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. bostontola

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_CgPsGY5Mw

    I'm sure most have seen this cute ad. The girl knows things because she read it on the Internet. The other person asks why she thinks everything on the Internet is true, she says because it says so on the Internet.

    Everyone immediately sees the silly circular argument and doesn't believe any real person would be that gullible.

    Not one Christian would fail to see the circular fallacy in this ad. Yet the argument; God is true because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God says so passes muster immediately to them.

    Humans are mind boggling.

    April 11, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
  2. truthfollower01

    Sungrazer and Doris,

    On atheism, humans are merely accidents with no real worth or value, due to die in the near future with no hope for an afterlife. Humans can invent worth and value and assign them to their lives. Humans can invent morality but it's merely an illusion on atheism.
    Think about this. On a subjective view of morality, a man can choose to decide that murder is morally evil and can base that opinion on external references such as the golden rule or he can decide that murder is morally good and base this opinion on other external references, such as for personal power. As sick as this is, each choice is equal with regards to morality on atheism.

    The Doris version:

    Think about this. On a subjective view of morality, a man can choose to decide that murder is subjectively morally evil and can base that opinion on external references such as the golden rule or he can decide that murder is subjectively morally good and base this opinion on other external references, such as for personal power. As sick as this is, each choice is equal with regards to subjective morality on atheism.

    April 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
    • joey3467

      Give it up already.

      April 11, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
    • joey3467

      Also, the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is 42

      April 11, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      I love it when these Christian mental gnats reveal themselves in all their moronic self-righteous splendor. That was "gnats" not "giants" btw...

      April 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Self righteous in what way?

        April 11, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • ausphor

          tf01
          On Christianity did Pope urban II, the crusades, or Pope Gregory IX, the Inquisition, have subjective morality or is that only reserved for other tyrants. BTW Hitler never did claim he was an atheist, far from it he was baptised and sang in a church choir, tyrants can be very religious. Read his speeches where he calls on the Christian God.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • joey3467

          He doesn't even know what he is talking about. He argues for absolute morals from god which would make genocide o.k. since god commanded it several times in the old testament, but he doesn't seem to realize that if morals are absolute then something is always wrong or always right. So in the case of genocide according to him Hitler would have to be considered to be acting morally if god was considered to be acting morally, or morals aren't absolute. I think that in the end is is arguing that might makes right which isn't the least bit moral.

          April 11, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Joey,

          You are making an incorrect assumption concerning objective morality. I never said that the act of genocide is always objectively morally evil or good. What we have to look at is whether or not the specific act itself (such as the Holocaust) is objectively morally evil or good. The Holocaust was objectively morally evil. Concerning something like Noah's Flood, God carrying judgement on the guilty could be nothing but morally good.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Ausphor,

          Everything done in the name of Christianity doesn't mean that it corresponds with the teaching of Christianity. Also, if you want to know what Hitler truly thought of Christianity, there's a great short movie called "180" that you can view on YouTube.

          April 11, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
  3. Salero21

    As far as this little-bitty, teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy minute fragment of a papyrus. The 4th paragraph says is from around 659-859 CE-AD. So then...being so... has no Scriptural-Biblical Value. Is nothing nada, nil, zero zilch.

    NO, NO Jesus did not marry. Jesus IS, WAS, WILL be the Son of God. HE came to earth from Heaven, like one of us, but HE IS NOT one of us. HE was from BEFORE Creation and WILL BE After this present Creation is wrap-up, throw-away and Burned-up

    Then GOD the Creator in the beginning will Establish a NEW HEAVEN and a New earth

    HE has the Power to Create do away with the previous Creation and Create anew!!

    April 11, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
    • Salero21

      If it's Gods Will I'll be back tomorrow.

      April 11, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
  4. moiraesfate

    lol. Scientists... don't you mean religious people playing at being scientists and desperately trying to prove their religion correct?

    April 11, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
    • joey3467

      I assume you are talking about folks who work for places like the Creation Museum?

      April 11, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
      • frankbeattys

        "Science does not know how life started on earth" –Neil deGrasse Tyson

        April 11, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • moiraesfate

          The greatest enemy of religion is knowledge and logic. I'd rather believe knowledge and logic than the imaginary man living in the sky who created all sees all and knows all but can't be bothered to lift a finger to stop a child from suffering and dying in Africa while you people call this being "loving and wonderful" who was ultimately created by bronze age sheepherders who thought the earth was flat.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Salero21

          Yup, they have to use their imaginations for their concocted stories about the elements, particles or nature to create itself or to call itself into existence. In that they [atheists] are like Idolaters.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • hotairace

          Neither does any religion. Religious cults just pretend to know things they do not. Real scientists are honest – religious cults just spew bullsh!t.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "The hardest part about gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. As long as that niche is occupied, evidence and proof and logical demonstration get nowhere. But once the niche is emptied of the wrong idea that has been filling it — once you can honestly say, "I don't know", then it becomes possible to get at the truth."

          – Robert Heinlein

          Filling in gaps in understanding and knowledge with the catch all "GODDIDIT" answer is no good.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          moiraesfate, First, God has more Knowledge and logic than you have or will ever have. But Knowledge and logic are not enough. What good are knowledge and logic if you are in hell?

          April 11, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • joey3467

          If you are in heaven I would much prefer hell.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Frank...shouldn't you be on a ledge somewhere? What exactly is wrong with saying "I don't know" when asked why we are here and how we came to be? I think it is infinitesimally better than proclaiming that you know everything based on a 2000 year old manuscript that has been translated any number of times. And to think that you are cognitively better at reasoning than anybody else is the height of pompousness. With no proof of anything, it is a much more intelligent man that professes "I don't know" than one that proclaims they know exactly why.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • zendraxus

          Frank,

          more logic and knowledge? did you and I read the same bible? is that really what you are getting from the God depicted within?

          If a supernatural creator did exist – he would eclipse the brightest human minds in every science we have....humanity would have launched from a position far in advance of where we are today if we hadn't had to fight against the likes of the current belief systems....the bible is bronze age ignorance. the followers of the desert god short change their deity badly.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • Vic

          Yes, God is infinite in knowledge, wisdom, power, etc.

          As Christians, this is how we view the matter of Belief/Faith and Empirical Science regarding this existence:

          Belief/Faith in God explains the "Origin" of the universe and life in it, hence God's Creation.

          Empirical Science explains how God's Creation physically works, hence God's "Natural Revelation."

          April 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          gulliblenomore, What is wrong with saying I don' know? Nothing as long as you don't know; otherwise you are lying.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
    • frankbeattys

      "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."– Isaac Newton

      “Though death brings the thought of judgment, it also brings to the Christian thought of Him [Jesus Christ] who died, rose again for the justification of those who believe in Him.” –Michael Faraday

      "The Gospel comprises indeed, and unfolds, the whole mystey of man's redemption, as far forth as it is necessary to be known for our salvation."– Robert Boyle (founder of Modern Chemistry)

      “God existed before there were human beings on Earth" - Max Planck (Founder of Quantum Physics)

      “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Into his tiniest creatures, God has placed extraordinary properties ...” - Louis Pasteur (Germ Theory, Pasteurization)

      Nicolaus Copernicus
      1473-1543 Astronomer-Mathematician Catholic Cleric . Mathematically proved the heliocentric theory of the solar system said: "The Universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator"

      Johannes Kepler:
      1571-1630 German Astronomer
      (planetary orbits, optics, mathematical language of science)
      The 3 laws of planetary motion. Advanced Copernicus' heliocentric theory.
      "I believe only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ. In him is all refuge and solace."

      April 11, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
      • hotairace

        Any modern day examples? Most/all do those above risked death if they did not claim to be believers. 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are not believers and other scientists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson openly question why 15% still believe childish myths.

