Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Rose Lincoln/Harvard Staff Photographer

Harvard Professor Karen King with the previously unknown papyrus fragment that, when translated, contains “Jesus said to them, my wife.” “This new gospel doesn’t prove that Jesus was married, but it tells us that the whole question only came up as part of vociferous debates about sexuality and marriage," said King.

Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World in New York City, believes the fragment to be authentic based on examination of the papyrus and the handwriting. Photo © Karen L. King

1 posted on 09/18/2012 11:20:47 AM PDT by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
To: SunkenCiv; NYer

Ping!..........


2 posted on 09/18/2012 11:21:24 AM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

Video at link..........


3 posted on 09/18/2012 11:21:58 AM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

Blasphemy! Behead the infidels.

Oh wait, wrong religion.

ROFLMAO


4 posted on 09/18/2012 11:23:40 AM PDT by DonkeyBonker (Oppose Senate Amendment S.A. 2575! I need more than 10 rounds in my magazine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

This thread should be electric, and with sparks flying.


5 posted on 09/18/2012 11:24:13 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

This scrap of paper is not worth wiping your butt with as long as its provenance is unknown.

This is crap in terms of scholarship. Could be a papyrus from Gnostic circles, if it’s not entirely forged.

The stupid professor says its provenance is a mystery. How convenient. How convenient that it comes from a private collector. The great papyri collections all document where the fragments were found. If this is a great collector of papyri, he wasted his money buying something with no known provenance. Or, if he knows the provenance but won’t say, that’s the smoking gun proof that the provenance, if made public would discredit the piece of (s)crap entirely.

And the idiot fools at the NYTimes and the Harvard PR clowns eat it up.

Journalists are crap-eaters.


6 posted on 09/18/2012 11:25:21 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

Personally, I would have more faith in the authenticity of this artifact if it weren’t held by an ultra liberal, left wing, ivy league institution.


7 posted on 09/18/2012 11:25:54 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Get that evil, foreign, muslim, usurping bastard out of MY White House!" FUBO GTFO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

LOOK!, It is Obama’s LFCOB!


10 posted on 09/18/2012 11:33:59 AM PDT by DonkeyBonker (Oppose Senate Amendment S.A. 2575! I need more than 10 rounds in my magazine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

Ten bucks says the end result will be about Jesus referring to the church as his “Bride” - but some doofus is trying to gin up publicity by creating a “controversy”.


12 posted on 09/18/2012 11:36:52 AM PDT by RMDupree (I'm not really here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

Oh good grief!

This is blasphemy.

I think I’ll burn down the White House.


13 posted on 09/18/2012 11:37:14 AM PDT by diamond6 (http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/p/catholic-prophecy.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger
Unfortunately, some deliberate and some in willing ignorance do not comprehend the difference in ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’. But hey as the wisest prophet penned there is nothing new under the sun.
15 posted on 09/18/2012 11:38:25 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

It was not until the Councils of Nicea decided upon the “official” version of Christianity that Jesus’ divinity became widely accepted. Many early Christian sects believed that he was a man, a divinely inspired and perhaps divinely conceived man, but a man, with the traditional needs and wants of a man. Why, then, would he not have married and produced children, as instructed by God (be fruitful and multiply)? There is nothing wrong with that, except in the minds of certain individuals who were and are more concerned with power and control than with faith. Heresy, I know. Whatever.


16 posted on 09/18/2012 11:39:13 AM PDT by ronnyquest (I spent 20 years in the Army fighting the enemies of freedom only to see marxism elected at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

Some poeple believe in unicorns. Doesn’t make it so...


17 posted on 09/18/2012 11:39:13 AM PDT by Gamecock (We don't come to Christ to be born again; rather, we are born again in order to come to Christ. RCS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

now if the translation was “bride”, instead of “wife” it would be somewhat believable, since the Church has described itself as the Bride of Christ from the beginning.

Lurking’


18 posted on 09/18/2012 11:40:41 AM PDT by LurkingSince'98 (Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger
“Jesus said to them, my wife.”

I'm sure those words were probably not elegantly stated and were said "off the cuff".

As we know "married" is a "legal term of art".
20 posted on 09/18/2012 11:43:41 AM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

So a “fourth century” scrap of papyrus that refers to Christ as married, refutes entire gospels that date to the 1st & 2nd century that do not?


25 posted on 09/18/2012 11:52:03 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger
Oh, please. I remember a while back when that burial box was found that was supposed to have held the bones of "John, brother of Jesus". Fake. Plus we learned there were lots of Johns and lots of men named Jesus during that time.

My gardener's name is Jesus and he's married.

26 posted on 09/18/2012 11:52:26 AM PDT by Deb (If you wanna laugh everyday, follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger
Jesus came to live among us, be like us, experiencing the same joys and pains we do. Marriage and kids are a big part of the human experience. The family is the anchor of society. As a practicing Jew, it would have been common and even expected for a man His age to be married.

If it turns out He was married and even had kids, how would it be a negative on His ministry or Divinity? It would not shake my faith in the slightest.

27 posted on 09/18/2012 11:54:34 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger
I've got a ton of crap to do this afternoon and now I have to go out and riot, sheesh
31 posted on 09/18/2012 11:58:53 AM PDT by grellis (I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

Define your terms, and be honest, if possible!

When Dr. Soundingbrass says that he believes that this fragment is “authentic” he can only TRUTHFULLY mean that he thinks the papyrus is very old, and comes from the period in question. And Professor Tinklingcymbal’s SAYING that this proves anything in regard to Christ’s being married merely illustrates HER perverted mindset.

IMHO, this is just one more titillating (to some) relic, either from the many apochryphal writings, “epistles”, etc., or from some individual from that era who had either looney tunes or perhaps sinister reasons for writing this kind of stuff.

And although the Coptics have a right to imbibe whatever flavor religeous elixer they can stir together; real thinking believers in Jesus Christ, God The Son, Third Person of The Holy Trinity and Savior of the world, are under no obligation to drink any of it!


32 posted on 09/18/2012 12:00:59 PM PDT by Tucker39 ( Psa 68:19Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits; even the God of our salvation.KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger

Mea culpa! Second Person of The Holy Trinity. Please forgive my outrageous mistake.


34 posted on 09/18/2012 12:02:37 PM PDT by Tucker39 ( Psa 68:19Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits; even the God of our salvation.KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson