It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by Sparta
Has this question ever been asked.
Is this referring to the son of God "Jesus" or some guy named Jesus (pronounced "Hey Zeus")?
I'm asking this because every thing I have read about this, nothing has ever said "the son of God".
People probably think you are joking but "Hey Zeus" really was the way the Greeks pronounced Iesous. Personally, I don't think Zues had anything to do with the individual named Yeshua though.
That being said, I do suspect the Greeks had their own agenda and were certainly trying to imply that Christ was just another incarnation of Zeus. It seems to be a likely part of their plan.
All those old cultures like the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians were extreme believers in magic and one of their biggest beliefs was that saying a gods' name aloud somehow 'brought down' the god and made him manifest upon the earth.
Christ probably got blamed for a lot of things that may have had far more to do with Zeus. The Romans probably really loved the name Iesous too, because they worshiped Zeus as well, only under the name of Jupiter.
Everybody had an agenda...
By the way, the name 'Jesus' wasn't used at all until around 1400 AD. The name Yeshua was pretty much forgotten and never used except perhaps by a handful. Until 1400 AD, everybody used the name Iesous when they were speaking of Christ.edit on 13-4-2014 by Riddles because: (no reason given)
"Two factors immediately indicated that this was a forgery," Mr. Askeland tells me. "First, the fragment shared the same line breaks as the 1924 publication. Second, the fragment contained a peculiar dialect of Coptic called Lycopolitan, which fell out of use during or before the sixth century." Ms. King had done two radiometric tests, he noted, and "concluded that the papyrus plants used for this fragment had been harvested in the seventh to ninth centuries." In other words, the fragment that came from the same material as the "Jesus' wife" fragment was written in a dialect that didn't exist when the papyrus it appears on was made.
Mark Goodacre, a New Testament professor and Coptic expert at Duke University, wrote on his NT Blog on April 25 about the Gospel of John discovery: "It is beyond reasonable doubt that this is a fake, and this conclusion means that the Jesus' Wife Fragment is a fake too." Alin Suciu, a research associate at the University of Hamburg and a Coptic manuscript specialist, wrote online on April 26: "Given that the evidence of the forgery is now overwhelming, I consider the polemic surrounding the Gospel of Jesus' Wife papyrus over."
Having evaluated the evidence, many specialists in ancient manuscripts and Christian origins think Karen King and the Harvard Divinity School were the victims of an elaborate ruse.
Karen King, the Harvard professor who discovered the Gospel of Jesus's Wife and has defended its authenticity, has now conceded that the papyrus is likely a forgery and that its owner lied to her about the provenance and his own background.
A fake letter Fritz provided King with a contract he signed with Laukamp, as well as a typed letter, supposedly from 1982, saying that Peter Munro, a professor at the Free University of Berlin, and colleagues had examined Laukamp's papyrus. Sabar got a copy of this letter from Fritz and obtained copies of Munro's archived correspondence comparing the two. Sabar concluded that the letter was a fake. "The problems were endemic. A word that should have been typed with a special German character — a so-called sharp S, which Munro used in typewritten correspondence throughout the '80s and early '90s — was instead rendered with two ordinary S's, a sign that the letter may have been composed on a non-German typewriter or after Germany's 1996 spelling reform, or both," Sabar wrote. "In fact, all the available evidence suggests that the 1982 letter isn't from the 1980s," Sabar continued. "Its Courier typeface does not appear in the other Munro correspondence I gathered until the early '90s — Fritz's final years at the [Free University of Berlin]. The same is true of the letterhead. The school's Egyptology institute began using it only around April 1990."
originally posted by: Butterfinger
Gospel of Jesus's Wife Likely a Fake, Bizarre Backstory Suggests
I suggest moving this thread to the Hoax bin, as it seems that it was a hoax.
Why build up a fake provenance if you could just let the fragment speak for itself?