Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: Origins of 'Gospel of Jesus's Wife' Begin to Emerge
Source:
Live Science
URL Source: http://www.livescience.com/51954-gospel-of-jesus-wife-origins.html
Published: Aug 24, 2015
Author: Owen Jarus, Live Science Contributor
Post Date: 2015-08-24 21:47:48 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 13572
Comments: 135
Written in Coptic (an Egyptian language), the Gospel of Jesus's Wife, if authentic, suggests that some people in ancient times believed Jesus was married, apparently to Mary Magdalene. The truth may be finally emerging about the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife," a highly controversial papyrus suggesting that some people, in ancient times, believed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. New research on the papyrus' ink points to the possibility that it is authentic, researchers say, while newly obtained documents may shed light on the origins of the business-card-sized fragment. Debate about the credibility of the "gospel" began as soon as Harvard University professor Karen King reported her discovery of the papyrus in September 2012. Written in Coptic (an Egyptian language), the papyrus fragment contains a translated line that reads, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife …'" and also refers to a "Mary," possibly Mary Magdalene. King had tentatively dated the papyrus to the fourth century, saying it may be a copy of a gospel written in the second century in Greek. [Read Translation of Gospel of Jesus's Wife Papyrus] Analysis of the papyrus, detailed last year in the Harvard Theological Review journal, suggested the papyrus dates back around 1,200 years (somewhere between the sixth and ninth centuries) while the ink is of a type that could have been created at that time. These findings have led King to support the text's authenticity. However over the past year many scholars have come to the conclusion that the papyrus is a modern-day forgery, though King and a few other researchers say they are not ready to concede this: "At this point, when discussions and research are ongoing, I think it is important, however difficult, to stay open regarding the possible dates of the inscription and other matters of interpretation," wrote King in a letter recently published in the magazine Biblical Archaeological Review. King has not responded to several interview requests from Live Science. Now, researchers at Columbia University are running new tests on the ink used on the papyrus. Initial tests published by the Columbia University team in 2014 indicated the ink could have been made in ancient times. Researchers are saying little until their report is published; however they did talk about one finding that could provide some support for its authenticity. A gospel steeped in mystery The current owner of the papyrus has insisted on remaining anonymous, claiming that he bought the Gospel of Jesus's Wife, along with other Coptic texts, in 1999 from a man named Hans-Ulrich Laukamp. This person, in turn, got it from Potsdam, in what was East Germany, in 1963, the owner said. Laukamp died in 2002, and the claim that he owned the text has been strongly disputed: Rene Ernest, the man whom Laukamp and his wife Helga charged with representing their estate, said that Laukamp had no interest in antiquities, did not collect them and was living in West Berlin in 1963. Therefore, he couldn't have crossed the Berlin Wall into Potsdam. Axel Herzsprung, a business partner of Laukamp's, similarly said that Laukamp never had an interest in antiquities and never owned a papyrus. Laukamp has no children or living relatives who could verify these claims. [6 Archaeological Forgeries That Tried to Change History] Over the past few months, new documents have been found that not only reconstruct Laukamp's life in greater detail, but also provide a new way to check the anonymous owner's story. King reported in a 2014 Harvard Theological Review article that the anonymous owner "provided me with a photocopy of a contract for the sale of '6 Coptic papyrus fragments, one believed to be a Gospel' from Hans-Ulrich Laukamp, dated Nov. 12, 1999, and signed by both parties." King also notes that "a handwritten comment on the contract states, 'Seller surrenders photocopies of correspondence in German. Papyri were acquired in 1963 by the seller in Potsdam (East Germany).'" After searching public databases in Florida a Live Science reporter uncovered seven signatures signed by Laukamp between 1997 and 2001 on five notarized documents. Anyone can search these databases and download these documents. These signatures can be compared with the signature recording the sale of the Gospel of Jesus's Wife — providing another way to verify or disprove the story of how the "gospel" made its way to Harvard. The signature of Hans-Ulrich Laukamp from September 1997. While Harvard University would have to work with forensic handwriting experts to verify the signature, the fact that these notarized documents exist, and are publicly available, presents the opportunity to see if Laukamp really did own the Gospel of Jesus's Wife. Forensic handwriting analysis, while not always conclusive, has been used to determine if signatures made on documents or works of art are authentic or forged. If Laukamp did own the papyrus, authentic or not, then the origins of the enigmatic text lie with him. The new Laukamp documents allow the story of his life between 1995 and 2002 to be told in some detail. However if Laukamp didn't own the papyrus and the anonymous owner has not been truthful, then further doubt would be cast on the papyrus' authenticity, and information leading to the identity, motives and techniques of the forgers could be found. Authentic or forged? One important find, which indicates the Gospel of Jesus's Wife is a fake, was made last year by Christian Askeland, a research associate with the Institute for Septuagint and Biblical Research in Wuppertal, Germany. He examined a second Coptic papyrus containing part of the Gospel of John, which the anonymous owner of the Gospel of Jesus's Wife had also given to Harvard. This text was likewise supposedly purchased from Laukamp, and radiocarbon testing of that papyrus similarly found that it dates back around 1,200 years. [See Images of the Ancient Gospel of Judas] Askeland found that the text and line breaks— where one line of a text ends and another begins — are identical to those of another papyrus, published in a 1924 book. That second papyrus was written in a dialect of Coptic called Lycopolitan, which went extinct around 1,500 years ago. Askeland concluded that the John papyrus is a forgery. Furthermore, it shares other features with the Gospel of Jesus's Wife, Askeland said, suggesting both are forgeries. "The two Coptic fragments clearly shared the same ink, writing implement and scribal hand. The same artisan had created both essentially at the same time," Askeland wrote in a paper recently published in the journal New Testament Studies. King objected to this conclusion in her Biblical Archaeology Review letter, noting that the John fragment could have been copied in ancient times, long after Lycopolitan went extinct, from a text that had similar line breaks. In addition, James Yardley, a senior research scientist at Columbia University, told Live Science that the new tests confirm that the Gospel of Jesus's Wife holds different ink than the John papyrus. This could undercut Askeland's argument that the two papyri were written by the same person. "In our first exploration, we did state that the inks used for the two documents of interest [the John papyrus and the Gospel of Jesus's Wife] were quite different. The more recent results do confirm this observation strongly," Yardley told Live Science. He added that until his new research is published in a peer-reviewed journal, he doesn't want to say anything more publicly. And once it's published, Askeland and other researchers will have a chance to respond. Askeland's find is far from the only argument that the Gospel of Jesus's Wife is a fake: A number of scholars have noted that the Coptic writing in the Gospel of Jesus's Wife is similar to another early Christian text called the "Gospel of Thomas," even including a modern-day typo made in a 2002 edition of the Gospel of Thomas that is available for free online. That typo indicates the forgers copied from this modern-day text. King disputed this assertion in 2014, saying that ancient scribes made grammatical errors similar to the modern-day typo. King and communications staff at Harvard Divinity School have not responded to repeated requests for comment. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: sneakypete (#14)
Uhhhh....You missed the mark by approximately a thousand miles.
I didn't know there were any references made about Jesus of Nazareth during his lifetime. Even raising the dead didn't seem to inspire anyone enough at the time to record the event. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
It's in the article. What these 'researchers' are after is to find something believing it contradicts the Scriptures we have now. They lose everytime because even though they tout scholarship, they fail to even understand the time period involved. Even in the days of the Apostles in the early 1st century there were already heretics they warned believers about. Amen. We can only imagine the degree of suppression by heretics of all things Jesus' soon after His death and resurrection as eyewitness testimony and word spread throughout the Mediterranean. IT FAILED. Because the evidence and testimony was overwhelming. This recent kind of bogus "research" and "scholarship" using the prestige and clout of such intellectual hotbeds as Harvard and Columbia hopes to net the usual hit & run readers of headlines-only. The pods will ONLY remember the headlines and Twitter it to each other (Didja hear?? Jesus had a WIFE!!"), remaining oblivious to the subsequent dismissal of yet one more attempted "researched discovery" and fraud.
This most stubborn act and exercise of having both a passive tantrum while holding their breath till they're blue (until God shows up on their doorstep) only serves to sabotage one's own soul forever. It's the only way pseudo-disbelievers (who call themselves "Agnostics" and Atheists") feel they can "diss" a God who refuses to make an encore appearance (at their whim.) In the meantime these same people demand the God they reject make THIS moral plane a "fair" place -- if not a premature Heaven. I will consider the above an indictment of our post-modern world. We must increase our prayers that all who fit the above category will seek God's Grace and Mercy. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Even raising the dead didn't seem to inspire anyone enough at the time to record the event. Have you read the Gospels of the Apostles? Have you read of the incredible crowds Jesus would draw? Were they fictional accounts written but multiple sources?
