So how can a source, record – hidden all these years – straight?
The websites continually refer to ‘church doctrine’ as standing in dogmatic opposition to this idea (that Jesus was married).
And there is only one extant Gospel of Judas manuscript, against the many manuscripts that claim primary eye-witness source testimony.
Yet the BBC article would have us believe that it ‘throws into doubt’ what really happened.
And they are not found today on one business card fragment.
I have a reference the size of an encyclopedia book that contains the transcripts of the 300 years after the fact!
And it leaves you with the impression that it is more ‘progressive’ and ‘educated’ to have this doubt whereas it is ‘doctrine’ and ‘tradition’ that keeps the ‘credulous’ within the oppressive shackles of ‘church orthodoxy’.
Then there was the ” – a self-proclaimed work of investigative journalism – that concluded that Jesus went off to France with Mary Magdalene and sired a ‘secret’ bloodline there.
It is so ludicrous an idea that it is beyond even contemplating.King (the Harvard Prof announcing the discovery) said the fragment, unveiled at the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies, provided the first evidence that some early Christians believed Jesus had been married.Contacted by AFP, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi refused to call into question King’s competence as a historian but said that “we do not really know where this little scrap of parchment came from.” “This does not change anything in the position of the Church which rests on an enormous tradition, which is very clear and unanimous” that Jesus Christ was not married, he said.But in point of fact ‘church doctrine’ has nothing to do with it.The gospels were written by three eyewitnesses and one investigative reporter (the Gospel of Luke) mere decades after the crucifixion of Jesus.