Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
It should be pointed out that Watson is not the only expert who is making the case for non-authenticity.

In fact, this expert in Coptic writing, who was at the conference that announced the fragment, had this to say:


During the course of the last several hours, I have attempted to understand the reaction of various persons within the coptological community here at the International Association of Coptic studies conference. My initial perception is that those who specialize in Nag Hammadi and early manuscripts are split with almost two-thirds (earlier four-fifths) being extremely skeptical about the manuscript’s authenticity and one-third (earlier one-fifth) is essentially convinced that the fragment is a fake. I have not met anyone who supports its authenticity, although I do not doubt that there must be some. (Source)


We also have this:


Some archaeologists were quick to question Harvard's ethics, noting that the fragment has no known provenance, or history of where it's been, and that its current owner may have a financial interest in the publicity being generated about it.

King has said the owner wants to sell his collection to Harvard.

"There are all sorts of really dodgy things about this," said David Gill, professor of archaeological heritage at University Campus Suffolk and author of the Looting Matters blog, which closely follows the illicit trade in antiquities. "This looks to me as if any sensible, responsible academic would keep their distance from it." (Source)




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Guyfriday
The story in the Bible about the wedding could be read to mean that Jesus was really the Grooms Father. If that was the case, then Jesus would have been married (since he was a Rabi). I could see Bible scholars trying to cover up that kind of fact since it would mean that another largely important aspect of Jesus' life was ignored by the church.


The groom's father?? He was 30 years old in this story.


As pointed out by karen61057:

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Well not impossible is it ? At 30 you could have a 15 year old child. Its not advisable but not impossible either.


It has been documented that during that time in history; people did get married at age 13. If this did happened to Jesus then he could easily have a kid thats atleast 15 when your 30. Oddly, the church somehow doesn't talk about Jesus' teen years only his birth and then when he's in the 30s. Even in the Jewish traditions not much is known about his teen years. So yes, he could have been married, and have a kid.

Here's a thought exercise:
Go back and re-read the Book of John;
* Thinking that Jesus is as the church has been preaching about him for centuries.
* Thinking that Jesus is the getting married, or is married.
* Thinking that Jesus has a kid that is old enough to get married.

Which makes sense after re-reading the Book of John?

Back to my first posting though, I'm not making an issue as to if he was married, had kids, or not. Rather my point was that every time a Lost Book of the Bible is found the chruch will quickly state that it's a fake. What's their proof?

The church themselves have only taken a very small amount of texts written at the time and turned it into the Bible. They tossed out everything that conflicted with what they wanted their religion to say. Regardless if a follower of Jesus wrote it or not. Instead the church went with letters written by people who are vauge about who they are, didn't know Jesus, or were super-fans of his (I'm refering to the Books of Revelations, Paul, and Peter in that order).

Where's the truth? Whats the truth? Why doesn't the Catholic Church want us to know the truth?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by tvtexan
 


Read the book of Urantia, The first 3 sections explain the universe, time, other life( which there is an abundance of), and the 4th section is Jesus' entire existance on Urantia (Earth).



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by adjensen
 


Why would Jesus be invited to his own wedding?

Marriages were arranged in those days, it was not anything like the customs of today. Remember, the Jesus story is only found in the NT, and it's authorship is quite dubious. So in effect, that is not a man or woman alive that know exactly what went on that day in Cana, and anyone who does say he/she "knows" is only fooling themselves.


It may have been that he (Jesus) was messaged that his bride and the bridal party were ready. It took a lot of preparation and ritual to prepare a bride. The groom was never involved and kept away from the bride and the bridal party until everything was ready and in place. Then the bride and her party would wait for the surprise entrance of the groom and his entourage, (best men), But, the groom would have to have been told, or invited, that she was ready. The fact that the story relates that Jesus and his apostles were invited indicates that they may have been the groom's entourage.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Guyfriday
Back to my first posting though, I'm not making an issue as to if he was married, had kids, or not. Rather my point was that every time a Lost Book of the Bible is found the chruch will quickly state that it's a fake. What's their proof?


Please go read the original article -- this is a scholar at a secular university in the UK, not "the church", and his proof is that the Coptic writing is fairly clearly words and letters copied from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, rearranged to be "controversial" and thus, one assumes, valuable.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting this!!


