 |
|
|
|
September 18th, 2012
03:28 PM ET
Newly revealed Coptic fragment has Jesus making reference to 'my wife'By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - A newly revealed, centuries-old papyrus fragment suggests that some early Christians might have believed Jesus was married. The fragment, written in Coptic, a language used by Egyptian Christians, says in part, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife ..." Harvard Divinity School Professor Karen King announced the findings of the 1 1/2- by 3-inch honey-colored fragment on Tuesday in Rome at the International Association for Coptic Studies. King has been quick to add this discovered text "does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married," she wrote in a draft of her analysis of the fragment set to appear in the January edition of Harvard Theological Review. The divinity school has posted a draft of King's article to which AnneMarie Luijendijk, an associate professor of religion at Princeton University, contributed. "This fragment, this new piece of papyrus evidence, does not prove that (Jesus) was married, nor does it prove that he was not married. The earliest reliable historical tradition is completely silent on that. So we're in the same position we were before it was found. We don't know if he was married or not," King said in a conference call with reporters.
"What I'm really quick to say is to cut off people who would say this is proof that Jesus was married because historically speaking, it's much too late to constitute historical evidence," she continued. "I'm not saying he was, I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm saying this doesn't help us with that question," she continued. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter In the accounts of Jesus' life in the Bible, there is no mention of his marital status, while the accounts do mention Jesus' mother, father and siblings. The four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - tell the story of Jesus' birth and early childhood then skip to his short, three-year ministry before detailing his death and resurrection. The idea that Jesus was married is not a new one. In other writings about the life of Jesus from antiquity suggest Jesus may have been married to Mary Magdalene, a disciple who was close to Jesus. Author Dan Brown also used the idea of Jesus being married as a jumping off point for the fictional novel "The Da Vinci Code." King dismissed that notion in her call with reporters. “There’s no indication we have that Jesus was married,” said Darrell Bock, a senior research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. “One could say the text is silent on Jesus’ marital status is because there was nothing to say.” Initial dating for the honey-colored fragment by the team of scholars puts the papyrus piece coming out of the middle of the second century. King is referring to the fragment as the "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife" or "GosJesWife" as a short hand for reference, and noting that the abbreviation does not mean this scrap has the same historical weight as the canonical Gospels. Biblical scholars often use the term gospel to refer to a genre of ancient writings featuring dialogue between Jesus and his disciples, King notes in her paper. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas are just a few of the ancient accounts about the life of Jesus that Christians do not consider canonical. At the conference, King said another professor suggested the fragment could have come from the text of a homily, or sermon, where the writer was using this phrase as a literary device. She told reporters that while she will consider that as a possibility, the fragment is “probably a gospel. Probably from the second century and most close to the Gospels of Mary, Thomas and Philip.” Bock agreed with the notion that the text fragment shared similarities with those gospels, called the Gnostic Gospels, which were the writings of an early outlier sect of Christians. He said the text could be referring to a "gnostic rite of marriage that is a picture of the church and Jesus, not a real wife." But he added, "it’s a small text with very little context. We don’t know what’s wrapped around it to know what it’s saying.” Bock said it’s likely to be a gnostic text if it proves to be authentic. “The whole text needs vetting. She’s doing the right thing to release it and let scholars take a look at,” he said, adding “it’s a little bit like trying to analyze the game in the first quarter.” “It’s a historical curiosity but doesn’t really tell us who Jesus was,” Bock said. “It’s one small speck of a text in a mountain of texts of about Jesus.” CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories The owner of the fragment has been identified by King as a private collector who has asked to stay anonymous. The owner brought the fragment to Harvard have King examine it in December 2011. King then brought it to the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University. Roger Bagnall, the institute's director and an expert on papyrus, examined it and determined it to be authentic, Bangall confirmed to CNN. Ariel Shisha-Halevy, professor of linguistics at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, who was asked to examine the authenticity, according to the draft of the article, told King via e-mail, “I believe - on the basis of language and grammar - the text is authentic. That is to say, all its grammatical ‘noteworthy’ features, separately or conjointly, do not warrant condemning it as forgery.” Little is known about the origin of the text. Because both sides of the fragment have writing on them, King said it could have come out of a book rather than a scroll. "Just like most of the earliest papyri of the New Testament and other literary and documentary papyri, a fragment this damaged could have come from an ancient garbage heap," the King says building on prior research by Luijendijk. King writes "the importance of the 'Gospel of Jesus’ Wife' lies in supplying a new voice within the diverse chorus of early Christian traditions about Jesus that documents that some Christians depicted Jesus as married." The Smithsonian Channel also announced Monday that it will air a special on King's findings on September 30. soundoff (4,539 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Next »
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Tuesday, September 18
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Glades, I understand your frustration. However, there are so things about the word of God we don't know or understand. More important, it's not going to shake my faith. Many of our scientist job is to do research, that is their job. The biblical scholars help understand the word. At the end of the day, we have to keep the faith. We need to study the manuscripts and make sure we get it right! The challenge is when science and religion meet. Always keep in mind, it's not the scientist job to determine weather or not God exist or anything else, God (Christ) what our faith is built upon.
