home
RSS
Vatican newspaper calls fragment referring to Jesus' wife 'a fake'
The fragment is written in Coptic, a language used by some early Christians.
September 28th, 2012
02:30 PM ET

Vatican newspaper calls fragment referring to Jesus' wife 'a fake'

By Dan Gilgoff and Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editors

(CNN) - The Vatican on Friday appeared to push back on a recently publicized piece of papyrus that appears to show an early Christian referring to Jesus' wife, with its newspaper calling the fragment “a fake.”

“Substantial reasons would lead us to conclude that the papyrus is actually a clumsy counterfeit,” the Vatican’s  newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said in a Friday editorial by the newspaper’s editor.

“In other words, in any case it is a fake,” wrote L'Osservatore Romano editor-in-chief Gian Maria Vian.

The fragment referring to Jesus wife was written in Coptic, a language used by Egyptian Christians, and says in part, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife ..."

The paper is generally thought to reflect the views of Vatican officials.

5 Questions and answers about Jesus’ “wife”

Harvard Divinity School professor Karen King announced the findings of the 1.5- by 3-inch honey-colored fragment earlier this month in Rome at the International Association for Coptic Studies.

King was 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.

"This fragment, this new piece of papyrus evidence, does not prove that (Jesus) was married, nor does it prove that he was not married,” King said in a conference call with reporters earlier in the month. “The earliest reliable historical tradition is completely silent on that.

“So we're in the same position we were before it was found,” she continued. “We don't know if he was married or not."

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.

Opinion: What fascination with Jesus’ “wife” tells us

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.

In its Friday editorial, the Vatican newspaper took aim at what it said was a media campaign to spread word of the papyrus despite questions about its authenticity.

“American media outlets had been alerted, a preventive press conference by Karen L. King held to prepare a global scoop which was immediately put into question by the experts,” the paper said.

- CNN"s Hada Messia contributed reporting from Rome

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Catholic Church • Christianity • Vatican

soundoff (2,552 Responses)
  1. vartooka

    Don't look to the Vatican to tell you what to believe. Go within. That's where the real truth resides.

    October 14, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
  2. GOOD NEWS

    Jesus was not fake; he was a true Prophet sent by GOD,

    and what he clearly foretold here (=John 6/27, 40)

    has thus absolutely come True now:

    http://www.holy-19-harvest.com

    ==UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES==

    October 14, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • midwest rail

      Shipping and handling extra.

      October 14, 2012 at 10:47 am |
  3. markiesparkle

    Well of course they claim it's a fake - they'd have to re-write, re-think and adjust the whole structure of their priesthood if they acknowledged this as true. Then they'd have to admit the possibility of children ... OH what a mess. But worst - they'd ahve to admit they were (dare I say it?) WRONG. The Catholic Church never admits they're wrong. I know - I'm Catholic.

    October 14, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • frapolusa

      @markiesparkle: I bet you are also for abortion rights too. Just a guess on my part. Remember that religion is not here to serve YOUR purposes....it is not supposed to change to fit the current values of a society for YOUR convenience. Rather, it is for you to conform your life to it's teachings and beliefs. If you don't like it or agree, then get and stop calling yourself a Catholic. Go find another religion that "meets your needs" and "fits" with your thinking and beliefs.

      October 14, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • TR6

      @frapolusa: “ religion… it is not supposed to change to fit the current values of a society for YOUR convenience. Rather, it is for you to conform your life to it's teachings and beliefs. “

      Still eating fish on Friday? How’s that limbo thing working out for you?

      October 15, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
  4. Jesus is the most powerful figure known to mankind (Fact)

    Ok i challenge all atheist/non-believers to a simple small short mature intellectual debate. I claim that there is a GOD, Higher Power, Intelligent Designer/Engineer, and Creator. You claim that there isnt a Creator and everything is a coincidence. (If what i say about your claims are wrong please correct me) Here are the rules: No THEORIES and no BIBLE VERSES. Proven known facts ONLY, none requiring faith. I simply ask that you consider my facts as i will yours. I will provide 10 facts in defense to my claim and you can list as much as you will.
    1.The perfect unseen order of our solar system.
    2. The accurate and precise distance of our sun and it's perfect compatibility with our moon. Its unfailing rising and sustaining power.
    3. The engineering of the earth in every aspect.
    4. Nature, it's power, beauty, and contributions.
    5. Natural law.
    6. Creatures, all of their different abilities, bodies, and behaviors.
    7. The extraordinary and intelligently designed human body and mind.
    8. My user name. Jesus indeed had the most influence and biggest impact on this world than anyone in all of time.
    9. Due to how orderly and precise creation is, the chance of the big bang theory or coincidence happening is statistically 0. Scientists have come up with approximate numbers that far exceed the trillions, but these numbers are made up from their theories which is why i didnt paste the number. As of right now the chances of life forming from nothing is statistically 0.
    10. Time & Life (consciousness)
    Lets see if man can do the impossible by providing one fact proving the non-existence of a Creator.

    October 11, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • Chris

      Actually, the universe is amazingly chaotic. You look to isolated islands of order to explain that the entire thing is great but most of your examples are... poor.

      Humans are poorly designed, as are most animals. Anyone sitting with a computer model could do better with a bit of messing around. Our eyes are BACKWARDS, who would ever design something backwards after having already made a forwards version (octopi and other invertebrates).

      October 12, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
    • mlg4035

      Typical rantings of the uneducated: it is not up to us to prove the negative (i.e. no God), it is up to you to prove the positive(i.e. God exists).

      None of the things you list lend proof to any particular interpretation of God...In particular, none of those things lend proof of the "God" found in the Bible.

      The order we see in Nature is indeed impressive and wonderful: but that does not imply any particular "original creator" or "original designer"...there are any number of creators or methods of creation we could dream up to explain the order we see in nature(that's why we have so many and diverse religious doctrines)...therefore, no one can claim exclusive knowledge of THE creator, or THE creation process.

      Christianity, in all of its forms, is no more "true" than any other interpretation of the order we experience in the world. In fact, the more you adhere to just one interpretation, to just one way of seeing the world, the more you risk getting it "wrong".

      So, open your mind to the world. Don't be so quick to concretize it into neat little blocks of beliefs.

      Because the world is not static and solid: it is dynamic and fluid...and when you try to catch it in your iron fist of faith/belief, it slips right through your fingers...

      Reality flows...from moment to moment: you cannot catch and freeze-frame it into a nice little snapshot you can display on your wall. The more you cling to your own particular religion, the more you will lose the world.

      October 12, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • Byrd

      You've been posting this crap for almost a month now, Jesus. Give it a break and try going out and getting an education from somewhere besides the Liberty University kindergarten library.

      October 13, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • chitowngal08

      Wow! Alot of Jesus haters. Jesus was the greatest man on this earth. He taught fairness. He was for the people. He knew what the corrupt Roman Govt was about. Start going to church. You will have your day, someday.

      October 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • sam stone

      chitowngal: jesus haters? based on what?

      the idea of a judgement is foolish....and used to keep people in line.

      your empty proxy threats (warnings) are laughable

      October 15, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • sam stone

      If you want an intellectual debate, start by telling me how you make the logical leap from a creator to a god. if you cannot do that, there is no use in arguing with you

      October 15, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • sam stone

      prove the non existence of leprechauns

      October 15, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • sam stone

      Jesus is the most powerful....blah blah fvcking blah: Are you going to answer my question, or are you going to run like an intellectual coward?

      October 15, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  5. StanleyMann

    The whole catholic religion is a fake.

    October 11, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • frapolusa

      Oh I see....but of course,YOU are uniquely qualified and so knowledgeable to know this? Of course. And what about YOUR faith, if you have one? Is it superior and NOT fake? And what about the Muslim faith? Or, the Jewish faith? Or any others for that matter....no mention of those.....are they "fake" too or is it just Catholicism? You're obviously a hater with an agenda.

      October 14, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
  6. PJ

    Popey represents the God that molests children- why do you worship that?

    October 11, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • SAN FRANCISCO CA

      Who represents http://www.nambla.org/ ??? GAY MEN

      October 11, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • chitowngal08

      Looks to me like there are many religions that are on the molest the kids bandwagon. Not just the Catholic Church.

      October 14, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • frapolusa

      You're an arrogant and uneducated idiot..

      October 14, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • sam stone

      chitown: true, but the catholic hierarchy has sure made an artform of shuffling then predators around to unsuspecting parishes

      October 15, 2012 at 9:14 am |
  7. Neil Armweak

    The Bible? That's better known around my place as Gullible's Travels.

    October 10, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
    • PrimeNumber

      Do you believe the news that comes into your home? For that matter, can you trust your own thinking? Have you ever had an original thought?

      October 11, 2012 at 9:33 am |
  8. GOOD NEWS

    What Jesus foretold has absolutely come TRUE now:

    http://www.holy-19-harvest.com

    ==UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES==

    October 10, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      Poser

      October 10, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
  9. Joe

    Why pray for sick people? Do you think that God doesn't know the person is sick? Do you think that God is some kind of sadist who enjoys watching people writhe in pain? Do you think that God counts the number of prayers received before he decides to help them?

    October 10, 2012 at 8:53 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Prayers for the sick unite us in our mutual humanity with them and acknowledge our dependence on God's grace for life and health.

      October 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @ Bill Deacon
      In another words is more cult bonding than cause and effect?

      October 10, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      A priest had cancer. Being very afraid from what he faced, he traveled to Lourdes in hopes of a miracle healing. Upon his return, parishoners in the church remarked about his sense of well being, his appearance of heath. "I received a healing." He told them. "You mean the cancer is gone?" They queried with incredulity. "No. I mean that I am at peace and acceptance."

      What you sarcastically ask for as do others who deny the power of prayer is a kind of mystical slot machine where you pull tab "A" and get benefit "B". That would be magic. Prayer is not magic.

      October 10, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      Anyone can make up stories and point out placebo effects Bill. The FACT is.. not only is prayer a logical fallacy it’s been proven in several studies (look them up) that prayer has absolutely no effect.

      October 11, 2012 at 8:17 am |
    • sam stone

      So, ill people have not received god's grace?

      October 15, 2012 at 9:20 am |
    • sam stone

      bill: terminal cancer patients have found peace after consuming a tea made of psilocybin ("magic") mushrooms.

      October 15, 2012 at 9:24 am |
  10. billybob

    The only reason we have religion is because if you didn't follow it you got murdered! GO TO HELL RELIGION!!

    October 9, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
    • Daniel S

      So happy to see my atheist (or agnostic, if you lean that way) brethren representing here! We are becoming larger in numbers and that makes me so happy!

      October 10, 2012 at 1:25 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      So disappointed that you are happy to be represented by the ill informed and uncouth.

      October 10, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @Bill Deacon
      Hit a nerve Bill? Granted he/she seems a bit angry.. but what do expect with your track record?

      October 10, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Well other postings have compared track records of secular societies to religious and I have to say, if I am to be lumped with anyone in regards to resumes, I'll take religion, thank you. Only a very little research shows religion in general to have been extremely beneficial to mankind and Judeo-Christianity specifically to western civilization. So, yes I think the anger is ill informed and the express of it is uncouth. Even if it were accurate, the uncouth component still holds. But ill informed bigotry, illiterate aspersions and repeatedly refuted assaults still predominate in atheist dogma.

      October 10, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @ Bill Deacon
      You would.. because you believe w/e you are told. Those same postings almost always get it wrong. Learn more about history (no your bible doesn’t count) and you might have a different view. The rest of your comment is moot as it wasn’t addressed by mine.

      October 11, 2012 at 8:06 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Rather than make generalized indictments of religion perhaps you could point out a case where Christianity is erroneously credited with an advancement to civilization?

      October 11, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      I guess not.

      October 12, 2012 at 9:20 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Maybe a Christian hacked his computer

      October 12, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
  11. Cheryl

    They can't even prove he existed, they'll never prove married or unmarried.

    October 9, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Of course, it’s widely acknowledged that the evidence for Jesus’ existence might seem somewhat limited compared to, say, the evidence we have for the existence of individuals from more recent history. But, when it comes to figures from ancient history, the evidence is often rather restricted. That doesn’t prevent historians building a good case for their existence.

      In fact, it is often said there is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures whose existence is never seriously doubted. In A Marginal Jew – Rethinking The Historical Jesus, for example, John Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on a few sheets of paper, yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant argues that

      if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

      October 10, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      There is more evidence that Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster are real than Jesus.

      October 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Can you please post comparative analysis charts to support you claim? Atheists like proof don't they?

      October 10, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • Momof3

      Mr. Deacon, it can also be said of many of the ancient writings pertaining to Yehoshua ben Yosef, including the texts that comprise the New Testament, have been re-interpreted and re-written so many times over the course of the millenia, that they no longer closely resemble the original texts. It has also been argued by scholars that the anciet works were re-intrepreted by the catholic church with the church's agenda at the forefront, so this would suggest that the intrepretations are questionible at best, and out-right lies at worst.

      October 10, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • JWK4good

      To Bill Deacon: The proponents of the "Christ Myth" argument point out that virtually every piece of our "evidence" for the existence of the person of Jesus is a restating of earlier myths and miracle stories from pagan sources or from Jewish messianic expectancies. This is not the case for other historically accepted figures like Alexander or Caesar. Historians would doubt the actual existence of those figures if that was the nature of the only evidence for them. The Christ Myth people, though they make an imortant point, don't persuade me that there was no actual Jesus. The hypothetical "Q" document, the collection of sayings of Jesus, that the gospels apparently draw on suggests to me an actual person existed whose message had a strong emphasis on loving your neighbor as yourself and of a "kingdom" (i.e., rule, governing) of God within people. It seems to me that Jesus' followers, perhaps in grief after his death, set up a personality cult (which we now call Christianity) that placed more emphasis on what people must believe about their beloved master than on the actual message of the master. That message - love - is the Logos. Living that message is far more important, in my opinion, than affirming some theological formula regarding a person whose historicity is clouded in doubt and dubious "evidence."

      October 11, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • JWK4good

      The proponents of the "Christ Myth" argument point out that virtually every piece of our "evidence" for the existence of the person of Jesus is a restating of earlier myths and miracle stories from pagan sources or from Jewish messianic expectancies. This is not the case for other historically accepted figures like Alexander or Caesar. Historians would doubt the actual existence of those figures if that was the nature of the only evidence for them. The Christ Myth people, though they make an important point, don't persuade me that there was no actual Jesus. The hypothetical "Q" document, the collection of sayings of Jesus, that the gospels apparently draw on suggests to me an actual person existed whose message had a strong emphasis on loving your neighbor as yourself and of a "kingdom" (i.e., rule, governing) of God within people. It seems to me that Jesus' followers, perhaps in grief after his death, set up a personality cult (which we now call Christianity) that placed more emphasis on what people must believe about their beloved master than on the actual message of the master. That message - love - is the Logos. Living that message is far more important, in my opinion, than affirming some theological formula regarding a person whose historicity is clouded in doubt and dubious "evidence."

      October 11, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • billdeacons

      Momof, of course it can be said. Anything can be said. I'm not sure how what you are saying here has to do with the historical case for the existence of Jesus but can you please provide a synopsis of substantive differences between the versions of text you describe?

      October 11, 2012 at 4:14 am |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      Burden of proof is on the prosecution Bill. You assert this person was real and that he was divine. It is YOUR responsibility to prove it. Is not my responsibility to prove you wrong.

      October 11, 2012 at 8:09 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Well refer to my first response. Historians overwhelmingly agree that there is sufficient reason to acknowledge the physical presence of Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. I mean really, just because you deny it, how many times to we have to have this lesson? It's eighth grade.

      October 11, 2012 at 8:49 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      And you are the one making erroneous claims that there is more proof of Nessie etc. Yet I see you would like to pull a reversal when I ask you to substantiate your drivel. You have no intellectual honest, just a rabid opinion.

      October 11, 2012 at 8:52 am |
    • JWK4good

      Regarding "the historical case for the existence of Jesus": The proponents of the "Christ Myth" argument point out that virtually every piece of our "evidence" for the existence of the person of Jesus is a restating of earlier myths and miracle stories from pagan sources or from Jewish messianic expectations. This is not the case for other historically accepted figures like Alexander or Caesar. Historians would doubt the actual existence of those figures if that was the nature of the only evidence for them. The Christ Myth people, though they make an important point, don't persuade me that there was no actual Jesus. The hypothetical "Q" document, the collection of sayings of Jesus, that the gospels apparently draw on suggests to me an actual person existed whose message had a strong emphasis on loving your neighbor as yourself and of a "kingdom" (i.e., rule, governing) of God within people. It seems to me that Jesus' followers, perhaps in grief after his death, set up a personality cult (which we now call Christianity) that placed more emphasis on what people must believe about their beloved master than on the actual message of the master. That message - love - is the Logos. Living that message is far more important, in my opinion, than affirming some theological formula regarding a person whose historicity is clouded in doubt and dubious "evidence."

      October 11, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Do you believe Hannibal existed?

      In fact, although there is plenty of writing about Hannibal, none of it is contemporary and there is no archaeological evidence for him at all (not surprising given the Romans razed the city from whence he came). Furthermore he is not mentioned in any Carthaginian sources, which is incredible, given he was supposed to be their greatest leader (there are no Carthaginian sources as the Romans burnt their city down)! We find when we actually try to pin him down he tends to recede further into the mists of time. His exploits, such as leading elephants over the Alps, are clearly legendary (the skeptic pretends to be incredulous but seems happy to buy his own amazing theory) and it is not hard to find a motive for the creation of this colorful character by Roman writers (as long we can invent a motive for fabrication we can assume that fabrication exists).

      October 12, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence

      I think its funny how athiest like to portray themselves as being more intellectually capable then a religious follower, when all they do is regurgitate information thats been passed to them and they passify it as evidence not actually makeing the discovery themselves.. And its comments like yours Cheryle that validate my assumptions. Jesus did exist thats not the arguement. Look in Josphus or Tactis NON Religous evidence that he existed. Most modern scholars agree Jesus did exist. Thats not even the point, its the belief that he wasnt the son of God thats the issue with athiest.

      October 13, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • chitowngal08

      He did not exist? The Shroud of Turin is a fake. I will still believe even when you turn your back.

      October 14, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
  12. John

    Jesus did this, Jesus did that, please, none of us were there so none of us know for sure. As for the Bible, it was written by man, so how much can we believe if anything? The Vatican chooses to ignore what they want and enforce what they want. It is all bs and just a cult. I believe there is a God, but religion is a crock of caca.

    October 9, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      The sad thing is you think thats a superior position.

      October 11, 2012 at 8:19 am |
  13. Karen

    The Bible doesn't say that Jesus was married. Didn't say that He wasn't. Why argue? What difference does His marriage make? Or not make? He was a man. He was and is the Son of God. God didn't say that man had to marry or not marry. God didn't make a priest to preside over the marriage of Adam and Eve. The little everyday mundane matter of Jesus life are not the import. Did He sleep on right side or left side? Was He right handed or left handed? Did He drink wine or abstain? Did He eat meat or was He a vegetarian? Did He have a home or not? Did He travel the world or not? Did He have a fat bank account or not? Did He live on the best side of town or not? We'll never know them and neither will the experts in the Vatican or any other church. So why go into a short twisting fury over it? The fact that He was God's Son and died on the cross to save man from sin is the only fact that counts.

    October 9, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • Kyle Scott

      very, very true!

      October 9, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • Joe

      How does dying on the cross absolve man from sin? Do you think being dead for three days is sufficient penalty for all the sins committed by man? God gave his only son? Do you think he was incapable of having more sons? Once dead Jesus ascended into heaven. Is being in Heaven some kind of punishment? What an inconceivable story. The authors of that book must have laughed themselves silly when contemplating the reaction of people who read and believed it.

      October 10, 2012 at 8:43 am |
    • rjp34652

      Mr. Joe:
      Justice, any man's justice, demands payment. Offense demands it.

      It is the same with God. The problem is that no man is fit to pay the just punishment God demands – so He came and took the punishment Himself. The penalty of sin being paid, those who believe in Jesus and who accept Him in their hearts are no longer guilty of offense against God. The debt justice demands is thus paid.

      but that's jut me, hollering from the choir loft...

      October 10, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @ Karen
      It matters to theists because they are traditionaly chauvinistic. They also have a very specific view of what the Christ is. Anything that challenges that view is a threat.

      @ rjp34652
      Justice, any man's justice, demands payment. Offense demands it.
      Nonsense. Justice is a concept it demands nothing and since it’s the core of your argument…fail.

      October 11, 2012 at 8:12 am |
  14. RRickard

    At age 33 in ancient times a man HAD to be married...the marriages were arranged. If he wasn't married then he must've been gay.

    October 9, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • adam box

      i dont know if that is true but jesus was never married and he was not gay. jesus could have been a exception to rule because he was the chosen one from some peoples eyes.

      October 9, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • oliver

      Being gay wouldn't have saved him from being married. If you're family arranges a wedding for you, you're wed, end of story.

      October 9, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Beebop

      Jesus died at 33 years old. Then he resurrected.

      October 9, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      Prove it beebop.

      October 11, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    • chitowngal08

      What an horrible statement. He must have been gay? No, maybe he had other things to do like preach peace and tell us what lies ahead for us. This man would not still be in the mainstream if he was not sent from Heaven. Start praying to Mary. She will bring you back to you senses.

      October 14, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
  15. zipvip

    Finally looks like are being saved from god. Good riddance religion.

    October 9, 2012 at 9:25 am |
  16. GOOD NEWS

    Jesus was not fake, he was an honorable Prophet truly sent by GOD;

    so the Son of Man has thus already come to seek and save those who are lost,

    in the beginning of this Third and Last DAY (=MILLENNIUM) now! (=John 6/27, 40)

    http://www.holy-19-harvest.com

    ==UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES!

    October 9, 2012 at 5:57 am |
    • S.R.

      Better news.....religion is a fake and a cancer on the earth. More people have died because of religion then for any other reason. People created religion not GOD!

      October 9, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • Dan_S

      S.R., that's an idiotic, baseless statement usually involuntarily spewed forth from the anus of people who loathe religion. Try getting some facts before saying that religion has killed more people than "any other reason."
      Secular wars have killed more than religious ones. In fact, wars of the 20th century killed more people, caused more damage, etc. than pretty much any two or three religious wars from ANY century combined. Let's also not forget secular political movements, particularly Soviet Communism and its Asian flavors as well. Finally, the various plagues and epidemics whose death tolls rival that of any of our bloodiest wars.
      Religion's got it's bad apples, but so do those who hate it.
      For additional information, read: HISTORY

      October 9, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • Logic

      I like to reply to Dan_S
      S.R., that's an idiotic, baseless statement usually involuntarily spewed forth from the anus of people who loathe religion. Try getting some facts before saying that religion has killed more people than "any other reason."
      Secular wars have killed more than religious ones. In fact, wars of the 20th century killed more people, caused more damage, etc...
      ----
      Here is my reply:
      Yes, the death caused by the religion found so far is only 40 million people, and the death caused by the secular so far is about 60 million victims.

      Let's analyze, the secular movement NEVER kill people in the name of secular. The religion believer in the crusade, inquisition, jihad, kill others in the name of their God.

      2nd, regardless the number of victims, the 40 million death by the religion based war clearly does NOT justify that religion bring peace. The United Nation and the declaration of human right and each member commitment to keep peace, does bring peace.

      So Dan_S, IF you have the data, but you don't analyze and/or use your critical thinking. Then the data in your brain doesn't mean anything. It's like a 4 yr old boy with a stack of newspaper and learning how to read the ABC but don't understand at all.