        April 11, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • moiraesfate

          Bingo.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          "I became an atheist because, as a graduate student studying quantum physics, life seemed to be reducible to second-order differential equations. Mathematics, chemistry and physics had it all. And I didn't see any need to go beyond that."
          Francis Collins

          30 years later:

          "As a Christian, but also as a scientist responsible for overseeing the Human Genome Project, one of my concerns has been the limits on applications of our understanding of the genome. Should there be limits? I think there should. I think the public has expressed their concern about ways this information might be misused.'Francis Collins

          April 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Joe

          Who is Neil deGrasse?

          April 11, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • hotairace

          That's one ... Possibly the only credible example and the one anyone could have predicted you would drag out.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • hotairace

          Neil deGrasse Tyson (born October 5, 1958) is an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator. He is currently the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • Joe

          Hotair, no need of examples. Just stop being intellect of all things.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/

          April 11, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          76% of Medical Doctors polled said they believe in God. MDs are the best of the best.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • doobzz

          "MDs are the best of the best."

          You forgot to add "in my opinion".

          April 11, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • hotairace

          How good is the MD that finished last in their class? No MD has ever been wrong, right? No MD has ever committed a crime, right? No MD has ever had their license to practice removed, right? If you can believe the crap of The Babble, you can believe anything.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          76% is lower than the whole population, so Doctors are more likely not to believe in God than the average person.

          There are differences in belief in scientific discipline. Astronomists and physicists have the lowest amount of belief in scientists.

          Public .... Scientists
          83 ........... 33 ............... Believe in God
          12 ........... 18 ............... Don't believe in God, but do believe in a universal spirit or higher power
          04 ........... 41 ............... Don't believe in either
          01 ........... 07 ............... Don't know / refused

          Scientists are 10x more likely not to believe in God than the average person. Note that these numbers are even higher for the National Academy of Sciences.

          http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

          April 11, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          hotairace,

          Neil deGrasse Tyson has said he is agnostic. He said he does not like labels but if you have to put a label on me then I am agnostic.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • hotairace

          frank, your comments about gods and jesus strongly suggest you don't have a clue what "agnostic" means.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Until recently, Clergy were among the very few literate castes in society.
        The profession of shaman is usually free of real work, in the sweaty, dreary, laborious sense.
        Most researchers, scientists and the like were therefore very likely to be affiliated with the Church.

        In the case of the overwhelming majority of 21st century scientists, their worldview is different from traditional theology in that no gods exist for them, there is no such thing as the incorporeal spirit or soul, there is no life after death — all of the things that are held most passionately by traditional theology, all of them have to be abandoned. And if that condition is met, then religion is perfectly harmonious with the tenets of science. The only way to find compatibility in such a worldview is by accepting a religion with no authority on the most meaningful matters of human existence.

        April 11, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
      • frankbeattys

        doobzz wrote: ""MDs are the best of the best." You forgot to add "in my opinion"."

        No I didn't. To get into medical school requires excellent grades and then only about 10% to 30% of those excellent students actually make it. 0.25% of all People in the US are doctors.

        April 11, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
    • Vic

      Christians founded the branches of Modern Science and the Modern Scientific Method, and continue to pioneer in and contribute to it.

      April 11, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Actually Vic the Muslims were the first "modern" scientists. They gave us the math and astronomy.

        I wouldn't argue though that it all goes back to the Greeks.

        April 11, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • Joe

          Well it again goes back to OT and King David , who said world as circuit.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • Vic

          Well, I cannot discuss this in details for it requires research.

          The bottom line is that the branches of Modern Science as well as the Modern Scientific Method have known Christian Founders.

          Here are some but not limited to research resources:

          http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
          http://www.rae.org/pdf/jaki.pdf

          Found on http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

          April 11, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          @Vic,

          did you even look at your so called "evidence"?

          Your first evidence starts with:
          Louis Aggasiz (1807 – 1873)
          Chales Babbage (1791 – 1871)

          If the author's premise is that "modern science" starts in the 19th century, he's being ridiculous. In the same list he includes Newton (1642 – 1727) and Linnaeus (1707 – 1778) so it's all over the map and very poorly done.

          The Muslims gave us zero, and algebra (Al-Jebr) which dates to the 11th century before the decline of Muslim science in the face of fundamentalism.

          From wikipedia:
          It is believed that it was the empirical att.itude of the Qur'an and Sunnah which inspired medieval Muslim scientists, in particular Alhazen (965-1037), to develop the scientific method. It is also known that certain advances made by medieval Muslim astronomers, geographers and mathematicians were motivated by problems presented in Islamic scripture, such as Al-Khwarizmi's (c. 780-850) development of algebra in order to solve the Islamic inheritance laws, and developments in astronomy, geography, spherical geometry and spherical trigonometry in order to determine the direction of the Qibla, the times of Salah prayers, and the dates of the Islamic calendar.

          Don't be blinded by our Western, Euro-centric prejudices.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • Vic

          What evidence?!

          Those are research resources found on the webpage I indicated which starts with pointing out what the opposition seems to think.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • Vic

          Oh, I just saw the rest of your post, and I have no clue what you are talking about.

          I am not doing a research at the moment regarding this, and I am suggesting that we all do at some point.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • Vic

          Oh, one last thing, off the top of my head, Christian Francis Bacon founded the Modern Scientific Method.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          As worthy as Francis Bacon's (1561 – 1626) contributions were, he falls well after the Muslim scientist Alhazen (965-1037).

          Wikipedia:
          He (Ibn al-Haytham) has been described as the father of modern optics, ophthalmology, experimental physics and scientific methodology and the first theoretical physicist In medieval Europe, he was nicknamed Ptolemaeus Secundus ("Ptolemy the Second") or simply called "The Physicist". He is also sometimes called al-Basri (Arabic: البصري) after Basra, his birthplace.

          Let's not ignore the facts Vic.

          April 11, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
      • zendraxus

        Arabs were the first scholars....Islam stomped down hard on Arab scholars or else they would have kept pace with western scholars....indeed something like the renaissance may have happened much sooner.

        April 11, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • Vic

          Maybe those scholars were Christians.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • zendraxus

          No sir...they were clearly arab .. a mathematician in particular was making great strides...if I remember right he ran afoul of an imam – that imam called mathematics satanic and that ended that for all scholars in the arab world...islam micromanages its people to a much greater degree. Had the scholars of Europe and Asia minor had a more free hand all the barbarism that took from 1000 to 1500 ad might not have transpired.....a very different world for sure.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • Vic

          I don't have knowledge in that, and I don't see how those scholars you are referring to as stomped down upon could had not been Christians.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • zendraxus

          Omar Khayyam (algebra), Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (cubic equations),'Abd al-Hamīd ibn Turk (fl. 830) (quadratics)
          Thabit ibn Qurra (826–901)
          Abū Kāmil Shujā ibn Aslam (c. 850 – 930) (irrationals)
          Sind ibn Ali
          Abū Sahl al-Qūhī (c. 940–1000) (centers of gravity)
          Abu'l-Hasan al-Uqlidisi (952 – 953) (arithmetic)
          'Abd al-'Aziz al-Qabisi
          Abū al-Wafā' Būzjānī (940 – 998) (spherical trigonometry)
          Al-Karaji (c. 953 – c. 1029) (algebra, induction)
          Abu Nasr Mansur (c. 960 – 1036) (spherical trigonometry)
          Ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi (c. 980–1037) (irrationals)
          Ibn al-Haytham (ca. 965–1040)
          Abū al-Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī (973 – 1048) (trigonometry)
          Omar Khayyam (1048–1131) (cubic equations, parallel postulate)
          Ibn Yaḥyā al-Maghribī al-Samawʾal (c. 1130 – c. 1180)
          Ibn Maḍāʾ (c. 1116 – 1196)
          Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (c. 1150–1215) (cubics)
          Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (1201–1274) (parallel postulate)
          Jamshīd al-Kāshī (c. 1380–1429) (decimals and estimation of the circle constant)

          sorry for the mess - these men were not Christian.

          April 11, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
  5. Salero21

    Hello there my dear frenemies atheists!! Did you miss me?

    As far as this little-bitty, teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy minute fragment of a papyrus. The 4th paragraph says is from around 659-859 CE-AD. So then...being so... has no Scriptural-Biblical Value. Is nothing nada, nil, zero zilch.

    NO, NO Jesus did not marry. Jesus IS, WAS, WILL be the Son of God. HE came to earth from Heaven, like one of us, but HE IS NOT one of us. HE was from BEFORE Creation and WILL BE After this present Creation is wrap-up, throw-away and Burned-up

    April 11, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
    • blurp100

      Oh, please.. Grow up

      April 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • Joe

        Oh Please stop it!. Don't show off you pseudo intellect, by saying that.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
    • bostontola

      My daughter was very upset with the Harry Potter movie because they neglected to mention that Harry was under a spell when Dumbledore was killed as written in the book. I know how you feel.

      April 11, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
      • Joe

        You daughter should be upset because papa does not know what's next.

        April 11, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • bostontola

          You mean Hogwarts?

          April 11, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • Joe

          Well may be you believe that your dead became Hogwarts or sumfin.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
    • dawdammnedit

      just like my egg salad sandwich

      April 11, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      give 'em enough rope...

      April 11, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
  6. Vic

    I believe the writing on this scrap of papyrus follows the same style as in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (Coptic Edition.)

    Early on:
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/10/study-jesus-wife-fragment-not-a-fake/comment-page-2/#comment-2985758

    April 11, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
  7. dawdammnedit

    What a load of crap

    April 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
    • Joe

      they should stop acting like bunch whizzies

      April 11, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
    • blurp100

      Why is it a load of crap. It's an authenticated early writing. It's really no different than the New Testament of the bible, which was written and re-written and the orginal Christian church decided what would go into it and what would be destroyed or hidden from the public forever.

      April 11, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
      • Joe

        Go and read NT you will have peace.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I have read the NT and the OT several times, which part of the fable is supposed to bring peace?

          April 11, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Maybe you mean "peace & quiet" when you imagine life without any of the people you dislike, right? Is that what heaven is? Every Christians fantasy world where they get to have everything they want and their enemies get tormented for eternity?

          April 11, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
      • Joe

        neverbeenhappieratheist – You are wrong, there are no enemies. Only people who chose Him (Heaven, Life, truth) and who doesn't (Whatever you call it). I bet you should read NT again.

        April 11, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Read and studied it for decades, still did not make any of it any more true or real.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
  8. lunchbreaker

    Could a human male actually go 33 years without ejaculating, without being impotent or a euncih?

    April 11, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      What does that have to do with anything?

      April 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
    • lewcypher

      Does the bible say the Jesus man never pleasured himself

      April 11, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
    • Joe

      for one like you , it is impossible.

      April 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
      • bostontola

        I couldn't either, but if you accept Jesus is a God I guess it would be easy.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • Joe

          its not accept, if you believe in Him

          April 11, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • bostontola

          Sure it is Joe...

          April 11, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Whether you believe Jesus was God incarnate, His incarnation was in a standard issue, ho/mo sapien meat machine.
        As such, He had the same plumbing as the rest of us which means that He experienced spontaneous erections and the occasional nocturnal emission. He also sweat, farted, defecated and likely picked his nose too.
        None of this detracts from His teachings or makes him any more or less the Son of God.

        April 11, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
  9. bostontola

    Humans regard Quantum physics as unintuitive. In fact, it is beyond human understanding. We can describe it in excruciating detail mathematically, we have verified to more precision and accuracy than anything else in our history, but we don't understand it. It is foreign, wacky, beyond belief, but it has been verified beyond anything else. Quantum physics isn't the only thing that defies true understanding. Curved space of relativity is similar. Humans would be able to visualize curved space time if we could visualize 5 dimensions. Then we could view curved space time like we view curved surfaces embedded in 3 dimensions (e.g. A spherical shell). The conclusion is the real world is stranger than we can imagine.

    What does that fact suggest more, Christian God or not.

    I submit it suggests not. These facts are consistent with humans evolving in a zone where our intuition is limited to size scales close to ours and time scales close to our lifetimes. Ability to envision 5 dimensions, or Quantum effects would have no survival value. Conversely, why did God create us with these arbitrary limitations?

    The corollary to this is, religious people shouldn't use intuition as the premise of a logical argument. Human intuition is limited and flawed. Basing logical argument on it leads to false conclusions even if perfect logic is used.

    April 11, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
    • justpro86

      Good post

      April 11, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
    • snuffleupagus

      Well said, bostontola.

      April 11, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • transframer

      Where is Christianity using intuition as a premise for a logical argument?

      April 11, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
      • bostontola

        I was referring to religious people, e.g. Christians, not religions. But you are right, Christianity is based on intuition of that time, but it is not developed in a logical fashion at all. On the other hand, Christians use intuition as the premise of their logical arguments often, e.g. First cause.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          No. What you are saying is incorrect. Christianity is a divine revelation from God that does not require your approval to exist.

          “Who do you say I am?”

          16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

          17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades

          All real true Christians know Jesus exists in the same way Peter knew He was the Christ. No evidence will be given. No logic or reason can figure it out. It is by divine revelation beyond your understanding. Period.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Christianity is, like all other religions, a human invention.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          What Frank is trying to say is that God picks those he wants on his team so if you don't believe then you are just out of luck, God didn't pick you so you won't get to play in the Pearly Gates invitational softball game...

          April 11, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Yes, God's 'chosen people'. Which ones were those again, I seem to have forgotten?

          April 11, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • Joe

          He who believes in Him are God's Chosen

          April 11, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          neverbeenhappieratheist, IF you seek God you will find him. God treats all His creation equally and justly. Anyone can choose God.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Frank...If I seek my car keys, I may find them. But first, I have to believe that I actually have a set of car keys. Since I have seen my car keys before, if I lose them, I know that were I to look around to where they might be, I could possibly find them. However, if I don't own a car and subsequently have no car keys, all the looking in the world would not enable me to find that which does not exist. So...that begs the question: Why exactly should I go looking for something that I do not believe exists and have absolutely no use for in the first place?

          April 11, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
    • justpro86

      Much agreed with the post...There is much evidence from both the Bible and from science that demonstrates God must exist and operate in dimensions of space and time other than those to which we are confined. God could not have created the universe if He were only a part of it. The Bible says the universe cannot contain Him (1).

      According to particle physics and relativity, at least ten dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe (2). Three of these dimensions (plus time) formed the space-time manifold that we can directly observe. The other six of these dimensions exist within the universe as incredibly compact dimensions of space. God must be able to operate in all of those ten dimensions plus more in order to have created the universe. A verse from the book of Hebrews suggests God created the universe out of some of the dimensions of space and time which are not visible to us (3).

      The God of the Bible is invisible and cannot be seen except if He reveals Himself to us in a three-dimensional form that we can see. A being which exists in dimensions beyond our three spatial dimensions would be invisible to creatures (us) that can only exist in the confines of our universe

      April 11, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
      • colin31714

        odd that such a being would be so obsessed with the late Bronze Age Jews, don't you think? At its most fundamental level, Judeo- Christianity requires a belief that an all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies 13,720,000,000 years ago (the approximate age of the current iteration of the Universe) sat back and waited 10,000,000,000 years for the Earth to form, then waited another 3,720,000,000 years for human beings to gradually evolve, then, at some point in our evolution from Hom.o Erectus, gave us eternal life and a soul, and about 180,000 years later, sent its son to Earth to talk about sheep and goats in the Middle East.

        While here, this divine visitor exhibits no knowledge of ANYTHING outside of the Greco-Roman Middle East, including Australia, North and South America, Europe, Asia, 99% of the human race, and the aforementioned galaxies. One would have thought that a visitor from the creator of the Universe would visit (or at least mention) the millions upon millions of Chinese and other Asians, all the people spread throughout North, Central and South America, the Australian Aboriginals, the ancient Europeans or the Sub-Saharan Africans. Instead, his entire visit and his entire Holy Book, the Bible, is 100% concentrated on the Jews.

        It seems obvious beyond any sane doubt that the Jews made God in their image and not vice-versa.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • transframer

          Actually there are no billion years and no evolution. God created the whole Universe and the man (Adam) a few thousand years ago. The rest is history

          April 11, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • colin31714

          Of course he did, and Satan created the uniform background microwave radiation, Hubble red shift, fossil record and DNA divergence to fool us.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • doogzidog

          It does seem odd if we think of God from the human perspective of having almighty power: what would we do with that power? But also, God IS love. Love doesn't put on a show for the world to see. It stoops down tenderly to the little child it's raising and hugs them, guides them, forgives them, and then says "see what I did for you? Now you go forth and do the same".

          April 11, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • colin31714

          Soooo, the obsession with the Jews?

          April 11, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • justpro86

          Speaking of the nation of Israel, Deuteronomy 7:7-9 tells us, “The LORD did not set His affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath He swore to your forefathers that He brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; He is the faithful God, keeping His covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love Him and keep His commands.”

          April 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • colin31714

          That doesn't strike you as something an ancient Jew would write? Every culture that has ever existed has considered itself the center of things and has created gods that favor that culture. The ancient Jews are no different.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • lewcypher

          "It stoops down tenderly to the little child it's raising and hugs them, guides them, forgives them, and then says "see what I did for you? Now you go forth and do the same".

          other times it sits back and does nothing while it is being ra.ped, beaten or starved to death

          April 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • transframer

          Nope, they are either natural phenomenons or scientific theories For example fossil record was mostly created by the big flood.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • colin31714

          Here are a few of the many, many reasons why we know the Noah story is sheer nonsense.

          Of first and most obvious importance is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor likely wiped them out.

          Layered in the fossil record are the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years ago) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the 700 odd known species of dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths and hairy rhinoceros of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.

          Indeed, the fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?

          Not only did a Tyrannosaurus Rex eat a lot of food, but that food was meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark for the entire 360 odd days Noah supposedly spent on the ark. T-Rex was not even the largest carnivorous dinosaur we know of. Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were all larger and ate more even meat. Even they were not large enough to bring down the largest sauropods we know of, many species of which weighed in at close to 100 tons and were about 100 feet long. This is in addition to the elephants, hippopotamus, giraffes, and other large extant animals (not to mention the millions of insects, bacteria, mites, worms etc. that would have to be boarded). A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships larger than the D-Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the ark.

          Coming on top of that, of course, there are the various races of human beings. There were no Sub-Saharan Africans, Chinese, Australian Aboriginals, blonde haired Scandinavians, Pygmies or Eskimos on the Ark. Where did they come from?

          Oh, second, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large, often Carboniferous Period forests, in the case of coal, or tiny marine creatures in the case of oil. For the fossils to develop into oil or coal takes tens or hundreds of millions of years of “slow baking” under optimum geological conditions. That’s why they are called “fossil fuels.” Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this.

          Laughingly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13, 700,000,000 years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see the collective, misty light of many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny accusatory witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.

          In fourth, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims, the Universe about three times the age of the Earth.

          Next, fifth, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed.

          Sixth, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ simplistic and patently absurd explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.

          Seventh, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.

          I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics. Even large parts of medical research would be rendered unusable but for the fact that monkeys and mice share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs.

          In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders copying then extant mythology were wrong. Creationists aren’t just trying to swim upstream against the weight of scientific evidence; they are trying to ascend a waterfall.

          All this is probably why evolution is taught in every major university and college biology program in the World. Not 99% of them, but EVERY one. Universities with extensive evolutionary biology departments include Oxford University, Cambridge University and the Imperial College in England, the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Germany, the École Normale Supérieure and École Polythecnique in France and Leiden University in the Netherlands and the Swiss Federal Insti.tute of Technology in Switzerland. This is just a sample. ALL university and colleges in Europe teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.

          The number of universities and colleges in Europe with a creation science department: ZERO. The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

          In the United States, the following Universities have extensive evolutionary biology departments staffed by thousands of the most gifted biologists in the World; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Colombia, Duke, the Massachusetts Insti.tute of Technology, Brown, Stanford, Berkley, and the University of Chicago. These are just some of the more prestigious examples. Again, ALL university and colleges in the USA with tertiary level biology classes teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.

          The number of universities and colleges in the United States with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

          In Australia and Asia, the following universities and colleges have extensive evolutionary biology departments manned by more of the most gifted biological scientists in the World; Monash University in Melbourne, The University of New South Wales, Kyoto University in Ja.pan, Peking University in China, Seoul University in Korea, the University of Singapore, National Taiwan University, The Australian National University, The University of Melbourne, and the University of Sydney.

          The number of universities and colleges in Australia and Asia with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

          The most prestigious scientific publications in the Western World generally accessible to the public include: The Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, Scientific American, Science, New Scientist, Cosmos and Live Science.

          Every month, one or more of them publishes a peer reviewed article highlighting the latest developments in evolution. The amount of any creationist science articles published in ANY of these prestigious publications; ZERO.

          I could repeat the above exercise for the following disciplines, all of which would have to be turned on their heads to accommodate creation science – paleontology, archeology, geology, botany, marine biology, astronomy, medicine, cosmology and historical linguistics.

          Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a peti.tion supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.

          Number of creation science Nobel Prize winners: ZERO

          The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.

          Number made in support of creation science: ZERO

          According to The International Federation of Biologists, there are more than 3 million biological scientists globally who rely on the 5 laws of Darwinian evolution for their jobs every single day.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • transframer

          Your arguments are nothing new and were refuted times and times again. If I have time I will go one by one on them. The fact that creationism is not well respected and taught in schools is an unfortunate one but doesn't prove anything other that we are more and more brainwashed, starting from the earliest age.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • colin31714

          Not refuted, just ignored by believers.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • zendraxus

          exercise in futility colin.....

          you could state 2+1=3 – draw it out for them...show them in real time how that equation works using props...and at the end you hear No- 2+1= 5, the discussion is pretty much over.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
      • Joe

        You don't measure your life with Math. it's not measurable, like many of you do. There are many Mathematical theories not standardized by Man yet.

        April 11, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
    • frankbeattys

      “God existed before there were human beings on Earth, He holds the entire world, believers and non-believers, in His omnipotent hand for eternity." - Max Planck (Founder of Quantum Physics)

      April 11, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
      • colin31714

        "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." – Albert Einstein.

        “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." – Stephen Hawkins, 2013.

        “First of all, I’m an atheist. The second thing I know is that the name was a kind of joke and not a very good one.” – Peter Higgs, the discoverer of the Higgs Boson, the so called “God particle,” commenting on how he wishes people would stop using the term to describe the particle.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists." - Carl Sagan

          April 11, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • colin31714

          You know Sagan was an atheist who dismissed the idea of a personal god, such as the Judeo-Christian god as mere myth, right?

          April 11, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          "I am not an Atheist." - Albert Einstein

          April 11, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          colin31714, NO I do not think Sagan was an atheist according to his definition nor Einstein's definition of an atheist. Did anyone tell Sagan he was an atheist? It sounds like he did not believe he was an atheist. That comment I previously posted was in response to the question: "Are you an atheist?"

          April 11, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." – Albert Einstein

          Frank, please look up Spinoza's God. Einstein was a deist. There are many quotes where he emphatically states that he does not accept the notion of anthropomorphic Gods. He was not however an atheist, though he did not believe in the God that I suspect you do.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Similar to Colin's quote above:

          "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. – Albert Einstein

          April 11, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • colin31714

          I'm not a GOPer, what do you see as the difference between Einstein's views and those of an atheist. I ask because I cannot see the distinction. He certainly did not believe in any kind of sentient being.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • Joe

          Nothing sure except He is the only truth,way and life.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          @Colin,

          you might want to digest this quote from 1941:

          "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. – Albert Einstein

          Based on what I have read, he clearly had a deep awe of the universe and accepted that some metaphysical force was responsible for it – as I interpret it, that the manifestation of the cosmos itself is spiritual.

          He in no way believed in anthopomorphic Gods or personal Gods or life after death, but he frequently took care to distance himself from the atheist label. You could argue, what's the difference, but for whatever reason, it was a distinction that was important to Einstein himself.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
    • frankbeattys

      “But the value of religion exceeds the individual. Not only every man has his own religion but the religion requires its validity for larger community, for nation, race, and the whole mankind. Since God reigns equally over all countries of the world, the whole world with all its treasures and horrors is subdued to Him.” - Max Planck (Founder of Quantum Physics)

      April 11, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
      • colin31714

        Approximately 93% of the American Academy of scientists and 97% of the British Royal Society are atheists. If one is to use the argument that those versed in the natural sciences have a deeper insight into the existence of God than the rest of us, then that is an argument for atheism.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Joe

          Really who gave you that # Royal society of Britain?

          April 11, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • colin31714

          Pew is one of a number of sites where you will find it. Just google "British Royal Society and Atheism" or "American Academy of Scientists and Atheism".

          April 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          76% of medical doctors believe in God according to a NBC News poll.
          "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."– Isaac Newton

          "I am not an Atheist." - Albert Einstein

          "The book of nature, which we have to read, is written by the finger of
          God." - Michael Faraday

          April 11, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • colin31714

          Until about 1850, most scientists were indeed believers. the numbers have been going south ever since. In the sense of the Judeo-Christian god, Einstein was an atheist. He dismissed the notion as childish. He used the term "god"as a metaphor for the Universe as a whole. Not sure wh yyou think medical doctors have an special insight, but I note that 24% is about 4 times the rate of atheism i nthe general population. This is consistent with the well known fact that the better educated a population group is, the less they believe in god.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          "I am not an Atheist." - Albert Einstein

          "Einstein was an Atheist"– Atheists.

          "What?" - Everyone else

          April 11, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • colin31714

          I commend to you any book on his life. There is a good one that collects his letters and other writings. I think you will quickly find that, in terms of a personal god, life after death, Jesus doing magic acts and most fundamental aspects of Judeo-Christianity, Einstein was as big an unbeliever as it is possible to be.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          @Frank,

          Given his contemplation of the cosmos, Einstein was a deeply 'spiritual' person. He was not, strictly speaking, what we define as atheist, and he specifically objected to being labeled this way. He did not believe in "God" in any conventional way. His beliefs are congruent with Desim.

          Please stop trying to put words in his mouth. Go look up Spinoza's God. It is NOTHING like old men with beards sitting on clouds or anything like Gods invented as humanoids.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • believerfred

          Colin
          GOPer
          Einstein was not an atheist and flat out said so. Spinoza and Einstein both were seeking God. This cannot be denied. Spinoza even offers an excellent proof for the existence of "God" as he approaches existence and non existence from a perspective that fits with matter that cannot be created or destroyed. Spinoza even explains the substance of God.
          Neither of these guys shied away from causation.

          April 11, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
        • hotairace

          Bullsh!t! A Einstein did not believe in a personal god:

          It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[9]

          Why do you lie fred? Aren't you worried about getting into your alleged but not proved heaven?

          April 11, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
        • believerfred

          Hotairace
          We could spend all night going over Einstein quotes. Bottom line is that the only consistent statement from Einstein was that he was NOT an atheist.
          Einstein spoke most often in reference to the God of Spinoza. As GOPer suggested that is not "GOD" as we most often refer to on this web site.
          Yes, no doubt Einstein did not believe in a personal god as you say. Einstein would also reject the GOD of theology and opposed the representations in the Bible perhaps as much as you do. Man has taken all sorts of liberty in his attempts to understand God. Einstein and Spinoza were in agreement on the metaphysics of causation and their understanding that there could be no such thing as non existent substances. On cannot agree with Spinoza's argument that "God" is the only possible substance and in the same breath claim there is no "God".
          =>remember Spinoza's "God" is not the God you bash 24/7

          April 11, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
      • Joe

        In this secular society people are scared to come out and show their beliefs. A christian is – He who prays secretly and not openly. You bet, there are more who believe in the Lord.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • joey3467

          I am pretty sure you have that exactly backwards.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Joe...you have that exactly backwards, but I would expect that from you based on your other posts. See any atheist churches around? When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door and gave you a pamphlet? How many atheist revivals have you heard about going on anywhere? I will say that atheism is the fastest growing belief system currently in the U.S. While we are rapidly gaining ground, Christianity is going the way of the dinosaur (my apologies to Noah for the dinosaur reference).

          April 11, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
  10. justpro86

    Wow to even think he was married is completely redundant...Now, it is almost certain that Jesus was celibate. How do we know this? For one thing, the Gospels talk about Jesus's mother and "brothers and sisters" several times, so if he had a wife it would be odd not to mention her. In his magisterial book A Marginal Jew, John Meier, a professor of New Testament at Notre Dame, and scholar of the "historical Jesus," suggests that being unmarried was seen as undesirable for most rabbis of the time, and even though Jesus is not technically a rabbi, it would have been strange for the Gospel writers to concoct a story that he was celibate if he was in fact married. The Gospels' silence about a wife and children likely means that Jesus had neither.

    What are some possible reasons for Jesus's remaining unmarried? He may have intuited that once he started his ministry it would be short or even meet a disastrous end. As a Jew, knew the fate of other prophets. Jesus may have foreseen the difficulty of caring for a family while being an itinerant preacher. Or perhaps his celibacy was another manifestation of his single-hearted commitment to God. After sifting through the facts, Meier lands on the last reason: "The position that Jesus remained celibate on religious grounds [is] the more probable hypothesis."...

    So really you all can just cast this aside as BS

    April 11, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
    • Akira

      Where is it written that he was celibate? Being unmarried doesn't mean he was celibate.

      April 11, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
      • justpro86

        He never got married and he never had kids... I mean think about it what use of it to be for Jesus to be married or have kids when he traveled everywhere and he knew that he would live a short life... WOW would you get attatched to someone and a couple little ones if you knew you would die in a year or so? I doubt it

        April 11, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • joey3467

          Or he was just a normal guy with a new message, and he got executed and then some people made up a story about him after he died and didn't mention his wife and kids for whatever reason. To me this makes the most sense.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • justpro86

          A normal guy is not capable of doing as some historians of his time that were not close to him "witch craft type things" to them and miracles to Christians... If a normal guy could do that then where do I sign up lol

          April 11, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • colin31714

          justpro86. What in heaven's name makes you believe the supernatural elements of the Jesus story? Those are the easiest elements to dismiss.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • ainpa

          Actually the Bible has be edited during translation by those in power (Catholic Church), writing out Jesus the man, who was Jewish, probably not celibate, maybe married and scripting him as a Demi-God, - Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. The infant of Krypton is now the Man of Steel: Superman! To best be in a position to use his amazing powers in a never-ending battle for truth and justice errr wrong character: Jesus–> able to fast for extended periods of time to gain spiritual power, able to withstand the temptations of Satan, able to raise the dead, wise beyond his years and the greater than the most powerful kings, in his never ending quest to bring salvation to all.

          You only know what you've been taught and will not consider the source, it's validity, accuracy or historical truth.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • justpro86

          One reason is because he was God in the flesh and there are even tales outside the bible of people criticizing him doing witch craft or unbelievable things...

          April 11, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • lewcypher

          justpro86 : He never got married and he never had kids... I mean think about it what use of it to be for Jesus to be married or have kids when he traveled everywhere and he knew that he would live a short life...

          What you are saying is this Jesus fellow was omniscient yet in Matthew the author ascribed words to him to the effect that he had knowledge of Noah and the biblical flood. If he was omniscient he would have known it didn't happen and that the story was just fiction.

          This is just more evidence that the biblical Jesus was probably an Essene Priest, an ordinary man with a savior complex......a megalomaniac......the David Koresh of his day.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • justpro86

          Probably not... Jesus did have awknowledge of the Flood because it did happen... The Biblical Jesus was in fact the son of God to claim him to be a priest is just stupid...