So Jesus is a Borat fan?
Is anyone worried that Christians might burn down CNN for posting this story...no I did not think so. However, we are panicking over cartoons in france. Call it Islamiohbia if you want, I call it Pavlov's bell.
A question was asked: What if Jesus were married? He's is. To the church. However, to answer questions if He were, then God would NO longer be PERFECT. There is only ONE God. Jesus is God in the flesh. If He were to marry, then doing so would yoke Him with an imperfect person (the 2 become one flesh). Doing this makes God sinful. It is impossible for Him to be perfect. Anything that comes up in archaelogical digs that says He was married to a human, removes our Hope in Jesus Christ as our Lord & Saviour. Being that it is of Coptic origin, that would make it gnostic. Gnostic gospels were conceived over a hundred years after Christ Jesus. These weren't written by eyewitnesses such as the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. If you've ever wondered why the Gnostic Gospels aren't in the Holy Bible, this is one really good reason. Besides that, they're flaky & really weird. These would be examples of Satan trying to pervert the Word of God... yet another time. Satan tries & tries. But in the end, he looses. If they come up with something that says Jesus is married, it's just Satan using man to try to disprove God, again. The Holy Bible is the rock solid foundation we stand on. Sooo, I want to thank CNN for causing a minor fight between my wife & mother-in-law vs. me on my wife & I's 14th anniversary. Thank you, very much. I'm surprised the whole world didn't hear my mother-in-law's, harumph! Being married to a woman makes God imperfect. Classic. But, she really would have flipped her lid if I threw at her that it was Eve's fault that Adam sinned. While, I'm sure, without Eve there, eventually Adam would have sinned, it WAS EVE who did it 1st! LOL!
Using your own example.... Since he was born half human that would have made him imperfect.
Quote me one passage from the bible where Jesus ever said he was God. He said he was the son of God. Last time I checked, you are not your father and can never be your father. Jesus never performed a single miracle. The other in the Bible made that claim, but if you read Jesus' own words, he always asked his Father – God, to perform them. Never once did he say I will part the waters or calm the seas. He asked God to calm the waters, he asked God to allow him to walk on the sea. He asked God to raise the dead. If Jesus was God, he would have never asked for any of that and simply done.
How do I know. Because when God performed his miracles he NEVER ASKED ANYONE for assistance. He NEVER ASKED HIMSELF to do it. He simply said it and it was so. Do more than read the bible and believe what others say about it, actually take the time to understand it. You will be surprised how well you can understand who God and Jesus was.
So we are clear. Jesus was a sacrifice. Nothing more. A perfect sacrifice to cleanse our sins so we may approach God clean. Jesus was nothing more than the sacrifices the Jews did with their unblemished sheep when they wished to speak with God.
Also, it was my understanding that you were unequally yoked by marrying a non christian if you were a christian. The simple fact of being married did not make you unequally yoked. As a matter of fact two christians being married was considered a perfect union in Gods eyes.
Michael,
Christians believe in the hypostatic union. He was not a hybrid (50% man and 50% God). He was a full fusion of both (100% man and 100% God). The reason Christ was without sin, is because the broken nature of fallen humanity is passed from the father to the child. Hence the virgin birth, hence the Genesis account of "the seed of the woman" (women don't have seeds, except for Mary who conceived by divine intervention).....
Michael, Here is an interesting thought. Where did God ever say he was perfect in the Bible? No where. He said he was Love and Goodness. Because he made the world, people got the idea he was perfect. God was very generic when it came to creation. He didn't note if it took him one try or multiple tries to create the world. He did note it only too one try when he made woman.
Not all Christians believe in that union. I am one. I believe God made him of Mary's flesh. Even having one parent that has sin means he inherrits the sin of his mother. God won't violate his own laws for that. What purged him of his sin his baptism and never making another sin after it.
Reason why we are all sinners, even after baptism, is that we commit another sin after being baptized.
Mark
I guess that depends on if you believe Eve was Adams first wife or if Lilith was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wctTgF5vDnE
This should answer your questions about Jesus Christ's claim to divinity.
Here's a better video for you Marc Biron. Give it a watch and listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo
Yea, I'm not going to have a discussion on theology and appeal to a comdedian with absolutely no scholarly training. Are character attacks and jokes the apex of your argument? Consider your position defeated then.
I am going to add one mroe thought for today. Why do people think Jesus is God or the Holy Spirit is God? Didn't anyone actually read the bible. God commands the Holy Spirit. I have never seen in the Bible where Jesus said he was God. And I have seen in the Bible where you worship something other than God and it is called Idolitry which is a sin. Idolitry includes praying to the Saints, Mary, Joseph, or any other person/place/thing/concept/situation other than God. And last time I read, those that commit Idolitry are violating the first commandment, hold no god above God. Worshiping an Idol makes the Idol your god because it puts its needs first. Gods needs is what everyone should be following, not Jesus' needs.
Jesus would condem you all for worhipping him. He even explained how to pray to God. If he was God, he would have told them to pray to Jesus and tell them how to pray to him. But the Lord's prayer clearly outlines nothing about praying to him or through him. Jesus only asked that we remember him when we eat for the sacrifice he did, not to pray through him to God. Otherwise he would have taught that when he taught the Lord's Prayer.
2000 years of tradition and all books of the Bible which are divinely inspired do not mention "a wife" The current canon was adopted at the Council of Trent by the Catholic Church and it is also accepted by Protestant faiths. We Christians are not threatened by such a "report" about a smaill transcript in Coptic language. The Dead Sea Scrolls were studied for at least 50 years and they match the current Scripture. There isn't anything in Christian history which supports this "news story" We should be reporting about the current persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt. The Coptics are members of the Catholic Church and they need our prayers. I think this reflects badly on the Coptic Christians and I noticed you did not have a Coptic member of the Church commenting.
Of course you're not threatened. Your belief system was codified by church bureaucracy back in 325 at the Council of Nicaea. They got rid of all the stuff that might contradict what they wanted their "flock" to believe. The Council of Trent (1545-63) is more of the same.
None of that proves that your god is any more real than Zeus. None of that proves that Jesus, if he actually existed, was anything more than a radical rabbi. And as a rabbi, he would be expected to marry.
Tal, nice rhetoric, but they ratified what was currently viewed as having been passed down by apostolic tradition. Books that were outside the fold were outside exactly because they had never been accepted or acceptable.
Yet more mason (anti-christ) b.s...
Are you sure it's the masons and not the Lizard Men? Or maybe the Thetans....
I don't see the issue here.... People try to use this as saying Jesus was not all he is made out to be... Well if you go by the bible then he was not in sin by having a wife, quite the opposite in fact by having a wife he was in line with the bible was he not?
The bible does not say he married nor does it say he never married.... So with that in mind you can not make a case either way.
But the fact remains that even if he did marry and have kids he would have been in line with the bible and not in sin by doing so.
This person is merely an historical figure who was a Rabbi so what difference does it make whether he was married or not?
Jesus is one of the most influential rabis that ever lived. His story is continually told, and many people live by his very teachings. The fact is that I belive the people writing the bible would have noted if he had a wife and/or children. Afterall they mentioned Job's wife and children, Adam's wife and children, and all the other prominanent people's marital status.
If they left it out, then it means he didn't have any. But I wouldn't be surprised if he did, he was an Isrealite, and historically it was customary to have one or mroe wives and many children. On top of that, God said be fruitful and multiply which also applies to Jesus since he was technically a descendant of Adman and Eve.
But that parchment could simply reflect a story he is telling, or a lesson he wants them to understand. An example may be that he said "if I had a wife and was in your position, I would tell my wife ...".
But Mark, the person who has more to do with the creation of christian dogma is not Jesus. It was Saul of Tarsus, who was blatantly opposed to marriage, s.ex or anything to do with women.
Since none of the New Testament was written while Jesus was allegedly alive, who's to say that Saul (and later the Council of Nicaea) simply just didn't remove all reference to Jesus' wife, because it conflicted with how they wanted their church to be run? After all, Jesus was a rabbi, and as such, was expected to marry.
That's right! And I am therefore a Mere-Historical-Figure-Who-Was-A-Rabbi-ian. Alright then...
For those of you who are outraged about the idea of Jesus being married, try to look at it historically, with an open mind, and not based on your taught beliefs. I was brought up Catholic, but I can't see how Jesus wasn't married. Historically, during that time, he would've been considered cursed if he wasn't married by 20. People would've never followed someone who was 30 that was single. It wasn't acceptable then. In fact, they still had arranged marriages. Open your mind and question everything, everything you've been taught, and everything in scripture. Don't forget the bible was written 200 years after Jesus died and wasn't physically written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Someone else wrote it based on their stories. Then, it was changed when Constantine was a leader. Do some history research and you'll find thats what the history books say.
I don't care if he was married or not. This is really poor scholarship. We have no evidence within the first 400 years of the man's life that this is true. 400 YEARS!!! One day we find a fragment of unknown quality, origin, and intent that was written in Egypt 20 generations after Jesus' life and this is somehow historic proof of anything? It's just embarrassing that our news outlets treat this like it's credible.
Even the most secular Biblical scholars agree that the Gospels were completed by 100 AD. Mark being the earliest around 60-70 AD. That would place it 30 years after Jesus' life.
AdmiralBob
Even the most secular Biblical scholars agree that the Gospels were completed by 100 AD. Mark being the earliest around 60-70 AD. That would place it 30 years after Jesus' life.
Doesnt matter.
The Catholic church has been hiding or destroying anything that would
allow you to see Jesus in any light, other than what the church wants you to believe.
Example : Jesus taught, the way to god is thru your heart.
You dont need a church, a pope, or a priest.
The church cant have that kind of thinking,
they want you in the church and feeding the money plate.
Mary Magdalene was not only a disciple, she was probably married to Jesus.
The Church cant have that, it would put woman in a position of power
so they made Mary a harlot.
Judas : If Jesus knew his fate was to die on the cross
and he had to be turned in to the athorities, that means
Judas was doing his part.
Judas was not a traitor, he loved Jesus, but this was
pre-ordained to happen so judas did what was expected of him.
The part about him being paid was made up so the church had a good
"morality" story to tell.
Back To Mary :
The first to see Jesus after he had arisen, was Mary Magdalene.
You think this was by chance an accident ?
The other disciples had all fled.
Mary Magdalene saw Jesus die on the cross.
Why should she hang around after ?
She just happened to be there when Jesus came back ?
Or did she "know" he was coming back ?
Jesus did not die on the cross.
AdmiralBob, it's not like there wasn't anyone around who knew and remembered the accounts. In a culture where things were memorized, writing materials were expensive, and few knew how to write, the thought to get their accounts written down might not have even occurred to them until some were beginning to die...
So whats the point, married life is a sin?....Pope in Vatican is the successor of Apostle Peter. St Peter is married and mentioned in the bible and also most of the apostle ....if the church want to hide anything, why they didn't hide this?....In Paul's letter to EPHESIANS 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and give his life for it". It clearly mentioned Christ give its life for church not for any woman....
One of your ten commandments, the one about worshiping false idols.
Millions of people flock to the vatican every year to kneel before and idolize the pope.
Jesus says your way to god is thrue your heart.
The pope says, the way to god, is thru the pope.
FALSE IDOL.
Written Over 400 YEARS after Christ.. This would be like me telling you that I believe that the Mayflower was painted purple or that George Washington's wife had big feet. If you uncovered my writings in a couple of hundred years would you believe them?
I'm not an eye witness. Heck I'm not within 20 generations of an eye witness. Scholarship needs to find something more important to study and the journalists of our nation need to get an education and be more discerning about what they print.
Jesus said to them, "My wife...............says I can't come out to preach today."
Ephesians 5:25-27 ESV – Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
Revelation 21:2 ESV- and I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:9 ESV – Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”
Ephesians 5:25 ESV – Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Revelation 19:7-9 ESV – Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure”— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”
Marc, since you are selectively dumping quotes on us from your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, let's have a closer look at some of the nastiness of Christianity that it really presents:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Sure Bob,
Numbers 31 refers to a tribe that killed their own kids and cut unborn babies from the womb of their mothers to offer up as sacrifice to demon worship. That's why God condemned each and every person in that tribe. This, by the way, comes after centuries of pleading with them to return to God and cease their demon worship.
Deuteronomy 31 deals with high treason. This is pretty common. I got another one for ya:" The wages of sin is death." Not as graphic, but same exact message. So what? We kill sinners too. Head on down to your friendly Federal Prison, have a peek.
Revelations speaks of the harlet, not literal children.
Anything else?
Mathew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
It goes on, that's new testament folderol that continues to haunt humanity. From a guy that DID NOT EXIST, you know, empirically, SCIENTIFICALLY speaking.
Another scholar taking a swing....and it's a miss.
When Christ said that he came to bring the sword, he did not mean war. He said we will be hated for following him, which will cause our own family to hate us. That's why the verse continues..."Set father against son, mother against daughter.."
Get it? He didn't tell anyone to kill, he warned us that we might BE killed for believing in him.
As far as science is concerned...there is really not a big following of the "Jesus didn't exist" movement. Most historians agree that he did exist. The big contraversy is his divine nature.
If you want to outright deny his existance, well..feel free. It makes you wrong.....but...whatever makes ya happy.
Marc, good on you for acknowledging that your bible presents and demands such violence. Now show some courage, take the next step, and leave your violent supersti-tion AKA Christianity behind. You are getting closer to that, and the world will be a better place without advocates for the horrors and sheer bigotry that the Christian bible demands and causes.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Marc, furthermore, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself there.
The "harlot" is the Catholic church.
The catholic church is an abomination
that has changed the word of god.
You have been decieved, and you had been warned.
The church is not the word of God on earth.
It is the word of blasfamers on earth.
Well it seem's the truth is coming out
So there are descendents of Jesus and Mary running around, no surprise, and no big deal. Just like it is no surprise that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Does anybody really think Joseph and Mary had no more kids? Jesus probably has all kinds of relatives wandering the earth today.
But do any of them have God's own DNA? He impregnated Mary, right?
the church is the bride of Christ. Revelation 19:7 (AMP)
7 Let us rejoice and shout for joy [exulting and triumphant]! Let us celebrate and ascribe to Him glory and honor, for the marriage of the Lamb [at last] has come, and His bride has prepared herself.
Lisa, since you are dumping quotes on us from your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, let's have a closer look at some of the nastiness of Christianity that it really presents:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
The focuss houd be on His message. Afterall other acclaimed prohpets were all married. He never mentioned that he was not married either. It was never one of the criteria for making heaven as He preached while on earth
The focus should be on his (or someone's) marketing genius. Seriously.
ME II, The genius wasn't Jesus'. It was "someone" as you said... that that someone was Simon (Kephas) (Peter) and Saul (Paul). Peter was the genius behind the concept of Jesus as the Messiah whose sudden, unexpected, and brutal execution was actually the manifestation of the promised "redemption", and Paul was the genius behind the globalization of the product. Peter was the inventor, Paul was the guy who stood in front of the media. Think Steve Wozniak (Peter) and Steve Jobs (Paul).
Yeah, Jesus has a wife. A bride. The Bible says the CHRISTIAN CHURCH (believers) is His bride, His wife.
