Historian Says Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Fourth-century Coptic? Okay. Wake me up if they find Q and it's in there or something.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There are non-canonical gospels that indicate this, the theory that Jesus may have been married (particularly, to Mary Magdalene) is nothing new.

Luther believed that.

Cite?

Anyway, I personally think that this sort of frenzy over the idea that Jesus was married or involved in some kind of sexual relationship is frankly ridiculous and also a little insulting to Mary Magdalene and her position as Apostle to the Apostles, but whatever.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would think, given that he was a man in his early 30's when he died it would be ridicuous not to have had a sexual relationship.

I don't understand this logic. Or, I do, but I don't understand why you think it's universal in its application.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, but it seems like this one particular issue is one that people spend far more time thinking about and often grasping at straws over than the actual significance of attempting to score this kind of inane point merits.