So, if you’ve been kinda following this story, does it make you wonder what religion isn’t telling us when preaching to us? It’s already gotten out that there are books of the Bible that aren’t going to show up in your King James version – does it ever make you wonder why they were excluded?
And, if Jesus was married, does it make a difference where your faith is concerned? Many religious experts have come forward to debunk this latest discovery and remind us that Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” is nothing more than a work of pure fiction; there is no woman depicted in “The Last Supper” and there was no way He was married to anyone.
Truth… or a calculated fiction being foisted upon the faithful? Certainly, I don’t know – I’m no biblical scholar and as one of the faithful, if He was married, how does that change what the Bible says He said? And if it does change things, um, what aren’t they telling us?
Kdaddy23's Blog 
marriagecoach1
25 September 2012 at 01:28
Hey Rob
You have had a history of so called intelligentsia who really don’t know anything about the bible selling this BS. There is no historical record in secular or biblical studies to justify this. The books excluded from the Bible have been dismissed by multiple biblical scholars over the centuries. Hundreds of biblical scholars have researched this BS all the way back to the Dead Sea scrolls which are our oldest documents of the bible
LikeLike
kdaddy23
25 September 2012 at 12:24
Yep, they’re saying there’s nothing to support this premise; the initial article said something about Jesus meaning something else by the word “wife,” and I’m guessing that they’re suggesting that the word meant something different back then than our current understanding – in these things, losing something in the translation is almost a sure bet. Still, if He was married… what’s the big deal? Does it matter… should it matter? My thoughts are that regardless to whether He was or not, it doesn’t change anything that He said in his teachings.
One could presume that they’re trying to debunk this finding and, like the ‘omissions’ reported in the biblical text, this is just the religious powers that be wanting us to think and believe their version of events and that anything other than what they’ve said might reveal a different understanding and one they’d rather we didn’t know about. It brings an additional question: Why?
Or, is this supposedly ancient document is a cleverly created fake? Interesting that it’s written in ancient Egyptian Coptic and not Aramaic – did some Egyptian scribe know or hear something about this? Is it coincidence that this has surfaced… or is there something sinister going on?
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
25 September 2012 at 15:11
I made my comments without reading the article. This time I read it and it is even more transparent than before. Jesus never said anything about men not being married, it was Paul. The idea of being sex free is a key to heaven, this was ascetics and not christians who taught this. It is about what is called “works salvation”. The Bible debunks works salvation stating that none are worthy of heaven and that we are all sinners.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. The Papyrus pictured is an obvious fake even to the naked eye.
There is no way that Jesus could have been married to Mary Magdalene. The Bible talks about Jesus being the supreme high priest and the Bible was clear that you are supposed to marry a virgin from your own tribe and not a prostitute. I could go on here but it is all bullshit. And BTW women in the NT were not pictured as inferior but as equals to men.
LikeLike
kdaddy23
25 September 2012 at 17:06
I have noticed that other than going on and on about the word “wife” in this piece of papyrus, there’s not a lot of detail, like, if He had a wife, who was He married to? We can assume it was Mary Magdalene… but the bible, in and of itself, doesn’t mention any of this… and I can see why they wouldn’t even if it were true (and written elsewhere but never made it to the final edition).
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
26 September 2012 at 10:37
Rob
I don’t know how much time you have spent in a museum studying antiquities but that Papyrus is not ancient, probably not even 100 years old. The font and the script is all wrong too, obviously done in a recent hand.
People will believe what they want to believe and give credence where clearly none is deserved. None of the biblical manuscripts were in Coptic, in fact until today I never even heard of Coptic and I have a degree in Bible.
Biblical manuscripts were done in Hebrew and Greek. PERIOD
LikeLike
kdaddy23
26 September 2012 at 12:52
I spent my fair share of time doing the museum thing and Egyptian history was my favorite so I knew about Coptic; I also thought that papyrus was quite “new” looking… It begs the question of who’s perpetrating a fraud and why?
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
25 September 2012 at 15:12
Not you but any OT priests were supposed to marry virgins and they required proof of her virginity in that they wanted to see the bloody sheets after the wedding night
LikeLike
travellinginternationally
10 October 2012 at 00:26
Actually that passage was misinterpreted when the Greeks translated it from Aramaic. It was not meant to be virgin but to mean someone who had sex for their first time.
LikeLike
John Wilder
10 October 2012 at 08:54
Sort of defines being a virgin, having sex for the first time. You can’t be a little virgin no more than you can be a little pregnant, either you are or you are not.
LikeLike
travellinginternationally
10 October 2012 at 00:36
I am not Christian and any changes in the Christian ‘New Testament’ does not impact my beliefs. Reality is Christianity did not exist at the time of Jesus and did not come into existence until sometime after his death. This means Jesus was Jewish and for anyone who is Jewish to have followers, at that time, they had to be married. I find it difficult to believe that Jesus was celibate
LikeLike
kdaddy23
10 October 2012 at 00:44
The question I still have about this is what difference does it make if He wasn’t celibate?
LikeLike
John Wilder
10 October 2012 at 08:57
Then it would deny his divinity.
LikeLike
kdaddy23
10 October 2012 at 09:46
But does it really? The record is what it is; it doesn’t say he was married… but you and I both know there are books of the bible that were deliberately excluded.