It is clear from NT Scriptures that the marriage bed is undefiled. Regardless of what some medieval clergy may think. So not a case of 'sex' within marriage. It is a case of consistency. We have over 5,000 manuscript evidences of the NT texts. Not one even hints at Jesus being married. But we do know from those same evidences, Jesus had a mother, an earthly 'step-father' and brothers and sisters. They are all mentioned but not a wife. No mention of a wife. We hear "brothers of Jesus", "Mother of Jesus" but not even a hint of "wife of Jesus." So unless this fragment comes directly from an Apostle and predates the NT Scriptures, it is unreliable. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Yes, and the Time of Decision must be made soon for all. Too many are falling by the wayside. Jeremiah 5:21 Matthew 13:13 Matthew 13:14 Mark 8:18 John 12:40 Acts 28:26 Romans 1:20 Romans 11:8 Isaiah 6:9 Isaiah 6:10 Isaiah 43:8 Jeremiah 4:22 Jeremiah 6:10 Ezekiel 12:2 Zechariah 7:11
Perhaps you should study Mormon books?
I agree with you: Jesus did not have a wife. If he had one, it would have probably been recorded (unless God, for some reason, decided to not inspire its recordation). But if he did, it doesn't change theology one whit. It would change ecclesiology only (and who but professional clergymen cares about that?). It's a tempest in a teapot, the whole thing.
I hear that the northern hemisphere of Kolob is lovely this time of year!
As many times as it takes for people to believe them... Translation: This will never end!! LOL. I remember TC posting this some time ago on LP. Think it is time to have it in the LF archives:) "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Proven? By whom? The same people that verified the authentuicity of what is accepted as original writings that make up Scripture. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Not people...The Holy Spirit. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Un,huh. And what are they,other than oral tradition handed down over generations that were finally put into written words? When these researchers find thousands of fragments that "Jesus had a wife" then you can jump for joy. I won't be jumping for joy or disappointed. I don't really care other than in a "good for him,maybe he wasn't queer after all" sort of way. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
By people with an agenda who NEED it to be a forgery to keep their particular brand of faith alive. "It's a forgery,ah tells ya!" is a claim 1,000 miles long and a fraction of an inch deep. It's no more a forgery than any other text claiming to be from the time of Jesus that was written in the 4th Century. Some people just can't stand to see their dogmas put on a chain. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Define "dirty sex". It is all sex,or just any sex that isn't approved by some church authority? Or is it what is commonly known as "kinky sex"? If so,please define it. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It doesn't. The Bible was obviously written by women-hating homosexuals,so maybe/probably it is not 100 percent accurate and truthful? You DO know it is just a book that was written by many different people and even edited by more people who decided what to leave in and what to leave out,right? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Let's given the Mary Magdelene theorists the greatest slack and say "Ok, Mary Magdelene, former sinner, became Jesus' wife." That would explain why Jesus revealed himself to her first after the resurrection, and why he would speak to her tenderly. But beyond that, does it change ANYTHING about the faith? Only for people who were raised to believe that sex is dirty. For them,it pretty much shatters their whole sense of what Christianity is all about. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Who else was going to do his laundry and make him sammiches? His "Boy Ward Robin",that dresses in flashy rubber tights? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The way *I* see it,Jesus was a threat to the political powers that be at the time,and if anything,THEY would be the ones that promoted the idea that this man in his 30's only hung around with hairy-legged men and never had sex or any other close relations with any female. What better way to turn people away from a political threat to your power than to suggest the leader of this new movement is a homosexual? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Wrong premise; It's a matter of humoring a lie perpetrated by those with a subversive agenda. No,it is a legitimate question. Please answer it. What would be wrong with Jesus having a wife? Are you so programmed to think of sex as an evil act that you think Jesus would go to hell for having sex? Even inside a marriage? Irrelevant to the lying claim that Jesus "had a wife". No,it cuts right to the heart of it because if you don't think of sex as something evil or "dirty",why would you care about Jesus having had a wife? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Really? How? Please give me facts,not dogmatic faith. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
