Posted on 04/14/2014 9:05:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The internet has been abuzz with intriguing headlines announcing that scholars have determined that the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” papyrus is “authentic” and that there is “no forgery evidence” in the manuscript.
What exactly does this mean? And should Christians be concerned that a new discovery might contradict the biblical account and undermine their faith?
Actually, the report from scholars working with the Harvard Divinity School found that the manuscript is much younger than previously thought – in other words, it is even further removed from the time of the New Testament than scholars originally believed – meaning that, at most, it is a very late myth without a stitch of historical support.
What the report did say was that there was no evidence that any part of this small manuscript had been forged, so what was written was “authentic” in terms of not being the work of a modern forger.
But the scholars did not determine that the apparent reference to Jesus having a wife was authentic. How could they?
As New Testament scholar Darrell Bock observed back in September, 2012 when the find was first announced, “In the New Testament, the church is presented as the bride of Christ. And then in Gnostic Christianity in particular, there’s a ritual - about which we don't know very much - that portrayed the church as the bride of Christ. So we could simply have a metaphorical reference to the church as the bride, or the wife, of Christ.”
And what if this text recorded Jesus as saying that one of his disciples would be his wife?
Bock explained that, “This would be the first text - out of hundreds of texts that we have about Jesus - that would indicate that he was married, if it’s even saying that. So to suggest that one text overturns multiple texts, and multiple centuries, of what has been said about Jesus and what’s been articulated about him, I think is not a very wise place to go, just simply from a historical point of view.”
Initially, when Harvard professor Karen King learned about this papyrus fragment written in the Coptic language, which was used by the ancient, heretical, Gnostic Christians, she thought it might have been a forgery, as did other scholars, especially from the Vatican. But upon further study, she concluded it was not, dating it to the fourth century A.D.
Yet how seriously should we take a fourth century report about Jesus, who was crucified around 30 A.D., especially when it contradicts every other piece of evidence we have about Jesus up to that time? As Prof. Bock said, this “is not a very wise place to go, just simply from a historical point of view.”
To give you a parallel example, how seriously would future historians take a report written 300 years after Pearl Harbor that contradicted every single report that preceded it, including all reports from all eye witnesses?
But the latest report – the one creating such a stir – claims that the tiny manuscript should not be dated to the fourth century. Instead, scholars have now dated it to approximately 741 A.D., meaning, more than 700 years after the time of Jesus. What kind of “evidence” is this?
It would be similar to historians 1,000 years from now finding a letter written in the year 2510 claiming that George Washington, who died in 1799, was actually an alien from Mars. How seriously would it be taken? (Come to think of it, the Ancient Aliens series has probably made a similar claim already!)
There remains no evidence of any kind that Jesus had a wife (note to the reader: Dan Brown’s fictional The Da Vinci Code is not evidence), and the only thing scholars did was determine that this small papyrus fragment was not a modern forgery, although it was hundreds of years younger than they originally thought.
Of course, it is still not totally clear that the manuscript even claims Jesus had a wife, but we know that within 150 years of the time of Jesus, there were fictional gospels circulating with all kinds of bogus claims. Should it surprise us, then, that many centuries later, another fictitious account with yet another new claim would be written down?
Unfortunately, many casual readers and skeptics now think that some “authentic” new evidence has been discovered supporting the idea that Jesus was married, and even Christians are asking if they should be concerned about this latest find.
Rest assured that nothing has been discovered that even remotely challenges the biblical account, and if this very late text does imply that Jesus had a wife, what we have is an authentic fabrication and nothing more.
So what...The bible doesn't say the bible is the bible but we know it's the bible...The bible doesn't say Trinity but we know it's in there...Besides, we know Psalm 69 is a Psalm about Jesus...And Jesus again, says this:
Psa 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.
Mary's children, not Joseph's...
Two of the “brothers” mentioned in Matthew 13, James and Joses or Joseph, are elsewhere named as the sons of Mary, the wife of Cleopas who is Mary’s sister or sister in law or possible even a cousin.
No, there are no children named as the sons of Mary, wife of Cleophas...
And Mary is not Mary's sister...There's a comma in there...Mary's sister is not named...
In the story of Easter morning, when the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus, Mary is called the mother of James. This obviously could not be Jesus’ mother who is always identified with her Son. Further proof that the James mentioned in Matthew is not Mary’s son.
All it is is logic, and poor logic it is...
Mat_27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.