Lemme try again;
There is AB-SO-LUTE-LY NO empirical evidence this person existed and there is a ton of empirical evidence through the absence of mention in any records of the time that this person DIDN'T exist.
Or to put it another way- you are fighting over whether Frodo wore a green tunic or a brown one on his first day in Rivendell. Get it? Fantasy is fantasy. YoozYerBrain! Please! Demand proof! Faith in fairy tales is no way to run a planet.
Brown, he didn't get the green cloak 'til they left Rivendell...wait...oh I see what you did there...
Actually Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18. Submit my friend. Let the love of Jesus heal your hardened heart.
Yoozer, Atheist here. Jesus, the man, did exist. I agree with you that he was not the "Son of God", but you are showing your ignorance by making claims you can't back. Most non-Christian scholars agree that there was a real-live man that all this is focused around, though it is probable that he never claimed to be or thought of himself as the Messiah.
Batjones, Josephus was not contemporary. He was at least 60 years after the fact. That's a lot of time for myth-making in a culture where word-of-mouth is the only means of spreading information. Also, one Josephus' comments has already be debunked as a later addition.
Whether Jesus did or did not exist doesn't matter. What matters is that there is not a single shred of verifiable evidence to indicate that he was anything more than a radical rabbi. There is certainly no reason to believe that he is "the son of god", since there isn't any evidence to support the existence of any god, either.
batjones,
Actually these passages in Josephus has been determined, by religious scholars, to have been added to Josephus writings at a later date. In other words, forgeries.
But, even if written by Josephus in 94ad that is still some 60 years after the fact, when all the principals players have long since died and all that's left is stories. So it's not a contemporary account anyway. It would be like writing a Paul Bunyan story 60 years after he supposedly lived and then claiming that since you wrote the story only 60 years later, it must be true.
See, here is where it all breaks down. The society that Jesus lived in (Roman) were for the most part educated and had a written language that we still understand today. Although the Romans did not spend too much time recording their day to day activities, a man walking around raising the dead, turning water into wine, healing the sick and curing the blind, and walking on water, would certainly have caught their attention. To think that these events would not be recorded for some 60-90 years after the fact is preposterous. Just think of the attention someone with these abilities would garnish today. If you could go the a graveyard and raise granny up from the dead, would you expect no one to record these events until 60-90 years after the fact?
Our brains today are no different than peoples brains 2000 years ago. They were just as curious, gossipy, interested in the latest news, and certainly would have made note of someone that can preform these types of miracles.
Use a little common sense.
I do not believe anything coming from a secular so-called "divinity school" – incredible that right now many are emerging from the woodwork with "newly revealed findings" about every possible subjet – they obviously have nothing better to do but to cause turmoil in a world that already has enough of it...
Yeah Glades, you represent the Let'sNOTYoozOurBrains faction.
" Oooh, I am scared, what if we learn something uncomfortable? ooooh, we better shut it down and just get our info from the priests, you can trust them...." You sicken me and represent the most UN American viewpoint possible. Run away and hide chickensplit, I'll take the knowledge thank you very much! Knowledge is freedom you slave! JEEBUS NEVER EXISTED! Morons...
Stinking scholars and they search for knowledge.
They should know that God doesn't want humanity to seek answers.
The original sin was indulging curiosity and gaining knowledge expelled us from paradise. After all, ignorance is bliss.
The whole reason Humanity is plagued by tribalism is because once upon a time, we all spoke the same language and worked together to build a city with a tower for the world. God didn't like that, so He struck down the tower and separated man into tribes who could no longer communicate effectively, thus ensuring a legacy of separation, misunderstanding and strife.
The unwritten 11th commandment is "Thou shalt not ask questions".
You're right, the truth always causes turmoil, that's why we spend so much time lying to each other.
But, is turmoil or the lack of it, really more important that searching for truth and reality?
In a way, here is what you are saying. "The fact that the earth revolves around the sun came from a secular source. With that in mind, since it will cause theist some turmoil, we should all continue to believe that the sun is suspended in a firmament revolving around the earth". Does this make any sense? It certainly did to Christians at the time, just like what you are saying probably makes sense to you. But, it's not truth, just turmoil avoidance...... or more correctly truth avoidance.