Posted on 05/05/2014 4:53:00 AM PDT by Gamecock
Then last week the story began to crumble faster than an ancient papyrus exposed in the windy Sudan. Mr. Askeland found, among the online links that Harvard used as part of its publicity push, images of another fragment, of the Gospel of John, that turned out to share many similarities—including the handwriting, ink and writing instrument used—with the "wife" fragment. The Gospel of John text, he discovered, had been directly copied from a 1924 publication.
"Two factors immediately indicated that this was a forgery," Mr. Askeland tells me. "First, the fragment shared the same line breaks as the 1924 publication. Second, the fragment contained a peculiar dialect of Coptic called Lycopolitan, which fell out of use during or before the sixth century." Ms. King had done two radiometric tests, he noted, and "concluded that the papyrus plants used for this fragment had been harvested in the seventh to ninth centuries." In other words, the fragment that came from the same material as the "Jesus' wife" fragment was written in a dialect that didn't exist when the papyrus it appears on was made.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The tendency of secularist media to simultaneously declare the bible a fraud but lift up any fragment however tenuous as evidence of flawed doctrine is an indication of their open hostility and desire to corrupt Christianity if they can not outright destroy it. It is being increasingly done already under the auspices of a warped grace doctrine that translates grace into not a door to forgiveness for sin but as an endorsement and embracing of sin especially in the areas of sexual sin which is entirely contrary to the core of Christian doctrine and is dangerous particular in the denial of free will with ‘born this way’ propaganda. Christianity is a way out of sin though we may be born into it. Not a way to take pride in our sinful weaknesses and excesses.
concur
Fair enough, but that could be next week or 3,000 years from now, so I am reluctant to rely on it here and now.
Perhaps a few hundred, but not 3000.
***Islam is built on phony emotionalism***
As is much of American Christianity.
From a spiritual perspective I’m more worried about that the the Muzzies.
I’m not talking about the current practice of Christianity; I’m talking about the historic evidence for the validity of Christianity.
It doesn't say this anywhere in the Bible.
We discover in Revelation 21 that the Holy City, "New Jerusalem", is prepared as a bride. The Lamb's bride and wife is called "New Jerusalem."
9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; 12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:9-14)
"Oh, but that's 'the church'", you will say. The Bible speaks of "churches", not a universal "church." Loose construction leads to false doctrines which play into Satan's plans for the "man of sin", "son of the perdition" who will be the head of this "church." We already see many antichrists in the world -- the "pope" and his "priests" (we have no mediator between God and men but the man Christ Jesus-- 1 Timothy 2:5), Joseph Smith, the muslim's coming Immam, ..., any man who claims to be God's "anointed one." This one will make war on the saints (believers who are alive at that time).
New Jerusalem is a place wherein will dwell every believer/saint who trusts in the finished work of Jesus Christ (the death, burial and resurrection -- what the Bible calls the Gospel), trusting not in our own works, but resting in his.
Christians must know the Bible, not the doctrines of men, and be prepared for the "time is at hand." Here are some good places to start:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. (Revelation 1:1-3)
No one knows the day but our Father, bro.
How ironic wasn't there another Harvard group that gave Barack Hussein Obama a degree? He flunked lunch at Harvard and they still gave him a degree!
Harvard.
I can’t think of much good that has come from that overpriced institution of educational debasement in the last 20 years.
That would be an interesting experiment - what good has come from Harvard in the last 20 years?
wont be the last...
The Church, which is ALL of the Christian faith community is the “ New Jerusalem” in question.
Take Post number 32 as a gentle correction.
Religion is not under attack. People like their religion. What’s under attack is Jesus Christ the Savior - the way, the truth, the life.
To be sure. The Prince of Lies never sleeps.
3. That scholars appeared to declare “authentic” words about Jesus not written down until 500 or so years after He walked on earth.
Inconclusive. What was written in 700 AD or in 500 AD could have been a copy of something written earlier, the original of which we don't have. I could hand copy Genesis on modern paper with modern ink and that wouldn't mean the content was wrong.
And no, I don't believe Jesus had a wife.
Disagree.
My writing down the statement “Jesus was an epileptic” on this message board should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic.
Additionally, since there is no previous information to that effect, then it should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case, and especially if it includes my claim written in the year 2014, many years after His having been on earth.
"Such large returns in conjecture, from so little investment in fact."
Not exactly...
The Hadith jettisoned tens of thousands of verses of the then existing Korans.
The different versions of the quran had gotten out of hand --- 200 years after the child-rapist's death.
If you're disagreeing with "Inconclusive", okay we can disagree.
If you're disagreeing with the rest of it, I used the word "could" to indicate possibility and therefore you seem to be disagreeing that what I posited is even possible. I suppose we can disagree on what is possible.
I was going to just let your post go, but you wrote:
My writing down the statement “Jesus was an epileptic” on this message board should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic.
And:
Additionally, since there is no previous information to that effect, then it should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case, and especially if it includes my claim written in the year 2014, many years after His having been on earth.
So, can you prove your statements:
"...should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic."
"...there is no previous information to that effect..."
"...should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case..."
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.