Part 32 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

That is why it is a fraud too many Marys.
During that time too many fake manuscript were being discovered one of them is the gospel of Mary all these manuscript were possibly written by heretics that have sprang up especially after Rome legalized Christianity. The church took careful steps to study all discovered manuscript to determine its authenticity just like today we see too many imitation of brand names .

- - - Updated - - -

But what if those babies grew up and decided to take revenge on their Israelite adapted parents?

 

There is no doubt the gospel of Mary is fake there is no doubt it is ancient an ancient fake.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...why-gospel-of-jesus-wife-is-fake.html?start=2

One way to get a more dubious document accepted is by inserting the fake manuscript into a collection acknowledged as genuine.

The Jesus’ Wife fragment did not come to Harvard on its own. It was delivered alongside another manuscript in the same handwriting and similar ink: a copy of the Gospel of John. At first glance, the John manuscript appeared genuine and did not attract suspicion. In fact, the John manuscript proved to be the undoing of the Jesus’ Wife fragment.

In April 2014, Harvard Theological Review published the results of the carbon-dating of the Jesus’ Wife fragment (more precisely, "Accelerated Mass Spectrometry Radiocarbon Determination"). Although there are problems with some aspects of the testing, the useful parts proved to be another nail in the coffin of authenticity. King had claimed that the manuscript probably dated to the 4th century, but the testing showed that the papyrus probably came from the 8th. King presented these results to confirm that the manuscript was ancient. This is partly true. The papyrus is certainly ancient. But that proves nothing: In the 16th century genuinely old papyrus was used to forge the will of Julius Caesar.

The first is the dubious origins of the manuscript. Scholars are becoming increasingly suspicious of artifacts not found in genuine archaeological digs. (This has led to doubt over the recently published “Gabriel Revelation’s” text, for example.) The Jesus’ Wife manuscript has emerged from the shadows, presented to King by an individual who remains anonymous. In fact, documents show that the manuscript was purchased in 1999 from one Hans-Ulrich Laukamp, who supposedly obtained it in Potsdam, Germany, in 1963.

 

Are you seriously this daft or just pretending ? I did not put the two words together to equate them nor state that they are the same.

As I said numerous times already I told you to replace on word with the other as my comments would be the same.

Just ignore the other word you poor lost creature.

 

Christians who stood up against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Stalin's USSR and WARSAW Pact nations, Mao's cultural revolution Christians were in the forefront while atheist glorify those tyrants and dictators.
The Church will be the only institution to publicly issue degree calling for the protection of Jews.

Sicut Judaeis (Latin: "As the Jews") was a papal bull setting out the official position of the papacy regarding the treatment of Jews.

The first bull was issued in about 1120 by Calixtus II and was intended to protect Jews. It was prompted by the First Crusade, during which over five thousand Jews were slaughtered in Europe. The words sicut Judaeis ("and thus to the Jews") were first used by Pope Gregory I (590-604) in a letter addressed to the Bishop of Naples. Even then the Pope emphasized that Jews were entitled to "enjoy their lawful liberty."[1]

The bull was reaffirmed by many popes including Alexander III, Celestine III (1191-119, Innocent III (1199), Honorius III (1216), Gregory IX (1235), Innocent IV (1246), Alexander IV (1255), Urban IV (1262), Gregory X (1272 & 1274), Nicholas III, Martin IV (1281), Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Clement VI (134, Urban V (1365), Boniface IX (1389), Martin V (1422), and Nicholas V (1447).[2][3]

The bull forbade Christians, on pain of excommunication, from forcing Jews to convert, from harming them, from taking their property, from disturbing the celebration of their festivals, and from interfering with their cemeteries.

The bull of 1120 was not the first papal expression against the mistreatment of Jews. In 1065, for example, Pope Alexander II wrote to Béranger, Viscount of Narbonne, and to Guifred, bishop of the city, praising them for having prevented the massacre of the Jews in their district, and reminding them that God does not approve of the shedding of blood. In 1065 also, Alexander admonished Landulf VI of Benevento "that the conversion of Jews is not to be obtained by force."

 

You mean Authentic, there is a difference.

 

Yes authentic to be fake.

 

I see you've gone from twisting other posters post and making them lies, to accusing them be being even more satan like by asking questions to continue your deception.
Satan works in mysterious ways.

 

Still crying the blues because your own link refuted your claim LOL

Here is another reputable source that refutes your false claim.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/jesus-wife-papyrus-not-fake-analysis-suggests-1.2605887

 

Is there any doubt if the bible story is true? Afterall that God created the whole thing with the known result.

