Posted on 04/14/2014 9:05:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The internet has been abuzz with intriguing headlines announcing that scholars have determined that the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” papyrus is “authentic” and that there is “no forgery evidence” in the manuscript.
What exactly does this mean? And should Christians be concerned that a new discovery might contradict the biblical account and undermine their faith?
Actually, the report from scholars working with the Harvard Divinity School found that the manuscript is much younger than previously thought – in other words, it is even further removed from the time of the New Testament than scholars originally believed – meaning that, at most, it is a very late myth without a stitch of historical support.
What the report did say was that there was no evidence that any part of this small manuscript had been forged, so what was written was “authentic” in terms of not being the work of a modern forger.
But the scholars did not determine that the apparent reference to Jesus having a wife was authentic. How could they?
As New Testament scholar Darrell Bock observed back in September, 2012 when the find was first announced, “In the New Testament, the church is presented as the bride of Christ. And then in Gnostic Christianity in particular, there’s a ritual - about which we don't know very much - that portrayed the church as the bride of Christ. So we could simply have a metaphorical reference to the church as the bride, or the wife, of Christ.”
And what if this text recorded Jesus as saying that one of his disciples would be his wife?
Bock explained that, “This would be the first text - out of hundreds of texts that we have about Jesus - that would indicate that he was married, if it’s even saying that. So to suggest that one text overturns multiple texts, and multiple centuries, of what has been said about Jesus and what’s been articulated about him, I think is not a very wise place to go, just simply from a historical point of view.”
Initially, when Harvard professor Karen King learned about this papyrus fragment written in the Coptic language, which was used by the ancient, heretical, Gnostic Christians, she thought it might have been a forgery, as did other scholars, especially from the Vatican. But upon further study, she concluded it was not, dating it to the fourth century A.D.
Yet how seriously should we take a fourth century report about Jesus, who was crucified around 30 A.D., especially when it contradicts every other piece of evidence we have about Jesus up to that time? As Prof. Bock said, this “is not a very wise place to go, just simply from a historical point of view.”
To give you a parallel example, how seriously would future historians take a report written 300 years after Pearl Harbor that contradicted every single report that preceded it, including all reports from all eye witnesses?
But the latest report – the one creating such a stir – claims that the tiny manuscript should not be dated to the fourth century. Instead, scholars have now dated it to approximately 741 A.D., meaning, more than 700 years after the time of Jesus. What kind of “evidence” is this?
It would be similar to historians 1,000 years from now finding a letter written in the year 2510 claiming that George Washington, who died in 1799, was actually an alien from Mars. How seriously would it be taken? (Come to think of it, the Ancient Aliens series has probably made a similar claim already!)
There remains no evidence of any kind that Jesus had a wife (note to the reader: Dan Brown’s fictional The Da Vinci Code is not evidence), and the only thing scholars did was determine that this small papyrus fragment was not a modern forgery, although it was hundreds of years younger than they originally thought.
Of course, it is still not totally clear that the manuscript even claims Jesus had a wife, but we know that within 150 years of the time of Jesus, there were fictional gospels circulating with all kinds of bogus claims. Should it surprise us, then, that many centuries later, another fictitious account with yet another new claim would be written down?
Unfortunately, many casual readers and skeptics now think that some “authentic” new evidence has been discovered supporting the idea that Jesus was married, and even Christians are asking if they should be concerned about this latest find.
Rest assured that nothing has been discovered that even remotely challenges the biblical account, and if this very late text does imply that Jesus had a wife, what we have is an authentic fabrication and nothing more.
Hebrews 4:15 comes after Hebrews 2:14 ... The children are partakers of the same.... No way would God with us be tempted in having a sexual tryst with one of His children. IF we are going to take that road then and Christ experience all things common, next some will be claiming He had a sex change so He could birth a child.
A non sequitor, and you are avoiding a simple question. We are not talking about contraception or Mary as a diety, which nobody believes.
The question was "Show me in Scripture where anyone other than Jesus is referred to as the Child of Mary."
