Was Jesus married? Were the Three Little Pigs spotted? Was Pinocchio made of flowering dogwood?

[Gore1FL]

According to a scrap from an unknown old source, yes!

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/scientific-tests-show-gospel-jesus-wife-wasnt-faked-n77206

Never has so much paper been devoted to such a little scrap of papyrus — a scrap that suggests some Christians thought Jesus was a married man.

Here's the bottom line from more than 60 pages of studies focusing on a piece of papyrus inscribed with a text quoting Jesus as referring to "my wife": Months of lab tests show that document is not a modern-day forgery, as skeptics had claimed. The papyrus and the ink go back at least 1,100 years. But despite all that, some of the skeptics will never be convinced.

The studies, published Thursday in the Harvard Theological Review, represent the latest chapter in the years-long saga surrounding what Harvard theologian Karen King has dubbed the Gospel of Jesus' Wife. King brought the text into the global spotlight in September 2012, at a symposium in Rome, but the publication of her analysis was held up for more than a year when questions were raised about the text's authenticity.

I can assure you that according to some papers I plan to preserve so they last a few centuries, the answers to the other questions are:

* Only the one who built his house of sticks.
* No

[Warpy]

1. If he existed, he pretty much had to be

While single, educated men could be called "Rabbi," most people wouldn't think he knew what he was talking about until he'd dealt with the challenges of marriage. He'd be all theory and no knowledge about real practice. A single rabbi didn't stay single long, IOW.

Otherwise, he'd be like the Catholic hierarchy, and people would duly ignore what he had to say about marriage.

[pscot]

2. Jesus liked the ladies

and they liked him. They're all over the Gospels. He was no blue nose.

[Goblinmonger]

3. So they found fan fiction?

I hope they find the really raunchy parts soon.

[skepticscott]

7. I wonder if

they underlined the fuck scenes back then?

[stopbush]

4. So, the papyrus is 1100 years old. Great source! That means it was written only

1000 years after Jesus supposedly lived.

Nothing like having "contemporary" sources when it comes to talking about Jeebus.

It MUST be true!

[Warren Stupidity]

5. There are conflicting dates - 5th CE or 9th CE.

Either way it is not an exceptionally old text.

The earliest extant gospels date to around 150 CE. There are no contemporary sources of any sort except Josephus and even that is two references and those references are in a copy that is not particularly old either, as in the oldest existing copy is from the 11 century CE.

[onager]

6. Josephus wasn't contemporary either.

Though Xians love to claim he is.

Most estimates I've seen say Josephus was born around 37 CE, or a few years after Alleged Jesus got nailed.

Josephus was an eyewitness to the Judean revolt against Rome ending in 66 CE, and IMO that's some of his best writing, in "The Jewish War."

Reading him still requires some caution. He appears to have been a massive bullshitter, not to mention a traitor.

Josephus tells two completely different stories about his part in the revolt. In one account he acts as a sort of diplomat, going between the Romans and Jews to negotiate peace. But in another version, he's an active military commander...one who surrendered a key fortress to the Romans, after reneging on a pledge to commit suicide.

That last one is interesting because it exactly mirrors the famous account of the mass suicide at Masada. And the ONLY account of Masada we have comes from...guess who? Flavius Josephus.

[stopbush]

8. As far as Josephus, we know that the Testimonium Flavianum is a 4th-century forgery,

so that puts it down to one reference.

[TxDemChem]

9. That's what I've heard.

On his podcast, The Human Bible, Dr . Price discussed the issue of Jesus showing up in some of his works hundreds of years later. If I remember correctly, at least one well-known leader (Roman, I think) had a copy of what was essentially the table of contents of the Testimonium Flavium and nowhere was Jesus mentioned . He then read an excerpt of the text that had a mention of Jesus and read it again without the Jesus part. It makes no sense with the Jesus part thrown in, but flows logically without it.

Great podcast if anyone is interested.

[onager]

14. The "Fathers of the Church" didn't mention it either.

Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr...we know those early "church fathers" had read Josephus, because they mentioned him. But none of them ever mentioned the Testimonium Flavinium.