Mar_15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Mar_15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Mar_16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
These other Marys are all the same person, the mother of Jesus...There was no need to write the names of Mary's 8 other children every time Mary was mentioned...Besides, God expects people to do a bit of study to get to the meat of things...
at the time of Christ being first born, He would have also been only born......Luke had no knowledge of her future child bearing experiences....
can you even imagine a circumstance whereby Jesus got married, had a famile, sired children......and it was never mentioned by his Apostles????? Did they attend His wedding, were any of them present at the baptisms or circumcisions....did they just overlook this situation changing part of Christ’s life.....really???
Not once did you answer the question. If you did, re post it here. A simple copy and paste. You posted many things unrelated to the question.
So answer the question - "Show me in Scripture where anyone other than Jesus is referred to as the Child of Mary."
Crickets. Lies. Obfuscation.
And of course do not refer to the Mary who was married to Zebedee. That would only show you are an idiot and a fool.
Oh... whatever. [reshaking the dust from feet...]
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
He certainly knew it at the time he penned the gospel...
Sorry.
But yet you want us to believe Mary was the only person of the creation who never sinned and nary a word mentioned by any disciple or apostle...
He posted that Psalm 69 was a "psalm of Jesus" and Ps 69:8 specifically indicates his mother had other children from whom he was estranged. His problem is that verse 5 would then indicate he was a sinner. The New Testament indicates some of Psalm 69 was prophetically fulfilled by Jesus, but not verses 5 or 8, which were not specifically cited in the NT. We know from Romans 11:9 that David wrote it. I think verses 5, 8 apply to David and not Jesus in the context Iscool proffered. Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul. 2 I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me. 3 I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God. 4 They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away. 5 O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. 6 Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. 7 Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. 8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. 9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. 10 When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. 11 I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them. 12 They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards. 13 But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O Lord, in an acceptable time: O God, in the multitude of thy mercy hear me, in the truth of thy salvation. 14 Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep waters. 15 Let not the waterflood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me. 16 Hear me, O Lord; for thy lovingkindness is good: turn unto me according to the multitude of thy tender mercies. 17 And hide not thy face from thy servant; for I am in trouble: hear me speedily. 18 Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it: deliver me because of mine enemies. 19 Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee. 20 Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. 21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. 22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. 23 Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake. 24 Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. 25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents. 26 For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded. 27 Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. 28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. 29 But I am poor and sorrowful: let thy salvation, O God, set me up on high. 30 I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving. 31 This also shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs. 32 The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God. 33 For the Lord heareth the poor, and despiseth not his prisoners. 34 Let the heaven and earth praise him, the seas, and every thing that moveth therein. 35 For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah: that they may dwell there, and have it in possession. 36 The seed also of his servants shall inherit it: and they that love his name shall dwell therein.
Hey genius, show us where in the scripture it says Mary was married to Zebedee...
The Psalms cannot be relevant to the discussion of Mary. I asked for Scripture that shows Mary, wife of Joseph, who had a child other than Jesus.
What does Romans 11:9 have to do with David authoring Psalm 69???
The first part of the Psalm reflects Jesus' child hood...Jesus was certainly a law abiding religious Jew...He however at that time may not have known he was or would be sinless...Jesus was certainly bothered by the intimidation from his siblings...Perhaps he had thoughts that he figured might be sinful...
And for what reason would you deny vs. 8 belongs to Jesus???
HaHaHa...
Psa 69:21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
And this Psalm can't be relevant to Jesus either, can it...
That explanation makes no sense. The other Marys were all the same person? I don’t think so. The writers made every effort to distinguish between them. One way was to name their children.
Mary, the mother of Jesus is so distinguished as are Mary the Magdelene and also, Mary, the wife of Cleopas. It would be odd for the writer to mention that Mary was the mother of James and Salome when she was always identified as the mother Lord.
Let’s look at the passage regarding those at the foot of the cross...
John 19:25 These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
The comma to which you refer was place there to distinguish his mother’s sister which was Mary the wife of Clopas.
If I were to ask, “Who was at the foot of the cross?” and only Mary’s sister was there the response would read, “Mary, the wife of Clopas, was at the foot of the cross.
The comma doesn’t mean that his mother’s sister and Mary the wife of Clopas were different people. Rather the comma sets apart the identity of his mother’s sister.
Note how the rest of the sentence is structured with an and placed between each of the women present. The mother of Jesus, AND his mother’s sister, Mary wife of Clopas, AND Mary Magdelene.