I will await your answer. Crickets.
And Luke says this explanation exactly where? Luke already said what about Mary? Really now, Mary was a virgin, divinely conceived, and Christ was her first born. Everybody was already told it would be God with us, (male) even way back to the prophet Isaiah.
What Luke did not say that others pretend is that Christ was the ONLY child that Mary birthed. Comprehend?????
The problem is that you reject history. There is more to the story than what was recorded in Scripture (John 21:25 and others).
Mary was pledged to virginity for God. Why do you think there was a concern when she was found with child? Surely Joseph, being a righteous man, should have done the right thing and condemned her. He didn't, not just because he liked her but because there was a larger significance. He was chosen for her because of her vow.
Mary was given to the Temple at the age of three by her parents to serve God. You see, her father, Joachim was barred from giving his offerings to the Temple because he and his wife, Anna, were childless. Clearly, they were cursed. He went away ashamed and prayed in the desert and fasted for 40 days and nights. Anna prayed in a garden and was approached by an Angel who told her she would bear a child. Anna promised this child (Mary) to God to serve Him all the days of her life.
When Mary was 14 years old (the age at which is was customary for maidens to marry), there was a problem. She was known for being undefiled and had vowed to remain so. Zaccharia was told in a dream what to do. Bring the available men to the Temple and have them bring their staffs in hand. The Lord would make the staff of the right man bloom. No staff bloomed. Zaccharia was initially perturbed but learned that Joseph, a much older widower with grown children, had not been present. He was brought into the assembly and his staff bloomed.
Mary was not given to a man who was young and burning with lust. She was entrusted to a protector to be a foster-father to the Son of God. There was no contraception involved. Mary is not a deity. She was a vessel chosen by God to do His Will for the redemption of man.
What utter, ignorant nonsense. Please cite your assertion.
After taking pains to explain, I can see you are too fond of nonsense. May God bless you. [shaking dust from feet...]
Where in ANY of Scripture that says anyone other than Jesus was the Child of Mary?
Comprehend?
If it is not in Scripture you are just making it up.
Comprehend?
It is not an assertion it is a fact that Easter was NOT the word used in Acts 12:4. It was Passover and there is no question about it. Look up Easter in the Strong's if you have one and see for yourself.
No, No and NO. These people who keep saying this is trying to do everything it can to attempt to discredit our LORD. Simple, they never will, never can, and will answer to Him at the Great White Throne if they do not repent their hate filled sin.
The best advice I can give you friend is to get you a GOOD study Bible and get too work. You simply are wrong and have no idea what the Bible says. This is covered in the Scriptures, if you knew them.
I won’t give you any flack. But, I will tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. I can cherry pick scriptures and probably give you thousands of “guesses”. Your cherry picks here are taken out of context of the verses before and after the ones you chose. Your lack of knowledge of the Scriptures is showing. I’d suggest, if you are not saved, that you take that route first. Then the Scriptures will be opened up to you by the Holy Spirit. Cherry picking will not reveal this to you.
“No it is not. Jesus was not saying some men castrate themselves for God’s kingdom, which is what your interpretation implies.”
Let’s go back to the Instructions For Life (aka Torah, aka the five books of Moses).
Do not to let a eunuch marry into the Jewish people. Deuteronomy 23:2
I said that there is a prohibition in the Torah for a eunuch to marry. That’s all. It could be because of a genetic defect or the individual was forced to become one. Making oneself a eunuch is not allowed under Torah so John the Baptist, Paul, and Elijah would have never done that.
Paul did have a wife and never made himself a eunuch if he was serious about following Torah. The Eyn Sof has made it very, very, VERY clear that Jewish men are supposed to get married. This is not required of women. Paul wouldn’t advocate celibacy for those who weren’t eunuchs nor advocate they make themselves eunuchs because of Torah prohibitions.
We don’t know the question that was posed to him by whatever congregation was asking him in regards to his answer. Is it possible that homosexuals were needing to know how they could serve in a congregation without participating in homosexuality because they made a life change and decided to walk in a more Godly fashion?
