Posted on 09/20/2012 5:34:56 AM PDT by OldRanchHand
Ridiculous
Ranchy baby signed up August 2012, a few non descript post responses since then...then posts heresy. Sniff, sniff a few viking kitties need to come to investigate.
Nonsense.
It’s called fan fiction. Same thing happens all the time today. Someone takes a normal person and writes an absurd story about them.
This is how every famous straight republican ends up being gay and voting democrat after they die.
You mean the is going to be another movie about this nonsense? Oh no.
It’s a big “news” story this week ... everyone’s talking about it because the Democrat Propaganda Ministry considers it both a useful distraction from Obama’s antics and an anti-Christian meme that may befuddle a few weak minds.
Seems to me that if the early Christians were so phobic of women they would have scrubbed the canon of all references. Instead, women have a strong presence throughout the old and new testaments. I’m reading the early fathers of the church. They did want orthodoxy but who doesn’t?
Can i get the “Not this sh#t again” guy?
“Women, Sex and Gender in Ancient Christianity”
“Roman Catholic feminist theology,”
“The sexualized language of repentance.”
“Queer theory, gender theory and gender performance in early Christianity.”
“the largest single constituency, King said, is Roman Catholic women, whose Church denies them the priesthood”
Shocking.
Freegards
What kind of scholar runs around asking for opinions on grammar and language, papyral authenticity, and penmanship but doesn't do a spectrum analysis at the very beginning?
Ping
Someone with an agenda.
These people are always trying to discredit the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Pure fiction.
“I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the music died”
(from ‘American Pie’, by Don McLean)
for later
I don’t have time for a comprehensive reply, but I will give a hint here:
#1 - the translation of the tiny fragment is a rather assumptive translation, with the term they translate as “wife” being a far more generic word that also in the Bible is translated “woman”. It can be translated both ways. Without the context of the fragment, it is literally impossible to be able to definitively say “wife” is correct.
#2 - what document is this from? There isn’t enough there to even begin to guess. We don’t even know the age with any certainty.
#3 - In the first several hundred years (and actually still to this day) many have written documents claiming them to be scriptural or authoritative that were nothing more than spurious or paganistic adulterations of real scripture. Lest we forget, Gnosticism was already gaining footholds in early Christianity - Paul addressed this in several letters. Other pagan beliefs were also being inserted.
Just let me know where and when to meet up with all the rioting Christians. Don’t let me miss it! I’ve been practicing my wall climbing and rock throwing and can be useful!
What garbage. Now I understand why this fraud has been publicized at this time. It's one of the tentacles of Obama's "War on Women" meme octopus. Blasphemy is no big deal to him; he heard it all the time in "Reverend" Wright's "sermons".
Not sure why this is a big deal either way. Nothing in this text provides definitive proof Jesus was married, but if he was, I am not seeing that as a problem for Christianity. This does not appear to me to be something to get wadded up over.
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.