URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID6
Thread Number: 37761
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"Jesus was not married."
Posted by Estee on 09-19-12 at 08:48 AM
A single tiny fragment of "evidence"? No supporting word for a couple of millenia, which is the first sign of a giant conspiracy? Not a single acknowledgement of the possibility that a sexless marriage managed to make it out of the books (because no one is going to give him a chance at even marital consummation)? Zero chance that anyone will even consider this to be possible and negative odds of an actual holy book update? And all this from a little splinter faction which has been receiving far too much attention lately for all the wrong reasons? No, Jesus was not married. The mainstream churches would never have gone to so much effort to edit out the truth of a mere marriage. There's only one possibility here.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/18/fragment-suggests-jesus-was-married/?hpt=hp_c2

Jesus must have been divorced.

Besides, it wouldn't have been a church wedding, so it doesn't count.

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by Starshine on 09-19-12 at 09:05 AM
LAST EDITED ON 09-19-12 AT 09:07 AM (EST)

What you have to remember is that Christianity being involved in marriage is very recent (relatively speaking) up until 1753 in the UK there wasn't a link.

As to the bible, well there are the Apocrypha, it was only in 787 that it was decided which books would be allowed in the bible and which books banned.

As a Christian I have no problem with Jesus having been married, after all he was here on earth to share the human experience as well as to save us, remembering how anti sex Paul was it wouldn't surprise me if the early church had edited a marriage out.

So could be, but probably not.

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by bondt007 on 09-19-12 at 09:06 AM

...so is there some embassy I should go burn down now? Ambassador I should kill?


>Issued by "Q" and RollDdice

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by Estee on 09-19-12 at 09:21 AM
LAST EDITED ON 09-19-12 AT 09:23 AM (EST)

Don't worry. Given the typical hysterical reaction to any suggestion of 'You may have been wrong' from any and all major faiths (with the exception of Buddhists, who just shrug), I'm sure someone's got that taken care of. Besides, everyone knows your first instinct was to sympathize with the fragment. And I don't mean the writing. The actual bit of torn parchment. Poor little parchment! So long in the dark! Doesn't it just make you want to weep?

I've said it before: stack all bodies killed in the name of Christianity on the right, all the ones killed for Islam on the left, see who reaches L5 first.

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by Tummy on 09-19-12 at 11:14 AM
Let's make a third pile - those killed in the name of aethism. Oh - wait....
"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by Starshine on 09-19-12 at 11:17 AM
The cultural revolution, Stalins purges, the Khymer Rouge...
"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by Tummy on 09-19-12 at 01:18 PM
I'm going to disagree with you on the reason for Stalins purge - I believe he was an egomaniac in pure pursuit of power and didn't care in the least if a person was religious as long as they completely supported his reign. And correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Khymer Rouge against Capitalism? I know a lot of capitolist that are aetheists.

I don't know enough about the cultural revolution you speak of.

I think if you're equating communism to atheism, then you're skewing my intent. Communism is based on the idea of a moneyless, stateless, classless idea, with the idea that capitalism is well "evil".

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by dabo on 09-19-12 at 01:28 PM
Everyone forgets that Stalin studied for the priesthood before switching to a political power base that could conceivably eliminate all competition including the church.
"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by cahaya on 09-19-12 at 02:32 PM
LAST EDITED ON 09-19-12 AT 02:32 PM (EST)

As much as I tried to find some definitive numbers for this, including a breakdown by religion (or atheist), different sites posted different numbers based on different assumptions.

I ended up settling for this op-ed Who Kills More, Religion or Atheism?:

And that truth, as I've said time and time again, is that people are people. No matter what segment of society you look at, you'll find good people and you'll find bad people. You'll even find, as has been said, that the line between good and evil cuts through every human heart. Certainly there are people in the news who kill in the name of religion, but just because they kill in the name of religion doesn't really mean they kill because of religion...