Now, if Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the mother of James and was called so on the morning of the Resurrection, why is she again referred to as Mary, the mother of Jesus in ACTS and not the mother of James who the passage mentions by name? Because James is named as the son of Alphaeus, who some have said is the same man as Cleopas or Clospas.
Your reasoning doesn’t hold up when looking at other verses, just as I said. The two James are identified by their fathers, Zebedee and Cleopas(Alphaeus).
In Mark, when his “brothers and sisters” are mentioned what does Jesus say?
Mark 6:4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Notice he refers to these “brothers and sisters” as his kin, which makes sense if Mary, the wife of Clopas, was his mother’s sister, sister in law or cousin.
All in all, your case is weak and not SOLIDLY supported in Scripture just as I said in the post to which you replied.
That is why I lean to the understanding of the earliest Christian thinkers and writers who were much closer to the actual time and events than those protestants of the last few hundred years who sought to disprove Catholicism.
It makes far more sense than having Mary's sister named Mary as well...
Mark 6:4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Kin can mean brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, countrymen...And he does not place those kin in his own house...
Brothers and sisters has an entirely different meaning...
Your reasoning doesn’t hold up when looking at other verses, just as I said. The two James are identified by their fathers, Zebedee and Cleopas(Alphaeus).
I don't see where Alphaeus and Cleophas are the same person...I don't see any mention of the sons of Cleophas...
But the point is; there are places where Marys are mentioned with the name of her children, minus a husbands name...Those children's names match some of the names of the children attributed to Mary the mother of Jesus...One inclues a female name...
And as I said, it wouldn't make sense to list all 8 children every time Mary's name was mentioned...It's not necessary...So not only could they be one person who is the mother of Jesus, I believe they are...
And here I thought God was in control of who and what HE intended to have penned in HIS WORD. Not a bunch of flesh beings calling themselves councils. Now here is the prophecy which Mary fulfilled. Isaiah 7 and I am going to type in the 'background' so it can be seen exactly what role Mary was to play. There is NO doubt that even in the days of Isaiah the LORD GOD knew who He would use to fulfill this prophecy. After all God created Mary's soul/spirit intellect and He knew He could depend upon her to fulfill HIS prophecy.
1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remalian, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it but could not prevail against it.
2 And it was told the house of David, saying, "Syria is confederate with Ephraim." And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, "Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;
4 And say unto him, 'Take heed,nd be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria and of the son of Remaliah.
5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,
6 'Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:'
7 Thus saith the LORD GOD, 'It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascuss is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, *that it be not a people*.
(Ephraim represented those 'lost sheep' of the House of Israel, (also called the Northern Kingdom Samaria) Christ told His elected disciples in Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.)
Follow the footsteps of Christianity and you will find those 'lost sheep', because it is also the fulfillment to the promise to Abraham. Christianity did not begin or end on the door steps to Rome.
Back to Isaiah 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD."
13 And he said, "Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the LORD Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
You can read the rest of Isaiah 7 as the prophecy does not end in verse 14.
Now some of the naysayers will claim the word 'virgin' is actually 'damsel' as if it would be lawful for a 'damsel' to be sleeping around. Why? Because they have another god and are unbelievers.
Now in Matthew 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, (Jeremiah 31:15)
18 "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."
Not what? A people! Ephraim was Rachel's grandson, twin brother to Manassah, children of Joseph sold into slavery by his brothers to Egypt. Rachel's other child was Benjamin, in which Rachel died in childbirth.
Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin and offspring of Rachel.
I give this background because as it is Written God is not a respecter of persons. And He did not set Mary up to be a deity, or as some claim a PERPETUAL virgin to God. God did not say it a bunch of men, maybe even women were involved in the making up of unsound doctrine.
Once Mary gave birth to the ONLY Begotten Son of God, her first born, her prophecy was fulfilled and she was under no obligation to remain 'sex' free. Mary's sex life has no affect/effect upon the salvation of any willing soul.
It is striking, now that the subject of this post is a demonic attack upon our Lord and Savior. I cannot ignore how Mary is the one getting the 'protection' of supposed Christians while the many apparently find it acceptable to launch unbelief upon and all around our Lord and Savior.
I again, am reminded of that church doctrine given to John to record, when John was taken in spirit to the Lord's day. Revelation 2, the church of Ephesus ..... verse 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou has left thy first love.
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.