          April 11, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • G to the T

          "even tales outside the bible of people criticizing him doing witch craft or unbelievable things..."

          Citation please. I've seen records that spoke of christians and what they believed, but I have yet to see any external evidence dating from his lifetime.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
    • colin31714

      Also, he could have been gay.

      April 11, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
      • justpro86

        I doubt he had any lust for anybody

        April 11, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • colin31714

          Why?

          April 11, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • justpro86

          No need to..his role in life was to teach and preach about God and Gods love and change peoples lives for the greater good...

          April 11, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • colin31714

          Well, if you believe in the supernatural, mythological aspects of the gospels, it was, but if you take a more grounded, reasonable and rational approach, he was a simple human being with a se.x drive like anybody else.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • justpro86

          I believe that whatever Jesus thought about marriage or children—if He thought about it at all—was quickly dismissed. His mission was to “bring many sons to glory” (Hebrews 2:10), not to marry and procreate. Jesus made it clear that the “Son of Man came to seek and to save those who were Lost.” This God-inspired calling far outweighed the distraction and any possible fulfillment He might have gained from having His own wife and children. Would He have liked to be married? Possibly. Were marriage and children God’s will for His life? Certainly not.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • colin31714

          That's just my point. Everything you say is only true if you accept as fast the supernatural elements of the Jesus story. To put matters in context, before Jesus, Horus was a mythological figure from Egypt who was said to be born on December 25 to a virgin. A star in the East heralded his arrival and three kings came to worship the baby. At age 12, Horus was a prodigal child teacher and at age 30 he was baptized and began his ministry. He had 12 disciples, travelled about performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water and was known by terms such as “the good shepherd.” After he died, he was buried, but three days later he rose from the dead.

          The myth of Horus itself seems to borrow from the earlier Babylonian myth of the birth of King Sargon of Babylon. He was said to have been born when his virgin mother, who was of lowly birth, was impregnated by a mountain god. She placed the infant Sargon in a basket of rushes and sent him down a river to protect him from his enemies. As you can see, these themes later found their way into the stories of both Moses and Jesus.

          Similarly, two centuries before the appearance of Jesus, the myth of Mithra held that Mithra was the son of the sun sent to save mankind. The cult of Mithraism, which evolved out of the earlier Persian religion of Zoroastrism, was popular in Rome at the same time that Christianity was spreading. Similarly, before Jesus, Attis of Phrygia was said to be born of the virgin Nana on December 25, was crucified to save mankind and rose from the dead after three days, as did the Indian god, Krishna. So, for that matter, did the Greek god Dionysus. Dionysus was hailed as ‘The Savior of Mankind’ and ‘The Son of God.’ Dionysus was born on December 25 after Zeus “visited” the mortal virgin Semele. Announced by a star, he was born in a cowshed and was visited by three Magis. He turned water into wine, raised people from the dead and was followed by twelve apostles. His resurrection was a popular myth throughout the Roman Empire, although his name was different in each country. The rituals in honor of Dionysus included a meal of bread and wine, symbolizing his body and blood. Other figures from the Mediterranean who died and were resurrected include Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Asclepius and Orpheus.

          Why are the supernatural elements of the Jesus story so readily believed when they are inherently unbelievable and, secondly, obviously borrowed directly from earlier mythology in the region.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
      • Joe

        Stop talking nonsense

        April 11, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • colin31714

          What is so odd about him being gay? It is about 10% possible, which is much, much more likley than the supernatural nonsense attributed to him.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • Joe

          you want to prove He was no Christ Savior. For that reason you will stoop down to any such level.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • colin31714

          I would not consider him being gay as "stooping down." There is nothing wrong with being gay. By the way, whether or not he was gay has no bearing on whether he was the son of a god. That is ridiculous for a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with his se.xuality.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • Joe

          I am saying your comparison of brotherly love as gay. Is insult to yourself, if you are brother to someone.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
    • shalisahere

      No. Being married was such a cultural norm, it didn't even get a mention in the Gospels. He was, but this wasn't worth writing about during the first century CE as every male teacher was married.

      April 11, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
      • justpro86

        In a patriarchal world, they were most often identified through their associations with either a husband or a son (or sons). So we read of women like "Mary, the wife of Clopas" and "Joanna, the wife of Chusa." Consequently, it is more likely that if Mary Magdalene were married to Jesus she would be called not "Mary of Magdala," but "Mary, the wife of Jesus."

        April 11, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
  11. deepaksarma

    This is silly...while the fragment may not be fake, Jesus certainly was. Reread/ replace "'Unicorn's wife' Fragment not fake."

    April 11, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
    • ihavetopushthepramalot

      Fake deity? Yes. Fake man? Probably not (it's arguable).

      April 11, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
      • justpro86

        LOL Sorrry Pal but Jesus and God are just as real as you and I...

        April 11, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          justprof...based on what exactly? Your opinion? Or is it because you believe the bible because the bible tells you to believe the bible?

          April 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • Joe

          yes bible tells us to believe.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Joe...use the logical side of your brain for just a second. I write a book and in that book I tell whoever is reading it that I was abducted by space aliens and probed. I also tell you that is the truth and you should believe it. Hundreds of years later, a committee of men that completely believe in space aliens reads my book and determines it to be true. Now, 2000 years after that, you also read that book and just believe it....without any proof at all. Make any sense to you?

          April 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • Joe

        Gullible you are sure gullible. I use logic every day @work, more than you ever imagine. Stop your nonsense theatrical version and believe in the saviour

        April 11, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Sorry Joe....you have failed to convince me with your "believe me because I say so" antics. You couldn't possibly use any logic where you work, or you would easily understand what the word 'proof' means. Look it up in the dictionary if you are having problems understanding it. Every atheist on this planet is waiting for proof. If you have it, produce it, if not, then I suggest you take a good hard look at your belief system.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • bostontola

      We have authentic writings thousands of years older than this fragment that specify in extreme detail the afterlife. They are written in pyramids and other ancient buildings. Why don't people believe them?

      April 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
    • Joe

      Jesus was fake!, we learnt that from you?

      April 11, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
  12. nathanielmagruder

    This is funny to me. Why are they always trying to find something on Jesus? Whether it's to discredit what he done, how he is and was, what he said or did not say? I don't hear anyone questioning who Muhammad was or try to discredit anything he said or taught. This piece of paper does not prove anything. When Christ talks about His Wife, I believe he is talking about the church. We need to stop all of this investigative work on Jesus, and just accept who he is, was, and always be! Soli Deo Gloria!

    April 11, 2014 at 11:50 am |
    • ihavetopushthepramalot

      Blind faith and wilful ignorance is funny (in a tragic sense) to me.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:53 am |
    • doobzz

      Yes, let's not think anymore. Thinking is bad.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:53 am |
      • snuffleupagus

        But doobzz, "I think, therefore I am." R. Descates

        April 11, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • doobzz

          Don't tell that to the bible thumpers.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
    • colin31714

      Rest assured, your average Christian gave up thinking on issues of religion around puberty. They will blindly accept anything that comports to their faith and dismiss anything inconsistent with it for their entire lives.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:57 am |
      • Joe

        you should too, before you die. Because you don't get second chance after you are gone.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • colin31714

          Well, even if that were true, which god would I chose? Yours, the Hindus' the Jains', the Muslims?

          April 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • Joe

          Well no god said believe in me and you will be saved. except Jesus

          April 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • joey3467

          Colin, apparently you should pick the Christian god because Joe likes the story.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Joe.....EVERY god said that. And Joey is right....you selected that god as your god because you thought the story was nice. Except for all the parts about wiping out the world with a flood, destroying armies of people that just didn't fit the god norm, hating gays (which were part of his creation), and teaching people how to treat their enslaved fellow men. But, for eternal salvation, we can certainly ignore all the icky parts of the bible......

          April 11, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
    • pappyvanwinkle

      What's funnier is that it doesn't matter whether or not Jesus had a wife. It would not invalidate what he did. God never said, "Thou shalt be a virgin and without carnal knowledge in order to be reborn." So, yeah.

