demonstrates what I wrote above: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...o-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/

Critics had argued for years that errors in Coptic grammar, similarities with the Gospel of Thomas, and other problems pointed to forgery. But King had placed her faith in the opinions of expert papyrologists, along with a series of carbon-dating and other scientific tests, at MIT, Harvard, and Columbia, that had turned up no signs of modern tampering or forgery.

She is not the first academic to be duped by a con artist, nor will she be the last. But it is my hope that this will help to give you (and others) a different perspective.

Despite good intentions and careful study of the issue, it seems that my intentions did not meet my goal.

 

[smaller]

In this instance, Scripture is irrelevant because the discussion is about a liberal acholar who claimed evidence for a "wife of Jesus" using a forged document

Scripture is always relevant in this particular forum. It's one of the rules. It's also in Gods rulz: 2 Tim. 3:16

Your posts SEEM to be critical of scholarship in general, and it is that perception that I am addressing.

If you paid for as many college educations as I have you'd understand my disdain for the field.

Your posts seem to be disdainful of academia in general, and I can say that because despite giving you an insight into it, you remain somewhat hostile.

Don't mistake calling it like it is hostile. In your face truthful is fine with me.

Opinions are one thing but personal experience is quite another matter.

Despite good intentions and careful study of the issue, it seems that my intentions did not meet my goal.

If you were trying to convince me that people who are overly educated are NOT quite pumped completely full of ignorant arrogance and downright stupid, no passing grade. A lot of people think the world owes them because of what they know.

It doesn't.

 

[WIP]

Much of this thread is off topic. Please consider applying the Forum Guidelines when posting and address the topic, supporting your view with the written Word of God.

 

[OzSpen]

Much of this thread is off topic. Please consider applying the Forum Guidelines when posting and address the topic, supporting your view with the written Word of God.

Karen King, the promoter of the "Gospel of Jesus' wife" has been demonstrated to be promoting a forgery. Even though she is from the prestigious Harvard Divinity School, this does not demonstrate that higher education is to be avoided or debunked.l

It shows that all of us need to be Bereans in our approach to anything associated with God, the Gospel and Scripture: 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11 NIV). This is an awesome responsibility for the hearers and readers of preachers and teachers. It is our responsibility to compare what they are teaching with Scripture.

This applies to all Bible teachers who are supposed 'to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up' (Eph 4:12 NIV).

A comparison of Karen King's teaching on Jesus' wife with Scripture and reach demonstrates she is promoting a fabrication. If the Berean Jews had to do it for Paul's teaching, it should be no different than for Karen King's or for any one of us who posts teaching on CFnet. Does it agree with Scripture?

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Professor Karen King of Harvard Divinity School is promoting the view that Jesus was married and had a wife,

Oh for goodness sake! Not again!
I guess a good sensational book will always bring the bucks and get your name recognized.
(I'm using the logical fallacy; "poisoning the well.")

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

Oh for goodness sake! Not again!
I guess a good sensational book will always bring the bucks and get your name recognized.
(I'm using the logical fallacy; "poisoning the well.")

iakov the fool

 

[Trichakra]

There is no evidence that Jesus was married and had wife.

 

[OzSpen]

There is no evidence that Jesus was married and had wife.

Trichakra,

I suggest that you look into some of the evidence that has been produced in recent years to lead to a discussion about Jesus' possible marriage.

See: Did Jesus have a wife? by Randy Gau of BibleGateway. I have attempted to investigate some of the issues in my article, Was Jesus married?

Oz

 

[jaybird]

i never understood why it would be such a big deal if Jesus was married. why do so many act as if this concept would undo all of Christendom? what difference would it make?

 

[Corn Pop]

i never understood why it would be such a big deal if Jesus was married. why do so many act as if this concept would undo all of Christendom? what difference would it make?

It would not have been a sin for Jesus to have a wife, but i doubt he did. This world loves to distort things. Nothing in scripture points or leads to believe Jesus had a wife.

Aside from that, i do believe Joseph of Aramathia was Jesus dad. I dont think anyone but family in those days would claim a body to bury. Just a personal belief. Could be distorted but i think he was.

I think Joseph was humble and was blessed and moved to Aramathia when Mary and Christ left and he prospered in business, he did not interfere or question The Most High. He was probably the most humble man in scripture because he's left out of it from the small amount there is to know about him.

A little at the begining and a little at the end.

 

[Corn Pop]

Think about it. The people who wrote the gospels as there multiple eye witness accounts would never have known Jesus dad, one account a poor man with his planned wife Mary, next thing 20 odd years gone, then he was a rich man called Joseph from Aramathia who come and asked for his sons body because he is the dad, king of the household, his duty, and obviously heard the news and wanted to place his son in the tomb. He wanted to bury his son.

The Lord would have blessed Joseph for his trust, understanding, and belief.

Everyone says blessed is the virgin Mary. What about humble Joseph.

The only thing that could distort is if Joseph died before Jesus was crucified. Possible but i dont know. Maybe he was at the crucifiction but not mentioned as he was just humble.

I dont know. The Most High will correct me for my mistakes. Maybe im going off path but scripture doesn't clarify it so i guess its just a distorted guessing game.

 

[jaybird]

It would not have been a sin for Jesus to have a wife, but i doubt he did. This world loves to distort things. Nothing in scripture points or leads to believe Jesus had a wife.

Aside from that, i do believe Joseph of Aramathia was Jesus dad. I dont think anyone but family in those days would claim a body to bury. Just a personal belief. Could be distorted but i think he was.

I think Joseph was humble and was blessed and moved to Aramathia when Mary and Christ left and he prospered in business, he did not interfere or question The Most High. He was probably the most humble man in scripture because he's left out of it from the small amount there is to know about him.

A little at the begining and a little at the end.

i dont think He was married. but had He been married i would think nothing of it. what makes little sense is when so many get into an outrage over the subject. was He not sent to be an example to us, to be like one of us, what better way to demonstrate that than to be married like one of us.

 

[Corn Pop]

i dont think He was married. but had He been married i would think nothing of it. what makes little sense is when so many get into an outrage over the subject. was He not sent to be an example to us, to be like one of us, what better way to demonstrate that than to be married like one of us.

If Jesus was married or not, or, as i said i believe Joseph of Aramathia was his earthly dad, its not a issue. Its not a salvation problem, its just talk.