Religion is a convenient banner for many to carry, but there are plenty of other banners available as well, and if it wasn't religion, they'd do their deeds under some other justification, if they care to even have one. The real reason they do their evil deeds is that they're human. Humans are very smart, very capable; and when we want something, we generally find some way to get it, even if that means killing someone or committing genocide.

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by kidflash212 on 09-30-12 at 10:55 AM
I have to disagree. Under that theory, every soldier in every army would find a reason to kill people if they weren't in that army. I think most soldiers fight to defend or protect something important to them, not because it provides an excuse to satisfy their bloodlust.


"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by kingfish on 09-30-12 at 12:25 PM
The term Bloodlust kinda sullies the entire concept of lust.

But, what are you gonna do?

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by cahaya on 10-02-12 at 10:53 AM
I think the op-ed comment refers more to people who are inclined to commit murder or genocide than to soldiers in an army who are protecting national interests and following orders.

The point here is that if someone wants to commit murder or if a leader wants to commit genocide (or ethnic cleansing), they can pick any convenient ideology that supports the rationale for what they are doing, even though their actions are often in contradiction to that ideology.

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by cahaya on 09-19-12 at 10:56 AM
LAST EDITED ON 09-19-12 AT 01:36 PM (EST)

Complete translation from the incomplete fragment found here (original source):

Dwelling with his wife, who will be able to be his disciple? Heresy!

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by dabo on 09-19-12 at 01:13 PM
Yeah, of course he was married, but that's only scratching the surface. He was also gay. Well, bi with a preference for gay. He and MM pimped out the ladies and the more effeminate men in their following. They had a good sideline as grave-robbers. Mainly they were smugglers helping illegals cross borders. The big secret, of course, is it was all a cover for an Iranian spy organization. He also enjoyed torturing small animals and cheating at cards.

Someone should make a movie exposing the whole sham, they weren't just innocent travellers hawking cheap jewelry and religious trinkets.


"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by cahaya on 09-19-12 at 01:35 PM
Hey, didn't I see your youtube film trailer? You know... the one I saw called "Innocence of Christians"?
"My response"
Posted by bondt007 on 09-19-12 at 04:23 PM

I would just like to say that, for the record, this isn't the least bit funny.
I can take a lot, but flat out mocking my God? I draw the line. I do not attack you or what you believe, or at least intentionally, and of course you have every right to say what you said, and I will not “go away” (from these Boards) like so many have, and I will not burn a building – however – I will call out the fact because many of us have known each other in some capacity for so long, this is personally hurtful to me, and I’m sure others.
"RE: My response"
Posted by qwertypie on 09-19-12 at 04:51 PM
I don't know what Dabo's intent was, but here is how I intrepreted it (and please excuse the clumsiness, I am kind of doing this on the fly and in a hurry)

I don't think it was supposed to be funny. I think it is a commentary on if there should be any limits on freedom of speech. It seems to me (as a Canadian watching from the sidelines) that the United States holds "Freedom of Speech" as a principle that must be upheld at all costs even if the things said are libelous/slanderous. We have anti-hate legislation (which may go too far in some cases, YMMV) where you cannot promote hatred against an identifiable group. Honestly, some of the attack ads/ and newshows I see run on American channels would never be allowed here. It seems to be a free-for-all. Half-truths, untruths? It's OK -- We are protected by 'freedom of speech'. Where is the balance point between 'freedom of speech' and state censorship? I really don't know. But I cannot see the value of publishing/promoting something just for the purpose of spreading hatred and causing anarchy. Just my $0.02

"RE: My response"
Posted by dabo on 09-19-12 at 05:58 PM
Reductio ad absurdum ad infinitum.

I am firmly convinced that there will never be peace in the Middle East as long as anyone (literally, one person alone) can draw a cartoon, write a book, make a supposed film, perhaps even make a historical find of one of the lost books (there are some of those in Islamic tradition) or so on that ignites turmoil and violence in the entire region.

Are we better than that? Just look, I can spew any specious nonsense I want and the worst that happens is I get told off because it isn't funny. I did think it was a bit funny, actually, but mainly specious nonsense. Extrapolated from the thinnest of "evidence."

I was not mocking anyone's God, though. What I was mocking were the people who suppose this bit of writing on this bit of papyrus proves anything about Jesus, the actual person who lived. All it proves is that in early Christianity not all Christians were married to the idea of a celibate asexual Jesus.

"RE: My response"
Posted by cahaya on 09-19-12 at 06:27 PM
LAST EDITED ON 09-19-12 AT 08:14 PM (EST)

All I got from your post was ironic satire (actually meta-satire, being satire about the satire), meant only for those of us on this board who know the character of your posts well enough to see it as such. It's an satire meant for the satirists, not the subject of the satire (Jesus).

It is the same kind of satire that put into the public domain could unknowingly be considered inciting. Change the name from Jesus to Muhammad and it's the same satire, with a potentially even more inciting results.

You forgot to add that his mother wears Roman army boots.

"RE: My response"
Posted by bondt007 on 09-19-12 at 07:25 PM
Why does Dabo get the pass based on what we know of her character; but for me, based on the fact that I’m clearly in the minority as a Christian, I just have to assume it’s irony and “take it” as I consider the source.

How about once in a while, someone thinks about what they are typing, when it comes to someone they at least sort of know, and respect that relationship – and find another way to prove irony.

Your reply too, says - those of us that REALLY understand, find it just fine you know, REALLY get the irony. Bond, he doesn’t get it – his response was simply emotional and/or the post wasn’t for him. Oh and if that film was about Jesus it would have potentially incited those guys to burn what, more flags and kill more people? Really?

This is truly a sad day for me.

"RE: My response"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 09-19-12 at 07:26 PM
That's one of the more ridiculous things I've read on this site in some time.
"RE: My response"
Posted by dabo on 09-19-12 at 07:54 PM
By the way, I am sorry that I offended you with that post. The intent wasn't to mock anyone's God or religious beliefs, the Pythons didn't even try to do that when they took on the origins of Christianity; but that's what you read in it and you were right to call me on it and tell me off.
"RE: My response"
Posted by Brownroach on 09-26-12 at 01:11 AM
You are aware that dabo is male, yes? Or maybe we all don't know each other so well after all...
"RE: My response"
Posted by cahaya on 09-26-12 at 10:02 AM
Yeah, I kind of wondered about that.

Sometimes, I find myself assuming someone's gender here if they haven't already made it clear, and I've been wrong before!

"RE: My response"
Posted by dabo on 09-19-12 at 09:57 PM
Change the name from Jesus to Muhammad and it's the same satire, with a potentially even more inciting results.

I defy you to find one name in that post.

"RE: My response"
Posted by cahaya on 09-19-12 at 10:05 PM
Yes, I noticed that and wondered if anyone else would.
"*Reads Post*"
Posted by foonermints on 09-20-12 at 00:48 AM
I was quite terrified that this was another foonerattack. Thank The Good Lord Harry it wasn't!

foonermint: unmarried and foonerpure©.

"RE: My response"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 09-20-12 at 06:47 AM
LAST EDITED ON 09-20-12 AT 06:48 AM (EST)

>Change the name from Jesus to
>Muhammad and it's the same
>satire, with a potentially even
>more inciting results.
>
>I defy you to find one
>name in that post.

Well, there was the Marilyn Monroe thing ("MM"), but yeah... or maybe it was Marlee Matlin? Both certainly have (had) their share of followers.

"RE: My response"
Posted by Brownroach on 09-26-12 at 01:20 AM
Or possibly Miriam Makeba. Wait -- Melissa Manchester?
"RE: My response"
Posted by kidflash212 on 09-29-12 at 11:05 AM
Darn. Now "Don't Cry Out Loud" will be in my head all day.
"RE: My response"
Posted by cahaya on 09-29-12 at 07:31 PM

A royal agman creation

MM = Mystical Matrimony? I just read another work by Pablo Coelho, By the River Piedra I Sat Down and Wept, about love and the seeing the Goddess in God.

