 |
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8275nAD260
I find it interesting that the benificent God killed approximately 2.8 million people in the Bible while Satan, the Adversary, aka the most interesting character in the book, only killed 10 – and that was with God's express permission. Discuss.
Did you take in to account that Satan is the roler of this world behind, every war, drug addiction, lies, robberies, murders, and so on.... do the right math sheeply!
If God is so powerful and so good why does he let Satan get away with hos crap?
*his
"Did you take in to account that Satan is the roler of this world behind, every war, drug addiction, lies, robberies, murders, and so on.... do the right math sheeply"
"Satan is the roler of this world behind, every war"
Even ignoring all God sanctioned wars in the scripture, who was behind the Crusades?
Even if one gets to blame Satan for all that, Satan didn't even come close to killing almost every human on earth the way god excelled at. Incidentally, God is pretty quiet on the evils of addiction, which might explain why people saw talking snakes, burning bushes, and angels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nSi2eIt-9yU#!
What do you think of the idea that god planted these fragments as a test of faith. Like dinosuar bones.
Too much kool-aid.
What a pathetic rationalization! So, whenever inconvenient FACTS or REALITY get in the way of your illogical god delusion, you just pretend that "god" put it there to "test" and confuse us, huh!? That is RICH!...
I think they are examples of the faithful grasping at anything
What a silly way to test faith. He should just appear to people and tell them he doesn't exist. If one is truly faithful then he/she won't believe God. Too bad Job didn't have his faith tested with some fossils.
One,
I'd say that this is an evil, trickster god, who would just as easily trick you right out of 'heaven' someday.
Maybe God planted the Bible as a test of faith, and everyone who takes it literally as 100% true is failing?
I'm sorry....I do find it amusing that people are so quick to criticize anything piece of history that contradicts their beliefs but they have no problem basing their entire life on a book. A book that biblical scholars cannot even agree on who wrote it. Irony abounds....
Consider it free entertainment. Better than any sitcom on tv!
2 Peter 1:21
"For no prophecy was ever borne by the will of man, but men spoke from God while being borne by the Holy Spirit"
Yes, of course Veronica......those men who wrote the word were inspired by God to write what they did. But of course! How better to have people accept what you've written, than to tell them that God inspired you to write it? Brilliant!
Will you all please stop praying to me. I'm trying to watch Days of our Lives.
That;s what I try to tell them.
God has a plan, and you need to stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Buy "The Bible "Recovery version...has over 1,000 fottnotes and cross references... You cant interpret the Bible yourself. If your not a believer than im not trying to argue with you as God would not argue with the devil on matthew as he mocked him.
Buy "The Interpreters Bible". 13 Volumes. It references every single word, and verse, and where they came from. Written by conservative, recognized scholars, many from Baptist colleges, and Seminaries. No way you can believe a word of it, after understanding how it came to be.
@Veronica
No, God won't argue with the devil. He will, however, torture an innocent man in order to win a bet with the devil.
You can go to "Bibles for America" website amd they will ship you one for free and if you read the whole book ( footnotes included) I think you will understand the verses you just mentioned and what they actually typify in reality.
Or there always the American Translation, ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament), An American Translation, Berkeley VersionAmerican Standard Version, American King James Version, Amplified Bible, An , Bible in English, The Bible in Living English, Bishops' Bible, Catholic Public Domain Version, Children's King James Version, Christian Community Bible, English version, Clear Word Bible, Complete Jewish Bible, Contemporary English Version, Concordant Literal Version, A Conservative Version, Coverdale Bible, Darby Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision), EasyEnglish Bible, Easy-to-Read Version, English Jubilee 2000 Bible, English Standard Version, Ferrar Fenton Bible, Geneva Bible, God's Word, Good News Bible, Great Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, The Inclusive Bible, International Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament),
So many differing versions, yet it's the infallible word of God? Does God approve of human beings altering and editing his word into so many different versions?
Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament), ia E. Smith Parker Translation, King James 2000 Version, King James Easy Reading Version, King James Version, King James II Version, Knox's Translation of the Vulgate, Lamsa Bible, A Literal Translation of the Bible, Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament), The Living Bible, The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament), Matthew's Bible, The Message, Modern King James Version, Modern Language Bible, Moffatt, New Translation, James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshi.tta, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New English Bible, New English Translation (NET Bible), New International Reader's Version, New International Version Inclusive Language Edition, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament), New King James Version, New Life Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Quaker Bible, Recovery Version of the Bible, Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Revised English Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, The Scriptures, Simplified English Bible, The Story Bible, Taverner's Bible, Thomson's Translation, Today's New International Version, Third Millennium Bible, Tyndale Bible, Updated King James Version, A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures, Webster's Revision
Isn't there an MSNBC Bible?
Veronica, please interpret this verse for me:
1 Timothy 2:12
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.
@Alfredo
The Fox News Bible is Schlafly's Conservative Bible from Conservapedia.
He cut out all the hippie, commie stuff you know.
Jesus never would have used a Red word like "comrade"!
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
– I Corinthians 14: 34, 35
Doc, Can you give us an example of the substantive differences between any two of these editions?
@Bill. If they're not different, why have so many varieties
well it's been in print almost 1000 years. I'd guess there's been some turn over in publishers, type setters and oh yeah languages
In other words, "no" we can't provide any substantive differences from diffeerent versions of the Bible. Except for the dueterocanonicals we have to admit that all Bibles essentially present the same information which is the Good News of Christ resurrected
I had to leave work yesterday, so I'm just seeing your request now.
As for differences – let's take the Bible's supposed condemnation of gays as an example.
1. Those than toss around 1 Corinthians 6:9 as justification for bigotry need to look at different translations of the Bible (of which there are MANY).
In the original Greek, the terms used in Corinthian's list of vices that are sometimes translated as "hom-ose.xual" are 'malakoi' and 'ar.senkoitai'.
AR.SENKOTAI – Has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "se.xual per.verts" (RSV), "sodo.mites" (NKJV, NAB, JB, NRSV), those "who are guilty of hom.ose.xual per.version" (NEB), "men who lie with males" (Lamsa), "behaves like a hom.ose.xual" (CEV), "men who have se.xual relations with other men" (NCV), and "ho.mose.xual offenders" (NIV). The New American Bible (Roman Catholic) translated ar.senokoitai as "practicing hom.ose.xuals". After much protest, the editors agreed to delete this term and replace it with "sodo.mites" in subsequent editions.
'Ar.senokoitai' referred to male prosti.tutes for Paul and Christians until the 4th century.
MALAKOI – Literally means "soft" or "males who are soft". This word has been translated as "ef.feminate" (KJV), "hom.ose.xuals" (NKJV), "corrupt" (Lamsa), "per.verts" (CEV), "catamites" which means call boys (JB), "those who are male prosti.tutes" (NCV), and "male prost.itutes." (NIV, NRSV). Until the Reformation in the 16th century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th century, malakoi was thought to mean "mas.turb.ators." Only in the 20th century has it been understood as a reference to hom.ose.xuality.
Revelation 19:17 "Let us arejoice and exult, and let us give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready."
His wife refers to the church (Eph. 5:24-25, 31-32), the bride of Christ (John 3:29). However, according to vv. 8-9, the wife, the bride of Christ, here consists only of the overcoming believers during the millennium; whereas the bride, the wife, in 21:2 is composed of all the saved saints after the millennium for eternity. The readiness of the bride depends on the maturity in life of the overcomers. Furthermore, the overcomers are not separate individuals but a corporate bride. For this aspect, building is needed. The overcomers not only are mature in life but also are built together as one bride.
* rejoice
Revelation??? Everyone knows that whoever wrote that mess was high as a kite. They must have crashed their camel into a sea of bath salts to come up with that garbage. My goodness. St. John the Opium Addict, evidently.
Ah, the poetic words of man.
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...
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”
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/
Of course the divine feminine did not originate in Christianity. Yahweh had a wife, (Ashera, or Ashura), and the "bride of christ is not original to this culture. Statues of Ashera were found in the temples of Yahweh in Jerusalem, Beth-el, and Samaria, and Dan.
The author of Revelation lived on Patmos, where there were many plants, which induced hallucinations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALCOqBSYLkg
Oh for the love of god would you please shut up with this nonsense? God is figment of the imaginations of the poor and the weak. Didn't live, didn't die, no son, no snake, no wine, bread or water. No carpentry, no last supper. This garbage was written by people with nothing to do beyond staring at a cactus or dusting a candle holder.
This is not news. The author forgot to mention the numerous Biblical references where Jesus referred to himself as the bridegroom and the Church as his bride. Isn't that the much more likely reference??
Revelation 19:17, Revelation 21:2, Revelation 21:9, Ephesians 5:25-27, 2 Corinthians 11:2, John 3:29
Not one of them is a direct quote. None of them are accepted by the Jesus Seminar as an authentic quote. You may as well be quoting from a comic book. The author of Revelation never met Jeebus, and Paul didn't either.
So, the Church, is she a goer? I mean, does she, you know, GO????
Instinctively, I was thinking the "bride" freferences you mentioned. so there could be a possibility that the Copts when they translated from the Greek or Hebrew vesrion of the Bible took the liberty to use "wife" instead of "bride"?.In any language, these words are interchangeable. But from the bible, the Christ-bride relationship is spiritual, not carnal.
So Jesus: your wife, does she go?
Answer the question already.
Amen. We the believers, the corporate church are the wife and He the Bridegroom
is our Husband! Praise the Lord! Gods word our vision and life! It is a book of life not of teaching or doctrine or theology ... BUT a divine romance of God and man!!!
Is she a goer? Nudge nudge wink wink
Veronny, don't be doing so much praising of your evil sky fairy's words, when he gets down and dirty and violent in your horrid holy book like this:
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/
Awesome someone blogging who actually reads the Bible and is a believer.. Praise the Lord!
Veronica, stop lying.
Indeed. POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Veronica,
I'm a Veronica too. I couldn't disagree with you more. I sure hope that none of the people I associate with happen to read here and think that you are me! (I generally keep my opinions regarding religion to myself in real life). So, I guess I'll just pick another name here, and hope for the best.
I think it's clear that God has the potential for both male and female genitalia and se x ual characteristics:
1) We were made in God's image, both male and female
2) Basic medical fact: if the development of male se x ual characteristics is prevented the default body type is female
3) This may sound silly, but why do males have ni pples? Wouldn't that mean God has them too?
... and a belly button?
So god is a hermaphrodite . Ok.
I can refer you to some mental health clinics.
TomTomTheOtherOne.
bad boy, impersonating me again..
Chad's starting to sound like an evolutionist.
This is blasphemy!!! I'm offended!! Let's go loot the mall! Who's with me?
Can we stop and burn some embassies on the way ?
no sh!t and the really funny thing is, he turned his wife into a man
Thomas 114) Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are
not worthy of Life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her
male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you
males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the
Kingdom of Heaven."
so Tr@ns Jesus loves you,... and so do I
♥
Please tell us where those verses are found.
He's referring to a manuscript found in 1945 some call the "Gospel of Thomas." More likely, it was a fictional collection put together by gnostics, falsely attributed to the Apostle Thomas to try to lend it credibility.
Well, if it's the gospel of Thomas, it's as authentic as any other. They were Coptic texts, found at Nag Hammadi, and that community believed they were authentic. They were no more made up than yours.
Yes. Many "gospels" were removed from the bible by the Nicea Council. From memory a partial list of those excluded was Thomas, Judas, and Mary.
Married? So what? It does not change the following:
– only for the new members of this blog:
The Apostles' Creed 2012 (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
(references used are available upon request)
Go away, Reality. Nobody likes your copy/pasted crap. Try something original for once.
I like to see them.
LOL – that was great. I agree, except the part about Joseph. There are some who claim Jesus' father was actually a Roman soldier, and that Joseph left Mary. We have no record of Jesus for about 33 years so wonder what he did for 3 decades....
In Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (2000), Chilton develops the idea of Jesus as a mamzer; someone whose irregular birth circ-umstances result in their exclusion from full participation in the life of the community. He argues for the natural pa-ternity of Joseph and finds no need for a miraculous co-nception. In his subsequent reconstruction of Jesus' life, Chilton suggests that this sustained personal experience of exclusion played a major role in Jesus' self-identi-ty, his concept of God and his spiritual quest. "
Again the problem is in the history. Did this simple preacher man, an illiterate rabbi at best, establish a church? No, based on the lack of historical proof e.g. "Thou art Peter" (Matt 16: 18-19) passage only appears in one gospel." Matthew, whomever he was, was therefore a part founder/"necessary accessory" of the Catholic Church, as was Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James his brother, Mary Magdelene, Mary, Joseph and another father if you believe the mamzer stories, the Apostles and Pilate. It was a team effort with Pilate being the strangest "necessary accessory".
So....If ths does not resolve anything either way....WHY????? bring it up
Proves that people were talking about Jesus in a very untraditional way back in the beginning. Almost makes you wonder if they didn't get it wrong in the gospels and, if they got that wrong, who can tell just how much of Christianity is wrong.
Need more comments to shoot down!
Gospel Lk 7:31-35
Jesus said to the crowds:
"To what shall I compare the people of this generation?
What are they like?
They are like children who sit in the marketplace and call to one another,
'We played the flute for you, but you did not dance.
We sang a dirge, but you did not weep.'
For John the Baptist came neither eating food nor drinking wine,
and you said, 'He is possessed by a demon.'
The Son of Man came eating and drinking and you said,
'Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard,
a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'
But wisdom is vindicated by all her children."
Oooh! I love story time! What happened next! Did Jesus shoot all the trolls in the market?
I just think it's funny that as I read some of your postings you are doing exactly what Jesus talked about 2000 years ago! LOL
JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")
Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.
Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.
Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Many contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.
Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!
So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man would do or say?
Thanks Bill. The "we played the flute" quote came straight from Aesop's Fables, and was quoted without attribution in the gospels, proving they made them up by assembling them.
http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2008/09/aesops-fables-in-bible.html
So because the Greeks played flutes and the Jews played flutes the Scripture is plagarism? Kind of reaching aren't you?
who the heck is this "jesus" person?
Bill, thank you for noticing and lauding my efforts as a commentator, as oftimes they are wholly unappreciated. I see it as my duty to entertain and mock the absurdi.ties posted by both sides of the argument, though more often than not absurdi.ties fall on the religious side of the line. Your applause is appreciated.
No Bill, the quote. Word for word, in entirety. There is none so blind, as he who will not see.
Which version of "word for word" are you choosing to bolster your case? My point is that I don't think it invalidates Scripture for two authors to use the same simile. Really, do you?
Bill, you are correct in that both the Bible and Aesop's fables are valid works of literature.
Your reply drips with condescension
Sorry Havard and so what.... so just because Fox news says it will rain donkeys today all donkeys believe it???? mmm probably!
Jesus is cool. He was a major radical in his day going against the current leadership. He also happened to say he was the son of God. You can believe it or not. That will be between you and him eventually. Historical discoveries, nonetheless, are also cool. And here we are still debating it, just like then...that's pretty thought provoking in itself.
There were many "sons of god". It meant they were a "good guy". You need to learn about Ancient History.
realbucky and your truly a son of a gun...i mean son of a god... =) have a bless day Brotha!
"Son of God" is about as literal as calling someone a "Son of the South".
@Eric Marrapodi,
"Published here for the first time is a fragment of a fourth-century CE codex in
Coptic containing a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples in which Jesus speaks of
“my wife.”"
(http://news.hds.harvard.edu/files/King_JesusSaidToThem_draft_0917.pdf)
fourth century not second
All four gospels suffer from the same fundamental flaw as this parchment. The oldest complete manuscript of the gospels we have is the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates from about 350 AD. About 320 yeasr after Christ died. To put that in perspective, 320 years ago was 1692. About a century before the USA was a country.
From that point back, we only have partial manuscripts, the most complete of which is Codex Vaticanus, dating from around 300 AD. Before that, the fragments get worse, until the oldest of all, P52, which was discovered in an Egyptian trash heap in, is nothing more than a credit card sized piece of papyrus with a small piece of John Chapter 18 on it.
This is one reason why it is pretty impossible to know exactly what Christ said or did with any degree of confidence or specificity
To say nothing of the fact that those who copied and wrote the texts admitted that deception was acceptable, and necessary.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm
Colin confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Colin you are blessed.
Matt 16:16-17
This is very interesting. But there seems to be more on the paper. What else does it say. What are the other words. How do we put them into a sentence structure?
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty-research/research-projects/the-gospel-of-jesuss-wife
Thank you someone with common sense to question it... for all we know its a camels dead skin and someone wrote something and now they want to say this is from Jesus.... lol.... nah but soon the iphone 5 will be here which is the same as the iphone4s but the sheeply actually think its different... light bulb question everything... dah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!