Posted on 04/11/2014 6:35:46 AM PDT by Renfield
In 2012, Harvard researcher Karen King revealed the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife."
A small piece of papyrus, the lightly worn document was written in Coptic Egyptian, with parts missing and ink faded, and didn't say much. But what it did say, wrote Ariel Sabar in Smithsonian Magazine two years ago was enough to “send jolts through the world of biblical scholarship—and beyond.”
The fragment’s 33 words, scattered across 14 incomplete lines, leave a good deal to interpretation. But in King’s analysis, and as she argues in a forthcoming article in the Harvard Theological Review, the “wife” Jesus refers to is probably Mary Magdalene, and Jesus appears to be defending her against someone, perhaps one of the male disciples.
“She will be able to be my disciple,” Jesus replies. Then, two lines later, he says: “I dwell with her.”
The papyrus was a stunner: the first and only known text from antiquity to depict a married Jesus.
The new document had a curious past. It was given to King by an anonymous source, and, as Sabar notes, some pieces of the papyrus' history seemed a little too convenient. It didn't take long for the suggestion that the new gospel was a forgery to arise. (Indeed, the possibility was a reservation of King's.)
According to new research, however, scientists are now largely certain that the document is a true piece of early text, and not a modern forgery. Spectroscopic analysis of the ink, says the New York Times, revealed the text was from thousands of years ago.....
(Excerpt) Read more at smithsonianmag.com ...
I've read that a woman who serves Christ, such as a nun, for example, are sometimes called a "bride of Christ" or "His spouse" and similar such terms that reflect true Holy matrimony with God, rather than a worldly marriage.
Assuming this artifact is real, why assume a human worldly understanding when He used analogy and metaphor to describe and to help us to understand what He was teaching?
Perhaps this, if not a hoax, is an example of where we have eyes but do not see, ears but do not understand? Our ways are not His ways or so I've read.
“send jolts through the world of biblical scholarship—and beyond.”
Jolts? More likely yawns.
Now we have the fifth-column (hell-spawned) media dragging this old 2012 story back out to pollute any coverage of the Passion of Christ, along with propaganda suggesting that Jesus ordained Mary Magdalene as a Apostle.
Proverbs 26:11 comes to mind.
I’m SURE there were enough literate Muslims to write down their version of Jesus.
Lol.
My husband and I lived in Saudi Arabia when he worked as an engineer there. I also worked four of the five years we were there, with 30 Saudis, two Indians, one Pakistani, one WONDERFUL American woman and one MOST annoying American woman.
FIRST HAND point of view...but it was YEARS ago. Some things are impossible to forget.
Hard to imagine Mary letting her good Jewish boy go unmarried.
The age of the fake is irrelevant.
The Gnostics had LOTS of fake writings.
old monk told me once—”Jesus didn’t die for you—he lived for you.”
But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
And since the resurrection, Christ LIVES FOR US, being our advocate(defense lawyer) before the Father.
You were probably right to call your “wise old monk, OLD”!
Note how quickly academia will claim such items to be proof, while they simultaneously reject the truth of the entire Bible.
oh! I had a handful of jobs (only about a month at a time) in Yanbu in the 90s, so I do feel bad for you - being a woman, and an infidel woman to boot, in Saudi Arabia is not much fun.
Hey - who wouldn’t want to keep a good carpenter around the house?
Oh this again...
It rears its head every now and then.
Though she probably really wanted him to be a doctor or accountant.
Did the wise old monk point out to you that it is not an "either...or" proposition but a "both...and"?
"Jesus didn't only die for you-he lived (lives) for you, too."
Sometimes you hear it asked, "What difference does it make if Jesus were married or not?" There's a lot of things you can say to that, but it boils down to truth. There is no evidence, biblical or otherwise telling us Jesus was married--an important detail of his life if it was so.
Pre-nup????
”Jesus didn’t die for you—he lived for you.”
I would say he did both!
Mel
The early church had many groups trying to hijack what Christianity was and meant. Several of these groups were fascinated with redefining who and what Jesus was to fit into their belief system they were developing. Most of these groups were the people that the New Testament was warning the early first century church to beware of their teachings and in some cases were kicked out of the church by the apostles.
So in modern times, when they dig up one of the writings of one of these groups it immediately trumps the gospels and New Testament because it satisfies the current desire to redefine Christianity and Jesus by the secular left. They always fail to mention that these new findings come from the opposition camp of early Christianity and usually spin it like it was lost information that the guys in the first century just were not aware of and did not publish in the Bible.
Reporters should not be expected to be epigraphers, but they should be expected to be proficient in 4th grade math.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.