Interesting Stuff Thread

Cabaal

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/ancient-papyrus-that-says-jesus-was-married-is-authenti-1561767234?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Three teams of scientists at Harvard University, Columbia University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have concluded that the ancient coptic papyrus that talks about Jesus' wife is authentic and not a forgery. The Vatican claimed the latter when it was discovered.

Given at the time Jesus apparently existed it was normal for holy men to be with women and be married, its not at all a shocking thing to be honest

recedite

Its carbon dated to 8th century, and Egypt is mentioned. "Not a forgery" has limited meaning in that scenario, it presumably is a copy of a copy etc. so not original from the time of Jesus, but not intentionally a fraud either. Monks as far away as Ireland were also busy mass producing their favourite versions of gospels at that time too. I suppose different gospels were still circulating in different parts of the world at that time.

Sulla Felix

While it is interesting, do we not spend a lot of time trying to argue the point that just because something was written down a long time ago it's not necessarily true?

endacl

Sulla Felix wrote: »

While it is interesting, do we not spend a lot of time trying to argue the point that just because something was written down a long time ago it's not necessarily true?

Indeed. Who cares? The facts of who holybabyjebus may or may not have been married to are irrelevant. The fact that folks believe he is his own imaginary dad is the issue.

sea_monkey

I don't see why he wouldn't have married.

I remember my history teacher in secondary school going to great lengths to tell us that jesus had 14 siblings. Never looked at the virgin mary the same again.

Hotblack Desiato

sea_monkey wrote: »

I don't see why he wouldn't have married.

Gay marriage wasn't legal then.

sea_monkey

ninja900 wrote: »

Gay marriage wasn't legal then.

Shots fired.

Peregrinus

1. Although the Vatican has been widely reported as having said it was a forgery, primary cites that they ever said this are hard to come by.

2. Assuming it's genuine, it's a papyrus from somewhere between the sixth and nineth centuries. It's not contemporary with Jesus, or anything like.

3. It's a copy of an earlier text, but the earlier text is (from linguistic evidence) likely from the fourth-century, and from Eqypt. It, too, is not contemporary with Jesus.

4. No scholar suggests that it is evidence that the historical Jesus was married.

5. Some scholars suggest that it is evidence that fourth-century Coptic Christians believed, or may have believed, Jesus to have been married.

6. Others suggest that there isn't enough in the fragment to conclude even this. The fragment includes the words "Jesus said to them 'my wife . . .'". And there, tantalisingly, it breaks off. It can't be shown that this is a reference to an actual wife. In the canonical gospels, Jesus frequently uses relational terms figuratively. ("“Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”) It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the completed text from this fragment would show a figurative use of "wife".

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

....

6. Others suggest that there isn't enough in the fragment to conclude even this. The fragment includes the words "Jesus said to them 'my wife . . .'". And there, tantalisingly, it breaks off. It can't be shown that this is a reference to an actual wife. In the canonical gospels, Jesus frequently uses relational terms figuratively. ("“Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”) It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the completed text from this fragment would show a figurative use of "wife".

Perhaps it's the start of a joke? "And after Peter toldeth them the one about the Pharisee, the Samaritan and the Gallilean who found a magic lamp, Jesus said to them ‘My wife is so fat, right…’



He may have been the Jimmy Tarbuck of his day.

robindch

pauldla wrote: »

He may have been the Jimmy Tarbuck of his day.

Interesting idea, but unlikely. Of all the forms of human expression contained with the bible, the one that's most prominent by its almost complete absence, is humor. It's gag/word ratio is almost as bad as Tolkien.

The only joke I can think of -- I'm sure there must be more -- is that line "You are Peter and upon this rock, I will build my church". Which is kind of punny when one bears in mind that the Greek and Latin words for "Peter" and "rock" are the same. Or almost the same, since "Rock" is feminine in both Latin (petra) and Greek (πέτρα) and Peter was a guy, so perhaps Jesus was trying to tell us something about St Peter.

gaynorvader

robindch wrote: »

Interesting idea, but unlikely. Of all the forms of human expression contained with the bible, the one that's most prominent by its almost complete absence, is humor. It's gag/word ratio is almost as bad as Tolkien.