      Whether you like it or not, Jesus was a man. If he was purely God in man's form then he wouldn't have gone to the garden at night to weep like a baby at the thought of being crucified.

      BTW, I think the fragment is a fake. Want to know how to tell? If you've ever seen the dead sea scroll fragments you would notice: A) How straight the sentences are and how proportional the characters are to one another. B) Just the simple fact that the paragraph the fragment speaks of is clearly crammed onto the fragment and doesn't appear to spill over into the margins at either side. It is improbable that some ancient person decided that this particular phrase was important enough to warrant being written on only a scrap of paper.

      April 11, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
      • colin31714

        So, you are skeptical over the authenticity of the fragment, but believe that the creator of the Universe impregnated a Greco-Roman Jewish virgin with himself, so he could give birth to himself for the purpose of sacrificing himself to himself to forgive the Original Sin of a couple we now all know never existed.

        Wow, just wow....

        April 11, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
  13. jesueislord

    4 God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, And mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment.
    Romans 3:3Romans 3:4Romans 3:5

    April 11, 2014 at 11:47 am |
    • otoh2

      "but every man a liar;"

      Including Mr. Paul of Tarsus - he with the itching writing fingers.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:53 am |
      • ihavetopushthepramalot

        I'd be more concerned with who this 'Jesue' character is. The last thing we need is another guy saying he's the son of a malevolent, Sumerian war god.

        April 11, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
  14. revbro

    The same type "scientific" proof used to validate the cloth Jesus was wrapped in is now being disputed by those who don't want to believe this? That is just precious... believe what fits your own needs and discard anything else as being evil and from the devil. lol

    April 11, 2014 at 11:47 am |
    • hotairace

      Perhaps you meant "The same type "scientific" proof used to *in*validate the cloth ..."

      April 11, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
  15. Justin Leasure

    This proves nothing. Even if it is real, It was written 900 years after Jesus lived.

    April 11, 2014 at 11:42 am |
    • archtopopotamus

      The bible proves nothing – written, edited and censored hundreds of years after he allegedly lived.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:49 am |
      • Joe

        not true. it is has not changed if you read KJV , which is still available today

        April 11, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • G to the T

          "KJV"

          There are far more accurate translations of the biblical texts out there. Sometimes I'd swear the "KJV Only" crowd have made an idol of the bible...

          April 11, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
    • Akira

      People are still writing about Jesus today. So?

      April 11, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
      • Joe

        Because Jesus is the only one will save you.

        April 11, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
    • Keith

      Many of the Gnostic scriptures have stories of Jesus wife, this in not new to any one who has studied religion.

      April 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
  16. frankbeattys

    It is a good thing the author of this fragment didn't write: "abandon Jesus and follow Satan."

    April 11, 2014 at 11:37 am |
    • Akira

      Do you think everyone suddenly stopped writing about Jesus once the Council of Nicea decided which writings were canon?

      April 11, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
      • Keith

        Most folks do not know about the Council of Nicaea choosing what is accepted as the New Testament.

        April 11, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
  17. Didgya

    Funny, they say that it is not canon, so therefore it is not the inspired word of god. The Catholic church has decide which gospels and writings to keep. Just their preferences and still the Bilble contradicts itself.

    April 11, 2014 at 11:26 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      "The Canon" changes depending on the sect.
      There are 66 books in the Protestant Bible, 73 in the Catholic, 78 in Eastern Orthodox, 81 in Ethiopian Orthodox and 65 in the Mormon (the LDS don't like The Song of Solomon – too sm/utty I guess).

      April 11, 2014 at 11:36 am |
      • ihavetopushthepramalot

        Solomon sure did love the Hebrew vino and getting it on with his wife's handmaidens.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • bostontola

          Life's good when you're the king.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • ihavetopushthepramalot

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMQjKiaDTg

          April 11, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • bostontola

          Mel always got it right.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:57 am |
      • suedoughnihm

        Mormons most definitely have Song of Solomon in their bible. They use the KJV.

        April 11, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the Song of Solomon is not an inspired writing.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • suedoughnihm

          That's a very different conversation than saying they exclude it from their bible for being sm/utty.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "Not an inspired writing" = non-cononical.
          What I said, if you re-read the original post, is that "Morons don't like the Song of Solomon". This is an accurate statement based on the teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
          As for why – the ending qualifier of "I guess" clearly indicates that part of the statement is conjecture on my part.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
  18. ynotblue

    I see, there are heated disagreements between all sorts of believers and non-believers. Whatever the case may be, the truth will reveal itself once you enter the gates of heaven, assuming there's such a thing. If not, well, then all discussions are a waste of our precious time left on earth. However, try a little logic. According to the gospels, Jesus was a rabbi from the countryside. Guess what, Jewish rabbis have wives. They had wives even 2000 years ago. We know that because discoveries of homes of Jewish temple priests in Jerusalem, leading very different lives than Jesus, lived normal upper class lives and had wives, possibly more than one. We know these homes belonged to priests because the homes were connected to the temple site via a tunnel. So, it's safe to assume Jesus could, or at least should, have been married. The Christian version of Jesus is definitely an invention by Roman Christians who had to sell the religion to the entire empire to get it approved by Constantine. He demanded unity among Christians and he result is what we have today, more or less. For example, Jesus wasn't declared divine until the Council of Nicaea in the early 4th century. Until then Jesus was a regular mortal just like you and me for many early Christians. Regular mortal men have wives and children. Also, the story of Jesus' birth and death are later additions to his biography in order to get more people interested in early Christian churches. Immaculate conception and ascension after death are common themes in antiquity when it comes to Demigods and other divine characters. You can find them all the way to the beginning of recorded history, so most probably these stories are even older than the written word.

    April 11, 2014 at 11:24 am |
    • Keith

      The folks that don't know what you have written is true will have a big problem with it. I think that knowing the truth and still believing is the real test.

      April 11, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
      • ynotblue

        The truth is always harder to accept than fairytales. If one truth remains after reading all the gospels, according to the descriptions Jesus was a realist. He knew he was going to die for his rebellious acts and he also knew his so called disciples and friends weren't going to save him from paying the ultimate price. The problem is his followers never came even close to displaying the kind of courage he supposedly brought to the table. If you ever stood up for anything, you know exactly what this means.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
        • Keith

          Knowing the truth and still having faith is much harder.

          April 12, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
  19. bostontola

    I wonder if Gods and religions came from our fear of death. The idea that our consciousness could cease to be for ever is terrifying to many. Imagine being a powerful Pharaoh. You can make anything possible happen. You fear death. You solve that problem as you would solve any other problem, you invent.

    Probably most people of that time weren't thinking of those things. They probably weren't pining for more life, the one they had was not very good. But the leaders wanted more and were used to getting what they want. They convinced themselves that there was an afterlife. This notion was quite contagious. It spread all around. Like the game telephone, it evolved into many forms with various embellishments. It may have started before the Egyptians, but it is easy to see in their context.

    Even today, the afterlife promise is a main driver to most people.

    April 11, 2014 at 11:19 am |
    • ihavetopushthepramalot

      You nailed it with fear of death. Fear of death and controlling people.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:25 am |
      • bostontola

        Controlling people may have been a "pleasant" bonus that emerged later. The Rich were the ones involved in early Egyptian religion. It may have been a later innovation to use religion to control the masses by offering them afterlife. Imagine a population of hard laborers that were offered an afterlife as good as the emperor's.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:40 am |
    • Didgya

      True and it is a by product of our brain constantly trying to figure out everything. Having an unprovable answer is better than no answer for a lot of people.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:29 am |
      • ihavetopushthepramalot

        "Having an unprovable answer is better than no answer for a lot of people."

        True, unfortunately.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:31 am |
      • G to the T

        Bingo! Certainty is what the brain desires, it will find it wherever it can and go to great lengths to not be uncertain (esp. about the BIG issues, life, death, love, etc.)

