Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Analyses of Jesus' Wife Fragment Finally Published

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Analyses of Jesus' Wife Fragment Finally Published

    Forgery View Also Published, King Still Defends Authenticity

    While Coptic is an important language for New Testament text criticism, it isn't really a biblical language and the fragment is not from a biblical text so I was not sure where to post this. Personally, 'though I do not think he was, I would have no problem with Jesus being married, but some (most?) would consider this unorthodox so here goes ...

    People who know Coptic much better than me have been almost unanimous in their judgment that this is a forgery. I wonder how well and how long King will defend its authenticity? Probably for the rest of her career.

    Which is more important, I mean if I had the time to read up on this or the four blood moons, which should I choose. At least this stuff will have interesting scientific and text historico-critical methodology.
    Last edited by robrecht; 04-10-2014, 08:09 AM.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

  • #2
    Interesting. I guess I wouldn't have a problem if it were discovered that Jesus was married -- but it would concern me that none of the Gospel writers ever mentioned it, and I would really wonder why that was.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #3
      Even if it is genuine, there is not enough context to know what is being said. It could be part of a parable, or an analogy. Jesus and the bible speaks of the church as his Bride for instance.

      Comment


      • #4
        Both good points. I agree. And the late date that is proposed (if one believes its authenticity) would not carry any historical weight. Even King sees it merely as potential evidence for beliefs or expression of later theology on the part of some who may or may not have considered this to be 'historical' in any modern sense of the word.

        Sparko, would you consider this to be a matter of orthodoxy?
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          Both good points. I agree. And the late date that is proposed (if one believes its authenticity) would not carry any historical weight. Even King sees it merely as potential evidence for beliefs or expression of later theology on the part of some who may or may not have considered this to be 'historical' in any modern sense of the word.

          Sparko, would you consider this to be a matter of orthodoxy?
          No. I don't see any real reason why Jesus could not have been married, other than causing the obvious problems, like leaving a widow behind, or children.

          Comment


          • #6
            There is a problem with Jesus having been married. He makes no provision for a wife where He does make provision for His mother. That makes zero sense - He had brothers to care for His mother yet He sends her into John's care but a soon-to-be widow He doesn't do anything about?

            It also brings up the issue of little baby Jesus' wandering around. Jesus clearly did not intend to create an Earthly dynasty at the time (the NC being a different issue) so having a wife would leave that as an ever open question - no wife, no issue.

            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              There is a problem with Jesus having been married. He makes no provision for a wife where He does make provision for His mother. That makes zero sense - He had brothers to care for His mother yet He sends her into John's care but a soon-to-be widow He doesn't do anything about?

              It also brings up the issue of little baby Jesus' wandering around. Jesus clearly did not intend to create an Earthly dynasty at the time (the NC being a different issue) so having a wife would leave that as an ever open question - no wife, no issue.
              er that's pretty much what I said.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                er that's pretty much what I said.
                I said it better.

                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  I said it better.
                  so?

                  Comment


                  • #10

                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      Forgery View Also Published, King Still Defends Authenticity

                      While Coptic is an important language for New Testament text criticism, it isn't really a biblical language and the fragment is not from a biblical text so I was not sure where to post this. Personally, 'though I do not think he was, I would have no problem with Jesus being married, but some (most?) would consider this unorthodox so here goes ...

                      People who know Coptic much better than me have been almost unanimous in their judgment that this is a forgery. I wonder how well and how long King will defend its authenticity? Probably for the rest of her career.

                      Which is more important, I mean if I had the time to read up on this or the four blood moons, which should I choose. At least this stuff will have interesting scientific and text historico-critical methodology.
                      I've been following this for a couple years. Here is a neat analysis of the evidence for the forgery of the fragment.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Interesting. I guess I wouldn't have a problem if it were discovered that Jesus was married -- but it would concern me that none of the Gospel writers ever mentioned it, and I would really wonder why that was.
                        It wouldn't concern me any more than the question of who was Cain's wife and where did she come from. It was considered irrelevant to the central message and hence not included.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          There is a problem with Jesus having been married. He makes no provision for a wife where He does make provision for His mother. That makes zero sense - He had brothers to care for His mother yet He sends her into John's care but a soon-to-be widow He doesn't do anything about?

                          It also brings up the issue of little baby Jesus' wandering around. Jesus clearly did not intend to create an Earthly dynasty at the time (the NC being a different issue) so having a wife would leave that as an ever open question - no wife, no issue.
                          It is always possible that Jesus could have been a widower.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            It is always possible that Jesus could have been a widower.
                            True, but that would leave open the second question - were there any kiddies?

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              True, but that would leave open the second question - were there any kiddies?
                              I don't see how marriage necessitates children at all.
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X