Ping
As if there could not be really old blasphemies
This is like the supposed “lost tomb of Jesus” that had the names of “Jesus son of Joseph”, “Mary”, “Matthew” carved in stone ossuaries. There was no proof that the names were the names of the Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament, or that any of the other names had anything to do with his family or disciples. It was “assumed” that they were.
Same with this parchment. If it is an authentic piece of parchment from the 1st century, or the 2nd century or 3rd century - that’s all it is - an “authentic” piece of parchment. We don’t know if the Jesus mentioned on the parchment has anything to do with the Jesus of the New Testament. And, if it is speaking of the Jesus of the New Testament, does that mean that what is written on the parchment is true? We don’t even have a context to see what the fragment is referring to.
I love how people who want to trash the New Testament manuscripts flippantly disavow the authenticity or trustworthiness of the content of those documents, yet rush to accept non-canonical documents as being trustworthy and beyond question.
Nyer,
You didn’t know this? In Saint John Calvin grade school Sister Mary Elefant showed all of us the wedding certificate where Saint Peter married Jesus and Mary of Aramathea, not Magdalene, that was dated January 14, 32 A.D.
G-F
And for Easter 2015, some researcher will find the divorce decree between Jesus and his wife!
The week before Easter. Sheesh, I’m slipping.