Was Jesus married? (Religion)

by dhw, Thursday, September 20, 2012, 18:29 (4207 days ago)

In today's Guardian there are no less than three articles about a scrap of papyrus in Coptic script, presumed to have originated in Egypt, and containing the words: "Jesus said to them, 'my wife'", which researchers think may refer to Mary Magdalen. The disciples discuss whether Mary is "worthy", and Jesus replies, "she can be my disciple."-Kerboum! Some experts question the authenticity of the text, some question the meaning of the word "wife", and the Vatican has studiously ignored the academic conference at which Professor Karen King of Harvard Divinity School revealed the supposedly fourth-century papyrus. She thinks it is a copy of a second-century Greek gospel, and herself advises a cautious approach.-I would not wish to offend our Christian friends, but one can see very clearly why this sensational coverage engenders the utmost cynicism among the unconverted. There are probably millions of people now genuinely concerned about the implications of the fragment (hence the coverage). The Church established the traditional view that Jesus was celibate, and you have vast swathes of Christianity humphing and harrumphing over the very concept not only of him having sex, but also of any godly person having sex. You have nuns and priests depriving themselves (or in some cases scandalously not depriving themselves) because they genuinely believe Jesus wants them to. Would it demean him if it were actually to be proven that he had intercourse with Mary? Muhammad is reputed to have had nine wives, but no-one would dare complain about that (if they value their lives). Why the heck did the Christian God invent sex as the method of creating new life if he thought it was such a terrible thing? -I have to say that from my position on the picket fence, the very idea of all these learned folk discussing, analysing, agonising over a scrap of ancient papyrus (genuine or not), and over the question of whether a man whose life story we cannot possibly trace with even the slightest degree of certainty did or did not have sex, makes me wonder if theology is not a form of collective madness.

Was Jesus married?

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 20, 2012, 19:38 (4207 days ago) @ dhw


> I have to say that from my position on the picket fence, the very idea of all these learned folk discussing, analysing, agonising over a scrap of ancient papyrus (genuine or not), and over the question of whether a man whose life story we cannot possibly trace with even the slightest degree of certainty did or did not have sex, makes me wonder if theology is not a form of collective madness.-Theology can only know what is archeologically proven. Faith is not collective madness, unless the faithful recognize their beliefs are only that, beliefs.

Was Jesus married?

by dhw, Friday, September 21, 2012, 19:55 (4206 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: I have to say that from my position on the picket fence, the very idea of all these learned folk discussing, analysing, agonising over a scrap of ancient papyrus (genuine or not), and over the question of whether a man whose life story we cannot possibly trace with even the slightest degree of certainty did or did not have sex, makes me wonder if theology is not a form of collective madness.-DAVID: Theology can only know what is archeologically proven. Faith is not collective madness, unless the faithful recognize their beliefs are only that, beliefs.-Perhaps you meant "so long as the faithful recognize..." I would not dream of calling faith "collective madness". I see faith by its very nature as being individual (which applies as much to faith in a god as to faith in chance), and so long as it does no harm, it would be sheer arrogance to call it madness. But we are social beings and that is where theology comes in.
 
The main materials studied by monotheistic theologians are texts by other fallible humans, often written centuries after the events they purport to describe, in a language that is wide open to different interpretations whose accuracy can never be objectively confirmed. Perhaps "collective madness" is too strong a term, but I must confess to finding it difficult to take seriously the question of whether Jesus did or did not have sex. And yet theologians do take it so seriously that it has had a profound and probably very damaging influence on the lives of many. If we turn our attention to the vicious and destructive intolerance that runs through the history of these religions, right up to the present day, we can see that the source is theology: the authoritative pronouncements by fallible humans that their fallible interpretations of the texts written by other fallible humans represent the unknowable will of a divine being, assuming this being exists in the first place! This is not to deny the comfort, charity, love associated with these religions ... and indeed with most other religions and humanist philosophies. I am simply questioning theology's obsession with ancient, unreliable texts.-One can, of course, argue that collective faith in the authority of fallible human beings does amount to collective madness. This takes us way beyond religion into virtually every sphere of human activity. We are vulnerable to the misguidance of self-proclaimed experts in all fields.

