Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How is this not already posted? Now if you don't know who Karen King is she does have a history of promoting early Christian feminism. Her Gospel of Mary is a solid book. I need to see it someone like Ehrman to endorse it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19645273

...

He could've baked the most delicious cake in the world.

He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky.

...

It's not much of a stretch to think He could've scored a wife.

/sorry
//obscure?

The important part of the article is here.

"It is not evidence, for us, historically, that Jesus had a wife," she said.

"It's quite clear evidence, in fact, that some Christians, probably in the second half of the 2nd Century, thought that Jesus had a wife."

So the feminist angle here isn't about him having a wife...it's that females probably had more presence in the religious thinking of some of the early Christian communities. Which I don't think is particularly revelatory or heretical.

gorgon wrote:

So the feminist angle here isn't about him having a wife...it's that females probably had more presence in the religious thinking of some of the early Christian communities. Which I don't think is particularly revelatory or heretical.

How do you know that these people were female?

gorgon wrote:The important part of the article is here.

"It is not evidence, for us, historically, that Jesus had a wife," she said.

"It's quite clear evidence, in fact, that some Christians, probably in the second half of the 2nd Century, thought that Jesus had a wife."

So the feminist angle here isn't about him having a wife...it's that females probably had more presence in the religious thinking of some of the early Christian communities. Which I don't think is particularly revelatory or heretical.

We already know that among the Gnostics and Copts women had at least an equal role. The feminist angle is this:"King said that in the dialogue the disciples discuss whether Mary is worthy and Jesus says "she can be my disciple."
Which has been one of the central things King has espoused in her deconstruction of the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip. A second century document may be separated from an original gospel but is not so far distanced to of include an oral component and is near enough to his life to precede the prevailing proto orthodox belief he was single and celibate, you know like your priests. It's a pretty ground breaking discovery regardless because Christians had a lot more to do with the development of Christianity than Christ did.

[edited just because]

Palindrome wrote:

gorgon wrote:

So the feminist angle here isn't about him having a wife...it's that females probably had more presence in the religious thinking of some of the early Christian communities. Which I don't think is particularly revelatory or heretical.

How do you know that these people were female?

Huh?

 AustonT wrote:
How is this not already posted? Now if you don't know who Karen King is she does have a history of promoting early Christian feminism. Her Gospel of Mary is a solid book. I need to see it someone like Ehrman to endorse it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19645273

It doesn't actually say he had a wife. Its half a sentence. The rest of the entire book or letter is not there. Its not enough to prove anything, if real.
It was dated several hundred years after.

Who knows? Who cares?

 AustonT wrote:

gorgon wrote:The important part of the article is here.

"It is not evidence, for us, historically, that Jesus had a wife," she said.

"It's quite clear evidence, in fact, that some Christians, probably in the second half of the 2nd Century, thought that Jesus had a wife."

So the feminist angle here isn't about him having a wife...it's that females probably had more presence in the religious thinking of some of the early Christian communities. Which I don't think is particularly revelatory or heretical.

We already know that among the Gnostics and Copts women had at least an equal role. The feminist angle is this:"King said that in the dialogue the disciples discuss whether Mary is worthy and Jesus says "she can be my disciple."
Which has been one of the central things King has espoused in her deconstruction of the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip. A second century document may be separated from an original gospel but is not so far distanced to of include an oral component and is near enough to his life to precede the prevailing proto orthodox belief he was single and celibate, you know like your priests. It's a pretty ground breaking discovery regardless because Christians had a lot more to do with the development of Christianity than Christ did.

Yeah, makes sense. Still, this story is getting reported all over the place as "proof Jesus had a wife."

There's a Gospel of Judas too, in which it is reported that he turned Jesus over to the Romans only at Jesus's request. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas)

There were many early gospels. The early church elders decided, for various reasons, to make Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the canonical texts of the faith and did their best to suppress all the others.

It would have been exceptionally rare for a 33 Year Old male in Israel not to be married so it nots too much of a surprise

Far, far, far more important -- and thus never talked about -- are the rites in the actual Church for ordination of women deacons.

Who cares what ancient heretics thought centuries after the fact? Women had important roles in the ancient Church and the Church today prefers them not to.

 Manchu wrote:
Far, far, far more important -- and thus never talked about -- are the rites in the actual Church for ordination of women deacons.

Who cares what ancient heretics thought centuries after the fact? Women had important roles in the ancient Church and the Catholic Church today prefers them not to.

Corrected your typo.

 Frazzled wrote:
Corrected your typo.

Redundant as I had already spelled church with a capital C.

Not redundundant Catholic boy. We call ours The Church too. And we drink more!

I very much doubt that.

Also, sure you can call yourself whatever you like.

GUYS DAN BROWN WAS RIGHT

 Manchu wrote:
I very much doubt that.

Also, sure you can call yourself whatever you like.

We call you the Roman Church, or the Romans actually.

of course when I was young in a fire breathing Baptist chuurch we called you heretic.

 Frazzled wrote:
fire breathing Baptist

 Frazzled wrote:
heretic

I see, I see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
GUYS DAN BROWN WAS RIGHT

Shouldn't GUYS be spelled GUIZ in that sentence?

Ok. My question here is why wouldn't he have a wife? I agree with Hlaine Larkin mk2 here. It definitely would have been very strange for a 30 year old Jewish male in Israel to not be married.

Uh, what?

 Manchu wrote:
Uh, what?

Socially it would of been an very unusual thing to occur

So what?

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:It would have been exceptionally rare for a 33 Year Old male in Israel not to be married so it nots too much of a surprise

Judea.

Maxstreel wrote:Ok. My question here is why wouldn't he have a wife? I agree with Hlaine Larkin mk2 here. It definitely would have been very strange for a 30 year old Jewish male in Israel to not be married.

There were some interesting Christian rites before normatized Christianity. One tha remained pretty steady was the sex made the body unclean, lactating mothers ranked just above prostitutes if you can fathom that. The Virgin Mother and a virgin Jesus emphasize the holiness of the Christ׳s life, but makes little sense. An unfruitful Jesus is defiant of the mitzvah to be fruitful and multiply. Six of one half dozen of another.

While it woudl be interesting to have insight into Jesus the man, it's not horribly relevant. That's assuming he actually did have a wife, and this isnt' just the result of a game of telephone.

It's easy to paint the early church as maliciously squashing all the other gospels, but there's a reason some depictions of events are accepted and others aren't.

For example... look at depictions of the birth of president obama. This is while he is alive, in a modern society, and you can find texts telling a very different story. In 2000 years, should we really look to "birther" literature as good insight into Obama?

 Polonius wrote:
In 2000 years, should we really look to "birther" literature as good insight into Obama?

This is quite a good analogy. I will be stealing it!

Please people. Jesus referred to the Church as his bride. Even if this a genuine manuscript, it is very likely that he is still using that imagery.

 The Bringer wrote:
Please people. Jesus referred to the Church as his bride. Even if this a genuine manuscript, it is very likely that he is still using that imagery.

that was brought up in the NPR article I heard this morning.

 The Bringer wrote:
Please people. Jesus referred to the Church as his bride. Even if this a genuine manuscript, it is very likely that he is still using that imagery.

Which is increasingly likely if the authoer of that fragment was either not very poetic, or didn't understand the metaphor in the first place.

The underlying point is that this is just one small piece of evidence.

literally tiny. Its the size of a business card.