Unfortunately, I don't think that it will make one whit of difference for those members that are taking such great delight in another "History proves Jesus was a scam" hardliners.......

It's all down to confirmation bias. We all have it.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I fully understand the what your saying. I also understand that some people (even with higher education) can have agendas.

What are they playing at?
From Harvard Divinity School;

1. Does the Gospel of Jesus's Wife prove that Jesus was married?

No, this fragment does not provide evidence that Jesus was married. The comparatively late date of this Coptic papyrus (a fourth century CE copy of a gospel probably written in Greek in the second half of the second century) argues against its value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus. Nor is there any reliable historical evidence to support the claim that he was not married, even though Christian tradition has long held that position. The oldest and most reliable evidence is entirely silent about Jesus's marital status. The first claims that Jesus was not married are attested only in the late second century CE, so if the Gospel of Jesus's Wife was also composed in the second century CE, it does provide evidence, however, that the whole question about Jesus's marital status arose as part of the debates about sexuality and marriage that took place among early Christians at that time. From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether it was better to marry or to be celibate, but it was over a century after Jesus's death before they began using Jesus's marital status to support their different positions. Christian tradition preserved only those voices that claimed Jesus never married, but now the Gospel of Jesus's Wife shows that some Christians claimed Jesus was married, probably already in the late second century.

Harvard Divinity School

So at the end of the day people in the 2nd century didn't believe that Jesus was married, but others did believe this. The evidence is highly un-bias about this lost book. Could be a hoax, could be real, could be a smokescreen for something. What is know about this Karen L.King? who paid for her schooling? what is her agenda? She writes very un-bias,but looking at her word choices say something else.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim.
8 And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him.
9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom,

10 and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

The head waiter called him the bridegroom...


Yeah, I've heard this interpretation. Also, there's is a theory of how Jesus performed this miracle. He and his disciples were "high" on a psychedelic plant, which the body filters out into the kidneys, so the "Fill the waterpots" instruction was simply the command to relieve themselves in the pot. Then the guests drinking the contaminated urine also got a strange high like the disciples, and never tasted wine like that before. It was clearly the best experience they ever had. Anyone could perform this miracle today. If the guests don't know, they will be astonished too, at this fantastic wine.

The problem is that the bible leaves a lot of things unsaid, so that gives us flexibility in interpretation. For every supernatural act, there is a common ordinary alternative explanation that you could use to explain the strange thing.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GreatOwl
 




That made me laugh so hard I think I just leaked a little wine!


When a Roman needed to attend to nature he or she would say something like "Time to turn water into wine." This was a joke, of course, for the act of urination was something like transforming water magically into a kind of 'wine' - urine.

www.fargonasphere.com... Into Wine



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Well not impossible is it ? At 30 you could have a 15 year old child. Its not advisable but not impossible either.


Do you have any evidence to support this? Or is it just a wild arbitrary conjecture?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by adjensen
 


Why would Jesus be invited to his own wedding?

Marriages were arranged in those days, it was not anything like the customs of today. Remember, the Jesus story is only found in the NT, and it's authorship is quite dubious. So in effect, that is not a man or woman alive that know exactly what went on that day in Cana, and anyone who does say he/she "knows" is only fooling themselves.


John, Peter, and Matthew we there. They authored gospels.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
John, Peter, and Matthew we there. They authored gospels.


Yes, but who then altered those gospels? And why is there no gospel of St James, who was supposed to be the brother of Jesus? Let's face some facts here - the history of the early christian church is mired in shadows. We just don't know exactly what happened.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
John, Peter, and Matthew we there. They authored gospels.


Yes, but who then altered those gospels? And why is there no gospel of St James, who was supposed to be the brother of Jesus? Let's face some facts here - the history of the early christian church is mired in shadows. We just don't know exactly what happened.


Because James wasn't a disciple and believer until after His resurrection.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Neither was Paul, but we have plenty of his gospels.......



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Neither was Paul, but we have plenty of his gospels.......


I think you mean epistles. There's no such thing as a gospel according to Paul.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword



The bride anticipated the return of the groom, the exact time of which she did not know, and which could occur at any time. Her experience during this time must have included some doubt and anxiety that the groom might not return for her.

