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.
It means cover the mouth not the nostrils. It is not about legalisms it was to demonstrate that not even the want-a-be Jesus was tempting to Christ. BUT, just how tempting will this play actor be to us when he gets dumped out of heaven to this earth. (That is to those still alive in the flesh and inhaling air.) Revelation 12.
That may well be the hardest one to keep. Though He is always with us, we forget about His presence in our lives.
Luke was not writing any body's tradition. He was a medical doctor and scribe for Paul. Course God sure knew what traditions of men would creep in unawares regarding the traditions of Mary. She was a wife and mother to more than just the Only Begotten Son. Mary and Joseph had children!!!!!!
Aaaaaaaand just in time for Easter - a little media tradition we’ve all come to know and love - it’s time for the annual “The Gospels Were Wrong About Jesus” story! Gotta hand it to them, they’re consistent.
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same: that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
It is a devil teaching that promotes this notion that Christ would have been tempted by women, either in marriage to one or a sexual tryst in some oak or fig grove.
Rather than go with your warm, fuzzy feelings about it, I'll stick to what Jesus had his apostles tell us...
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb_4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
And that's why we can go directly to God with any and every temptation we may encounter...He has experienced it all...
Again, Christ was God with us. He was in a flesh body filled with the Holy Spirit. Now where can you quote anything that suggest that God would be 'sexually' attracted to one of His children? That is not a temptation that should be 'common' to any man.
No it can't...A natural brother or a spiritual brother, ok...An extended relative, Nope, in the New Testament...
NO!!!!!!!!
You are just making that up.
Show me in Scripture where anyone other than Jesus is referred to as the Child of Mary.
WRONG!
How did Jesus have 500 'Brothers'??
“After that, [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." 1 Cor. 15:6
No it is not. Jesus was not saying some men castrate themselves for God’s kingdom, which is what your interpretation implies. He was saying that some men voluntarily choose celibacy for God’s kingdom while, for others, it is NOT a choice.
Paul clearly said he had the power to have a wife. This means he was not a eunuch due to a birth defect or something that happened to him. Yet he advocated celibacy for those who could do so without falling into sexual temptation.
Peter commented on Christ’s teachings on marriage and divorce that there was a benefit to never being married. Christ responded that “not all men can receive this saying, but whoever is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
Feel free to share your own beliefs, but stop trying to be an instructor on Christian doctrine when you reject Christian doctrine.
IF the mouth is covered no water is going to pass through the lips.
Why are you posting a definition for a Hebrew word when the passage comes from the New Testament with of course, Greek words??? Shirley you can do better than that...
Matt. 16:18 doesn't say that...Doesn't say that at all...
Constantine was in charge of the Roman army...That's how he did this...And yes, many Christians survived but many more died from the persecution...
Strong's Concordance
adelphos: a brother
Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
Humor loses something when explained... but sometimes you have to explain. This is why I said I hope He doesn't get any sinus congestion... because His Mouth is covered and He only has His Nose to use for breathing... Get it?
It is not about legalisms it was to demonstrate that not even the want-a-be Jesus was tempting to Christ. BUT, just how tempting will this play actor be to us when he gets dumped out of heaven to this earth. (That is to those still alive in the flesh and inhaling air.) Revelation 12.
Please elaborate.
FINALLY!!! After millennia of unsuccessful challenges to the doctrine of perpetual virginity, we have a final word on the subject! Pope Just mythoughts has spoken... and it must be so!
Heb 4:15 was enough to win the argument. Let it go. You lost.
I am not making anything up. Honestly it makes NO Godly sense for a denomination so obsessed with contraception, they could with a straight face require Mary to use contraception.
Mary was not is not a deity, no matter what the traditions of men claim to the contrary.
Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19).
Common sense tells one that IF they seek the meaning of words used to go to the origination of that word. Where did 'fasting' have its origination? IN the Hebrew language.
This is why Christians know that the busy fingers of some scribes played word games when they stuck 'easter' in place of Passover.
You are either ignorant of the meaning of First-born, or you are being dishonest. Luke knew what 'First-born' meant. The word First-born does not refer to the first child out of the womb. It refers to to the first male born.
Do you understand that?
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.