1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    11 Apr '14 10:312 edits
    I wouldn't say it is absolutely conclusive because the text is incomplete and we may never know what exactly were the missing words but, nevertheless, it is powerful scientific evidence that Jesus probability did have a wife:

    http://phys.org/news/2014-04-scroll-mentions-jesus-wife-ancient.html


    "..A ancient piece of papyrus that contains a mention of Jesus' wife is not a forgery, according to a scientific analysis of the controversial text, US researchers said Thursday.

    The fragment is believed to have come from Egypt and contains writing in the Coptic language that says, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'" Another part reads: "She will be able to be my disciple."

    Its discovery in 2012 caused a stir. Since Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, it renewed long-running debates over celibacy and the role of women in the church.

    The Vatican's newspaper declared it a fake, along with other scholars who doubted its authenticity based on its poor grammar, blurred text and uncertain origin.

    Never before has a gospel referred to Jesus being married, or having women as disciples.

    But a new scientific analysis of the papyrus and the ink, as well as the handwriting and grammar, show that the document is ancient.

    "No evidence of modern fabrication ("forgery" ) was found," the Harvard Divinity School said in a statement.

    ..."
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Apr '14 11:52
    Interesting!
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Apr '14 15:061 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    I wouldn't say it is absolutely conclusive because the text is incomplete and we may never know what exactly were the missing words but, nevertheless, it is powerful scientific evidence that Jesus probability did have a wife:

    http://phys.org/news/2014-04-scroll-mentions-jesus-wife-ancient.html


    "..A ancient piece of papyrus that contains a mention of Jes ...[text shortened]... rn fabrication ("forgery" ) was found," the Harvard Divinity School said in a statement.

    ..."
    wow you dismiss the entire Biblical cannon as irrational and then some singular piece of papyri shows up and you laud it as truth! there are literally thousands of extant codices and papyri of the Bible yet you remain silent about these!

    Now let us view this with our mental faculties in the light of reason, the document may be genuine but it does not necessitate that its contents are truthful, does it! It proves nada! Never the less what is actually more astonishing is your willingness to believe anything which contradicts the sacred text of scripture! a man unsteady in his ways and blown here and there on every whim of teaching, shameful! that great Bible scholar sir Issac Newton shall be turning in his grave at the thought of it!
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    11 Apr '14 16:438 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    wow you dismiss the entire Biblical cannon as irrational and then some singular piece of papyri shows up and you laud it as truth! there are literally thousands of extant codices and papyri of the Bible yet you remain silent about these!

    Now let us view this with our mental faculties in the light of reason, the document may be genuine but it do ...[text shortened]... l! that great Bible scholar sir Issac Newton shall be turning in his grave at the thought of it!
    you dismiss the entire Biblical cannon as irrational

    No I don't; just the absurd claims. I never said/implied/believed that literally every part of every biblical story was false -just the absurd parts such as there is a god and the resurrection and miracles etc.

    I am being perfectly logically consistent here: I disbelieve the claim that there is a god because that claim is utterly absurd. I could rationally believe that Jesus had a wife because that claim is perfectly plausible -What is absurd about that? -men do sometimes have wives!

    the document may be genuine but it does not necessitate that its contents are truthful

    correct, although, the mere fact that Jesus having a wife is not absurd surely must increases any rationally confidence we have that it could be true. Just like many inferences in science, the inference is both rational and probabilistic.

    But, much more importantly, if you are implying here above that this claim is probably false because “the document may be genuine but it does not necessitate that its contents are truthful” then why cannot most of the fantastical claims ( such as miracles and there being a god etc ) as opposed to the plausible ones (such as Jesus being crucified -crucifixions were common those days so there is nothing absurd about that! ) in the Bible be ALSO probably false because “the document may be genuine but it does not necessitate that its contents are truthful”?
    In other words, are you using one logic here to dismiss the credibility of the claim that Jesus had a wife but, at least in your own mind, would use another mutually exclusive logic here (i.e. not logically consistent with the first logic ) to support the claim that all the fantastical claims of the bible (there being a god + resurrection + miracles etc ) are true?
    I mean, why cannot the word "document" in your stated principle of “the document may be genuine but it does not necessitate that its contents are truthful” be replaced with the word "Bible" so to make a different assertion but one that ONLY differs by which document it refers to and not differ in any way in its logic? ( and that logic being correct i.e. valid in this case )
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Apr '14 17:10
    What is most probable acording to evidence?

    (A) That Jesus had a wife?
    Or (B) that the Shroud of Turin shows the face of Jesus?

    Do we use the same rigidity regarding the scientifi proofs when we decide? Or do we decide the answer first and then accept or dismiss the proofs accordingly?
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    11 Apr '14 19:24
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    What is most probable acording to evidence?

