Archaeologica.org

Let the shrieking commence!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/hi ... TE&ei=5043

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …'”

The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

IMHO a whole lot of attention given to what will end up as a nothing.
Kind of like the word translated “virgin” meant “young lady.”

Note the desire to up the sales value of the scrap.
And the Prof.s desire for some fame.

The Coptic Christians were known even in Paul’s day as a “Mystic” type group.
They had a pretty good following and, in spite of Constantine, their belief that Mary had girl child and moved to the south of France to raise a good sized family is quietly celebrated even today.

They even made a pretty bad movie based on a pretty good book about it.

But some fringe groups belong on the fringe.

If you read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities you will find that the beliefs of early "christians" spanned a wide spectrum. I think I still have an electronic version if you'd like to read it.

Thanks for the offer.
But I took you up on it the first time you offered.

Very interesting read.
It shows that as wide a spread of beliefs we have today that claim to be Christian there was a lot wider spread before we got Constantine’s “Orthodox” (approved) doctrine set.

I claim, and try, to be a Christian.
But my beliefs fall far outside the doctrines of most organized branches of the claimed followers of Christ. There has been far too much mixing in the history of “Mainstream” doctrine for my taste. Constantine would be appalled at what has happened to his unifying effort.

I do accept the traditional Canon of the scriptures in spite of the heavy politics going on in the determination of it. I guess it falls down to the fact that I feel that if God could manage to get his thoughts written down over the centuries by 40 some authors I don’t expect he would have much trouble guiding the writings He wanted to be studied through the process.

Hence I don’t give much weight to the “Gnostic Gospels.”
Interesting from a historical point of view, but not from a doctrinal one.

I guess it falls down to the fact that I feel that if God could manage to get his thoughts written down over the centuries by 40 some authors

Of course, that's a big IF right there.

The Woman Taken in Adultery is an interesting example from Inside the cannon of what you're rejecting from outside it.

A charge of adultery against a woman at the Temple in Jerusalem then would have been wildly implausible : sexual mores (particularly concerning marital fidelity) in Jerusalem were, to put it mildly, relaxed in the extreme. (Source : Talmud).

But there was another Temple as well, in Samaria. There, sexual ethics were about on a par with the Taliban's today. A charge of adultery would have been a serious matter indeed : literally a capital case.

The sole judge in which (go study if you need to) was her husband.

There is a LOT of interior evidence in the Gospels that, in their totality, preserve the original scene and dramatis personae (subsequently tampered with by Constantine's lackeys who were either too stupid to grasp the significance of what they were mis-characterising, or exceedingly clever and faithful -- leaving enough evidence undisturbed within them to allow it to be recognised.

FWIW

(Source : Talmud)

Of course, that too was written over centuries and did not commence until after the temple had been destroyed. Its easy to write stories about things and people which no longer exist as there is no one to refute them.

It is easy to come to any conclusion you like by reducing facts to abstractions.

That's how the desire to be fair to everybody turned into Affirmative Action.

Which is fair to nobody.

uniface wrote:It is easy to come to any conclusion you like by reducing facts to abstractions.

That's how the desire to be fair to everybody turned into Affirmative Action.

Which is fair to nobody.

More of the white supremacy nonsense? SMH

I can remember a time when women used to be steered away from science because it was believed that, being unduly prone to subjectivity by nature, they had too hard a time trying to be objective -- that their emotions over-ruled their reasoning capacity.

Far from demonstrating that this was a "prejudice" on the part of men with no foundation in fact, the years which followed have only, in the main, demonstrated that once again,

All the old cliches are true.
That's why they're cliches.

And you're a poster child example of it.

uniface wrote:It is easy to come to any conclusion you like by reducing facts to abstractions.

That's how the desire to be fair to everybody turned into Affirmative Action.

Which is fair to nobody.

We'll just have to disagree on that....too.

You have the undisputed right to your own personal views.

But not to your own personal facts to base them on.

uniface wrote:I can remember a time when women used to be steered away from science because it was believed that, being unduly prone to subjectivity by nature, they had too hard a time trying to be objective -- that their emotions over-ruled their reasoning capacity.

Far from demonstrating that this was a "prejudice" on the part of men with no foundation in fact, the years which followed have only, in the main, demonstrated that once again,

All the old cliches are true.
That's why they're cliches.

And you're a poster child example of it.

Ahhh... I get it now uni!

You're a misogynistic white supremacist.

uniface wrote:You have the undisputed right to your own personal views.

But not to your own personal facts to base them on.

Jesus freaks are notoriously short on facts.