Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Is Jesus "Normal, Sexual And Married?"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Last week the New York Times, the television networks and the lessor lights who feed off their stories published or reported the following with a picture:

"A previously unknown scrap of ancient papyrus written in ancient Egyptian Coptic is pictured in this undated handout photo obtained by Reuters September 18, 2012. The papyrus has four words written in Coptic that provide the first unequivocal evidence that within 150 years of his death, some followers of Jesus, believed him to have been married."

The surprise is that this wasn't released the week before Easter or Christmas, however, there is little surprise that the media has miraculously leaped to their feet to proclaim this new "truth"---the "gospel of Jesus' wife."

Some say this actually authenticates Dan Brown's DaVinci Code. The secular progressives knew it was true all along.

But wait. Is the press getting ahead of the facts?

What does the professor who introduced this previously unknown scrap of ancient papyrus have to say about it?

And did you know the Harvard Theological Review, that had scheduled this new find to be published in January, 2013, is now saying they may not publish it?

Karen L. King, the scholar who recently revealed the existence of the manuscript fragment says in the press release:
"This is the only extant ancient text which explicitly portrays Jesus as referring to a wife. It does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married, given the late date of the fragment and the probable date of original composition only in the second half of the second century."

Near the end of her article, King, with contributions by AnneMarie Luijendijk, reiterates:
"Does this fragment constitute evidence that Jesus was married? In our opinion, the late date of the Coptic papyrus (c. fourth century), and even of the possible date of composition in the second half of the second century, argues against its value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus."

Of course, King’s measured judgment here will do little to stop the tidal wave of claims that we now have definitive evidence if not proof that Jesus was actually married. Dan Brown and his spokesman, Sir Leigh Teabing, appear to have been right all along! At least this is what we're hearing from many corners.

In fact, as Karen King rightly observes, the discovery and publication of the fragment known as the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife in fact tells us nothing about the first-century man we know as Jesus of Nazareth. If it is genuine, the fragment of the otherwise unknown document will tell us something about the beliefs of people who lived a century or two after Jesus, though what exactly we should conclude on the basis of this small piece of an ancient manuscript is yet to be determined.

Harvard University says it has not actually committed to publishing the research, even though its divinity school touted the research during a publicity blitz this week.

This past Friday, the review’s co-editor Kevin Madigan said he and his co-editor had only “provisionally” committed to a January publication, pending the results of the ongoing studies. In an email, Madigan said the added studies include “scientific dating and further reports from Coptic papyrologists and grammarians.”

After Tuesday’s announcement, even The Associated Press raised questions about the fragment’s authenticity and provenance, quoting scholars at the international congress on Coptic studies in Rome, where King delivered the paper. The scholars said the fragment’s grammar, form and content raised several red flags. Alin Suciu, a papyrologist at the University of Hamburg, flatly called it a “forgery.”

All of this points to a much larger and more important question:

Who is Jesus?

My friend Josh McDowell says He is either a liar, a lunatic or He is Lord. I have linked Josh's comments. I recommend you read them---even if you know the right answer. It's affirming to one's faith to read it again.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Thankful. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.


  1. The Word is already published and God has given us everything in the Bible, we dont need another story to confound the lost, or even test the saved. But follow what is already written, which by the way has enough proofs to fill a life time.

  2. For a man who is advocating voting for an anti-Christ Satanic priest for president, I wonder why Gary would even care about who Jesus is....

    1. Patrick your comments continue to give him reditability . You do ralize that , how hateful you come off. You can not even address the topic.

  3. Just read McDowell's article. Praise be to God! Thanks Gary for speaking the truth.

  4. FnF - Thanks for resuming the publishing my posts. They as you know pure truth. If there is any error, please point it out - and I will repent before the Lord.

    My hope is that Gary will read and humbly re-submit himself to Christ.

    In the Lord Jesus Christ,

  5. Patrick. Your most glaring error is that you do not proof your comments before submitting. You gain credibility merely by using good English.

  6. Bud -

    I humbly accept your criticism - and it is quite warranted.

    Please accept the following as my "penance".

    FnF - Thanks for resuming the publishing "of" my posts. They "are", as you know, pure truth. If there is any error, please point it out - and I will repent before the Lord.

    My hope is that Gary will read and humbly re-submit himself to Christ.

  7. Faith and Freedom staff9:02 PM, September 25, 2012

    We will publish your comments as long as your focus is on making your point of view known. There is no need for you to endlessly attack Gary personally, and others, with whom you disagree. Gary has thousands of readers all over the world, some of whom disagree with him and his beliefs. This forum is intended to give everyone a place to express their views, whether or not they agree with the beliefs of Gary and Faith and Freedom. I'm sure you are aware that most faith based web sites do not offer that opportunity to those who have opposing views. Please recognize this and stay on point with your comments.

  8. BTW - re: most "faith based web-sites" - these places, like most so called churches are massively bankrupt because they have rejected Jesus Christ and the clear, repeated text of scripture - and have shut their ears such they have waxed gross. They seek those who tickle them and entertain them.... Think of a local church where the Pastor is a good entertainer - think of a larger chuch.... See the connection...

    Yes, sad to say.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.