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 doesnt 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
Ping!..........
Video at link..........
Blasphemy! Behead the infidels.
Oh wait, wrong religion.
ROFLMAO
This thread should be electric, and with sparks flying.
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.
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.
LOOK!, It is Obama’s LFCOB!
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”.
Oh good grief!
This is blasphemy.
I think I’ll burn down the White House.
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.
Some poeple believe in unicorns. Doesn’t make it so...
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’
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?
My gardener's name is Jesus and he's 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.
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!
Mea culpa! Second Person of The Holy Trinity. Please forgive my outrageous mistake.