'The Gospel Of Jesus' Wife,' New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been

one document is unverifiable. That is why our Bible is canonized...
I learned that in my Bible class at Liberty. Many copies to verify
each other, and there is only one copy of this recent find.

I don't buy into it.

 

The church is the only Bride of Christ.

If this paper is legit, I believe it would be about someone else with the same name. Remember, there are people who still names their kids Jesus, especially in certain cultures.

 

CTB,
That sliver of parchment is the equivilant of a blank piece of paper! jesus does have a bride and it is His Church. That business card sized sliver of a document is good for exactly one thing... making the weak in the Faith, weaker.

 

No, not at all.

 

Doesn't bother me. He still can be the Messiah. Only time will tell.

 

This will probably end up moved, as this forum is supposed to be nice and fluffy topics. Like Teddy Bears. :sleeping_2:

That said, I watched something today where they talked about this fragment not being a true fragment...that it is almost certain that it was purposely cut off by the dealer who likely did that for profit.
They said the handwriting was really bad and the grammar pretty poor and not totally fitting in with the language at that time, which would not exactly be a typical way to copy a holy text. The person also commented that in those times, the word used for wife was just as commonly used about someone working in the context of a servant or maid.

There will always be people trying to add things or change things. I think all the technology we have no longer serves a good purpose, as now it's even easier to create false yet credible evidence of almost anything anyone would have a mind to come up with.

 

Yawn, Jesus did not marry. Well all know it. Utter antichrist.

 

> I think all the technology we have no longer serves a good purpose, as now it's even easier to create false yet credible evidence of almost anything anyone would have a mind to come up with.
__________________

YES! At least from the Civil War to WW1 a photograph showed what the camera "saw." These days you can only believe what you personally experience - and eye witness evidence is the worst kind of legal evidence.

 

We cannot see heresy anymore?

Whether the media-hyped ‘fragment’ turns out to be a fraud [which seems likely] or simply, false teaching, Christians, who are grounded in Scripture and the teaching of the Church, know better than to entertain this fantasy. The Incarnation does not open the door to such a path....[links in original here]
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/

 

Open Theism, Jesus was Married, holy cow what has happened around here? Only extremists would by into the nonsense.Aside from the poor source the op is incorrect. It is not simply tradition that says Jesus was never married. It is that it is not found in the inerrant scripture. There is not reason to consider this as as reasonable. And we need to remember that the real propaganda behind this movement is to perpetuate that Jesus was not sinless. Dr. Karen L. King who is the historian perpetuating this is also a member of the "Jesus Seminar" which has an agenda to diminish the deity of Christ. Sad Christians would find anyone related to this organization and calls themselves a Christian would take them seriously. And while this so called document is claimed to have been from the 4th century that claim is in much dispute.

 

Harvard Theological Review has decided not to publish Karen King¹s paper on the Coptic papyrus fragment on the grounds that the fragment is probably a fake.” This from an email Dr. Craig Evans, the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University and Divinity College, sent to me earlier today. He said that Helmut Koester (Harvard University), Bentley Layton (Yale University), Stephen Emmel (University of Münster), and Gesine Robinson (Claremont Graduate School)–all first-rate scholars in Coptic studies–have weighed in and have found the fragment wanting. No doubt Francis Watson’s comprehensive work showing the fragment’s dependence on the Gospel of Thomas was a contributing factor for this judgment, as well as the rather odd look of the Coptic that already raised several questions as to its authenticity.


http://danielbwallace.com/2012/09/26/jesus-wife-fragment-judged-a-fake/

 

Wow, now Hinduism!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Article by a scholar regarding the coptic text seems to show that it is certainly a fraud. [Fraud or not, it is still heresy]

http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/