Boston-area Roman Catholics had mixed reactions Sunday to reports that a Harvard professor identified what appears to be a scrap of fourth-century Egyptian papyrus bearing the first known explicit reference to Jesus’ having been married.
Speaking to reporters after Masses in Boston and Newton, some parishioners scoffed at the idea that the man Christians regard as the Messiah had a wife, a notion considered heretical by the Roman Catholic Church, which allows only celibate men to be priests.
Comments
The idea of celibate priests did not come from the Bible, it came from Vatican edicts trying to keep hereditary positions from within the church.
Also they wanted the estate of the priest if he died and no responsibility for the survivors of his family.
It is heretical that Catholics bow down to the pope calling him father and kissing his ring. It is heretical that the Catholic hierarchy continues to hoard artwork and gold within its private government of the Vatican rather than living amongst the people they are called to serve.
Why is it heretical?
It is heretical because nothing should stand between you and God. You should not bow down to anyone but God. Jesus said"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". Jesus eschewed wealth in his time and associatred with working people who traveled light.
If Jesus never married, was he gay and if so, so what?
1. Whether or not Jesus was married has nothing to do with the discipline of celibacy in the Catholic Church today; 2. If Jesus were married, it would not change Christian faith in any way; 3. There has been no reported sufficient examination of the fragment (e.g., historical method, lower/higher criticism) to warrant any kind of conclusion other than, "Hey! We think we found an old piece of paper!"
The headline: "Jesus married? Local Catholics not swayed"
The lead: "Boston-area Roman Catholics had mixed reactions Sunday"
Conclusion: The headline writer needs to put his flask in the drawer.
It doesn't matter because those who are willing to believe whatever the church tells them will continue to do that. The paper is not "proof" anyway, and that was emphasized by the researcher Ms. King. People will come down on both sides of the issue anyway. When it comes to religion, who needs proof of anything?
Amazing the amount of noise over nothing. If it were true, there would be many other historical references to it, and even official docs in some cases. In short, you would see a LOT more evidence, not one tiny scrap printed 300 years after his death. People are pushing an agenda here. You decide which one.
Actually, that's not true. After the church whittled down Christian literature to what we now know as the New Testament (and a few apocryphal works that were kept separate) the church made a concerted effort that lasted centuries to eliminate anything that conflicted with church teachings.
Whatever it proves or doesn't prove, it quite amazing that this scrap survives.
The evidentiary support for even the existence of Jesus is fairly weak.
Hello - the Roman Catholics only allowed celebate men to be priests because they did not know that Jesus was married.
Most of the odd Catholic rules were proclaimed by popes and not from what is really in the bible.
Could have avoided a lot of pedophelia and insults against females by priests if they had been allowed to marry.
Good Lord, did they ask anyone with a mind of their own? Or with a mind, period. Surely, they could have found an educated Catholic with a clue, who did not take their marching orders from the Pope- "if the Pope allows it, I'm all for it?' Yeah, that will happen! Maybe they should have gone to different parishes, not just Dorchester and Southie. not a good sampling of opinions and ideas. Why not go to BC and Emmanuel, where the next generation of Catholics will be taught.