Was Jesus married?

by David Turell @, Friday, September 21, 2012, 20:05 (4206 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: I have to say that from my position on the picket fence, the very idea of all these learned folk discussing, analysing, agonising over a scrap of ancient papyrus (genuine or not), and over the question of whether a man whose life story we cannot possibly trace with even the slightest degree of certainty did or did not have sex, makes me wonder if theology is not a form of collective madness.
> 
> DAVID: Theology can only know what is archeologically proven. Faith is not collective madness, unless the faithful recognize their beliefs are only that, beliefs.
> 
> Perhaps you meant "so long as the faithful recognize..." I would not dream of calling faith "collective madness". -Theology requires faith if one is a follower of a particular religion. Your correction is accepted as a better statement.-> The main materials studied by monotheistic theologians are texts by other fallible humans, often written centuries after the events they purport to describe, in a language that is wide open to different interpretations whose accuracy can never be objectively confirmed. ..... I am simply questioning theology's obsession with ancient, unreliable texts.-Those texts are all we have, and we are curious about the beginnings of religion.
> 
> One can, of course, argue that collective faith in the authority of fallible human beings does amount to collective madness. This takes us way beyond religion into virtually every sphere of human activity. We are vulnerable to the misguidance of self-proclaimed experts in all fields.-This is always my complaint. The writings are after the fact and come from repeated oral traditions. Religions make up just-so stories to fill in the gaps. Everyone needs to recognize the gaps in our historical knowledge. It is as if religions approach God from a position of ignorance. Which is why I go my own way.

Was Jesus married?

by dhw, Monday, September 24, 2012, 18:30 (4203 days ago) @ dhw

More tragicomic reaction to the fragment of papyrus, as reported in yesterday's Sunday Times:-Quote: The Rev. Robin Griffiths-Jones, master of the Temple Church in London: "If evidence were taken seriously that Jesus was married, vast tranches of Christian thought would....just evaporate."-Since no-one can possibly know whether Jesus was married or not, had sex or not, what are these vast tranches based on? (More in a moment.) The power of the Church has always rested on the need to instil a feeling of guilt in its members. We are all sinners, and God will punish us unless we do as Papa tells us. Sex is sinful, although it's OK if the purpose is to create children. So we must assume that Jesus never had sex. Oh and by the way, if priests sexually abuse children, we'd better cover it up, because otherwise the Church might lose some of its power, let alone its credibility.-Quote: Garry O'Connor, papal biographer: the fragment "brings into the open once more the conflict between the spiritual side of Jesus, and the human side. It opens from a new perspective the debate on marriage, gay priests, female sexuality." (Why not male sexuality?)-Has the debate ever been closed? (More in a moment.) Why should there be a conflict between the spiritual side and the human side of a man whose life story was reconstructed decades after his death, and has been embellished for centuries by the imagination of those purporting to represent him? If Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene, whether they were married or not, does this change the value of his (reconstructed) philosophy? Do Muslims disregard what they believe to be Muhammad's messages because he had multiple wives and children? The only thing it changes is the role of sex in the Church's teachings, which are based on an obsessive and repressive preoccupation with words written, translated and interpreted by generations of fallible humans, not one of whom was a witness to Jesus's life, let alone his sex life if he had one.-Quote: The Roman Catholic Church, however, has dismissed the idea that the fragment might throw doubt over two millennia of Christian tradition or influence doctrine. "This does not change anything in the position of the Church, which rests on an enormous tradition, which is very clear and unanimous" that Jesus was not married, said Father Federico Lombardi, a spokesman for Pope Benedict XVI.-And there you have it. The Church established its own traditions ... by no means unanimous, but in the early days you would be chucked out if you disagreed ... and these became canon. It doesn't matter whether they are based on truth or not ... any evidence to the contrary is to be dismissed ... or even on what is best for humankind (since the Church's attitude towards all matters sexual is the cause of so much suffering). The fragment of papyrus may be fraud or fiction, just as the various accounts of Jesus's life may be fraud or fiction, but what seems to matter most to the Church is the preservation of its authority. Ah well, if God exists (and cares), let's hope that he too sees the funny side of this tragedy.

Was Jesus married?

by David Turell @, Monday, September 24, 2012, 19:06 (4203 days ago) @ dhw


> The fragment of papyrus may be fraud or fiction, just as the various accounts of Jesus's life may be fraud or fiction, but what seems to matter most to the Church is the preservation of its authority. Ah well, if God exists (and cares), let's hope that he too sees the funny side of this tragedy.-This is the problem with all religions that propose to define God and His teachings. How do they know? It gives tremendous ammunition to atheists like Dawkins and allows for his derision.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum