home
RSS
April 10th, 2014
10:04 AM ET

Study: 'Jesus' wife' fragment not a fake

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - A team of scientists has concluded that a controversial scrap of papyrus that purportedly quotes Jesus referring to "my wife," is not a fake, according to the Harvard Theological Review.

"A wide range of scientific testing indicates that a papyrus fragment containing the words, 'Jesus said to them, my wife' is an ancient document, dating between the sixth to ninth centuries CE," Harvard Divinity School said in a statement.

Scientists tested the papyrus and the carbon ink, and analyzed the handwriting and grammar, according to Harvard.

Radiocarbon tests conducted at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology produced an origination date for the papyrus of 659-859 CE, according to Harvard. MIT also studied the chemical composition of the papyrus and patterns of oxidation.

Other scholars studied the carbon character of the ink and found that it matched samples of papyri from the first to eight century CE, according to Harvard.

"None of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery," the divinity school said.

At least one scholar sharply disagrees, however, calling the papyrus scrap "patently fake."

Unveiled by Karen King, a Harvard Divinity School historian, in 2012, the scrap has sparked a heated debate over Christian history, archaeological accuracy and the role of women in the church.

The fragment, which is about the size of a business card, contains just 33 words, including: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …" and "she will be able to be my disciple." 

Though she dubbed the fragment, "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife," King said that the papyrus does not prove that Jesus was actually married - just that ancient Christians discussed the possibility.

"This gospel fragment provides a reason to reconsider what we thought we knew by asking what the role claims of Jesus's marital status played historically in early Christian controversies over marriage, celibacy, and family," King said.

Other Christians have suggested that Jesus may have been speaking metaphorically in the sentence fragments quoted in the papyrus. Some New Testament writers refer to the church as "the bride of Christ."

King and other scholars said they are equally intrigued by Jesus' mention of a female disciple.

"The main topic of the fragment is to affirm that women who are mothers and wives can be disciples of Jesus—a topic that was hotly debated in early Christianity as celibate virginity increasingly became highly valued," King said.

5 questions and answers about Jesus' 'wife'

The Harvard Theological Review also published on Thursday a sharp-worded rebuttal to King's hypothesis by Leo Depuydt, a professor of Egyptology at Brown University.

"I personally—and I am not sure whether I share this feeling with anyone—experience a certain incredulity pertaining to how something that is at first sight so patently fake could be so totally blown out of proportion," Depuydt writes.

Depuydt's criticism centers on the fact that the papyrus scrap contains a grammatical error in Coptic - one that mirrors a similar miscue in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas.

The chances that two ancient works would have the same mistake are minuscule, the scholar said, strongly suggesting that the author of the"Jesus' wife" scrap copied from the Gospel of Thomas.

“As a forgery, it is bad to the point of being farcical or fobbish," Depuydt told the Boston Globe. "I don’t buy the argument that this is sophisticated. I think it could be done in an afternoon by an undergraduate student.”

The Vatican's newspaper has also called the papyrus fragment a fake. “Substantial reasons would lead us to conclude that the papyrus is actually a clumsy counterfeit," L'Osservatore Romano, said in an editorial in 2012. 

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

King and Harvard acknowledge that "nothing is known about the discovery of the fragment." King has said it was given to her by an unnamed donor. 

"All the known data about its origin and circulation need to be publicly disclosed and thus made available for scholarly discussionas is the norm in the handling of manuscripts. Is there some reason we cannot just be told?" Depuydt said.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Christianity • Church • History • Jesus

soundoff (2,539 Responses)
  1. noahsdadtopher

    Christ had a bride ... the Church.

    April 10, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      Or, I should say, "has."

      April 10, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
    • skytag

      Jesus was at most an ordinary man.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
    • ausphor

      OOPS, the church, any form of Christian religion did not happen until decades/centuries after the crucifixion, so if you are saying that the RCC the only church around for 1500 years is the bride, why do you keep saying they are not Christian?

      April 10, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        Decades? Centuries? No. The church, although quite small, was there at the cross. Jesus had thousands of followers before His death.

        April 10, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • doobzz

          And yet we don't know who any of them are, in spite of the catered picnics, water walking and wine making. No trace of these happenings, despite the thousands of witnesses.

          Just one book, rewritten and rewritten so many times.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          A gaggle of zealots would hardly meet the definition of a church, maybe a cult. Hell Jim Jones had cult followers also, would you consider that a church? Harold Camping has a following also, ridiculous, end of times was supposed to happen 2000 years ago if you believe the words of the JC/bible, tardiness.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Not only do we know who these people were, but nothing has been rewritten even once. Common fallacy.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          Did you go see the new version of the Noah story in the recent movie? Cecil B, De Mille stated that give him a few verses of the bible and he could create a biblical epic. Can a book that is supposed to be the word of god, the "truth" be so widely interpreted? The only interpretation that would remotely convince me that jesus was part human was "The Last Temptation of Christ" but of course it is all fiction. Might I add very profitable fiction for the scammers.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          No, I didn't see the Hollywood movie of Noah. It's blasphemous and I'm not interested in funding blasphemy.

          For an accurate look at Noah, go to noahthemovie.com ... it's free to watch online.

          And no, the Hollywood movie is not an "interpretation." It changes practically everything except the name of Noah and that there was a flood. This is not Aronofsky saying, "This is how I think it happened based on my reading of the text." Aronofsky, an atheist, even said in an interview that it is the most anti-Biblical Biblical movie ever made.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          And you determined that the new Noah is blasphemous because somebody told you so? You do not seem to be intrested in determining that for yourself? Are all your opinions and beliefs determined by what others tell you? Do you go out of your bubble and seek the amazing amount of information and knowledge outside of your belief system? Be honest know, how can you so easily discard all the amazing discoveries being made by your fellow man?

          April 10, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          ausphor

          "And you determined that the new Noah is blasphemous because somebody told you so?"

          Movie reviewers and some who saw the movie early have written about it all over the web about what was changed and the things that were added. I don't need to have seen it. I only need to have read about it ... read what Aronofsky said about it ... which disappoints me as I've been a fan of some of his movies.

          "You do not seem to be intrested in determining that for yourself?"

          I did based on reviews and what the director and also the writer said about it.

          "Be honest know, how can you so easily discard all the amazing discoveries being made by your fellow man?"

          Where did I say I discarded any "amazing discoveries"? We're talking about a movie.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          Well you read about critics of a movie, but you do not seem to have read the fact of a world wide flood as depicted in the bible is impossible by the majority of the scientific community. I think that could be your problem you are easily swayed by pastors and movie critics but peer reviewed science is just not acceptable. You may want to go over your responses as Topher of how you use apologetics to discount scientific discoveries, it is quite obvious to every one but you.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          ausphor

          "Well you read about critics of a movie, but you do not seem to have read the fact of a world wide flood as depicted in the bible is impossible by the majority of the scientific community."

          I really don't care what the secular worldview wants to tell me. There is an abundance of evidence it happened just as the Bible states. It just depends on your presupposition which conclusion you come to.

          "I think that could be your problem you are easily swayed by pastors and movie critics but peer reviewed science is just not acceptable."

          There's plenty of "peer reviewed" papers in support of the flood. Again, it comes down to presuppositions.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          You are in a bubble of ignorance that you will probably never get out of.

          April 10, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Wow. An ad hominem. Way to make a case for your side.

          April 10, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • joey3467

          Please produce even one of the peer reviewed articles that support the Biblical version of the flood.

          April 10, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          It's called Google. Do your own research.

          April 10, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
        • kudlak

          noahsdadtopher
          I'm actually leaning your way. If Jesus had a human wife he would have abandoned her like Peter, and possibly other apostles, abandoned his wife and family.

          Unless, of course, his wife just happened to travel with his entourage, like Mary Magdalene appears to have.

          April 10, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
        • kudlak

          topher
          BTW, it isn't ad hominem if someone has already made a valid argument against yours before insulting you.

          April 10, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
    • ugetthefacts

      Noah was a pedo,, it's in the bible

      April 10, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      Sounds like a horror movie "Bride of Christ"

      April 10, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
    • sam stone

      Which church? There are thousands of christian churches. Is Jeebus a polygamist?

      April 11, 2014 at 9:26 am |
  2. posttenebrasluxmaranatha

    Of course Jesus had a wife. Just read Revelation 19:7 and 21:9. How foolish to make such a fuss over a biblical fact.

    Also, those ignorantly posting that Jesus does not exist have apparently never done any serious study about the matter. The vast majority of reputable historians and scholars have found substantial evidence of the existence of the historical Jesus.

    Disagree? Well just Google these terms and do some reading for yourself: Evidence For Historical Jesus

    I won't bother arguing with anyone here about it – as it's an established fact.

    April 10, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
    • Angelica

      How about Divine Jesus?
      Oh that's right. You're not going to waste your time.
      Arrogance, condescension, Christian.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
    • skytag

      When people say he didn't exist they are mean the supernatural miracle worker. I don't question that a man named Jesus existed.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
    • bostontola

      "I won't bother arguing with anyone here about it – as it's an established fact."

      That is rich. But many Christians will deny evolution. The amount of objective evidence for evolution dwarfs the objective evidence for the historical Jesus.

      I'm not saying I don't think a man called Jesus was crucified, just that if you regard that as fact, then you must regard evolution as incontrovertible fact.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Bostonola,

        Can you please provide evidence for Darwinian evolution, a change in kinds? An example would be a change from say canine to feline.

        April 10, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          That question betrays a severe lack of understanding regarding the mechanisms of evolution.
          There is no crocoduck.
          Cats don't turn into dogs – though both share a common ancestor.
          You should investigate a few transitional fossils – Tiktaalik is a good starting point, demonstrating how life gradually adapted from aquatic to terrestrial terrain.

          Evolution is fact.
          Even the Catholic church accepts that!
          There is an ever growing mountain of evidence from different branches of science accu.mulated over more than a hundred and fifty years that verify Darwin’s 5 laws.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • snuffleupagus

          tf01. Are you REALLY that ignorant of science? is the 01, in your tag yout hoped for IQ? You have had that answered before, but I'm sure that with that 01 IQ you couldn't understand it.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • bostontola

          truth,
          Objective evidences: fossil records correlated to geological strata, genetic records – including the understanding of what genes create which forms, biological development from fertilized egg to full organism, thermodynamics and chemistry of far from equilibrium systems, the list goes on and on. The evidence from each area inter-relates with the other areas with full correspondence. There are libraries full of details. See the following for speciation in action:
          http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

          More objective evidence at:
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

          Now, Please show me your objective evidence for the historical Jesus.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
        • G to the T

          "a change in kinds?"

          Define "kinds". I've yet to hear a consistent definition that doesn't allow for more "marco" evolution than deniers are usually willing to admit. Ex. Cat and Dog. If "cat" and "dog" are a kind, what about lions? Are they are "kind" or part of the cat kind? Are thylacine dogs or a kind of their own?

          If you can provide a good defintion, I'll do my best to find evidence on your behalf.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • djangoboy

          Why would a dog need to change into a feline? Dogs are quite well adapted to their current environment, as are felines. Evolutionary change doesn't happen before our eyes, it takes vast spans of time, sometimes measured in the millions of years. Your comment is typical of the arguments posted by those opposed to evolution, i.e., nonsensical.

          April 10, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
    • zendraxus

      'eye witness' written decades after his supposed death by people not even born yet at the time of his death
      forgeries of artifacts – the churches verified histories – the fly-by-night nature of modern Christianity. Even its best apologists are as oily as they come relying on word games and made up terms to get by.

      Nothing about Jesus is straight up ....always a dishonest element when dealing with Christianity.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Zen,

        New Testament critic and historian Bart Ehrman indicates that the credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 can be traced to 1 year after the cross. I have included the verses below.

        1 Corinthians 15:-7

        3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

        If you would like more info on this I would suggest watching "The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars – Gary Habermas at UCSB" on YouTube.

        April 10, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • zendraxus

          Truth,

          you are quoting from a book that is amalgamation of scrolls translated and retranslated (Aramaic to Greek to Latin and then to English) by a variety of translators with varying levels of skill on behalf of many different people with different motives and objectives.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • G to the T

          "New Testament critic and historian Bart Ehrman indicates that the credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 can be traced to 1 year after the cross."

          Do you have a citation for that? I've read most of Ehrman's books and don't recall this factoid.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
    • kudlak

      Zero evidence for a historical Christ, however.

      April 10, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
  3. Samuel

    If you look closely, you will see the letters "CNN" in the papyrus. Seriously. See if you can spot it.

    April 10, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
    • Angelica

      Lmao...5th row down. This is proof of the prophecy of...whatever...
      That's how conspiracy theories are born, lol

      April 10, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
    • djangoboy

      But where's Elmo?

      April 10, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
    • kudlak

      You can bet that you'd hear plenty of Christians say it's authentic if it spelled out FOX instead!

      April 10, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
  4. zendraxus

    horse feathers

    April 10, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
  5. ladyatheist

    Ancient fan fiction!

    April 10, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
  6. ugetthefacts

    then again, jesus was a common name. Therefore,, no crucified jesus of christianity. No proof. ZERO

    April 10, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
    • skytag

      "no crucified jesus of christianity. No proof"

      Atheists have been saying this for centuries.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
      • davillelip

        Only the uneducated ones, many atheist biblical scholars realize the evidence and that Jesus of Nazareth existed. These are well studied men, not all atheist have a blind agenda.

        April 10, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • kudlak

          Jesus probably existed, but there's nothing to support the idea that this Christ character ever did.

          April 10, 2014 at 7:57 pm |
    • davillelip

      Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, Flavius, Clement and Polycarp. Evidence is there, you either haven't looked into or choose to ignore it.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Tacitus all lived decades after Christ's death and described Christianity as "supersti/tion".
        Polycarp and Clement were Christian clergymen, also born decades (almost a century) after Christ.

        They do not add any credibility to the supernatural aspects of the Christ story.

        April 10, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • davillelip

          They add to the evidence that he did exist and it does appear that Polycarp knew John and Clement knew Peter and they were Jesus followers. Super natural or not, has to be a matter of faith.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          There are historical docu.ments and archaeological evidence that King Giglamesh was a real person.
          Should one have faith that the Epic of Gilgamesh is historically accurate and he was a superhumanly strong demi-god who took the occasional stroll through the Underworld?

          April 10, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • davillelip

          I am not as well studied on that character and no one is more written about than Jesus of Nazareth, nor as any book as widely read or sold as the Bible, in the history of the world. I say everyone chooses to believe something. If King Giglamesh is your choice of inspiration, I won't begrudge you. I do think the Christian philosophy is a good one. Human rights ratings for countries that have a Christian majority, consistently rank higher than others that don't, several in the top 10, I think 6 out of the top 10 in fact on ratings across the board. Always exceptions but in general.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Epic of Gilgamesh was lost to antiquity for quite some time until stone tablets were unearthed in the 20th century containing the story. The story pre-dates the Bible by quite a bit and even has a flood story so similar to the Noah one that some historians believe the OT tale is based on the Babylonian one.

          he Journal of Religion & Society published a study on religious belief and social well-being, comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand.
          #1 on the list in both atheism and good behaviour is Ja.pan. It is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation. Over eighty percent of the population accept evolution.
          Last on the list is the U.S. It has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Ja.pan.
          Countries with a high percentage of nonbelievers are among the freest, most stable, best-educated, and healthiest nations on earth. When nations are ranked according to a human-development index, which measures such factors as life expectancy, literacy rates, and educational attainment, the five highest-ranked countries - Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands - all have high degrees of nonbelief. Of the fifty countires at the bottom of the index, all are intensly religious. The nations with the highest homicide rates tend to be more religious; those with the greatest levels of gender equality are the least religious.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • davillelip

          Norway and Sweden have a Christian majority and even had state run churches for years. Seems your trying to down play the human rights ratings, doesn't fit your agenda.