The only joke I can think of -- I'm sure there must be more -- is that line "You are Peter and upon this rock, I will build my church". Which is kind of punny when one bears in mind that the Greek and Latin words for "Peter" and "rock" are the same. Or almost the same, since "Rock" is feminine in both Latin (petra) and Greek (πέτρα) and Peter was a guy, so perhaps Jesus was trying to tell us something about St Peter.

Except Jesus would have more likely being speaking Hebrew

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

Except Jesus would have more likely being speaking Hebrew

Yeah, like with so much in the bible, this pun was inserted well after the fact, to ensure that the bible reflected then current church teachings.

recedite

gaynorvader wrote: »

Except Jesus would have more likely being speaking Hebrew

Aramaic, but Greek was in use as an international language, pretty much like English is today.

Turtwig

Tamiful a good idea for flu pandemics?
Very interesting read on clinical trial data.

if a million people take Tamiflu in a pandemic, 45,000 will experience vomiting, 31,000 will experience headache and 11,000 will have psychiatric side-effects. Remember, though, that those figures all assume we are only giving Tamiflu to a million people: if things kick off, we have stockpiled enough for 80% of the population. That's quite a lot of vomit.

Think the Cochrane group are fairly class. You can check up loads of drugs on their site.
As for the comments underneath the article. Despair for humanity!:(

Brian Shanahan

Jernal wrote: »

Tamiful a good idea for flu pandemics?
Very interesting read on clinical trial data.


Think the Cochrane group are fairly class. You can check up loads of drugs on their site.
As for the comments underneath the article. Despair for humanity!:(

The Cochrane Collaboration are IMO probably the best single thing done in science over the last fifty years. By systematically retesting data, and grouping studies into metadata studies, they have done more for the advancement of medical science than all the pharmaceutical companies put together.

Turtwig

I like how they don't shy from looking at the complementary and alt stuff.:)

robindch

From the IFLS/OMG corner, comes this video of what happens when a drop of snake venom hits a cupful of blood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WvnjCkLbvY

Sulla Felix

Interesting paper that popped up on my reddit.
It has it's problems but makes a good case for America properly being considered an oligarchy rather than a democracy.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

Brian Shanahan

Sulla Felix wrote: »

America properly being considered an oligarchy rather than a democracy.

That's why the founding fathers wrote the constitution (especially the electoral bits) the way they did.

Hotblack Desiato

wtf???

http://www.onlinecinematickets.com/index.php?s=M-DUNDRUM&p=details&eventCode=12983

FouxDaFaFa

^^^

At least it's free.

recedite

Is that the trick where the guy shoots himself out of a canon?
I've seen it before.

Hotblack Desiato

Well it better not be the one where a canon shoots into a guy.

Cabaal

whoooop!

Its not sold out yet!

pauldla

ninja900 wrote: »

Well it better not be the one where a canon shoots into a guy.

'Football into crotch' remains a firm favourite, though.

Overheal

This will send Creationists into a fit

but probably not

Chimp learns how to implement fire

http://thechive.com/2014/04/21/a-chimpanzee-learns-how-to-start-a-fire-and-it-kinda-blows-me-away-video/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=chivetrafficfacebook#.

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

http://thechive.com/2014/04/21/a-chimpanzee-learns-how-to-start-a-fire-and-it-kinda-blows-me-away-video/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=chivetrafficfacebook#.

I'd say a helluva lot of editing went into making that video.

sea_monkey

Need to use chrome to open this

http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/stars/

Sulla Felix

sea_monkey wrote: »

Need to use chrome to open this

http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/stars/

Working fine in Firefox

Edit: also, awesome!

pauldla

sea_monkey wrote: »

Need to use chrome to open this

http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/stars/

I only just saw this. Beautiful, it brought a tear to my eye. Thank you, Oh Sea Monkey!