has asked to remain anonymous. " (from the NYT article)

altho I agree it is most likely part of the Nag Hamadi find.

This discovery should cause the Catholic Church (among others) to implode and self destruct. Count on a vast and furious political fight to discredit it.

but was keeping it hidden because they are misogynists

There is so much more control to be had, and so much more money to be made, by them, if they keep things JUST THE WAY THEY DECIDED TO MAKE THEM almost 300 years after Jesus of Nazareth died.

Not a thing will happen. The "scripture" in question is probably not from canonized book...so, to them its not scripture....and will view it as fiction. End of debate on their part.

Notice I said "should" cause them to self destruct--if there were any justice in the world. (oor should I say "if there were a God, He would set things right.)

gawd I hate true believers.

Please.

We were walking by the Sea of Galilee the other day. My wife told me the car wasn't running well; there was water in the carburetor. I asked where the car was, and she told me it was in the lake.

http://www.funny2.com/hennye.htm

ba da bing

Please.

I brought a few friends home from the office.

So my wife says to me "Why didn't you call, I would have made extra. All we have is some dried fish, bread and water. If you keep doing this, you need to figure something out!"

Funny

I thought everybody knew that.
Long before that silly DaVinci Code shit.
I don't think this is from the Nag Hamadi, however...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail

I mean that's how the bible labels women they view as having too much power in their faith.

until some 6th century pope declared her one. As you said women can't have too much power or any power.

by the Man-In-Charge, aka, the Pope. The Catholic church unfortunately didn't want women to have power, which is why priests are still not allowed to marry.

single women in the bible were considered whores.

(Or, not so much... The Followers... Fucked, I mean... Nicely, I mean).

An interesting piece of papyrus. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is one of my favorites, because it contains such tantilizing hints about what was really going on among the disciples back in the day.

Personally, I've always thought the line "upon this rock I will build my church" was a mistranslation or misrepresentation. I think Yeshua was just calling Simon a blockhead.

-- Mal

Cults are built around this idea.

I agree. I thought the DaVinci code was rehash of Holy Blood Holy Grail. Still, I think considering all the crap the Catholic church threw and all the money went to undercutting a book that was fiction that someone has to point out to the church that Brown's fiction is no less fictional than the Bible.

I note the article states:

&quot King) repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said."

I would also note that, like the gospels, this just means people were talking about an alleged religious figure from hundreds of years ago named Jesus.

I would also note that this does not offer any actual evidence that the "historical Jesus" is ever actually existed. We only know what people wrote about him long after he was alleged to have lived.

I know the alleged Jesus wasn't officially declared a "god" until the Council of Nicene in 325 AD.

Whether he really existed, however, remains a matter of speculation.

according to multiple sources.

I defy anyone, and I mean anyone, to provide irrefutable documentary proof that their ancestors were alive in AD 30. Yet clearly, all of us living now had ancestors living then.

-- Mal

There are lots of people whom we know from contemporary accounts were alive in 30 AD. Pontius Pilate, for example, lived and ruled and left a mountain of recorded documentation, but none of it talks about the alleged trial and execution of a famous Jewish rebel named Jesus. Odd, what with the Romans being pretty fastidious record-keepers.

And yet, if I may quote a Freethinker site:

"No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings."

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

- B

The rest is conjecture.

I've understood that such a man (singled-out and given a rabbinical education) as described, nevertheless, would probably have assumed the rôle of some sort of Jewish rabbi, and it would have been quite unusual for such a man not to have been married by the age of 33 in that milieu at that time (as it is normal for such men to be married to this day).

There is no mountain of documentation about anyone from that time. No newspapers, no television, nothing. No historians, really, except Josephus considerably later, as the occupation of historian really didn't exist.

and quoting an atheist site is quoting the most biased possible source. Try peer-reviewed historians, instead.

I therefore say unto you that no man has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus, but for the disputed Josephus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

Thus spoke I. Have a great day.

- Bragi

...having existed. We may not know who they were or what they did, but they existed because we're here. But Jesus, having no descendants, doesn't even have that much evidence.

In the end, however, you're comparing apples and oranges. What people are trying to argue when they say Jesus really existed is not the same as me saying that my great-great-great-great-great grandmother (whose name I don't know, who I know nothing about) existed.

Let's try this. If I told you a story about an ancestor of mine who walked on water and performed other miracles, you probably wouldn't believe me, would you? And you'd want to see some proof of that ancestor having existed--I mean, if my ancestor really did walk on water...wouldn't someone at the time have written about it? This is big news and there were people at that time who could and did write up the big news. Just look at all those who wrote about Spartacus, a slave who caused a lot of trouble.