LOL! Yeah,but if there is one thing you can rely on ignorant,superstitious people to do,it is to piss off somebody that has the power to destroy the whole world. Good call! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It is clear from NT Scriptures that the marriage bed is undefiled. Regardless of what some medieval clergy may think. Un,huh. "Marriage bed UNDEFILED". Nothing prejudicial there,is there? BTW,PLEASE correct me if I am wrong,but isn't the "New and Improved" New Testament even newer than the 4th Century scroll fragment that is the source of this thread? Doesn't that mean,by your OWN logic,that the entire NT must also be fraudulent? We hear "brothers of Jesus", "Mother of Jesus" but not even a hint of "wife of Jesus." Yeah,we even hear a LOT about the "Jesus Baby Daddy" who was NOT his mother's husband,and who violated his own commandments by impregnating another man's wife. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I posted a lot more Pete than citing the DSS. The written Word of God started long before the manuscripts and fragments we have today. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Frankly the opposite. Kept alive because the mountain of evidence points to this fragment as being a fraud. Here's some perspective. There are over 5,000 owners of the Topps 1967 baseball card of Mickey Mantle. Here it is BTW: Now, some collector comes along almost 50 years later and explains to everyone in possession of the 5,000 1967 Mickey Mantle Topps baseball cards that what they have is actually a fraud. That 'he' is in possession of the one and only authentic 1967 Mickey Mantle baseball card. That Topps had it wrong. TV had it wrong. Thousands of pictures had it wrong. But this lone collector says "THIS IS IT" instead: "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Yes I will correct you...You are incorrect. If you read the post I provided you would see the manuscript evidence is centuries earlier. If you went to some of the links I provided you would see late 1st Century and early 2nd Century church theologians quoted from what we call the NT. If we were to take just the writings of the church fathers from the first three centuries, we could piece together an entire OT and NT...even without the manuscripts. That is what is called a dual independent check. And the Bible both OT and NT surpasses this. Yeah,we even hear a LOT about the "Jesus Baby Daddy" who was NOT his mother's husband,and who violated his own commandments by impregnating another man's wife. Now you are just being cynical and silly. Plus showing you are commenting on something you have little knowledge on. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I knew there was a damn good reason for me not liking the Yankees... Pete, I know you have a hate relationship with the Holy Bible. I know the Holy Spirit was responsible for writing the Holy Bible and responsible for ensuring the Scriptures stayed true to truth and the purposes of God for revealing the Scriptures to mankind.
You used the term "Dirty Sex." I repeated your term. Shouldn't you do the defining?
Why is that? There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
My understanding is none of them were written at the time Jesus was living. Any contemporaneous accounts of Jesus's life would be appreciated. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
It is my understanding that every book in the Bible was written long after the death of Christ. Now,how this applies to the Torah and other religious written texts,I have no idea. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
In other words,written from 100 to 200 years after the events written about. Yeah,we even hear a LOT about the "Jesus Baby Daddy" who was NOT his mother's husband,and who violated his own commandments by impregnating another man's wife. Now you are just being cynical and silly. Plus showing you are commenting on something you have little knowledge on. Who was the Jesus baby daddy? Who was the Jesus mother,and who was she married to? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Not really. Just the evil bastards that use it and interpret it in such a way as to turn their followers into mindless robots full of fear. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#26. To: sneakypete (#14) You are talking about dirty sex, and I'm talking about souls that acknowledge God as Savior. The Holy Bible talks about the children of God. Don posted on 2015-08-25 10:13:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Nothing. Adam had one. Abraham had several. Isaac had one. Jacob had two. Joseph had one. Moses had one. Peter, the first Pope had one. There would be nothing at all wrong with Jesus having a wife. History doesn't record him having one, so he probably didn't. If history showed him having one, the Church would not have a celibacy rule for the priesthood. That's the tangible ecclesiological difference it would make, but it would make no theological difference at all. In fact, if he had a wife, one wife, and (because he was Son of God) was always faithful to her, and remained married to her to the end, then his human marriage would be yet another exemplary archetype of how men are supposed to behave, in this case when they are married. But we don't have history showing that, so he probably didn't. Not really much more to say about it. It's not a big deal either way.
The first three commandments given to humanity upon creation were: Reproduce! Increase! Fill the land and subdue it! Those same commandments were repeated after the Flood. Men and women are supposed to permanently pair off and have lots of babies. Sex isn't dirty.
Read Titus 3:10
Comments (81 - 135) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestUhhhh,it is Christians having all that "dirty sex" that are multiplying,and Christians by definition believe in the Christian God.
