|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks Red Badger. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
|
|
|
|
Posted on 09/18/2012 11:20:37 AM PDT by Red Badger
There were Church Fathers before 200 who quote from the books of the New Testament (even if there wasn't complete agreement on which books were inspired until later).
There were Gnostics in the second century--Eusebius mentions some of them in book 4 of his history of the Church (Basilides, Carpocrates)--he is very negative in his attitude towards them. So it is possible that the newly-discovered text could be a translation of something dating from the second century.
If we outsourced the rioting to a company in India; could they just perform the rioting over there for us?
Or maybe it could done in a virtual environment on a JAVA platform?
Just think about it...the bachelor party would have been epic!
They didn’t have those back then.
But they did have a wedding in Cana that had a shortage of wine problem...........
There’s video at the link. I sense a riot coming!
Dang bro, I’m GMT-7. That’s barely enough time for a nap, popcorn and cocktails.
Stop by Chik-Fil-A on the way..................
...take...please!
(The joke would be re-translated and revived 1900 years later, for a borscht-belt stand-up routine)
There isn't the slightest hint in the canonical books of the New Testament that Jesus was married. If He had been, there would have been no reason for them to suppress the information--it would have simply been accepted. His wife would have been mentioned in Acts--she isn't because she didn't exist.
St. Peter was married--that was not suppressed.
There is no reason to think John the Baptist was married, but he doesn't attract the same interest.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
|
Thanks Red Badger. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
|
|
|
|
If Jesus wasn’t married we would never have had Joseph Smith.
That should settle it.
No, we have a fragment from the Gospel of John (P52) which dates about 120 AD and we have early 1st Century copies of writings of the Church fathers which quote heavily from the Gospels.
You can't even draw conclusions from this scrap of a scrap, just conjecture in empty air. “Ooh, what if...?” isn't scholarship. Or is it these days?
“Thank you for enjoying the trial version of our apocryphal gospel. To order the full version, please enter your credit card number. Must be 18 or older.”
***in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a reference to Jesus’ wife ***
This is ignorant in the sense that it ignores so many known facts that it’s hardly worthy of consideration.
Jesus was born in the neighborhood of 1 AD. He died roughly 33 AD. Various early apostles wrote or were responsible for the entire New Testament prior to about 95AD at the latest. They were Hebrews living in Israel and then emigrating to other regions of the Roman empire, mostly following Paul’s missionary endeavors.
This phony claim in the media, phony because of the way it takes advantage of the lack of knowledge of the public, must itself acknowledge that this scrap of writing was about 300-400 years AFTER Jesus’ time, and that it was written in the Coptic language and not in Hebrew or Greek, the languages of used by the early disciples in their outreach.
And to make the claim “who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery” is out-and-out misrepresentation. Who cares that a scrap of writing 300-400 years AFTER Jesus is actually written by someone 300-400 years AFTER Jesus. It would be similar to finding a comment on the US Constitution in the year 2250. What would it actually mean that we verified it actually was written in the year 2250? Absolutely nothing in terms of a revision of the US Constitution. It would only have value in terms of what some writer thought about the US Constitution in the year 2250.
So far as “Jesus Wife” and “The Wife being a disciple”.
Are they really kidding me? This is probably no more than some 4th century believer alluding to “The Bride of Christ” and “Disciples”.
Earth shaking? Hardly. The Bride of Christ is “The Church” and the Church comprises all disciples. This symbolic language goes back to the New Testament. If The Church is Jesus’ Bride, then it is His wife and His disciples all at the same time.
The obfuscation and duplicity of the media and liberal, so-called biblical scholarship is stunningly twisted.
If ya need a chuckle this morning read #92.
My first thought was that the Church is the Bride of Christ, as all the nuns are brides of Christ, and all priests are fishers of men.
The godless mendacious media should never try to interpret any religious writing. They just can’t wrap their brains around the Bible, holiness, and piety.
Oh, just pick up some Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything (S.W.I.N.E.) and send them off to the riot.
(Hat Tip and Thanks, Al Capp!)
As you point out, almost nothing is known about this fragment, which hardly establishes Christ was married.
I rather doubt it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.