The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife

The Atlantic ^ | July/August 2016 | Ariel Sabar

[Oatka]

On a humid afternoon this past November, I pulled off Interstate 75 into a stretch of Florida pine forest tangled with runaway vines. My GPS was homing in on the house of a man I thought might hold the master key to one of the strangest scholarly mysteries in recent decades: a 1,300-year-old scrap of papyrus that bore the phrase “Jesus said to them, My wife.” The fragment, written in the ancient language of Coptic, had set off shock waves when an eminent Harvard historian of early Christianity, Karen L. King, presented it in September 2012 at a conference in Rome.

[Vigilanteman]

Wise decision. There a a surplus of such agnostics ordained to preach to Christian congregations. Let them preach to agnostic congregations.

Real Christians should not support them with either their time nor their offerings. Find another church rather than listen to that drivel to the point your own faith is destroyed!

[terycarl]

At least they got the title of the story right. Not really. The plural of Jesus would be Jesus' not Jesus's.

Possessive, not plural.

[terycarl]

Every person except Adam and Eve were “born of a woman.”

When you get to Heaven, you'll be able to recognize them because they'll be the only ones without a belly button......

[dynachrome]

I am surprised that it doesn’t state that Jesus was transexual and “presented “ as a woman so as to marry Pontius Pilate./s

[TigersEye]

Gee, thanks. I caught that and corrected it in less than two minutes.

[terycarl]

Gee, thanks. I caught that and corrected it in less than two minutes.

Yeah, you probably did, but I was reading the thread from the top down and posted when I came to your "error".

[WASCWatch]

There is a smartass in every crowd, but you are correct.

Good for you.

[TigersEye]

You could have scrolled two posts down or clicked ‘view replies’ before posting.

[TigersEye]

I wasn’t trying to be a smartass. Just pointing out that this nationally syndicated magazine can’t get punctuation correct in an article title.

[Cvengr]

His bride is the Church. He isn’t an adulterer, nor philanderer.

[caseinpoint]

It was Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, who was silenced prior to his son’s birth.

[WASCWatch]

My comment was meant to be a joke; and actually a compliment. It was pretty sharp of you to point out that mistake. I thought your comment was funny.

[Iscool]

It’s true...Jesus, who is God, married his mother Mary, before he was born, of course...

[TigersEye]

Thanks! I’m on the same page now.

[unlearner]

Maybe I misunderstood what Just mythoughts was saying to Mr. K. What I was calling unBiblical was putting Jesus into the same category with the angelic beings called “sons of God.” I’m completely unfamiliar with any doctrine that some of these sons of God “refused to take this flesh journey.” Perhaps I should have asked for clarification.

I also thought the original question was what makes Jesus the “only begotten” Son of God.

And Just mythoughts replied “Born of a woman.” I guess that was his definition for “begotten.” That makes a little more sense than the other statement. But actually “begotten” is used repeatedly in the Bible to describe men producing offspring.

And the same term, “only begotten,” is used to describe Abraham’s son, Isaac. But Abraham had another son, Ishmael. Isaac was not Abraham’s “only son.” Isaac was not even his “only born” son.

“Only begotten” means “one of a kind.” In the case of Isaac, he was the only son of Abraham who fulfilled the promises of God. He was also born to Sarah. Ishmael was not. “Only begotten” is still the best way to express this.

God has many sons. The angels are called “sons of God,” and those who believe on Christ are called “sons of God.” Yet Jesus is the “only begotten,” one-of-a-kind Son of God.

The virgin birth is one sign that identifies to us the Eternal Son who proceeded forth from God.

[boatbums]

In ancient Israel it was the norm for many men to be named Joshua.

Yeshua (ישוע, with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ – yēšūă‘ in Hebrew) was a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ("Yehoshua" – Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which, through the Latin Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus.[1][2] The Hebrew spelling Yeshua (ישוע) appears in some later books of the Hebrew Bible. Once for Joshua the son of Nun, and 28 times for Joshua the High Priest and (KJV "Jeshua") and other priests called Jeshua – although these same priests are also given the spelling Joshua in 11 further instances in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. It differs from the usual Hebrew Bible spelling of Joshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ y'hoshuaʿ), found 218 times in the Hebrew Bible, in the absence of the consonant he ה and placement of the semivowel vav ו after, not before, the consonant shin ש. It also differs from the Hebrew spelling Yeshu (ישו) which is found in Ben Yehuda's dictionary and used in most secular contexts in Modern Hebrew to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, although the Hebrew spelling Yeshua (ישוע) is generally used in translations of the New Testament into Hebrew[3] and used by Hebrew speaking Christians in Israel. The name Yeshua is also used in Israelite Hebrew historical texts to refer to other Joshuas recorded in Greek texts such as Jesus ben Ananias and Jesus ben Sira.[4] In English, the name Yeshua is extensively used by followers of Messianic Judaism,[5] whereas East Syrian Christian denominations use the name Isho in order to preserve the Aramaic or Syriac name of Jesus.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua

[boatbums]

The Only Begotten Son did not take this flesh journey to live a flesh life. His purpose is spelled out in Hebrews 2:14.

Exactly! He didn't take a detour and start a family just to leave them destitute when his time had come. He didn't own a house or a bed, even, and the clothes on his back were his only possessions.

[boatbums]

I believe these stories are no better than the stories of Yeshua’s “virgin birth” (irrelevant to the divinity of Christ), and “Mohammed Was Carried Away to Heaven” at the plateau at which the last Hebrew temple stood.

Couldn't care less about the myths of Mad Mo, but the virgin birth of the Messiah was an ancient prophecy (see Isaiah 7:14) that WAS relevant to the Divinity of Jesus Christ as well as a sign of the Messiah given by God 700 years before he was born. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, he wouldn't BE the Christ!

[boatbums]

AMEN!

[boatbums]

>>Those stories were told as a means to secure followers who NEED “miracles” in order to be followers<<

Actually, the writers of the Gospel believed that their fate in eternity depended upon their being accurate. If they made stuff up -- even to secure followers -- they would be damned. That's a pretty good incentive NOT to do as you suggested they did.

I guess they made up the resurrection, too??? It's funny how some people need to explain away the miraculous just so they can sleep at night. If the stories about Jesus are all just made up, then they don't have to deal with Him and can on about their lives in any way they choose.

But, like the Apostle Paul stated,

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (I Corinthians 15:14-19,32)