Early Christian Sexuality/Marriage

[Arab Nights (imported)]

There was a newspaper story today about finding a small piece with reference to Jesus having a wife. The article making oblique reference to there being a lot of argument in the first century or two of Christianity about the role of sexuality, celibacy and marriage in Christianity.

Can anyone briefly summarize that?

[Hash (imported)]

It boils down to authenticity, what was true, what is true. During the years following Christ's death & crucifixion there arose many cultic groups and so called mystery religions based on lots of untruth. There were several particular quasi-Christian groups who developed what Bible scholars refer to as their own writings that they tried to pass off as truth. Truth meaning the "inspired texts" versus uninspired texts or man-made writings. One particular group that was far out left were the Gnostics, from the Greek word "knowledge or to know." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism - This quasi-Christian sect thought they had a higher knowledge, they authored a lot of writings that were not inspired by God according to the early church Fathers. If you actually read some of the Gnostic writings you'd soon get the impression that they were out there in lala land. They're strange twilight zone like compared to the Bible, yet Dan Brown thinks they should be a part of the Canon of the Bible. The Bible contains the "canon" of scripture. From the Greek word "kanon" which was a measuring rod. The Bible contains the books that measured up to being inspired by God, the Gnostic writing were tested and proven to be false.

There was also a lot of false teaching and false writings called the "Pseudepigrapha." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigraph All of these writings were tested by the early Christians and were deteremined not to be authentic or inspired by God. Inspiration is the belief that God inspired godly men to record his Word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration

I've said all of this because Dan Brown, who wrote the DaVinci Code, wants people to think that the early church Fathers burned or destroyed these false uninspired texts to protect a lie, that Jesus was not really God in human flesh. That he married just as many people do and because of that he was not or is not God in human flesh, just a man or that if he was God incarnate (God in human flesh) then he may have fathered a half god lineage of humans. But what you have to do is decide: Were the early church fathers trying to protect a lie or proliferate a lie to protect Jesus or were they truly trying to protect and defend the inspired word that came from God. (Apologetics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics ) Christian scholars and Christians today believe that there's a Satanic influence that's trying to keep people from believing in God. They believe that God has provided the way to heaven, faith in Christ and Christ alone. This is faith, believe it or not. Damn them or reject them, you have to choose. Either way they won't kill you or blow you up for rejecting Christ or saying bad things about him.

[C&TL2745 (imported)]

As I understand it, the text is alleged to be from the Fourth Century, a good 300 years after Jesus' death, and it was written in Coptic, not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic like the Bible texts. It is therefore highly unlikely that it was written with first-hand knowledge of what Jesus said or did. As Hash noted above, by the time of the writing, the church had already developed factions with conflicting teachings. The main branches (Arianism and those more or less aligned with the findings of the First Council of Nicaea) both relied more on philosophy than on the scriptures. There is an excellent book (available from Amazon) on the history of the church during this period: When Jesus Became God. It presents in detail the infighting, mutual excommunications, riots, assassinations, vying for political support from the various Roman emperors, etc., that went on during the Fourth Century. An interesting read. In any event, I wouldn't look to a scrap of parchment from that century (assuming that carbon dating can confirm it's really that old) as being authoritative about anything relating to Jesus, but it can provide some insight into the way factions were diverging from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the First Century.

Sandi

[Hash (imported)]

Sandi, I'm amazed at your knowledge. Who are you? You are bright, articulate, learned. Wow. Still think you could be and should be a writer. You might be missing your calling.

[Peter47-NL (imported)]

There was a newspaper story today about finding a small piece with reference to Jesus having a wife. The article making oblique reference to there being a lot of argument in the first century or two of Christianity about the role of sexuality, celibacy and marriage in Christianity.

Can anyone briefly summarize that?

I can't briefly summarize this and I believe nobody can summarize this briefly.

First of all there is the question "Did Jesus really live on earth or is he a mythical or allegoric figure?" Nobody can prove these premisses as being right or wrong. But it is true that there is a lot to say about this subject and Hash is comes with very interesting links, which does not solve the problem. What is false or quasi Christianity and what is right Christianity and who decides that? The church father and self declared authority "Saint" Irenaeus? Reading the links and the links to following links, I tend to believe the Gnostics were right. But this is my personal opinion and I will leave everyone his own personal opinion on this subject. That suits more with the Gnostics than the so called church fathers.