          April 10, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And you're ignoring the Journal of Religion & Society and the human development index studies' findings.

          April 10, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
      • djangoboy

        Pliny: "“Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god ..." Only refers to Christians, does not provide any evidence of the actual existence of Jesus.

        Same for Tacitus. He describes the actions of contemporary Christians. Again, no real reference to Jesus.

        Suetonius: mentions that Claudius “banished the Jews from Rome, since they had made a commotion because of Chrestus.” Chrestus was a common name in Rome, especially among slaves – not necessarily a reference to Christ. Also only mentions the actions of the followers of this person, whoever he was.

        Flavius – I assume you mean Flavius Josephus. The Testimonium Flavianum in his Antiquities of the Jews does in fact mention Jesus and makes several statements about him consistent with Christian beliefs. Most scholars consider much of this passage to be later Christian interpolation.

        Polycarp is hardly an external source of information about the historic Jesus, being a father of the early church. Think he might have had a religious agenda? Same for Clement, a Pope and hardly an impartial party.

        April 10, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          what lousy logic...if they were singing hymsn..as called Christians..then of course it is of Jesus...ita a given..a no brainer

          April 11, 2014 at 1:55 am |
        • jwsbmwm3

          at kermit. Of course it was some guy

          April 11, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
      • djangoboy

        Quite possibly true. Doesn't mean he was Son of God, performed miracles, or was raised from the dead after his crucifixion.

        April 10, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
      • kudlak

        Nobody seriously doubts that Davy Crockett existed, but did he really "kilt him a b'ar when he was only three"?

        April 10, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
      • jwsbmwm3

        you can quote me on some crazy stuff. Does that make it true? No. Who is this azzwhole? I dont know and I dont care what he asserts without evidence. His credentials mean nothing.

        April 11, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
  7. Jeebusss

    So it dates from around the 6th to 9th centuries. I'm not sure what exactly this would prove to anyone? It really would just mean that 600-900 years(think about how long that is) after Jesus supposedly existed someone made up another story about the guy and wrote it down.

    Also, the guy would have to exist in the first place to have had a wife.

    April 10, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
    • kudlak

      Maybe it proves that Dan Brown's ancestry, pro at least his style, goes back really far?

      April 10, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
    • willthefree

      It really just proves that it is actually a piece of antiquity, and that someone didn't just make it 5 years ago to stir the pot.

      A lot of the "proof" for the bible and other historic texts is that they've been around for so long. So what makes them correct and this piece of parchment incorrect?

      April 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
  8. ausphor

    People make up stories and write them down. Stephen King
    People make up stories and write them down. Saul of Tarsus
    People make up stories and write them down. Athanasius of Alexandria

    April 10, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
    • davillelip

      People make silly comparisons as well.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • ausphor

        So you cannot determine fiction from non-fiction, not my problem.

        April 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • davillelip

          No more than you can I am sure, your statement was just so simple minded perhaps because you are. I doubt you would look beyond anything I would tell you anyway.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
  9. john316luke923

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldvim1yjYM&feature=player_detailpage

    April 10, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
  10. ifhorseshadgods

    So some believers hail this carbon dated papyrus fragment as proof of Jesus ... but claim carbon dating is not legit when referring to the shroud of Turin.

    April 10, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
    • joey3467

      My favorite are the one's who claim that Catholics aren't Christians right up until they want to list some Christian scientists and then all of a sudden Catholics are Christian.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
      • ugetthefacts

        no such thing as a chistian scientist

        April 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • willthefree

          I disagree, but only in that you can be a christian (your faith) and a scientist (your profession), but you can't have "christian scientist" as a profession. I say this because I know a few guys who actually are christian (to some extent), yet are scientists in their jobs. Not a stretch for them, because pharma research really doesn't conflict with their religion as other areas of focus might...

          April 10, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • felixgiordano

          That's because the Catholic Church has a historical record of persecuting them and a current strategy of denying them.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • kudlak

          felixgiordano
          Plenty of modern-day protestant creationists would persecute science teachers daring to teach evolution, would vote against funding research on stem cells, and fight any other science that they feel threatens their traditional views just as the RCC did.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Tell that to Mary Baker Eddy

          April 10, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
      • Vic

        Anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is a Christian, regardless of dogma.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • joey3467

          Vic, that is my take also, but not everyone would agree.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • kudlak

          Even if he leads a genocide in Africa, kills a doctor, ra-pes dozens of little boys between masses, or beats a gay kid to death?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • Rynomite

          What if they don't believe he was divine, but follow his philosophy (see Unitarians such as John Adams)?

          April 10, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • tsuras110

          Kulak- Yes, even if a person does horrible things he can still be a Christian. There is a huge difference between *being* a Christian (believing in Jesus Christ and his teachings) and the common phrase *acting like* a Christian, which is generally taken to mean that a person is following the teachings of Christ.

          Rynomite- the definition of a Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ as divine AND believes in his teachings.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Rynomite

          Actually "Christian" just means "Christ follower". Nothing in that definition that requires divinity.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
    • edblarney

      A) There is ample evidence of 'proof' that a man named Jesus existed.

      Jesus is likely a real person. There is far more evidence for him that Moses, who is probably a myth.

      B) That there was a 'historical' Jesus (i.e. a man) doesn't necessarily imply everything in the Bible is correct.

      C) Christianity is not about 'believing some guy performed magic miracles' – thus the historical validity of the Bible is not that important. His message is the key.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
      • willthefree

        There is no ample evidence than a man named Jesus existed.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • posttenebrasluxmaranatha

          In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

          Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

          Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

          April 10, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • toughcool

          Wrong. There are Roman rulers writing...as close as a few years after Jesus death..that they were worried about religious factions sprouting up after Christ. Just do any research and you'll know that a majority of scholars agree he was a historical figure.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • skytag

          A man, yes. Miracle worker who rose from the dead, no.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
      • kudlak

        That a guy named Jesus was out preaching at that time is not an extraordinary claim, but stating that he was the son of himself as a god capable of raising the dead is an extraordinary claim, and we all know what Carl Sagan said about those.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • posttenebrasluxmaranatha

          In 1972, I attended a nuclear science symposium at the University of Texas with my high school Chemistry teacher. Carl Sagan was one of the speakers there. He said, 'by the 21st century the world will run out of oil'.

          Well, he certainly was wrong about that, wasn't he?

          And to make matters even clearer – Carl Sagan is dead. Jesus Christ is alive!

          Maranatha.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • skytag

          @posttenebrasluxmaranatha: "And to make matters even clearer – Carl Sagan is dead. Jesus Christ is alive!"

          Both are dead. You just can't accept the truth.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          We await the 2nd Coming of Carl when he will battle Ken Ham, the Anti-Sagan.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
    • ddeevviinn

      I for one hold it as meaningless.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
    • Vic

      As a matter of fact, the carbon-dating issues crossed my mind right off the bat, but I didn't want to change the topic since that's a whole other different problem.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • ugetthefacts

        just as the bible,, all man's stories afterwards. That's why the creation thing in the bible is no more than primitive man's guess of how the universe came into being.

        Today we know the earth is far from the center of the universe, not even at the center of of its own galaxy. The bible didn't have that data or even data of other galaxies because they just didn't know any better. They even thought the sky was water.

        April 10, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
  11. radar8

    Ironic. The religious call it a "forgery" and a "fake" , yet they have more proof that this is real than they do that the bibles are real.

    Religion, just like any myth, cannot hold up to investigation.

    April 10, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
    • kudlak

      When you start with an assumed conclusion, it closes the mind to evidence to the contrary.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
    • edblarney

      Religion and myths are separate issues.

      To talk about religion with respect to 'standing up to investigation' is to completely and utterly fail to understand what religion is.

      I can only fathom that you're basically uneducated.

      A religion is the embodiment of a Spiritual theology: a doctrine, a set of practices and rituals enabling one to achieve Spiritual progress.

      I should at that 'scientific materialism' is in fact a form of crude religion – we base our view of the Universe on 'myths' like the 'theory of gravitation' – almost all of which turn out to be not true. Einstein showed that Newton's theory was wrong. Our current view is that Einstein only about 4% correct, leading us to the 'belief' in Dark Matter and Dark Energy – for which we have no proof, we just want them to exist because they would fit our current model. It's likely that the model is wrong.

      Scientific 'first principles' are movable and shaky.

      An attempt to understand the nature of the Universe cannot be addressed by Scientific materialism alone. For this, one requires metaphysics, and there you find issues of religion.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • joey3467

        There actually is proof of dark matter in the sense that we know something is there we just don't know what it is so we call it dark matter.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
      • archtopopotamus

        You are ignoring the fact that science moves forward refining and discovering new knowledge. Newton and Einstein were not wrong. Their theories are have predictive value and are significantly correct to the point that we've sent men to the moon using them. Quantum physics is evolving but we know enough to build computer systems that allow you to post here.

        In contrast, religion is predicated on the existence of gods for which no evidence exists. In fact the history of gods and human psychology strongly suggests that gods are created by man. There is virtually no reliable evidence of Jesus outside of the bible (written long after his time an with an obvious bias). The OT and some of the NT contains some of the most immoral (by our evolved standards) and vile stuff imaginable, and is so inconsistent to be virtually worthless on any subject.

        April 10, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • Vic

          I beg to differ.

          There is always confusion about current technology. Quantum Computers have not been achieved yet, they are as theoretical as Quantum Physics/Mechanics itself. Current computer technologies are semi-conductor based which follow the Laws of Physics, that is Classical Physics, to simply put it.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • posttenebrasluxmaranatha

          I suggest you undertake a serious and rigorous study of the abundant evidence for the truth of Jesus Christ and His claims – even to His resurrection from the dead.

          Jesus even offers a reproducible experiment for folks who only believe in the scientific method as their means of discerning truth from error. He said – "Let any man do the will of my Father in Heaven, and that man will find out whether my teaching is true or not." (paraphrased). He also said that the will of God was to "believe in the One He sent" – namely Jesus.

          So, the test is this: Repent from your self-centered trust in yourself as your own god, and turn instead to Jesus. Believe upon the Lord Jesus, in faith and trust and sincerity of heart – and you will find that He truly is real, and that what the Bible's eyewitnesses have recorded for us is absolutely true.

          This 'experiment' or test has been followed by millions of people throughout the ages (as I have myself, 17 years ago when I was a 41-year old agnostic) – and, if followed faithfully, will result in all of the proof you need. Proof enough to trust your very life (and your eternal soul) upon it.

          But, you can either take my word, and the word of thousands upon thousands of believers for it – or you can continue to make pitiful boasts to the contrary in the darkness.