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by kingfish on 09-29-12 at 07:48 PM
With this much rage invented and vented when the possibility that Jesus was married is brought up, I guess I shouldn't mention my doubts as to the punch line of the whole Easter myth.

After all, I don't have a scrap of papyrus for that. Just common sense.

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by cahaya on 09-29-12 at 08:20 PM
Easter? Heck, we haven't even gotten to Christmas yet!


Patch's blooms

You and your bunnies!

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by kingfish on 09-30-12 at 09:28 AM
Wait...Christmas didn't really happen?

Do we have to give back our stuff?

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by dabo on 09-30-12 at 01:11 AM
Vatican deems it a "clumsy forgery."

http://news.discovery.com/history/jesus-wife-papyrus-fake-120928.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

Um, don't you have to have something to forge in order to make a forgery?

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by kingfish on 09-30-12 at 09:26 AM
That's an inadvertent slip that they wish they could take back.

They have the original.

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by Estee on 09-30-12 at 08:58 PM
If Jesus came back tomorrow and publicly declared that he'd been married, the Vatican would deem him a clumsy forgery.
"Jesus would declare the Vatican"
Posted by IceCat on 10-01-12 at 01:19 AM

... a deliberate forgery.
"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by newsomewayne on 10-01-12 at 08:53 AM
I suppose so, but I'd gather that the person quoted was intending to claim it counterfeit, rather than forgery. I don't think that would be an uncommon misconception.
"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by kingfish on 10-01-12 at 05:44 PM
Or that it was just faked. I believe that to counterfeit means the same as to forge.

But one would think that with so many centuries of scholarly pursuit and with so many scholars at their disposal, that they would know precisely which words they were using and what they meant.

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by dabo on 10-02-12 at 00:50 AM
LAST EDITED ON 10-02-12 AT 11:49 AM (EST)

And now it seems that the reports that the Vatican said it was a "clumsy forgery," or rather that that was written in an editorial in the official Vatican newspaper, may themselves have been derived from a fraudulent source, as no one can locate that actual editorial piece.

What fun!

In any event, had the Vatican, anyone at all at the Vatican, actually said that, I did understand what was meant. In the first place, you actually can commit forgery by trying to pass off something you wrote as having been authored by someone else, say a previously unknown Shakespeare manuscript, a previously unknown DaVinci notebook, a previously unknown Nostradamus quatrane. Or, in this case, simply just a forged antiquity.

The fact of the matter is that the papyrus should be analyzed and dated as best as possible, and the ink should be analyzed as well. Professor King originally dated the fragment as third century on the basis of writing style.

One researcher from the UK, independant of the Catholic Church, is saying this fragment comes from a forged (rewritten or edited or whatever) copy of the Gospel of Thomas. To which I say: Lord, yes, let's open that can of worms.

A fourth century Coptic scroll known to have been based on earlier works (fragments in Greek dating from earlier periods), arguably dating as from the first or second century, which itself is simply a collection of sayings with no discernable order -- in other words, a sourcebook.

Whatever.

The basic fact of the matter, facts of the matter rather:

No one with any credibility is actually claiming this is any sort of proof that Jesus was married, only that it is a significant piece of history regarding the gnostic branch of Christianity and perhaps their beliefs.

And mainly: even if there were any proof that Jesus was married, that Jesus was not celibate, so what, there would still be no reason to rewrite the official version of the Bible, as nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus was married, single, celibate or sexually active. Those traditions came later anyway.

"RE: Jesus was not married."
Posted by byoffer on 10-02-12 at 01:37 PM
I don't know about marriage, but Jesus did fall in love according to a song (Let's Fall in Love) by Canadian indie rock band Mother Mother.

Warning - the video shows violence (a husband and wife boxing) which might not be everyone's cup of tea. So here is a link to the lyrics.

"Even little baby baby Jesus did it". (although to me it sounds more like "Even little biddy baby Jesus did it")

Jesus reference aside, this song is getting a lot of airplay in Canada. Great tune, IMO.