If all we had of Spartacus were stories written up a hundred years after the fact and claiming that he brought back people from the dead...would that be enough for you to believe he existed? If so, then you'll have to believe that any person written about by people hundreds of years after the fact must have existed, like, say, Helen of Troy or Hercules.

You know you had ancestors because you're here.

That argument does not carry over to the Jesus issue.

in one town in Germany, before it was Germany.

--- George

... when belief is based on faith?

-- Mal

Outside of the bible the writings of Josephus were the only account that even suggests he existed and his writings are scant on the subject and there has always been some doubt as to their authenticity on this matter.

in fact the first council is Christianity as we know it today was largely created IMO largely as a political tool to consolidate a fracturing Roman Empire

delayed and perhaps it could be said softened somewhat the Empire's fall by, in fact, centuries.

then he would have had to been married. He was called Rabbi often, and in his time only married men could become a rabbi.

In other things they would point out that it was written hundreds of years after the fact and so cannot be true....but in this case it is proof positive that it is true.
Personal opinion always gets in the way of real scientific discovery.

This Catholic is shaking in his boots.

The orthodoxy did what it could to consolidate Christendom, which distorted Western religious beliefs.

the first is a childhood narrative that has Jesus creating live doves out of clay and an especially crazy scenario where Jesus turns a schoolmate into a pillar of salt for bullying him. The other gospel of Thomas is a collection of supposed sayings of Jesus, many found in the gospels, but then you have ones like 114:

Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

There's a reason why these gnostic gospels aren't in the canon.

The gnostic gospels reflected the Christian similarities to Mahayana Buddhism, which, if left intact, negated the necessity of the Church orthodoxy. The following passage is more to the point as it threatened the existence of Church authority:

(113) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
<Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

Wow!

So how I wonder do they identify to whom the wife was married - Jesus as man or Jesus as God?

She is not a disciple but she seems to take responsibility at THIS wedding. She instructs servants and tells Jesus when the wine has run out.

That was awesome.

.280 lifetime batting average...

what would Jesus bat?

John 2:2--"Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding." Since when does one need to clarify that the bridegroom was invited to the wedding? After the miracle, "the head waiter called the bridegroom and said to him..." (2 b)--the author is clearly introducing a new character. Earlier, when told by Mary that they had run out of wine, Jesus' first reaction is, "Woman, how does your concern affect me?" (2:4); if he WAS the bridegroom, the wine running out would definitely have affected him, So, my point is, your theory has some holes in it.

Also, what? In the year 2313, someone writes that Barack Obama had three wives, you're gonna believe that? If you don't believe documents that were written in the first century, then why do you give greater credence to ones that were written in the 300s? Not exactly primary documents.

They's assume it to be so because of the innumerable contemporary references they will find to his Kenyan birthplace and citizenship--in print, online, and in copies of broadcast media programming.

Of course he had three wife's.. A daughter A nun and a Moldy goat...

I hope I don't get my head cut off for that...

Also, people were so desperate for anything relating to Jesus that there was a thriving market in forgeries and relics.

Robert Eisler's book The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist puts together a description of the historical Jesus from biblical comments and forgeries of the Roman arrest warrants. Not a pretty fellow, it turns out. The image of Jesus the Western World has been using is related more to a statue of Zeus by Praxiteles (?) I think.

That kind of shit.

According to a top religion scholar, this 1,600-year-old text fragment suggests that some early Christians believed Jesus was married—possibly to Mary Magdalene
By Ariel Sabar
Smithsonian.com, September 18, 2012
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Inside-Story-of-the-Controversial-New-Text-About-Jesus-170177076.html?c=y&page=1

Longish but worth a look

It is an outstanding read:

The question the discovery raises, King told me, is, “Why is it that only the literature that said he was celibate survived? And all of the texts that showed he had an intimate relationship with Magdalene or is married didn’t survive? Is that 100 percent happenstance? Or is it because of the fact that celibacy becomes the ideal for Christianity?”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Inside-Story-of-the-Controversial-New-Text-About-Jesus-170177076.html#ixzz26r4ITW1c

Absolutely fascinating, in every way.

Q: Why is it that only the literature that said he was celibate survived?

A: Because everything else was suppressed, burned, condemned as heresy, and made illegal.

That was easy.

He who controls the past controls the future.

Sort of the original Philip Zelikow.