          The choice is yours. I pray you choose Life instead of death.

          Maranatha.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • Vic

          Empirical Science itself presupposes Metaphysics but not many know that.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • skytag

          @posttenebrasluxmaranatha: "I suggest you undertake a serious and rigorous study of the abundant evidence for the truth of Jesus Christ and His claims"

          I suggest you accept reality. Their is no evidence for this. There is nothing but ancient claims made by men dead nearly 2000 years.

          "But, you can either take my word, and the word of thousands upon thousands of believers for it"

          Now this is evidence, evidence that religion makes people stupid. Every religion has its believers. They all believe their understanding of God or gods is right and want people to take their word for it, and it has been this way throughout all of recorded history. Norse gods, Egyptian gods, native American Indian gods, Greek gods, and countless monotheistic gods

          Arrogance is what has you believing that despite any objective evidence to support your beliefs you are right and everyone else is wrong.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • snuffleupagus

          Postten if that is correct, please do the reserection bit. I'm waitng. When you come back from the dead we will all sing your praises. I doubt your 'belief" is strong enough to test any of what you say.

          April 10, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
  12. Woody

    I can imagine how Jesus’ Jewish future mother in law reacted when her daughter told her about Jesus. “You’re gonna marry WHO???? Let me get this straight, my beautiful daughter is about to marry a worthless, unemployed drifter, who thinks he’s GOD??? You couldn’t marry a doctor? What are the girls in the bridge club going to say? I’ll be the laughing stock of the neighborhood. Your poor father’s gonna have a heart attack when he hears this. I hope you’re proud of yourself, your going to kill your father. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah………….”

    April 10, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
    • loltoyounonbelievergotohell

      Woody, your name says it all. Your such a Di(k. Woody, LOL

      April 10, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
      • snuffleupagus

        Been to "hell," survived. The hell you live in is in your head, and I'll bet it's torturing you hearing those voices, eh?

        April 10, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
  13. revrickm

    So this fragment is not a fake. To the best of science's ability it has proven that this docu_ment is at least very old. However that doesn't mean it's true. But wait! What is the source of the docu_ment? Who wrote it? Can they be trusted? Well, the same questions can be raised for every other docu_ment that is claimed as Biblical "scripture". It is old, but who wrote it? By example, we have little to no idea who wrote the four New Testament Gospels. They are traditionally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but in truth we have no idea who wrote them. The same can be said of the New Testament scripture attributed to the apostle Paul. Most scholars agree that fully half of New Testament letters attributed to Paul were most likely not actually written by Paul, but by someone claiming to be Paul. Most theological seminaries even teach that this is a fact. But you won't hear preachers telling us this from the pulpit. It only confuses the faithful. Besides, it might dry up the collection plates.

    April 10, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • ifhorseshadgods

      If they wanted to examine historical facts or search for the truth behind the bible, they wouldn't be sitting in church pews.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
    • colin31714

      That is correct. The one thing we do know about the four gospels is that they were not written by eye witnesses. They were written 40-60 years after Jesus' execution by highly educated Greek speaking scholars. certainly 3 and up to 6 of the Pauline epistles are fakes, as are both Petrine epistles.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
      • maanirantel

        Actually...most of the Pauline epistles are actually Paul's. As well, we know that at least two were written by Timothy, and probably two by T.itus. And, of course, some of the Pauline epistles pre-date the Gospels.

        As for the Gospels, you are also incorrect. Matthew and John were definitely eyewitnesses, while Luke and Mark were probably simple "followers" (i.e., not in the "inner circle). Yes, the Gospels were written between 30 and 60 years after Jesus' crucifixion. But keep in mind that the apostles and disciples were very young men at the time, so they would all likely have lived that 30 or more years afterward.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • G to the T

          Enough time to learn to read/write Greek and learn Greek rhetorical devices?

          It's not a simple matter of translation, there are elements of the gospels (esp the later ones) that simply would not have made any sense unless they were composed in Greek.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • revrickm

          Actually less than half were written by Paul. If you have evidence to support otherwise please contact all major theological seminaries and provide said evidence because they are not privy to yours. Gospels and other "scripture" were written based on the oral tradition of what Jesus said and did. No eye witnesses. None. And as another pointed out, the copies of copies of copies of the scripture we do have was written in highly educated forms of Greek. Not in the native language of Jesus, nor the native language of his disciples.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • joey3467

        The majority of scholars don't think any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
      • believerfred

        How could anyone of honest character possibly "KNOW" which authors were or were not eye witnesses?

        April 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • joey3467

          You will have to ask the Christians that one as they claim to know that the gospels were written by eye witnesses. Personally I see zero reason to think anything in the New Testament was written by someone who met Jesus. However, if you can prove they did without using the bible to make your case then that might change my opinion.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • believerfred

          Joey
          How about the Apostle Johns student who personally studied under John? I understand his testimony is discounted by doubters because his opinion would be biased given his loyalty to his teacher and yes the fact both are Christian. By that standard all Christian testimony is trashed and only non believer accounts are valid

          April 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • davillelip

          Polycarps writings do carry some weight, he did quote passages in the Bible and was an under study of John by all accounts we have from that time. LOT of biblical scholars believe came to believe because of Polycarp.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
    • felixgiordano

      And then there are the books extracted from the Bible because the Church felt they didn't agree with their view of dogma, i.e., Mary Magdalene's book.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
  14. ckaruhn1705

    Why are people so freaked out if Jesus had a wife? How is that a bad thing? The man was 33 when he was crucified. In that day, it would have been strange for a man his age to not be married. Sheesh!

