3 ms·

> Never before had an ancient manuscript alluded to Jesus’s being married. yeah, because the church tried to smother the gospels: thomas, mary, judas, and 30+ o

> Never before had an ancient manuscript alluded to Jesus’s being married. yeah, because the church tried to smother the gospels: thomas, mary, judas, and 30+ others; that contained contrarian views to their goals That's not really relevant here. There are a tremendous number of records of beliefs/gospels which the modern church considers heretical, including ones which pertain to the status of women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla The claim is not "this isn't church doctrine", it's "there's no other historical record of people telling this story". It would be surprising, though not strictly impossible, for this to have been a major gospel in ancient history without some record of it being found by now.

justifier 10y ago
> it's "there's no other historical record of people telling this story". right, that is the suppression theory that i am saying i agree with > The claim is not "this isn't church doctrine" i am making this claim.. how could you keep women from having seats of power in your religion if the guy you claim the whole thing is based on believed 'the other sex' to be 'worthy' of both hearing the truth and speaking it?
- hyperpape 10y ago
  The point is that the church said many things were heretical and tried to suppress those beliefs. And we know about it, because we have records of: 1) the church saying "that guy over there is a heretic" 2) the writings of the heretic So what you're saying is that in this one case, the Church was able to completely stamp out a widespread belief to the point that we have no reference to people believing it, even though it wasn't able to do so in other cases that it also deemed heretical? That seems implausible. P.S. "> Never before had an ancient manuscript alluded to Jesus’s being married." That is what I referred to as "the claim".
carterehsmith 10y ago
Your post is super confusing and contradicts itself. 1) "There are a tremendous number of records of beliefs/gospels which the modern church considers heretical, including ones which pertain to the status of women" 2) "there's no other historical record of people telling this story" So which one is it? Is there a "tremendous number" of them, or is there "no other historical record"? You can't have both. Either there is, or there is not.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  "This story" meant the story that Jesus was married. Other apocryphal gospels say things about women that sometimes contradict the orthodox opinion, but they do not say that Jesus was married. To reiterate what I am saying: there are plenty of historical records of the church attacking heresies in the ancient world, supported by both the writings of the church fathers and the writings of the heretics themselves. What this article points out is that we do not have any other ancient writings that allude to anyone believing that Jesus was married. It is, as far as we can tell, not something that was ever in dispute.

justifier 10y ago

> it's "there's no other historical record of people telling this story". right, that is the suppression theory that i am saying i agree with > The claim is not "this isn't church doctrine" i am making this claim.. how could you keep women from having seats of power in your religion if the guy you claim the whole thing is based on believed 'the other sex' to be 'worthy' of both hearing the truth and speaking it?

hyperpape 10y ago
The point is that the church said many things were heretical and tried to suppress those beliefs. And we know about it, because we have records of: 1) the church saying "that guy over there is a heretic" 2) the writings of the heretic So what you're saying is that in this one case, the Church was able to completely stamp out a widespread belief to the point that we have no reference to people believing it, even though it wasn't able to do so in other cases that it also deemed heretical? That seems implausible. P.S. "> Never before had an ancient manuscript alluded to Jesus’s being married." That is what I referred to as "the claim".

carterehsmith 10y ago

Your post is super confusing and contradicts itself. 1) "There are a tremendous number of records of beliefs/gospels which the modern church considers heretical, including ones which pertain to the status of women" 2) "there's no other historical record of people telling this story" So which one is it? Is there a "tremendous number" of them, or is there "no other historical record"? You can't have both. Either there is, or there is not.

hyperpape 10y ago
"This story" meant the story that Jesus was married. Other apocryphal gospels say things about women that sometimes contradict the orthodox opinion, but they do not say that Jesus was married. To reiterate what I am saying: there are plenty of historical records of the church attacking heresies in the ancient world, supported by both the writings of the church fathers and the writings of the heretics themselves. What this article points out is that we do not have any other ancient writings that allude to anyone believing that Jesus was married. It is, as far as we can tell, not something that was ever in dispute.