Jesus'S Wife: Referred To In Coptic Papyrus Fragment

[volgadon]

What we're not in kindergarten?

First grade.

[volgadon]

I don't know that the chances of this happening will be increased by asking childish questions like this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll bow to your multiple examples of maturity in this thread.

[Lachoneus]

What kind of servants need be told in the middle of the wedding to obey the host?

Why was Mary giving the servants orders?

[wenglund]

I'll bow to your multiple examples of maturity in this thread.

Like you asked: "Can we please raise this above kindergarten exchanges?"

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Edited September 21, 2012 by wenglund

[volgadon]

Why was Mary giving the servants orders?

Because she saw something wrong and stepped in, even though it was not their wedding.

[volgadon]

Like you asked: "Can we please raise this above kindergarten exchanges?"

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Frankly? I was looking for a nice way to ask you to stop posting multiple times what amounted to "neener, neener," but I repent of any board nannying.

[wenglund]

Frankly? I was looking for a nice way to ask you to stop posting multiple times what amounted to "neener, neener," but I repent of any board nannying.

And, yet, in the process, you did some "neener, neener" of your own--or so it could be viewed.

My exchanges with Valentius and DBmormon were intended to make salient/mature points that evidently were misread as immature by you and DBmormon. I returned the disfavor in hopes of making the two of you aware of the beam in your own eyes. Evidently, I wasn't any more successful than you with your nannying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 21, 2012 by wenglund

[MiserereNobis]

The thing is, Mary was "human", so one of her eggs had to be fertilized by a male otherwise she would not have become pregnant.

That's how it works for our species, ya know. Some male has to somehow fertilize the egg of a female with a part of himself, usually referred to as sperm.

Or maybe you think our Father just put a fully formed baby embryo in her womb and Mary just carried that baby Jesus in her womb until he was ready for her to give birth to him, which would mean Mary wasn't really the human Mother of Jesus, which would mean Jesus didn't get the "human" part of himself from her, which would mean there would have needed to be some other human for Jesus to get the "human" part of himself.

So how would he have become 100% human while also being 100% divine, do ya think?

If Mary was his Mother, and God our Father was his Father, then our Father had to somehow fertilize one of her eggs with his own sperm so Mary could get pregnant just as all other human females get pregnant.

Oh my. How widespread is this view among Mormons? To a Catholic mind this is a very repulsive and blasphemous doctrine -- that God the Father had sex with Mary.

We believe in miracles. Jesus was born of a Virgin. He had no physical father. It is a miracle. God the Father is His Father in relation to God the Son, who assumed the physical and spiritual being of Jesus. God the Father has no sperm and did not have sex with the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Miserere Nobis!

[ERayR]

Oh my. How widespread is this view among Mormons? To a Catholic mind this is a very repulsive and blasphemous doctrine -- that God the Father had sex with Mary.

We believe in miracles. Jesus was born of a Virgin. He had no physical father. It is a miracle. God the Father is His Father in relation to God the Son, who assumed the physical and spiritual being of Jesus. God the Father has no sperm and did not have sex with the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Miserere Nobis!

The mechanism of Mary's impregnation is not known but it is known that God is the literal father of Jesus Christ. This leads and has led some to speculate on how this could have been accomplished. In days before modern medical advancement the methods available for speculation was much more limited.

Edited September 21, 2012 by ERayR

[Deborah]

What kind of servants need be told in the middle of the wedding to obey the host?.

As I said I'm recalling something from years ago. But in any case how many grown men live with their mothers? Oops, nevermind, lots of them today.

Except that rabbis did not exist yet, nor was there a requirment that they be married, and in Jesus' day, men tended to marry late. By late I mean mid-30s to 40s.

I'd be interested then as to why the scriptures refer to rabbi at the time of Jesus and the sites I've read do also.

http://www.wildolive.co.uk/Rabbi%20Jesus.htm

[volgadon]

As I said I'm recalling something from years ago. But in any case how many grown men live with their mothers? Oops, nevermind, lots of them today.

I'd be interested then as to why the scriptures refer to rabbi at the time of Jesus and the sites I've read do also.

http://www.wildolive...Rabbi Jesus.htm

When people today say sir, are they for the most part assuming that the person is a knight of the realm? Of course not. It is an honorific. Likewise, rabbi wa the equivalent. What we think of today when the word rabbi is used did not exist before the destruction of the temple.

[Calm]

My wife is from Ukraine (they feel quite hurt when the article is used), studied law, and I've been there a little bit. As much as I dislike the American political system (and I do), it compares quite favourably to that in Ukraine.

I have yet to find a working political system that I liked though there are things that I've liked in almost every political system that I've observed (though save for those three from long distance). Edited September 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It seems to me that it is quite easy to say you would rather live somewhere else from the comfort of your computer chair.

It is even easier to say it if you've lived somewhere else and preferred it.

[Calm]

Because she saw something wrong and stepped in, even though it was not their wedding.

Something many women would do...certainly plenty of LDS women do from what I've seen. I assume most women in general would, always wanting a party to go well.

[MormonMason]

I disagree. Marriage is a requirement for salvation and eternal life in LDS theology. If it was so important that he was baptized, it is just as important that he was married. If Jesus is our Exemplar, he must be married now and would have to have been married at some point prior to his resurrection (when degree of glory is assigned). So it must have occured in mortality or in the spirit world.

Marriage is a requirement for eternal lives and exaltation, but not for salvation. Many angels will be in a saved state in the celestial kingdom without having been married, whether in life or by proxy. See Doctrine and Covenants sections 131 and 132.

[MormonMason]

Oh my. How widespread is this view among Mormons? To a Catholic mind this is a very repulsive and blasphemous doctrine -- that God the Father had sex with Mary.

We believe in miracles. Jesus was born of a Virgin. He had no physical father. It is a miracle. God the Father is His Father in relation to God the Son, who assumed the physical and spiritual being of Jesus. God the Father has no sperm and did not have sex with the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Miserere Nobis!

Many people in and out of the LDS Church believe it. But, with all our technology these days, it is possible for a virgin to become pregnant and remain a virgin throughout pregnancy. And, as to God not having sperm, I once read a passage in the Greek New Testament that made me do a double-take. Of course, that passage refers to "God's sperm" remaining in him, usually interpreted to refer to the Holy Spirit. Most translations euphemize the Greek into "seed" rather than as "sperm." See the Greek of 1 John 3:9.

Latter-day Saints believe that God is embodied. The precise methodological process of the primogeniture of the body of the Son of God remains unrevealed. People assumed that it had to have happened sexually because that was once all those who made the statements knew about getting pregnant.

Then again, the Bible does say that God overshadowed Mary. The Greek term is also used to describe clouds covering a person and coming between that person and the sun. But, what that means is anyone's guess. No one but God and Mary were in that room at the time and only they know for sure what happened that night.

As to the papyrus fragment, I am not sure it is authentic. It looks problematic and I would want to see results of AMS radiometry on the ink and papyrus before pronouncing it authentic. It looks as if someone used a watercolor brush on a piece of papyrus. But, perhaps it was just a messy scribe who did not have at his disposal a decent scribal tool to write this papyrus. I am hoping that additional studies will be done on it.

That said, I seem to remember older texts referring to marriage and Jesus having a son. Something to the effect of "now there is the Son of man and there is the son of the Son of man" and something else referring to Jesus kissing Mary Magdelene on the mouth often, referred to as "the companion of the Lord," and eliciting a question from his disciples as to why he loved her more than the disciples. I do not recall the texts and location of passages but I recall reading them some time before this manuscript surfaced. If I recall correctly, the above mentioned examples predated the fourth century.

Edited September 23, 2012 by MormonMason

[wenglund]

Oh my. How widespread is this view among Mormons? To a Catholic mind this is a very repulsive and blasphemous doctrine -- that God the Father had sex with Mary.

The divine title's "Father" and "creator" permit a broad spectrum of reasonable beliefs about how God produces his creations/offspring, particularly when considered symbolically in Adam and Eve, the "image" and "likeness" of God.

The Seely's touch briefly on this in their presentation at the Temple on Mount Zion Conference:

David R. and Jo Ann H. Seely –

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MormonMason]

I still have reservations regarding this scrap of papyrus. Compare the appearance of the following photo of the newly discovered document with that following of a section of the Apocryphon of John. Both are written in Coptic.

The alignment of lines of text just seems off in the newly discovered document and, as I mentioned above, looks like someone took a watercolor brush and painted a scrap of old papyrus. Anyone know whether or not they have plans to text the ink and a fragment of the papyrus itself? Will the owner give permission? WiIl Harvard take the time and make the effort to test this object or just accept it on face like those involved with the so-called "Christ cup"?

Edited September 25, 2012 by MormonMason

[Damien the Leper]

The scrap does look rather sloppy. But again, the content and history of the fragment is a hoax. Jesus never was nor will he ever be married.

[wenglund]

The scrap does look rather sloppy. But again, the content and history of the fragment is a hoax. Jesus never was nor will he ever be married.

So you say. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel Peterson]

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765605862/Hamblin-and-Peterson-Does-papyrus-prove-Jesus-was-married.html

[MormonMason]

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:

http://www.deseretne...as-married.html

True enough. I wish some real evidence would come forth. That would really shake and mix things up.

A lot of Evangelicals I have spoken with over the years have told me that if they ever found out that Jesus were married, they could no longer believe in him. I think that is unfortunate. I rather think that Jesus was married but because it was peripheral to the good news of his death, resurrection and redemption of man, it never became part of the story.

There are some interesting hints, though. There is also no evidence that the Rabbinate, of anyone else for that matter, ever attacked him on the grounds that he claimed to be a teacher but wasn't married. And they, pharisaical as they were who counted voluntary singleness in most instances a sin akin to murder, definitely would have laid such attacks before the public and very likely preserved something of them in the Talmuds.

[Hannah Rebekah]

If the scrap is geniune it only proves it was written a long time ago. Not everything people write is true. How does this help in any way whatsoever?

Yeah..I'm reminded of that famous quote from from Abraham Lincoln, "Don't believe everything you read on the internet."