The Gospel of Jesus s Wife x264 HDTV

"the gospel of jesus s wife"
http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=the_gospel_of_jesus%27s_wife

show descriptions, images, & other information for mvgroup educational documentaries
also available at: http://forums.mvgroup.org (forum requires registration)

whether it's seeing jesus in a piece of toast (as one woman reported in 2004) or venerating
christ's foreskin (yes, really), people seem to have a need to get close to objects associated with
the founder of christianity. here are some of the relics that have earned a place in churches and
cathedrals around the world.

"jesus said to them, my waifu..."

probably yet another thing that the vatican will rule as fake and heresy and dismis it.. lol.

thank you, harry.

ps: it appears the likely explanation is that authentic ancient materials were used by someone to
make a modern forgery. if one has access to such resources, that's certainly the best way to fake a
painting. get a crappy painting from an unknown artist of the same era as a great painter, then
paint your fake masterpiece atop it. the great director orson welles' last completed film was a very
interesting quasi-documentary about the relationship between art and "authenticity" called f for
fake. i highly recommend it.

anyway, i'd argue that the appropriate response to a 'jesus' wife' papyrus fragment is that it's
ridiculously irrelevant. an online friend of mine from atheist and agnostic forums has been
discussing the tv show vikings with me. we disagree about the historicity of ragnar. i think he's
made up like king arthur, just the norse version. he thinks lodbrok is a real historical figure.
ragnar's 'sons' in the saga were based on real people. was 'ivar the boneless' given that name
because he was disabled, or maybe impotent, or as an ironic nickname because he was suffering from
gigantism, or just because he was so sly that he was compared to a serpent. who cares? really, what
matters at this point is just the saga as literature.

my point is that: the protagonists of 'tale of ragnar's sons' are not the historical viking
chieftains of the same names, and the christ of the gospels is not the historical jesus of
nazareth. this is true in exactly the same way that shakespeare's richard iii is not the historical
king richard iii of the house of york, and old saint nick (aka santa) is not the historical
nikolaos of myra.

the personal attributes of the fictional characters help inform the history of literature. the
historically verifiable events which had a lasting cultural impact are important. (which in jesus'
case is basically just getting crucified and having a disciple called peter.)

at this point, the personal lives of the historical figures are of no importance whatsoever.