    (A) That Jesus had a wife?
    Or (B) that the Shroud of Turin shows the face of Jesus?

    Do we use the same rigidity regarding the scientifi proofs when we decide? Or do we decide the answer first and then accept or dismiss the proofs accordingly?
    The science Forum is not the proper forum to discuss religious matters.
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Apr '14 20:293 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    you dismiss the [b]entire Biblical cannon as irrational

    No I don't; just the absurd claims. I never said/implied/believed that literally every part of every biblical story was false -just the absurd parts such as there is a god and the resurrection and miracles etc.

    I am being perfectly logically consistent here: I disbelieve the c ...[text shortened]... nd not differ in any way in its logic? ( and that logic being correct i.e. valid in this case )[/b]
    two things strike me hear, the insinuation that there is no god, itself bordering on a truth claim without a shred of evidence and the fact that its hardly absurd to believe in an intelligent creator when the known world is teaming with intelligence, one could say it takes a greater leap of faith to limit ones search for truth to unintelligent agencies! Hardly logical, rational or scientific, is it! You are of course also free to offer up evidence for the alleged falsehood of any Biblical claims, events, personages etc but as soon as some Harvard academic comes along with his dating machine and claims a document is ancient you are falling yourselves to draw the most unsubstantiated assertions on the basis of scant evidence, all hail the God of science!
  8. Subscriberjoe shmo
    Strange Egg
    podunk, PA
    Joined
    10 Dec '06
    Moves
    7733
    11 Apr '14 20:371 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    you dismiss the [b]entire Biblical cannon as irrational

    No I don't; just the absurd claims. I never said/implied/believed that literally every part of every biblical story was false -just the absurd parts such as there is a god and the resurrection and miracles etc.

    I am being perfectly logically consistent here: I disbelieve the c ...[text shortened]... nd not differ in any way in its logic? ( and that logic being correct i.e. valid in this case )[/b]
    😲 Well played...
  9. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    11 Apr '14 21:177 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    two things strike me hear, the insinuation that there is no god, itself bordering on a truth claim without a shred of evidence and the fact that its hardly absurd to believe in an intelligent creator when the known world is teaming with intelligence, one could say it takes a greater leap of faith to limit ones search for truth to unintelligent agenci ...[text shortened]... the most unsubstantiated assertions on the basis of scant evidence, all hail the God of science!
    the insinuation that there is no god, itself bordering on a truth claim without a shred of evidence

    Firstly, it is not bordering on a truth claim because it clearly is a truth claim to claim something doesn't exist.
    Secondly, because of Occam's razor, no shred of evidence is required to rationally dismiss any existential claim. If this was not the case, then we would require evidence that there is NO supernatural teacup orbiting Mars to justify any claim that there is NO supernatural teacup orbiting Mars and such evidence is impossible to obtain -so we should believe that there could credibly exist such a thing?
    But, because of Occam's razor, the only rational default assumption must be there is NO such teacup and, for the same reason, NO God, and thus the burden of proof must be placed on the person who claims that there exists such a thing, NOT the person that says there is NO such thing!


    and the fact that its hardly absurd to believe in an intelligent creator when the known world is teaming with intelligence,

    What kind of “intelligent creator”? A human one that doesn't require supernatural magic to create something or one that does?
    There existing many NONE supernatural people that can NOT magically create the whole universe doesn't make it any more probable that there exists a fantastical supernatural being that IS a supernatural person that CAN magically create the whole universe! Your logic is flawed.

    one could say it takes a greater leap of faith to limit ones search for truth to unintelligent agencies!

    Not rationally say so! See my previous application of Occam's razor.

    let me elaborate on how that logical principle can be applied in this case:

    “there exists a God” is NOT an equal possibility to “there exists no God” because the assumption that there is a God is not one assumption but many including, depending on exactly which religion you would regard as most valid, there exists an object (called God) that simultaneously has all the characteristics of 1, being the creator of the whole universe 2, being immortal, 3, being benevolent, 4, having a mind, 5, being supernatural (which in turn assumes that there exists a supernatural) 6, there is only one such object with all these characteristics (i.e. there is only one God)....etc. Now, if we label each of these assumptions A, B, C, ...etc then the probability of there being a god must be the probability of A AND B AND C AND D ….etc but the probability of there being no god must be the probability of ~A OR ~B OR ~C OR ~D ...etc. ( the "~" in logic means "NOT" ) . Note that there is asymmetry (i.e. NOT completely symmetrical) between the two possibilities and therefore the probabilities between the two possibilities of there being a god and there being no god for, with there being a god, ALL the defining characteristics of a god have to be simultaneously true (as indicated by the use of the “AND” logic operations) but, for there being no god, only ONE of the defining characteristics of a god have to be false (as indicated by the use of the “OR” and "~" logic operations). This is not only what makes these two possibilities unequal but also indicates that the probability of there being a god must be very 'small' compared to that of there being no god.