I never read Dan Brown. All I can can say about him is from what I have heard and read about him. So I only can say that he seems to write thrilling fiction mixed with lot of fantasy and some real facts, but I can't proof or substantiate this subjective opinion.

[JesusA (imported)]

While I hope that Gareth19, probably our most theologically knowledgeable member, will weigh in on this issue, in the meantime here is my tentative take on it:

The early centuries of the Common Era saw many competing versions and interpretations of the historic Jesus. Many competing texts were produced. There were armed battles between followers of different interpretations. Gradually a consensus formed around what has become the modern orthodoxy – though with relatively minor variations across the range from Coptic to Unitarian. Many formerly widespread beliefs came to be viewed as heresy and became extinct.

Hundreds of texts have been considered canonical at various times, only a very few of which made it into the New Testament. The choices were partly for political reasons, as well as doctrinal ones. Some of the earliest known texts were not included, such as the Gospel of Thomas, which may be the earliest surviving (nearly) complete Christian text, although there are fragments of earlier texts, such as the Gospel of the Nazareans and the Gospel of the Ebionites. Dates are impossible to establish for the earliest “Christian” writings, and the oldest scrap of papyrus containing any of those now considered canonical is a calling-card sized fragment of the Gospel of John (bits of 18:31-33, 37-38) that possibly dates from as early as 150 CE.

Among the early believers there was a wide variety of beliefs in Jesus that were gradually, and sometimes violently, consolidated into a somewhat consistent set of beliefs that we have today. Tertullian (circa 160-circa 225 CE) seems to have been the first to formulate the idea of the Christian Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Some formulations had them as separate gods; some as gods among many others – as many as 365 “Christian” gods in one formulation. Tertullian’s concept of the Trinity was promulgated as Christian orthodoxy by the First Council of Nicaea a century after his death, though some groups resisted the idea even then.

That one or more of these early groups would believe that Jesus was married is nothing to be surprised about. That there is a fragment of an early text about it is unsurprising. There was the belief in some early Christian communities that the historical Jesus was a eunuch as well. Tertullian, in his De Monogamia may say so. I have two translations, one of which clearly states it, the other of which hints at it. My Latin is too poor to be certain of meaning of the original text.

An early Christian group, the Valensians, believed not only that Jesus was a eunuch, but that ALL proper Christian males should be castrated. St. Epiphanius (circa 320-403), in his work on the “heretical” sects of the 4th century describes them and their practice of kidnapping boys and castrating them to “save their souls.” (Amidon 1990)

_______

Amidon, PR. (1990). The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis. Oxford University Press; New York.

[Hash (imported)]

I think from all that Jesus said, it begs the question, "What is truth?" Is the Bible, in all it's multiple translations, true. How did we get the Bible that we now have and why; despite all that's happened down through the centuries. Why was the Bible preserved in it's present form? Why hasn't it been torn apart and more books added? If the Gnostic gospels are canonical, why not add them? Sticking with the original theme, "Why not include the parts of the excluded books that want us to

believe that Jesus was married?

Why? Perhaps there's an unseen force, a supernatural creator, who has worked to bring us the Bible that we have today, who has carefully and skillfully brought it to us the way that he wanted. I believe that very thing. Reject it, dismiss it, damn it or damn me. It doesn't matter. You can't change it if it's true. One day I believe we'll all know what is true and what is not.

If you want to attempt to expand your knowledge and find out from two men who spent their lives on this subject, I would recommend a great book, easy to understand written by Geisler & Nix, "A General Introduction of the Bible." It's not heavy on theology, it's a text book written in a scholastic style.

[moi621 (imported)]

The oldest authenticated Christian manuscript is Gnostic, a more spiritual less corporal Christianity.

The Greeks being body lovers thus corrupted the surviving forms of Christianity.

Sexuality/Marriage. Consider what happens when you hybridize body worship with guilt.

Yup!

Moi

Gnostic

It isn't just for Christians

[Wolf-Pup (imported)]

I don't have faith in anything that doesn't change as our knowledge of the world increases. I put my faith in science and things like fossils, evolution, the space telescopes...etc

On the other hand, only the old testament is communally agreed upon, so lets keep that and scrap the rest

[Arab Nights (imported)]

It presents in detail the infighting, mutual excommunications, riots, assassinations, vying for political support

Sandi

Sounds kind of like another religion we have discussed.

Jesus expanded on the castration angle, which I had sort of picked up on a bit here. I think there were also a chastity and marital issues the were talking points among the early Christians. I would assume there was some angle like being married to the Church or something like that. Does that sound right?