    April 10, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
    • kevinite

      I believe you have a point there. I also find it odd for those who refer to where the fragment states about Jesus's wife to mean his church in this instance because it references to his wife will become his disciple where if there was already a church, how will his wife (church) become his disciple when his church would already be comprised of his disciples?

      April 10, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
      • Akira

        I wondered the same thing.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
    • maanirantel

      Not if He was an Essene (which is likely); although some Essenes did in fact marry, many did not. It would not have been odd at all.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
    • Vic

      Oh, you are forgetting that the first followers of Jesus Christ including His Disciples knew that He is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. There was no wonder amongst His followers about His Divine Nature and Status, especially with the miracles He performed and word He preached.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
      • ckaruhn1705

        Your point?

        April 10, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • djangoboy

        Only he wasn't the Messiah, he was just a very naughty boy.

        Sorry, couldn't resist the Monty Python quote.

        Jesus definitely was NOT the Messiah predicted by the Hebrew Scriptures (aka Old Testament). The Messiah was supposed to be a future king who would rule God's people in God's kingdom on Earth. There was nothing in the tradition about him being a Son of God. And he was definitely NOT supposed to die an ignominious death.

        April 10, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
    • tsuras110

      Agreed! Being born without sin and being celibate, in my mind, are 2 different things. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?

      April 10, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
  15. qsmurf

    Wow, fascinating....pfffft!

    April 10, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
  16. budshot

    Ever hear of the Gnostic Gospels? Or the reams of other parts of the Bible that used to be there until scores of political leaders changed/cut/added to it like mad?

    Myths have always had tons of versions.

    April 10, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      Have you read Dr. Donnel Johnson's research? He is an expert and I am familiar with his work if you have any question about the missing gospels.

      April 10, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
  17. ifhorseshadgods

    Who cares if Jesus was married ... the real question is was this god character married to Mary or did he just impregnate someone else's wife?

    April 10, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
    • observer

      The Bible says "wife", but it apparently was saying that he only impregnated an engaged girl.

      April 10, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
  18. ecsinger

    For the record, the name 'Jesus' was a common one in those times. Let's not jump to conclusions folks. No one has proven anything. Every bit of information given here is speculation.

    April 10, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
    • coyotesayswhat

      In those days and in that place, for a man to be his age and not be married was not only unusual it was looked on as an affront to religion. It would be very odd were he not married. And I find all the comments against the thought of his being married as an affront to women everywhere. Any belief system that deifies a male and thinks less of him for associating with females is moronic at best.

      April 10, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
      • maanirantel

        With respect, you are not correct. Jesus was probably an Essene. And although some Essenes did marry, many did not, and it would not have been odd for Jesus not to have married.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • Akira

          So Jesus was a member of the sect that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
    • lewcypher

      Funny though how Christians jump all over the writings of Tacitus and Josephus to substantiate the existance of their specific Jesus man.

      April 10, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
  19. thefinisher1

    Atheists can't present any shred of evidence they are 100% correct and stand no chance of being wrong but...get mad when others state they are right. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in today's atheism?

    April 10, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
    • doobzz

      Christians can't present any shred of evidence they are 100% correct and stand no chance of being wrong but...get mad when others state they are right. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in today's Christianity?

      April 10, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        I see the truth is evil to you. I'm here to help. The truth will set you free!

        April 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
        • doobzz

          I see that evidence is evil to you. I'm here to help. Evidence will set you free!

          April 10, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • skytag

          The truth terrifies you. That's why you've chosen to believe a lot of comforting fairytales for which there is no supporting evidence whatsoever. You troll around professing your faith constantly to convince yourself more than others. It's sad, really.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
    • mmgrant73

      And believers can not provide evidence themselves so what is your point. If anyone here is sounding mad it is you

      April 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        That atheists are like everyone else even if your denial is strong and you won't admit it. I'm here to help.

        April 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • Doris

          That theists are like everyone else even if your denial is strong and you won't admit it. I'm here to help.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • end3r

          So you're basically proclaiming yourself as an agnostic and making the point that it's impossible for anyone to know? If that's true, I don't really see anything wrong with that. Generally speaking there is an entire sect of atheists (I fit in this camp) known as "Agnostic Atheists" that generally believe a god-figure probably doesn't exist but we're quite aware we have no more/less evidence than anyone else does. To be very open minded it's just as likely that we're all part of a simulation, or that any other religion's interpretation of the cosmos is correct. We just really have no idea, but we look at the evidence and we choose our sides, and in my view that's the best we can do at least for now.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Everybody has faith. Atheists are the only overgrown children who won't admit it(due to your ego being extremely high)

          April 10, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • skytag

          You sound pathetic. If there is a god and he loves you, why are you so pathetic, trolling the Internet trying to convince yourself you're superior to atheists?

          April 10, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      Will we feed this troll again today? Yeah what the hell.

      April 10, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
    • observer

      thefinisher1

      The hypocrisy in today's atheism doesn't compare to the HYPOCRISY of Christians telling others that they will go to hell for not believing all of a book that they themselves don't believe all of.

      April 10, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        There's many reasons why people *choose* hell as their destination. Rejecting God (where else would you go? Heaven? The place that God dwells but you rejected him on earth?). The other half you completely dismiss because it conflicts with your atheism. Let's see if you are smart enough to know what I'm talking. There's one word atheists never use, no matter how "educated" you think you are on the bible. Every atheist seems to ignore this one word.