 

The above is not a valid sentence. Regardless, do you not now the difference between the claim that something is "authentic" and claiming that something is true ?

Just because the story of Jesus having a wife is authentic does not make it true.

For example: Some of the Gospels of Paul are authentic but this does not make them true.

 

Fake. Carbon dating have it 8th century only Karen is insisting that it is not.

But Brown University Professor Leo Depuydt, in an analysis also published Thursday by the Harvard Theological Review, was not convinced. He said the text contains grammatical errors that a native Coptic speaker would not make. King suggested in a phone interview that the text is written in an informal style that is found in other ancient Coptic texts.

Others have questioned the mysterious provenance of the papyrus.

King says she obtained the text in 2011 from a donor that wants to remain anonymous. That owner had purchased the text in 1999 from a collector who, in turn, had acquired it in East Germany around 1963.

 

Is God not capable ? Do you ever think about what you are going to say before you say it ?

 

Twisting and lying is not my job I leave that to others I only refute their lies and the twisting of truth and I have been very successful.

 

If you travel to the Holy Land or the Middle East you will encounter many vendors selling they claim are authentic Christian relics, my suggestion be careful buyers beware the same apply here with gospel of Mary.

 

No one has proven the text is a fake. Sorry.

Your comment: Carbon dating have it 8th century only Karen is insisting that it is not.

My link given to you in the previous post:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/jesus-wife-papyrus-not-fake-analysis-suggests-1.2605887

As usual, you have serious reading comprehension issues or are just making up false stories again.

 

Are you seriously so insecure that you have to resort to name calling? "daft"? Be a little more serious and display a little more maturity in your responses.

 

That's draft not daft. Poor lost creature.

 

I reference your posting:
"Are you seriously this daft or just pretending ?"

So quit with the childish excuses.

 

But if God made man in his own image then God is responsible for the actions of man. Basically if I make something that kills someone I am ultimately responsible - I need not have created this thing. God need not have created man, or he could have created man as perfect as he is supposed to be. No problem. There would be no need for theology, philosophy, psychology or any other 'ology'.

Someone once said to me that that would be boring. Which means that God gets bored. Perhaps that's why he created man and supposedly gave him free will. At least he would have something to do, watching and adjusting, creating his own people, allowing mans inhuman nature to arise. Oooops. Man hasn't got an inhuman nature. He was created in gods image.

One day, of course, he'll get bored again and wind the whole thing up. Perhaps he's already started again in another Universe - Parallel - of course.

 

Isn't that their free will?

 

Paragraph 1 makes as much sense as the rubbish you usually post.

1. 'Fake' manuscripts weren't being 'discovered'. They were in circulation.
2. They didn't spring up 'especially after Rome legalised Christianity'. Many were long before then or else how could the church study them?
3. None of these manuscripts are 'fake'. They are accepted as genuine manuscripts of the period. What is questioned is the authenticity of the contents.
4. You are right about heresies springing up. But this cannot happen until you have a formally agreed doctrine. Any so-called heresy before that time is merely a difference of opinion. In truth, if you include the Roman Catholic Church in Christianity, there still is not an agreed doctrine on all subjects. The RC has practises that most other Christian churches reject as heretical.
5. If you care to study the other non-canonical gospels and manuscripts it becomes fairly clear that Mary Magdalene is the subject of the Gospel of Mary.

But what if those babies grew up and decided to take revenge on their Israelite adapted parents?

You really haven't thought that through. We are talking about babies - not young virgin women. But then you probabl can't see the difference.
Babies would have no memories, except those of their ADOPTED parents. Young virgin women would have gone through the horror of seeing their families destroyed by their captors.
When you grow up you may understand the difference.

 

In some places, under the laws of man, the parents can be held accountable for the actions of the children. However, when the children reach an age of accountability, then the parents are no longer accountable for the actions of what was formerly the children. But show me in any religious teaching where God (the parent) can be held accountable for the actions of His Children. That seems to be the greatest problem in dealing with the subject of God. People have a tendency to judge God according to the laws of man. But my signature line shows where even in mans law, the thoughts of a man cannot be condemned, because they are not approachable by the laws of man unless those thoughts are made manifest.

What is boring to another may not necessarily be boring to you, me or yet another person. So that was a classic example of irrelevancy on your part.

Speaking of future possibilities... Anything is possible... even the existence of God... so be prudent in the making of judgment calls.

 

The big whoosh you just heard was your post going right over WR's head.

 

Thread closed. Too much flame baiting and insulting.

Shangrila
Moderator