      October 9, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      LIST OF MAJOR RELIGIOUS WARS:

      Low est High est Event Location Dates Religions % the world population
      3 million 11 million 30 years war Holy Roman Empire 1618/1648 Prot/Cath 0.5%–2.1%
      2 million 4 million Religious War of France France 1562/1598 Prot/Cath 0.4%–0.8%
      1 million 2million 2nd Sudanese Civil War Sudan 1983/2005 Islam/Christ 0.02%
      1 million 3 million Crusades Holy Land, Europe 1095/1291 Islam/Christ 0.3%–2.3%
      1 million 250,000 Lebanese Civil War Lebanon 1975/1990 Sunni/Shiite/Christian

      October 10, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      PARTIAL LIST OF NON RELIGIOUS WARS:

      1.) The Seven Years’ War (Britain & France)
      2.)The American Revolution
      3.)The French Revolution
      4.)The Napoleonic Wars (France & Europe)
      5.)The Revolutions in the Americas
      6.)The Wars to create and preserve the British Empire (Boer War, Irish Revolution, and the Great Game with Russia would all be examples)
      7.)The American Civil War
      8.)The Crimean War
      9.)The Spanish-American War
      10.)The Great War, The War to End All Wars, or World War I (whatever you want to call it)
      11.)The Italian invasion of Ethiopia
      12.)The Spanish Civil War
      13.)Stalin’s invasions of Finland, the Baltic states, and Poland
      14.)World War II
      15.)The Chinese Revolution
      16.)The Cold War, including but not limited to the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the American intervention in Grenada, and the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan
      17.)The Cultural Revolution in China (If you don’t want to call this a war I’ll concede it)
      18.)Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge Revolution
      19.)The Falklands War
      20.)The Persian Gulf War between Iran & Iraq
      21.)The Persian Gulf War between the United Nations and Iraq
      The Breakup of Yugoslavia (beginning with Slovenia).

      October 10, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      CONCLUSION:

      Logic should change his screen name

      October 10, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • rjp34652

      S.R. – you have stated and believe a LIE.

      The greatest flow of blood came from the atheist inspired wars of the twentieth century. Frederick Niezsche, foremost atheist writer, predicted it would happen and it did. WWII alone was responsible for over seventy million deaths.

      All the religious wars in history put together don't come close to this abhorrent total. That's a fact, but in true atheist tradition no truth will stand against their bigotry and hatred of all things religious.

      but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

      October 10, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
  17. bob

    bob to vatican calling religion a fake!

    October 8, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
  18. boocat

    Of course the RCC says its fake.....a married Jesus does not fit into their agenda of lies and bull****.

    October 8, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
  19. L. Song

    If they have not had it in their hands to examine it, they are not able to prove it is fake. The scholar who released it is respected throughout the world, and is not fool.

    In any case, the Vatican, and organized Catholicism, has tried to silence women, and silence different views within its faith for centuries. Christ would not thank them for this, because this is all about power, not about gold or love. It is about the Vatican keeping power in their hands.

    In their golden robes, this situation is terribly transparent. Christ told us to honor the poor and to love and respect all equally, including women, with humility. This is why my faith is practiced in private, away from any gem encrusted church.

    October 8, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      A number of noted coptologists have pronounced it a fake or have expressed strong reservations, including Alin Suciu of the University of Hamburg, Stephen Emmel of the University of Münster, Wolf-Peter Funk of l’Université Laval in Quebec, Hany Sadak the director general of the Coptic Museum in Cairo, Scott Carroll, Senior Scholar at the Oxford Manuscript Research Group, and David Gill of the University of Suffolk.

      October 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • cybele

      Well said, L.Song. If the Vat found any piece positive to the equality OR the fact of superiority of wimmin nothing would be leaked about the find- would be just another artifact laying around in the underground vault of the Vatican.

      October 13, 2012 at 10:53 am |
  20. Atheism is the only path to ignorance

    Prayers changes things

    October 8, 2012 at 9:42 am |
    • nope

      @OP
      nope

      October 8, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • UncleBenny

      Good. I pray that you go away.

      October 9, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • Brad

      By very definition, prayer cannot change anything. If god truly already knows everything that is already going to happen then regardless of whether you pray or not the outcome has already been decided. If god changes his mind then he already knew he was going to change his mind. If gods plan is infallible, your prayer would not change his mind because he has already chosen the best answer. If your prayer changed his mind, then his plan was not infallible so therefore he is not god.

      October 9, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • Logic

      a pair of hands working is more effective than a million people clasp their palm and pray.

      October 9, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • Daniel S

      Correct! Prayers change potential to inaction.

      October 10, 2012 at 1:30 am |
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
Advertisement
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.