    The above is the correct why to apply the logical principle of Occam's razor and an analogous argument can be made against the hypothesis that there is a supernatural teacup orbiting Mars and any other existential claim made in the absence of good supporting evidence for such an existential claim.
  10. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    12 Apr '14 05:21
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The science Forum is not the proper forum to discuss religious matters.
    Once again you bring religion to science, and once again you say that others shouldn't do it. Are you the only one that is allowed to mention supernatural fantasies into this Forum? Are you?

    Besides, this wasn't about religion. This has to do with scientific proofs.

    We all know that it doesn't matter if Jesus was married or not, he was just an ordinary man among many others. He can of corse be married. Nothing religious with this.
    We all know that the shroud of Turin is a shroud among many other shrouds. This one depicting a face, one of many, it could be anyone, noone knows. Nothing religius about this.

    So don't bring relgion here, RJHinds, do yourself what you say other should or shouldn't do. Remember the words of Jesus.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Apr '14 06:281 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    the insinuation that there is no god, itself bordering on a truth claim without a shred of evidence

    Firstly, it is not bordering on a truth claim because it clearly is a truth claim to claim something doesn't exist.
    Secondly, because of Occam's razor, no shred of evidence is required to rationally dismiss any existential claim. If this ...[text shortened]... existential claim made in the absence of good supporting evidence for such an existential claim.
    a truth claim for which you have not posted a shred of evidence nor can you! the shame of it and you a scientist as well! and the same parameters cannot be applied to God as one does a teacup orbiting mars for we see inferences of design everywhere and where design exists intelligence exists so your references to occams razor are futile and childish! the probability of life having arisen by chance in a pre biotic soup (you gotta love the scientific appellation soup) by sheer mathematics is so astronomically small that it renders the probability to be practically impossible and yet that is what you are asking us to believe? Life from a sterile environment, nay life from a sterile and hostile environment! I mock your pretensions of rationality! and I have no more reason to believe anything you say than had the toothfairy appeared to me and told me herself.
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    12 Apr '14 06:472 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    a truth claim for which you have not posted a shred of evidence nor can you! the shame of it and you a scientist as well! and the same parameters cannot be applied to God as one does a teacup orbiting mars for we see inferences of design everywhere and where design exists intelligence exists so your references to occams razor are futile and childish! ...[text shortened]... e reason to believe anything you say than had the toothfairy appeared to me and told me herself.
    for we see inferences of design everywhere

    Only in the delusional minds. 'We', on the other hand, don't -because there is no such valid inferences to see that indicate intelligent design in nature.
    your references to occams razor are futile and childish!

    So it can be “ futile and childish” to apply a basic principle of logic?
    Without the application of logic, we cannot know much!
    the probability of life having arisen by chance

    Now you are changing the subject completely -I sign that, at least deep down, you know you have lost the argument.
    The rest of your post is irrelevant.
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Apr '14 06:511 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    for we see inferences of design everywhere

    Only in the delusional minds. 'We', on the other hand, don't -because there is no such valid inferences to see that indicate intelligent design in nature.
    your references to occams razor are futile and childish!

    So it can be “ futile and childish” to apply a basic principl ...[text shortened]... , at least deep down, you know you have lost the argument.
    The rest of your post is irrelevant.
    I have no more reason to believe you than I have the tooth fairy! or the claim that you were a world war two flying ace and a submarine commander.
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    20 Apr '14 02:52
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Once again you bring religion to science, and once again you say that others shouldn't do it. Are you the only one that is allowed to mention supernatural fantasies into this Forum? Are you?

    Besides, this wasn't about religion. This has to do with scientific proofs.

    We all know that it doesn't matter if Jesus was married or not, he was just an ordin ...[text shortened]... re, RJHinds, do yourself what you say other should or shouldn't do. Remember the words of Jesus.
    Well, there is scientific proof that the shroud image is that of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth. But Jesus of Nazareth is also a religious figure. There is no scientific proof that Jesus had a wife, that is only religious speculation based on flimsy and unclear evidence..
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Apr '14 12:59
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, there is scientific proof that the shroud image is that of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth. But Jesus of Nazareth is also a religious figure. There is no scientific proof that Jesus had a wife, that is only religious speculation based on flimsy and unclear evidence..
    There is no scientific proof of the authenticity of the shroud. There may be evidence but no proof and furthermore even if it was proven to be a burial cloth there is zero evidence it came from JC and you know that full well, you just would never admit it, even to yourself.
Back to Top