The 'Jesus' Wife' Heresy

[shodan]

The media gave this 'fragment' so much hype but this presents an opportunity to open the conversation about the true Christ with others who are taken or confused by this 'news'. But we need to do a little homework to be faithful witnesses.
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/

The key point is that whether this is a fraud or simply false teaching, this does not make any difference to the fact that the 'fragment' does not square with the Doctrine of Christ.

 

[billwald]

There is nothing in the OT or the Gospels which requires that the messiah not be married - unless one also claims that Jesus never had a mother or brothers.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There is nothing in the OT or the Gospels which requires that the messiah not be married - unless one also claims that Jesus never had a mother or brothers.

You are correct.

I don't think it matters either way, but I can't understand why it does to some.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are correct.

I don't think it matters either way, but I can't understand why it does to some.

Think that since jesus already had a bride, his churech, that he was a "one woman man!"

 

[billwald]

The church began when?

 

[Yeshua1]

The church began when?

Always been in the Will and Plans of God, actually brought into existence here upon the earth at Pentacost...

 

[shodan]

There is nothing in the OT or the Gospels which requires that the messiah not be married - unless one also claims that Jesus never had a mother or brothers.

So, do you believe Jesus was only a man? It is not OT requirements for the Messiah that precludes Jesus taking a wife. It is understanding the doctrine of Christ. F.F. Bruce notes that “an intelligent appreciation of the doctrine of Christ is the best safeguard against most forms of heretical teaching…”[from the linked article]

 

[Sevenzedek]

You are correct.

I don't think it matters either way, but I can't understand why it does to some.

Hi.

May I present my burden on the matter as well?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in concerning whether or not Jesus was married. Therefore, since the scripture does not say he was married, I think it matters very much that others say he was or may have been. On this the bible is silent. May I be silent also. However, concerning the issue of marriage and Jesus, the bible is not completely silent. He is married to the church.

 

[targus]

There is nothing in the OT or the Gospels which requires that the messiah not be married - unless one also claims that Jesus never had a mother...

Whaaa?

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The media gave this 'fragment' so much hype but this presents an opportunity to open the conversation about the true Christ with others who are taken or confused by this 'news'. But we need to do a little homework to be faithful witnesses.
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/

The key point is that whether this is a fraud or simply false teaching, this does not make any difference to the fact that the 'fragment' does not square with the Doctrine of Christ.

Quite true. Most likely this fragment is from a gnostic writing. Though John Stewart of Comedy Central made a humurous commentary about the application of that find. Particularily since the fragment is cut off and we don't have the rest of the text of what is being purported that could just mean anything. Maybe Jesus is reffering to the bride or the body of believers. Or maybe it would have said "my wife? No, I'm not married".
But I believe its probably a gnostic fragment.

 

[shodan]

Broken links

Two links in the blog became broken. The article on fraud by Prof. Francis Watson is here;
http://markgoodacre.org/Watson2.pdf
He believes that coptic lines were copied by someone not too adept with coptic, from the gnostic Gospel of Thomas to fabricate this 'fragment.'

 

[Yeshua1]

Two links in the blog became broken. The article on fraud by Prof. Francis Watson is here;
http://markgoodacre.org/Watson2.pdf
He believes that coptic lines were copied by someone not too adept with coptic, from the gnostic Gospel of Thomas to fabricate this 'fragment.'

Could have been same author as did Gospel of judas for all we know!

 

[shodan]

Could have been same author as did Gospel of judas for all we know!

No, not possible. Gospel of Judas was 2nd century Gnostic gospel originally written in Greek This fragment is 4th century Coptic.

As Prof. Watson stated: "The author has
used a kind of “collage” technique to assemble the items selected from [the Gnostic Gospel of] Thomas into a new
composition. While this is a very unlikely way for an ancient author to compose a text, it’s what might
be expected of a modern forger with limited facility in the Coptic language."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, not possible. Gospel of Judas was 2nd century Gnostic gospel originally written in Greek This fragment is 4th century Coptic.

As Prof. Watson stated: "The author has
used a kind of “collage” technique to assemble the items selected from [the Gnostic Gospel of] Thomas into a new
composition. While this is a very unlikely way for an ancient author to compose a text, it’s what might
be expected of a modern forger with limited facility in the Coptic language."

An FYI. The Vatican official newspaper believes it to be a fake http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/vatican-newspaper-calls-jesus-wife-fragment-a-clumsy-fake/2012/09/28/ccc9cd88-09a8-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_story.html