        April 10, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • joey3467

          If going to heaven means spending eternity with people like you I will gladly take hell.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • observer

          thefinisher1,

          Good response if your goal was to try to avoid the topic of HYPOCRISY. Oooops.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          If you avoid your own bias and look at the bible without it, you'll see what you missed. Even atheists ignore parts of the bible that conflicts with your atheism...so....I see more hypocrisy on both sides.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • observer

          "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
          - Isaac Asimov

          April 10, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • speediejoe

          I've never "rejected" God, I don't think he exists. If I, for some reason, am mistaken, why doesn't he just some me where my error is, instead of acting like a four year child giving an ultimatum?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Let me ask you a question: When humans force their belief onto you, what is your general response? It's wrong and you want laws that prevent them from doing it, correct? When it comes to God, your seriously ok with him forcefully coming into your life uninvited, and forcing you to believe? Humans do it it's wrong, God doesn't your perfectly fine with it? Yeah, that makes total sense. Does that make sense if your head?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • skytag

          What a clueless, obnoxious dimwit. I'm starting to think you're just a jerk atheist trying to make Christians look bad.

          Unlike you and your religious beliefs, I have no vested interested in clinging to atheism. I've devoted no time to it, invested no money in it, made no life choices based on it. As a Christian I did all those things. When you live that life it causes you to be vested in your beliefs, they become a part of your identity and people are reluctant to give that up, even when the evidence is contrary to what they believe. Basically, the Christian's position is, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

          April 10, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
    • qsmurf

      Believers arrogantly proselytize to others and remind everyone how "sinful" they are and why they should believe what they're told or else; while also pretending they are kind, loving and caring because they're simply trying to "save" the eternal souls of everybody who doesn't believe as they do.

      Does anybody else see the blatant self-righteousness in today's believer?

      April 10, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
      • skytag

        It's arrogance, pure and simple. They have no objective evidence to support anything they believe, but they act like they possess some knowledge only available to superior beings, which would be them.

        April 10, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
    • end3r

      What does this have to do with Jesus having a wife?

      April 10, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
    • speediejoe

      That's funny. Virtually every atheist I know of is totally open to the idea they could be wrong. We often do, however, react negatively to people who claim to know for certain things they can't actually know. But, we, at least for the most part, are totally open to being wrong. Just bring some evidence.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        I reject your atheism due to it not having any evidence to hold its ground. Your point?

        April 10, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • skytag

          I have no evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Do you reject that belief as well and leave milk and cookies out for him on Christmas Eve?

          April 10, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • speediejoe

          You said, "I reject your atheism due to it not having any evidence to hold its ground" Uh, that's like saying you reject a-astrology-ism due to not having any evidence to hold its ground. It is not up to the atheists to prove there is no god, it is not up to a-astrologists to prove astrology is false. It is up to astrologists to prove astrology is true. It is up to theists to prove that God is real.

          April 12, 2014 at 2:46 am |
    • kinjirurm

      I think you fail to understand what atheism is. Atheism has no stances or beliefs except a rejection of claims of a supernatural deity or divine creator. We do not claim to know things we have no evidence for, we simply reject the claims others have put forward based on ancient texts or other "divine" knowledge.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        And I reject you non-belief has it offers no proof and only offers faith. Grow up.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • joey3467

          What kind of proof are you expecting exactly? Expecting proof of the fact that I don't believe in god seems fairly stupid to me.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • skytag

          You're being childish. Not only is your behavior un-Christian, it is the behavior of someone desperate to avoid dealing with reality. I believe there is no god for the same reason I believe there is no Santa Claus, no leprechauns, no unicorns and no vampires: There simply is no objective reason to believe in any of them.

          If you believe in anything simply because there is no evidence it doesn't exist you are dumb as a box of rocks.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
    • archtopopotamus

      The burden of proof is with you. And you have none.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
    • skytag

      Another Christian dimwit. I'm an atheist and I don't get mad when Christians make their wholly unsupportable claims, I just think they're arrogant. So much certainty based on no objective evidence, so much rationalization to come to grips with a world that doesn't match what they claim to believe, and bucket loads of hypocrisy.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
    • djangoboy

      Most atheists don't claim to be 100% right. They simply state that they have not seen any convincing evidence of the existence of God (or any god, for that matter). Don't confuse Internet trolls with actual atheists.

      April 10, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
  20. ricardowilli

    Can we really know for sure if this finding is real or not? Is there enough evidence to prove anything conclusive? Do we really have to waste our time trying to determine what is real or not? None of these findings will stop me from reading my bible or believing in Christ. The benefits I get from my beliefs are far greater than the benefits I get without them.

    April 10, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      That is good because Dr. Johnson has presented proof that Jesus was gay. That will not interrupt your worship though because you believe in Jesus no matter what. Good for you!

      April 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      Placebos provide benefits too. Whether your beliefs provide benefits or not has no bearing on whether or not they are true.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
    • end3r

      I mean there's really no way to prove any of the gospels in the bible are genuine, or how much of the bible has been removed over time for bureaucratic reasons. I think you just have to make the judgement for yourself on what is real and what isn't. It seems nothing is straight forward in this world.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
    • archtopopotamus

      This scrap of parchment is equally reliable as the bible.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
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.