        April 11, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
    • jsblgb65

      You have it quite wrong. How could the thought of one's conciousness ceasing forever lead to fear? If my conciousness ceases then I'll never even know I existed! No fear there. Also, the idea of conciousness ceasing would make me want to get the most out of every moment, so the real fear would be not living it to the max while I could. Rather, the understanding that there is conciousness after bodily death causes people to fear death because they sense the accountability to the creator that lies beyond, hence they try to be "good" people, whether religious or not.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:45 am |
      • ihavetopushthepramalot

        Of course there's fear. Have you ever pondered eternal nothingness? I find that a far scarier prospect than any Abrahamic Boogie-Man afterlife.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • joey3467

          I imagine that eternal nothingness will be a lot like the 13.7 billions before I was born only longer I guess.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • jsblgb65

          LOL, if I have no eternal conciousness then I don't know I'm in "eternal nothingness", so I have no prospective experience to fear there because I'll have no experience.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • ihavetopushthepramalot

          It's precisely because I have no prospective experience to fear that I have the fear. Even an eternity in Hell allows one to feel. I like sentience.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • ihavetopushthepramalot

          Joey

          Yep, and that fills me with dread.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
      • bostontola

        You are describing a logical perspective rather than a typical human perspective.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • G to the T

          Indeed – what he is saying might be true, if the Ego didn't exist. If our brains didn't have a mechanism that writes us as the lead in our own stories.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
    • frankbeattys

      Heaven, hell, Jesus, Satan exist and you have a decision to make .

      Reply back saying I am narrow minded, uneducated, brainwashed, crazy, and stupid.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:45 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Just point to some actual evidence for what you have claimed. Try not using the bible or anything that points to it...give us actual scientifically backed evidence...we'll be waiting.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • frankbeattys

          The very strong evidence is that you have broken at least 1 of 10 commandments.
          The very strong evidence that God exists will be when you are standing face to face in judgment. Saying you don't think God exists is not a good defense.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          No frank, I have not broken any commandment because those are not the commandments I live by. Your belief is not my belief and until I see solid scientific evidence to support your god or any other god there is no justifiable reason to accept the stories, any more than there is justifiable reason to accept that Zeus or Thor or Odin or any of the other numerous gods imagined by man are real. The commandments you follow are silly with the first four demanding idolatry and a few of which are merely thought crimes and in turn not really crimes.
          You can claim to have all the evidence you wish but there are 5 billion other people on this planet who disagree with you.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • joey3467

          Oh yeah, well you will be in big trouble when my dad gets home. Then you'll see.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • jsblgb65

          Well then, just keep waiting while you ignore the moral conciousness that is imprinted upon every human. Morals are based upon a standard. What makes certain things right or wrong, it is not because we say so, it is due to the basis of a creator. Speaking of which, the sum total of matter and energy in the universe magically created ITSELF??? No, a causation that exceeds the scientifically observable structure of the universe. Science and logic clearly tell us that the big bang could not have caused itself, the operation and observation of this universe clearly show that physical does not come from nothing own its own, unless you want to start promulgationg spontaneous generation.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • joey3467

          It is quite a leap from a creator to Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the world. A god who created the universe and walked away never to be seen or heard from again might make sense, but the Christian god just doesn't pass the smell test as far as I am concerned.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • bostontola

          //jsblgb65: "Science and logic clearly tell us that the big bang could not have caused itself, the operation and observation of this universe clearly show that physical does not come from nothing own its own, unless you want to start promulgationg spontaneous generation."

          That is just false. Science nor logic tells us anything of the sort. Spontaneous generation of particles happens all the time. There is nothing in science that precludes spontaneous generation and quantum physics requires it.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
      • bostontola

        I don't know about any of your other characteristics that you mentioned, but you must be suggestible enough to believe things that are not supported by any objective evidence. You have every right to make that choice.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:54 am |
      • G to the T

        "I am narrow minded, uneducated, brainwashed, crazy, and stupid."

        Ok now what?

        April 11, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
      • snuffleupagus

        "Reply back saying I am narrow minded, uneducated, brainwashed, crazy, and stupid." Okay, anything else you need, stupid?

        April 11, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
      • gulliblenomore

        frank....if you are going to come on here and make inane statements, you should at least be able to back up that statement with facts rather than "you'll see!". You believe the bible because the bible tells you to believe the bible. What kind of warped, uneducated logic is going on here? I would have a lot more respect for Christians that came on here and said that they weren't really sure there was a god because no actual proof exists to prove if. Instead, they proclaim that only they know the truth, and the rest of us just don't 'get it'. I think I can speak for every atheist on the planet that if there were some sort of proof...anything, then we would become believers. Instead of Janet Jackson, have god appear for the halftime show at the Super Bowl. I'd be quaking in my boots and every pew in every church would be filled to the brim daily.

        April 11, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
    • Keith

      No holy man other than Mohammad has created a religion. Religion is an invention of man, Jesus was anti-religion if you judge his actions, and he never calls for the creation of a church.

      April 11, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
      • frankbeattys

        Jesus asked “Who do you say I am?”

        16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

        17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.

        April 11, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Frank....quoting the bible does absolutely nothing to support your argument. You believe the bible because the bible tells you to believe the bible. Circular logic at best, idiocy at worst.

          April 11, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • Keith

          Written by a man that never met the Christ. I find it interesting that he accepted the designation as the Son of God when all of Christendom declare Jesus as "god incarnate"

          April 12, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
  20. frankbeattys

    Galatians 1:8
    "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!"

    Romans 16:17
    "I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."

    April 11, 2014 at 11:18 am |
    • Doris

      Ah – more from motor-mouth Saul of Tarsus – the Joseph Smith of his day..

      April 11, 2014 at 11:20 am |
      • frankbeattys

        What??????? You mean the author of the New Testament.
        Doris, You belong deep in hell.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • ihavetopushthepramalot

          It's nicer there anyway. I'll work on my tan.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • Akira

          Now Paul is the author of the whole New Testament? Hmmm.

          Paulianity. Okay.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          Akira wrote "Now Paul is the author of the whole New Testament? Hmmm. "

          I very strongly disagree with you that Paul is the author of the whole New Testament.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Paulianity. Okay."

          One of the biggest holes in Christianity that I never realized until I was on the other side of it, is how much relies on believing Paul's (and those writing as Paul) word on the subject. Following only any one of the 4 gospels would (IMOHO) generate a christianity fundamentally different than the one we see today. Christian rely on Paul to interpret the gospels, even though he had no access to them in the first place.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • frankbeattys

          "G to the T"

          Paul was killing Christians because he thought they were spreading false teachings.
          Paul directly communicated with Jesus Christ. Then he became a leader spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

          April 11, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • Akira

          Frank wrote to Doris:
          "What??????? You mean the author of the New Testament.
          Doris, You belong deep in hell."

          I was answering that, Frank. Perhaps in your hurry to condemn another, you didn't proofread what you actually wrote

          April 11, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • Akira

          G to the T:
          There is speculation that Paul was trying to usurp much of the way Jesus want His ministry spread, causing a lot of friction between James, Peter and Paul...

          April 11, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Paul was killing Christians because he thought they were spreading false teachings.
          Paul directly communicated with Jesus Christ. Then he became a leader spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
          Yes – that's Paul's story. He may have even been sincere, doesn't mean he was right.

          Akira – Yes – I've read some materials to that effect as well, esp. Peter and James (Jesus' brother). It is my belief that the book of Peter and Acts were written specifically to make it appear as if Paul had the blessing of the disciples and Jesus.

          April 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
      • ihavetopushthepramalot

        At least Paulie Boy didn't have a stove-pipe hat constantly stuck to his face.

        April 11, 2014 at 11:26 am |
    • joey3467

      This is called propaganda. Basically what he is saying is we are right and everyone else is wrong so don't listen to them.

      April 11, 2014 at 11:28 am |
      • frankbeattys

        John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "

        April 11, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • ihavetopushthepramalot

          Way to prove exactly what Joey said.

          April 11, 2014 at 11:38 am |
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.