That was in the early days of organized Xianity, when they were looking for any scrap of historical data about Jesus to bolster their claims. It's nearly impossible to imagine that they knew about the Testimonium Flavinium but didn't mention it. I think they would have been screaming it from the rooftops - "Look here! Josephus the great historian mentioned Jesus! So it must be true!"

AFAIK, the Testimonium didn't pop up until the 4th Century CE, when it was discovered by...uh-oh...Eusebius.

As they say on the ID Channel, Eusebius had both motive and opportunity to insert a forgery. Motive because he's on the record saying it's perfectly OK to lie for Jesus. Opportunity because he was the Custodian of ancient writings...like the works of Josephus.

I have the book "The Ancient Historians" by the historian Michael Grant, who self-identifies as a Xian himself. It's a great read, covering Herodotus, Josephus etc. Grant says, based on his research, that the Testimonium was definitely a forgery inserted later.

Also, my copy of "The Collected Works of Josephus" was published by that gang of atheists at Fuller Theological Seminary. They came to the same conclusion - forgery, inserted later.

[TxDemChem]

15. Awesome info. I've been going back through the podcasts trying to find Dr. price's segment, but have

not come across it yet. I need to order those books. They sound like just the type of reading I'd like to do in May.

Thanks for kicking some knowledge my way.

[onager]

16. Other Testimonium fun facts...

1. I keep misspelling "Testimonium Flavianum" so I will just call the damn thing "Testimonium" from now on.

2. TxDemChen wrote: He then read an excerpt of the text that had a mention of Jesus and read it again without the Jesus part. It makes no sense with the Jesus part thrown in, but flows logically without it.

Yep. The Testimonium appears in the 18th chapter of Josephus' book "Antiquities of the Jews."

It's very weirdly sandwiched in between a story about Pontius Pilate inciting a riot, and some juicy gossip about Jews visiting pagan temples in Rome.

Bizarrely out of context.

3. But it gets even more bizarre. In reference to Jesus, the Testimonium contains the words "if he be a man" and implies JC was the Messiah.

Why is that bizarre? Because Flavius Josephus was a Pharasaic Jew to the end of his life. He would have never referred to anybody as the Messiah - it would have been the worst kind of blasphemy to him.

However, those words sound exactly like something a Xian fanboi might have written much later...

4. So Jesus may have been the Messiah, he did "wondrous things" according to the Testimonium, he worked miracles and came back from the dead.

And in the massive works of Flavius Josephus, he rates...ONE PARAGRAPH? Josephus gave more ink to all sorts of minor characters in his works.

5. Just FTR, Josephus mentions many people named "Jesus" in the Antiquities. One Jesus was apparently some sort of religious lunatic who went around screeching "Woe to Jerusalem!" He became so annoying that a mob almost lynched him, so the Romans took him into protective custody. He got out during the battle of Jerusalem, and was in mid-"Woe" when a rock hit him in the head and killed him. Probably to the great relief of both the Romans and Judeans.

[TxDemChem]

18. Lol fact #5 has me tickled!

I think I do recall Jesus wasn't exactly a unique name. That Jesus reminds me of those zany street preachers or the ones who show up on college campuses yelling nonsense. Quite a nuisance.

[stopbush]

17. We know it's a 4th-century insertion because no pre-4th century writers -

Xian or otherwise - mention it.

No way they would have let such passages go unmentioned had they ever seen them.

[edhopper]

10. I think this is important in a sociological and historical way

Christianity has had a major impact on Western civilization. Knowing how it progressed, what the earlier followers believed and how the "official" tenets of the religion developed gives us a better understanding.

[theHandpuppet]

11. This is one thing I've never understood

Why in the world would it matter to believers if Jesus was married or not? Just the mere discussion on the topic sends so many fundamentalist Christians into a full-tilt tizzy. Honestly, what's the big deal? Some folks act as if the thought of Jesus being married is nasty. Weird if you ask me.

[edhopper]

12. Because to fundamentalist

The NT is the immutable word of God, the omitted Gospels were left out because they were not the true word of God.
There cannot be any validity something that contradicts the Bible ( the contradictions contained within the Bible always get a pass though)

[Gore1FL]

13. St. Augustine declared Sex to be dirty and sinful

If Jesus was in a consummated marriage, the illogical nature is exposed and their head explodes.


Either that, or that Whole Trinity thing makes it a foursome.