I find this new Coptic fragment and the discussion around it interesting. I think there was an historical Jesus, and that he was a teacher and healer, had sexual desires and may well have had a wife, especially inasmuch as he was a rabbi. It would have been considered unnatural in those days for a healthy young man not to have a family.

I don’t believe the miracles reported in the New Testament because I don’t think the world works that way. Natural laws were not suspended during Biblical times so that Jesus could work miracles.

To the Catholic Church, as well as to evangelical Christians, Jesus was primarily a miracle worker. Therefore only a minimal depiction of Jesus as a man is acceptable in the Bible. The Catholic Church carries forward the tradition of miracles, and therefore its own authority, in the beatification of persons known to be humans at birth. I find their so-called miracles unconvincing, not on the order of walking on water, turning water into wine, rising from the dead.

Yet, the Church has been more successful in preserving belief in miracles than it has in regarding religious men–and women–as human beings, with the needs and failings of human beings. The Church’s massive failure to admit the sexual outrages committed by its priests, and abuses by nuns as well, is causing it enormous, ongoing problems, possibly bankrupting it in the end.

I doubt very much that Jesus molested children.

By Hudson Owen. All rights reserved

Advertisements