LikeLike
John Wilder
10 October 2012 at 08:56
I don;t find that anywhere. Jesus was one of the most written abou characters of all times and there is no historical record of him being married.
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
10 October 2012 at 09:49
Which books. There were books faking as books but have been proven not to be
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
10 October 2012 at 09:50
And these so called excluded books, do they say that he was married?
LikeLike
kdaddy23
10 October 2012 at 11:36
How would I know; if they were excluded – and the Catholic Church admits that some books were – I’ve never read them and I don’t remember which books were excluded. So, if there are exclusions, then it is possible that one of them could very well talk about Jesus and His wife… if He had one.
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
10 October 2012 at 14:54
don’t you think that if they had mentioned it we would have read about it?
LikeLike
kdaddy23
10 October 2012 at 15:05
Nope; I realize that such a revelation would undermine religion’s authority over mankind and maybe even prove that everything told us has been a lie of the highest order.
If I knew something that would upset my apple cart, I sure as hell wouldn’t tell my paying and faithful customers! The only reason I’m in this position of authority is those following me believe what I’m telling them even if I happen to know that the documented proof has been heavily edited for content.
That’s just bad for business.
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
10 October 2012 at 19:10
and you don’t believe that there are contrarians out there just itching to expose Christianity?
LikeLike
kdaddy23
10 October 2012 at 19:29
I do believe that; it just makes sense that such people exist, people who believe, for whatever reason that when it comes to religion, we are being lied to.
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
11 October 2012 at 08:48
So these people would read the so called excluded books of the Bible to expose Chrisitianity, especially if they said that Jesus had a relationship with a woman. Don’t you think that it would make more sense for people to say that Jesus was gay because he did not have a relationship with a woman? Obviously I don’t believe that I am just playing “devils advocate”
LikeLike
kdaddy23
11 October 2012 at 13:08
Nah; a gay Jesus is too much to swallow; no one would believe that – but married? That’s a lot more palatable.
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
11 October 2012 at 13:25
You don’t think that the contrarians and the atheists would try to portray Jesus as gay?
LikeLike
kdaddy23
11 October 2012 at 13:47
Perhaps they would; still rather improbable.
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
11 October 2012 at 15:44
Well if you are going to attempt to slander him by saying that he had a woman or a wife, how much better a slander than to claim that he was gay because he did not?
LikeLike
kdaddy23
11 October 2012 at 15:50
Um, probably because there’s no fake document saying He might have been gay?
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
11 October 2012 at 19:23
That would not stop the contrarians from making their own fake. Look what they did to George Bush faking documents. Dan Rather lost his job over it. Never underestimate the lack of integrity of a liberal, especially an atheistic one
LikeLike
kdaddy23
11 October 2012 at 19:27
Really? So, back to my original question: Why would it matter? To me, the only people this would really bother, if true, are those folks at the Vatican – they’re known for denying stuff!
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
12 October 2012 at 09:56
Well there are a whole world full of Christians that it would bother. We hold the Bible as the only moral absolute that people agree with. Now I know that there are a whole lot of non christians who don’t agree with it as is their right. But trust me Christians would have a real problem with either scenario
LikeLike
kdaddy23
12 October 2012 at 12:41
Of that I’m sure of, John; such a notion would greatly upset their apple carts… but, again, if it doesn’t change what the bible says He said, why does it matter? It’s not as if this, um, revelation, if true, is going to give birth to a total rewrite of the Bible. My own thoughts is that if one’s faith is intact, then it’s a difference that makes no difference: He still said what He said and I don’t see how his having a wife changes any of that.
Or does it?
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
13 October 2012 at 15:27
Actually it would. I understand from your perspective that it would not. The theology behind Christ is that he became the ULTIMATE sacrificial lamb to die for our sins once and for all. The OT sacrificial lamb had to be perfect and unspotted without blemish. Christ had too much to do in too short a time period to be married.l
LikeLike
kdaddy23
13 October 2012 at 16:10
That would preclude that being married made one spotted and blemished, doesn’t it? An interesting thought for another time. The question, however, still stands: Does this change the things He did and said, IF there’s any truth to this ‘discovery’? Would it so seriously impact one’s faith and belief? C’mon, you’re the former pastor, John: Explain to those who might still be reading this exactly how it would change things? If anyone could explain this, I would think you could, although it makes me want to ask my mother this question the next time I talk to her…
Is there some ‘faction’ trying to put shit in the game? Is it faith that’s under attack… or the doctrine of [specifically] the Catholic Church, which is the seat of Christianity as we know it?
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
13 October 2012 at 16:14
Well there is little about the Catholic church for which I agree. They teach doctrine in direct contradiction to the Bible. Would it change anything that He said, no probably not. I just think that this whole thing has been spawned by professional shit disturbers trying to break loose people with smaller faith and belief.
LikeLike
kdaddy23
16 October 2012 at 01:51
So, it stands to reason that if it wouldn’t change what He said, it shouldn’t change what and how we believe when it comes to the Word. I seriously doubt that if this was true, millions of Christians are going to have a massive hissy fit… although a lot of them would look to the seat of Christianity and ask those old dudes in the Vatican why they left that out – hell, I’d want to know! I kinda like it when the Pope and his boys get egg on their collective faces.
LikeLike
marriagecoach1
17 October 2012 at 11:02
Point taken
LikeLike