I began reading about the nag hamadi texts in the eighties. I believe it's in the book of thomas (the twin) that mentions peter asking jesus, why do you allow her (mary) to kiss you on the mouth? and, a section where jesus says (after peter) basically says mary cannot be a disciple (from my memory "I will make her male&quot . there is also a book of mary; however, it was not found at nag hamadi.

reading some of the gnostic texts, it seems that peter was jealous and a misogynist. and he becomes the church head. now, what I have read is that there was a division between peter and jesus' brothers on being the head of the church.

what it all boils down to is at nicea, a bunch of guys DECIDED what texts (teachings) were in and what were excluded. and, it didn't bode well for women, some women who had lead parts in the church. also, what was argued was jesus godhood, mother mary's virginity and an argument about original sin.

rome under constantine (a sun god worshipper) embraced christianity. it was a useful religious tool for rome. if you have read anything about pontious pilate, you'd know that he wouldn't have any second thoughts about crucifying a jew. after all, he crucified so many. the story smells about pontius washing his hands (as if he had a conscience) then blaming it on the jews. but, I think, if rome was to embrace the religion, you can't have the government murdering your god.

and, as someone said above, jesus is referred as a rabbi more than once; and rabbis married. it matters little today, because the faithful followers believe what they are told to believe and if jesus appeared today the church leaders would probably say "we've got a good thing going here, we don't need you."

I, do not know if jesus really existed; after all I wasn't there. I also have a problem with josephus and some of the early church leaders (especially altering texts-eusebius(sp)). however, I do have a fascinating book about the parallels of buddhism and the teachings of jesus-how some of the parables are identical; and how buddhism flourished five hundred years before jesus.

my belief is the influence of rome was a strong influence on the direction of christianity; and what redeeming message (especially if it had buddhist influence) may have been perverted to follow the influence of roman (sun god) perceptions.

Thank you, newspeak for reminding me. Is the book you refer to "The Gospel According to Zen: Beyond the Death of God" edited by Robert Sohl and Audrey Carr? It is outstanding in every way.

In searching for it, I rediscovered the following:

PS: Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc etc etc share much -- in particular, the Golden Rule.

the book is "the original jesus-the buddhist sources of christianity," by elmar gruber and holger kersten.

I also enjoy reading matthew fox, he was a catholic priest at one time. his "prayers of the cosmos, meditations on the aramaic words of jesus." it's a small, short book, but quite the mind blower. translating from aramaic, has a total different meaning than what's in the KJV. "our father who art in heaven" instead it's "O birther father-mother of the cosmos, you create all that moves in light (aramaic translation)." KJV "thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven"-aramaic "your one desire then acts with ours, as in all light, so in all forms."

i've always been fascinated with the beginnings of religious beliefs.

many had thousands upon thousands of papyrus fragments...and it would take a long long time to sift through....and some...for fear have been kept hidden. As in the 4th Century the Christians purged....destroyed all non-cannonical writings and murdered the Gnostics and other heretics....Alexandria was mobbed and the city of intellect was all but destroyed by christian monks commanded by Bishop Cyril...the great dark brutal age began and lasted over a thousand years....it is no wonder writings like this are rare and kept hidden.

that somehow religion caused people to kill others?

Wow, that's a stretch.

One based in reason and ALL the teachings and sayings of Jesus...not just the selected hand picked ones.

Like people just getting in touch with that Spirit within themselves and not depending on the legend of Jesus or the preaching or any of his sales people.

It's called the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's spreading quite quickly.
http://www.venganza.org/
May you be touched by his noodly appendages.

The Vatican....smuggled out...

The first two parts read:

‘My wife …'”

“she will be able to be my disciple.”

and the third part reads...

"and still I can hang with you guys to watch the game this weekend".

neither shalt thou nag, neither shalt thou delay in providing the chips and dip. --The Book of Man, chapter 1, verse 1. To Nick Nolte we pray for forgiveness--aaaaamen!

There is no mention of or explanation as to why Jesus DIDN'T have a wife. During the era in which Jesus lived, it would have been unheard of for him not to be married. There is little to no mention of any of the disciples wives as well, but they most assuredly traveled with their families, which was the customs of that era. The fact that a reason is not provided for Jesus being unwed is never mentioned and it most certainly would have been addressed if he were not married, is a clear indicator to most scholars that he most likely was married. Harvard Divinity School has done a lot of research on this point and the final "proof" is open to interpretation.

He was a scholar, and his family was well-off enough to own a vacation property. What self-respecting stereotypical Jewish mother wouldn't want her daughter to marry him?

-- Mal

Much less having sex with her.

They want their Jesus to be as flaccid as they are....

Blasphemy I say!!!