#42. To: Liberator (#36)
With as many witnesses to the life of Jesus as there were, and as many enemies as He had at the time
#43. To: ranky, Don, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, sneakypete (#16)
The proof thusfar has been that this fragment is a later fabrication...fraud.
#44. To: Liberator, GarySpFc (#38)
I suspect most of these people who dwell only in a Material World they can "see" in their hearts *know* the truth, but won't surrender it, their spirit and soul to it to God. As a gesture of ultimate contempt (as had recently and suddenly deceased good friend) they reject their Lord of Lords.
#45. To: cranky (#42)
I didn't know there were any references made about Jesus of Nazareth during his lifetime.
#46. To: sneakypete (#13)
Are you so programmed to think of sex as an evil act that you think Jesus would go to hell for having sex? Even inside a marriage?
#47. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc (#44)
I will consider the above an indictment of our post-modern world. We must increase our prayers that all who fit the above category will seek God's Grace and Mercy.
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember?
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."
"'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day."
He said, "Go and tell this people: "'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."
Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf.
"My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good."
To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of the LORD is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it.
"Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.
"But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears.
#48. To: cranky (#0)
#49. To: redleghunter (#46)
#50. To: A Pole (#48)
Perhaps you should study Mormon books?
#51. To: redleghunter (#6)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#52. To: Vicomte13, A Pole, TooConservative, liberator (#50)
I hear that the northern hemisphere of Kolob is lovely this time of year!
#53. To: Don (#7)
#54. To: SOSO (#53)
The same people that verified the authentuicity of what is accepted as original writings that make up Scripture.
#55. To: redleghunter (#21)
The Dead Sea Scrolls say otherwise.
#56. To: redleghunter (#25)
How many peer reviews does this fragment need? It has already been reviewed several times and deemed a forgery.
#57. To: Don (#26)
(Edited)
You are talking about dirty sex,
#58. To: Don (#27)
Where in the Holy Bible does it talk about Christ having a wife?
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
And let's pause for a moment to think about whether it really makes any difference, theologically, that Jesus had a wife or not.
#60. To: Liberator (#31)
Why would Jesus need a wife?
#61. To: Liberator (#36)
With as many witnesses to the life of Jesus as there were, and as many enemies as He had at the time, IF there were actual "proof" of a wife, Jesus' contemporaries and historians would have been all over it. EARLY ON.
#62. To: Liberator (#40)
What's wrong with it being true?
#63. To: Liberator (#41)
Uhhhh....You missed the mark by approximately a thousand miles.
#64. To: Liberator (#43)
We can only imagine the degree of suppression by heretics of all things Jesus' soon after His death and resurrection as eyewitness testimony and word spread throughout the Mediterranean.
#65. To: redleghunter (#46)
Are you so programmed to think of sex as an evil act that you think Jesus would go to hell for having sex? Even inside a marriage?
#66. To: sneakypete (#55)
And what are they,other than oral tradition handed down over generations that were finally put into written words?
#67. To: sneakypete, GarySpFc, liberator, tomder55, CZ82 (#56)
By people with an agenda who NEED it to be a forgery to keep their particular brand of faith alive.
#68. To: sneakypete (#65)
BTW,PLEASE correct me if I am wrong,but isn't the "New and Improved" New Testament even newer than the 4th Century scroll fragment that is the source of this thread?
#69. To: redleghunter (#67)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#70. To: sneakypete (#58)
#71. To: sneakypete (#57)
#72. To: A Pole (#48)
Perhaps you should study Mormon books?
#73. To: Liberator (#45)
Have you read the Gospels of the Apostles?
#74. To: redleghunter (#66)
The written Word of God started long before the manuscripts and fragments we have today.
#75. To: redleghunter (#68)
If you went to some of the links I provided you would see late 1st Century and early 2nd Century church theologians quoted from what we call the NT. If we were to take just the writings of the church fathers from the first three centuries, we could piece together an entire OT and NT...even without the manuscripts. That is what is called a dual independent check. And the Bible both OT and NT surpasses this.
#76. To: Don (#70)
Pete, I know you have a hate relationship with the Holy Bible.
#77. To: Don (#71)
You used the term "Dirty Sex."
#78. To: sneakypete (#62)
(Edited)
No,it is a legitimate question. Please answer it. What would be wrong with Jesus having a wife?
#79. To: sneakypete (#59)
#80. To: redleghunter (#21)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]