Skip to main content

Debunking the Gnostic 'Parchment: Jesus Couldn't Have Had a Wife Comments

Have we really regressed, after 4,000 years of Divine revelation, to seeing the Trinity the way the Greeks saw the gods, sneaking into human bedrooms disguised as humans, in order to impregnate human beings so as to created demi-gods, in the process committing adultery against their divine mates ? Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 36 Comments

  1. Thomas Ryan
    2 years ago

    The Church has had real problems with carnality of any kind. It seems to me a great reach of that historical anti sexuality thread to stomp on the possibilities in any discovered text. Just because it is old also doesn't make it false, either. Also, it should occur to many older Catholics that celibacy has indeed been "a meaningless charade" for a great many, possibly a majority(?), of priests. Who are you Dr. to limit what God might do?

  2. Jeffey Stone
    2 years ago

    From a theological viewpoint, Jesus was both human and non-human simultaneously. The fact that he could "die" on the cross, showed his humanity. The fact that he could be resurrected and walk the earth again in physical form after his death, shows his divinity. From a historical perspective, at the time that Jesus lived, it would have been deemed very strange for a man his age to not be married. As a human I would surmise that it would have been physically possible for him to have physical relations, however as the son of God it would have defeated his purpose to do so. Therefore I would assume that he did not have relations because it would have prevented him from completing his earthly tasks, however it is possible that he made a pretense of marriage simply to avoid unnecessary difficulties in the formative years that led to the teachings and miracles that make up the New Testament.

  3. KarlVDH
    2 years ago

    Brad- excellent point! Jesus had a great turn of phrase for it... (or, for something equally gymnastic from an intellectual perspective.) He said "You strain ata gnat... to swallow a camel."
    some people will believe the most picayune source available if they can construe it to say something about the Bible, but the Bible in its enormity they discount out off hand.
    Good post, Brad.

  4. Sylvester Kajiam
    2 years ago

    This kind of attack/blasphemy is not new to the church. No matter what anybody (within or outside the church) would say, we will always Love the church more and more till we can breath no more and by His grace, to eternity. Because it is the spirit, it is christ and indeed it is God so it(church) will never be wrong nor fail. Love you (Jesus) Catholic church.

  5. Dr. Dom
    2 years ago

    Damian you're right that we ought not to let faith controversies or disputes (particularly if they are idle disputes) rob us of our peace or our faith. But theology does indeed advance often from these disputes when they are resolved by the Church, with the help of theologians faithful to her (as it has throughout history when disputed ideas were advanced, e.g., when Ephesus resolved the Nestorian heresy). This is the very first public discussion about whether Jesus COULD HAVE MARRIED (and not merely about whether He did historically marry). That could lead to a theological advance if resolved adequately.

  6. KarlVDH
    2 years ago

    Dr. Dom- thanks for a rational discussion! Let me couch this by first stating- again- that I think the idea of JEsus being married is silly for a number of reaasons. My argument is timply that it isn't all that important anyway; if he WERE, does it change the Cross? the Resurrection? The significance of our Mother? Nope. Not at all. Such a thing doesn't hange ANYTHING but a traditional VIEW of Jesus; it doesn't change who he ISat all.
    I see your point, but I disagree, because Jesus also says we are one in the spirit, and as marital relations are NOWHERE in scriptre called "sin," (Original sin is NOT the parental act of sex, though some haf tried to simplify it to such,) there's no problem with what you're calling her carnality. And since in First Centry Jewish culture, a woman couldn't BE "head of household," there's no way he'd have given Mary to a woman to care for; even his spouse...she wouldn't have the means to do so, under either Israelite OR Roman occupation laws. The days of Ruth and Naomi were long gone by then... and even THEY needed a man to provide.
    As John was the only one of the twelve who stood loyal, and he was the one who apparently had the closest personal relationship with Jesus and his extended family, he's the logical choice.

  7. Kit
    2 years ago

    I think it means he was married to the church, Not a flesh and blood women.

  8. Damian
    2 years ago

    It is a pity that some people went about bordering their brain over something that is indisputable. If Jesus married as claimed, who was the wife? Why did Jesus hand over His mother Mary to his beloved apostle John alone on good friday? Because in marriage two becomes one, so Jesus could have been much attached to His said or claimed wife instead of His mother. Master writer or researcher who are His sons and daughters or is there no issue?
    Brethen lets focus on what God wants us to do to be save instead of indulging in blind argurment/blesphemy of this nature.

  9. Brad
    2 years ago

    What I find interesting is that skeptics will scramble at the chance to believe a 3x5 parchment with a small phrase on it before they believe the Bible. Also, people don't realise: Just because it's old, doesn't make it true.

  10. Dr. Dom
    2 years ago

    Karl VDH I didn't mean "osteogenesis offspring", but "ostensibly", as in "ostensibly the offspring...."; sorry!

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Saint of the Day

March 27 Saint of the Day

St. Rupert
March 27: Bishop and missionary, also listed as Robert of Hrodbert. A ... Read More