Plus, you’d never see him promoting never getting married. The question from the congregation that elicited his answer about the benefits of never being married probably originate from those who aren’t allowed to marry per the Torah or men who don’t want to marry because they can’t bear the thought of doing so (i.e. homosexuals).
I’m not cherry picking anything. I’m making the solid case that the Eyn Sof commands men to be married to women. To say otherwise is not-Torah/unBiblical.
Quite the contrary I love His-Story, beginning in Genesis 1:1, and as Paul tells us, ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened (got to go to ICorinthians 10:1 to find out all these things) unto them for ensamples (examples): and they are written for our admonition, (warning) upon whom the ends of the world are come. We are given the 'more to the story' by the Creator and of course Christ. Mark 13:23 before man's traditions got made up Christ said "But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things." Then Christ quotes Isaiah 13:10 making Isaiah one and the same as the Gospel.
Mary was pledged to virginity for God. Why do you think there was a concern when she was found with child? Surely Joseph, being a righteous man, should have done the right thing and condemned her. He didn't, not just because he liked her but because there was a larger significance. He was chosen for her because of her vow.
Fornication was against the law and not just for Mary. Where is it written that Mary pledge to virginity for God? Where are these specific words used that Mary pledged a vow? Mary was following the law not some action called a vow. Joseph and Mary were betrothed before Mary conceived. Meaning they had not yet 'married' in the Biblical sense. But it is pure junk to claim they never had sex or children of their own, I don't care how old Joseph was.
Mary was given to the Temple at the age of three by her parents to serve God. You see, her father, Joachim was barred from giving his offerings to the Temple because he and his wife, Anna, were childless. Clearly, they were cursed. He went away ashamed and prayed in the desert and fasted for 40 days and nights. Anna prayed in a garden and was approached by an Angel who told her she would bear a child. Anna promised this child (Mary) to God to serve Him all the days of her life.
Please cite this story. It sounds made up by traditions of men.
When Mary was 14 years old (the age at which is was customary for maidens to marry), there was a problem. She was known for being undefiled and had vowed to remain so. Zaccharia was told in a dream what to do. Bring the available men to the Temple and have them bring their staffs in hand. The Lord would make the staff of the right man bloom. No staff bloomed. Zaccharia was initially perturbed but learned that Joseph, a much older widower with grown children, had not been present. He was brought into the assembly and his staff bloomed. Mary was not given to a man who was young and burning with lust. She was entrusted to a protector to be a foster-father to the Son of God. There was no contraception involved. Mary is not a deity. She was a vessel chosen by God to do His Will for the redemption of man.
Who wrote this stuff.
I am reminded of the doctrines of the church in Ephesus Revelation 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. I hear more love for Mary than for the LORD and Saviour Jesus the Christ. Or Emmanuel meaning God with us.
'First-born' is a term in Jewish tradition. The first-born is the first male born. The first-born has status of principal heir and successor of his father as head of the family. It does not refer to the order of birth of children, only male children. If I was Jewish, the fifth child, with four older sisters, I would still be the first-born.
Luke was a Gentile...He wasn't repeating Jewish tradition...He is telling a story from a Gentile point of view...As here for example:
Luk_1:9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
When something was a custom or a tradition, Luke mentioned it...Luke, as a Gentile called Jesus the firstborn because he knew that Jesus had younger brothers and sisters...
That's exactly what I said... A real brother or a spiritual brother...No cousins...No distant kin...
There never was any challenge to perpetual virginity...The challenge is to the scriptures which, long before the fable of perpetual virginity showed up state that Jesus had brothers and sisters...And that Mary and Joseph came together...And Mary waited for the consummation til after Jesus was born...
And that challenge always falls flat on its face...
I probably shouldn’t stick my nose in at this point, but if assume Luke was Greek, shouldn’t we also assume he was familiar with the Greek traditions relative to primogeniture?
I am convinced there was a pagan Roman Easter celebration that took place about the time of the Passover...
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.