The bride would ensure every night before retiring that she had an oil lamp prepared, in case her groom returned for her at night (cf. the Parable of the Ten Virgins, Matt. 25). Since grooms often returned at midnight to surprise the bride, and since the journey back to the nuptial chambers through the dark streets of a Israelite village could be hazardous, the bride would continually have an oil lamp ready, in preparation for the return of the groom.
ldolphin.org...


This ritual is steeped in Jewish symbolism. Jesus didn't originate this metaphor. It is part of Jewish law and tradition. It has to do with the "rapture of the heart" and quickening and the union of body and soul. As above, so below.

Jesus was explaining how ritual imitates a divine way, set by the law, for the benefit of the people's well being, ie: salvation.

Does this mean that Jesus is going to come with and entourage to surprise and literally sweep his bride, the body of his followers, off their feet and into ceremony, some 2000+ years later?


Yes, the Bible tells us this more than once that Jesus' second coming will be like a thief in the night and it's been compared to Jewish wedding symbolism more than once. Jesus didn't originate this metaphor, but he did use it to describe his second coming.

By the way, I've already pointed out that Jesus considered God's law higher than Jewish law and didn't always follow it. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have been selfless enough to refrain from getting married or having children considering that he already knew he was sent to earth in order to die. What kind of husband would he be if he intentionally left his wife a widow and his children orphans? I don't think he would have.

God sent Jesus to earth for one reason and it didn't include following all of the Jewish laws to the letter or getting married to leave his wife and kids without a husband or father. Jesus was sent here with his own set of instructions.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Under Jewish tradition Jesus may have been betroth from an early age, in an arranged marriage between his parents.


When a Jewish boy turns 13-years-old he becomes a "bar mitzvah,"

Marriage: In traditional Jewish law, a boy can technically be married when he becomes a bar Mitzvah. However, both ancient and modern sources recommend 16 to 18-years-old as the earliest point when a boy should be married.


We don't hear anything about Jesus after the age of 12, until he's about 30. So we don't know if he married.

I don't think it would be fair for Jesus to ask his followers to give up everything and follow him, if he didn't do the same, or at least have a wife that choose to follow him. After all many of his disciples were married, and they followed Jesus anyway.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by adjensen
 


It's interesting how expert opinion and analysis only holds water when it's being directed against the bible or Christianity, and not when its in either's favor.



Well ofcourse! It's only correct if the Church is wrong! Christianity couldn't possibly be correct after the tombs of the very Apostles Messiah walked with in person were found with his name and crosses etched into their ossuaries! Archeaology is only correct if it denounces Christ
, not lends credit to him. The world at large couldn't possibly be in error!



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I think this is the thing that people gloss over. Jesus was called a Rabbi, and in traditional Judaism being married was a prerequisite for priesthood. He was devout, and it would have been considered very unbecoming for him to associate with the females (Mary x3, even if one of them was his mother) he did in the way he did if he were not married. The term Christianity has been around for so long, and so many Christians derive their beliefs from a person standing before them giving their take on what THEY are reading that they forget that Jesus was Jewish before he traveled the world. His followers were Jewish, and the only difference between them and the rest of the Jews was the belief that the Son of God/Man had arrived and was before them. Today, Jews say that the Christ has not arrived, and the Jews that believe he has (Christians) say that they are wrong. The teachings have morphed so badly that Christianity has become its own religion, separate and distinct from the very religion it is supposed to be. Ancient Sumerian tales are mimicked shamelessly in the bible, and no one bats an eye. This just means that you can shout it until you are blue in the face and people will invent their own evidence to prove what they want to hear. If an “expert” who is backed by the (offended) church takes the position of that church in their findings, then it must be true. Abrahamic religions can be dangerous in their single-minded determination to not stop and think and ask questions.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Guyfriday
 


Uh, the whole thing about Messiah being "Cut off" in prophecies 500 years before he came denounces he would have children, that's the entire point of being "cut off". It means his line would end with him.


500 years before Christ:

Daniel 9:26

26 “And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined

He had certain prophecies to fulfill while he was here, the above piece is one of them. He couldn't have had children, being cut off means he'd have been killed before he could have children as his generations would have been "cut off" with him.




new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join