tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6520893128143413982.post4357845842934534795..comments2024-03-10T00:25:04.987-08:00Comments on FLAMBLOGGER ...: SO WAS JESUS MARRIED...?ChrisJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550420299395301062noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6520893128143413982.post-78608852450303182202012-09-25T18:05:48.832-07:002012-09-25T18:05:48.832-07:00well, it WAS written 3 or 4 centuries AD. it could...well, it WAS written 3 or 4 centuries AD. it could be authentic but doesn't prove anything one way or anotherRoger Owen Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298172138307632062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6520893128143413982.post-14067490136290129222012-09-25T04:06:42.777-07:002012-09-25T04:06:42.777-07:00I had not considered the idea that any supposed de...I had not considered the idea that any supposed descendants of Jesus might consider themselves superior. Yes, that would be an undesirable outcome. As far as true believers go, their faith will not be affected by this 'news'.jabbloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12176958811589489979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6520893128143413982.post-13916563319221203572012-09-24T18:11:23.624-07:002012-09-24T18:11:23.624-07:00One thing that no-one seems to be mentioning is th...One thing that no-one seems to be mentioning is that the name Jesus was a very common name back then. Surely this fragment could have been written by any one of them. And there are just too many 'maybe's' about all this, as usual. It would take a lot more than one obscure scrap of parchment to prove/disprove anything about Jesus. When they have as many parchments as it took to compile the Bible, they might have something to go on. But who really needs anything more?!kaybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808550103489943108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6520893128143413982.post-7545485977572554272012-09-24T14:32:12.676-07:002012-09-24T14:32:12.676-07:00JANE: You're right, of course, but some peopl...JANE: You're right, of course, but some people like to use this kind of info to undermine the truths of the Bible. It doesn't affect my faith, but as a teacher I often had to guide the thinking of teens who would insist that the Bible was just a bunch of fairy tales. That's just lack of education, yet it is exactly what I was taught in school. You can choose not to believe what the Bible teaches, but the manuscripts as written are definitely authentic.<br /><br />MORNING'S MINION: discrepencies are often the result of incomplete information, and as you say, don't detract from what we know, by personal (subjective) experience the truth of the gospel. Some may dismiss the Bible, but they can't dismiss my experiences.<br /><br />DAWN TREADER: Your logic is on target, and believers<br />find it hard to ignore that which undermines Jesus' divinity.<br /> <br />SNAFU: I hadn't heard that it had been proved a fake. It really doesn't matter because all the other manuscripts available are not fake. What matters is, is what they say fake?<br />People do that for the same reason as they faked the Piltdown man. They want to prove a point.ChrisJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11550420299395301062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6520893128143413982.post-207313230241232132012-09-24T09:27:07.302-07:002012-09-24T09:27:07.302-07:00I understand it has been discovered to be a fake. ...I understand it has been discovered to be a fake. Not sure why anyone would want to do that. snafuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07588812293454033077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6520893128143413982.post-65951835279869812452012-09-23T03:42:04.841-07:002012-09-23T03:42:04.841-07:00Hardly a new theory, is it (I recall reading a boo...Hardly a new theory, is it (I recall reading a book about the ideas used in The Da Vinci Code long before Brown wrote that). I don't doubt the idea as such probably goes very far back. But that's not the same as to make it true.<br /> <br />I think the challenge involved is the idea that if there were direct descendants of Jesus, that would either reduce him to be "just a man" OR give his (presumed) physical descendants a status of being more divine than others. The latter is probably the more dangerous view. DawnTreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04533307672147117843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6520893128143413982.post-53012185094370190872012-09-22T18:56:25.181-07:002012-09-22T18:56:25.181-07:00I don't consider myself a true Bible scholar--...I don't consider myself a true Bible scholar--and often get frustrated with some of the seeming discrepencies of the biblical narratives. Each bit of historical background that I read makes the scriptures more interesting. Somehow this latest 'discovery' comes across as a sensational detraction from the real gospel message.Morning's Minionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912356455981434029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6520893128143413982.post-87894903818775565092012-09-22T17:44:01.922-07:002012-09-22T17:44:01.922-07:00If Jesus were married,how would that change who Je...If Jesus were married,how would that change who Jesus was, and did? <br />He still died for me.<br />Jesus will still be my Saviour.<br />Jane xxxJane and Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08102086552682194819noreply@blogger.com