....people have been let down on a second coming for centuries...

http://www.cafepress.com/bettybowers.22942459

They could find official Jewish and Roman records that state that Jesus was married and it won't matter. Why? Its not "canon" (officially declared authentic scripture). So the Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic and by preponderance Protestant religions can completely ignore this. The Ecumenical Councils and their official decree's incubated themselves well from any challenges to the official line.

The only way their "might" be an uproar is if an older copy of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John is unearthed stating Christ is married. And that's a big maybe. As it is the Gospel of Thomas (not the Gnostic one) is considered to be older than Matthew and contains nothing but the sayings of Jesus, but is rejected.

Especially since there's no historical evidence that the man ever really existed, and a lot of evidence that the myth of Jesus was merely a continuation of earlier religious myths.

Why a large portion of the world continues to cling to the whole Jesus myth slays me. But to each his own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3]

The overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[4][1][2][5][6][7] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic.[8][9][10]

Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[11][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[11][12][13][14][15] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[16] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[15]

. . . .

The detail in the Bible about, for example, the disciples, the fact that Judas was probably a zealot, etc. Judas Isacariot is believed by some to be another way of saying Judas the Zealot.

The New Testament Gospels were, of course, written based on some original book that we do not have.

Unless there is new scholarship debunking the authenticity of Josephus' histories and writings about Jesus, I believe that Jesus was known to and spoken of by his contemporaries.

I have heard a theory that perhaps John the Baptist and Jesus were the same person, but I haven't seen much discussion of it.

Some people are troubled by the similarity in the story of the virgin birth and some of the other stories about Jesus and mythology. That doesn't necessarily mean that the stories about Jesus are false. Similar things happen, are noted, and become archetypes that develop into myths. On the other hand, we cannot know what is true in history of that period and what is not.

I followed one of the links and I'm left thinking the material in Josephus' Books may just be interpolations inserted by later Christians.

See http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/2507/full

as a forgeries, written long after the fact. And it's already suspect that this is the ONLY mention of Jesus by a contemporary. You'd think that someone who allegedly had an impact on so many lives would have been written about a bit more at the time he was alive, rather than years after he was gone.

And the virgin birth stories aren't mere similarities. They are point by point recreations of the same basic myth -- virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection. The only thing changed were minor details and the names of the deity involved.

Jesus's "teachings" are merely a rehashing and refinement of previous Jewish philosophy.

There is no empirical or contemporary evidence the man ever existed, let alone the "god." Belief in him is merely a product of blind faith and organized indoctrination.

Ask any child if he believes in Santa Claus and he will tell you, quite fervently, that yes, he surely does. Jesus is merely the "adult" version of Santa Claus.

I don't see how it makes any real difference. What effect does being married have on his central message? ...none that I can see.

Jesus was supposed to have walked the earth healing lepers and feeding the multitudes. receiving no earthly pleasures for himself. That's where the Protestant work ethic thing comes in: give up the joys of this world to have joy in Heaven.

Remember WWJD? Jesus wouldn't have fun and neither should you.

If it turns out Jesus had fun occasionally, that's going to put a crimp on things. If Jesus hadSEX that will ruin the whole faith.

or was it a unique name? Did other people go around with the name Jesus? Just asking.

There might have been other notable Jesus's at the time but I've never heard of any.

be some other Jesus?

That'd probably narrow it down a bit.

...There are two references to him in Josephus, but one is either a forgery or "heavily edited". The other reference is more or less, stating yes their was someone named Jesus called Christ (basically acknowledging the existence of the Jewish Sect). But aside from that, he mentions 20 other people named Jesus, so yeah...pretty common name.

Then you add the fact that the sect didn't really take off until it was declared persona non grata, there might have not been any mention of it.

The name is still common.

It's a piece of historical research. Not advocacy for or against any point of view, not advocacy for or against any religious belief. It's about research and peer review. The only agenda I can see in this is that it's one more attempt to fill in our historical record.

To conflate it as something else belittles that effort.

(ed for spell)

People will react to those implications.

How could it be otherwise?

who will riot and kill people if their sensibilities are upset.

She should be censored and possibly tried for inciting violence.

/you can't yell fire in a crowded theater!

//and if it was needed.

True believers should be treated with great respect.

what next? the believers in Zoroaster?

That's why he spent so much time fishing with his buds.

TlalocW

and loaves.

/too soon?

INRI is an acronym for the Latin punchline, "Take my wife... please!"

TlalocW

your celibacy was crap all along. Time to move on.

PS... he was an Occupy Liberal

He would be out there protesting with us!

Or will The Vatican maintain its marriage ban to keep property "in the Family"?

K&R.