Evidence that Jesus had Wife Emerge

[Muffled]

"The truth may be finally emerging about the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife," a controversial papyrus suggesting that some people 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.

​

Translation:

1) ... not [to] me, my mother gave to me li[fe] ...

2) The disciples said to Jesus, "...

3) ... deny. Mary is worthy of it ... (or, alternatively, Mary is not worth of it ...)

4) ..." Jesus said to them, "My wife ...

5) ... she will be able to be my disciple ...

6) Let wicked people swell up ...

7) As for me, I dwell with her in order to ...

8) ... an image ...​

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 [Harvard University professor, Karen] King to support the text's authenticity."
source​

Other than out and out pooh-poohing, anyone have a reasonable comment?

I believe the heresy is an authentic heresy. However I do not believe it is God inspired.

 

[outhouse]

No. Religion has deceived many by making everything a historical and literal approach too. Taking myths historically. Blending right in, albeit more discreetly.

You just fantasized, bud. Mind illusion, creating something that was never there and attributing it to someone else. Never called education, academia, and knowledge fundamentalism.

Anyone can deem anything credible, academia, education, knowledge by being naive, believing bias of any eloquent and smart-sounding written words thousands of years ago by self proclaimed "scholars" or modern "scholars." The only evidence of knowledge you possess are that texts were written, scribed, translated, and exist. Self-choosing which small portions of myths are true doesn't make anything you want academics and knowledge. It makes trying to justify myths and internal texts, historically and outwardly. Very own clever theology. Chasing the scholarly imaginative mind in circles like a cat chasing its tail. It's not very wise chasing dead end pursuits, thousands of years ago, when one lives in modern times.

Word salad that has no meaning or credibility, and amounts to personal rhetoric.

 

[Unification]

Word salad that has no meaning or credibility, and amounts to personal rhetoric.

What religion is it when one combines strong atheism with teaching fantasy historically?

 

[psychoslice]

No. Religion has deceived many by making everything a historical and literal approach too. Taking myths historically. Blending right in, albeit more discreetly.

You just fantasized, bud. Mind illusion, creating something that was never there and attributing it to someone else. Never called education, academia, and knowledge fundamentalism.

Anyone can deem anything credible, academia, education, knowledge by being naive, believing bias of any eloquent and smart-sounding written words thousands of years ago by self proclaimed "scholars" or modern "scholars." The only evidence of knowledge you possess are that texts were written, scribed, translated, and exist. Self-choosing which small portions of myths are true doesn't make anything you want academics and knowledge. It makes trying to justify myths and internal texts, historically and outwardly. Very own clever theology. Chasing the scholarly imaginative mind in circles like a cat chasing its tail. It's not very wise chasing dead end pursuits, thousands of years ago, when one lives in modern times.

Nicely said.