NationStates Jolt Archive

Edit: please note that the topictitle is "Is the Bible pro-choice ?". It would therefor be appreciated if the debate centers on the question what "God" thinks of abortion according to the Bible - and not on your *personal* feelings about abortion. For that we already have plenty of threads ;)
End edit.


Over and over again I see Christians claim that abortion is a sin, defying the word of God; that one should be "pro-life".

However, as I have already indicated multiple times, I disagree with them - basicly because I have sofar not found a Biblepassage that supports the claims of the pro-life side; but quite a few that support pro choice.

Take for instance Exodus 21:22-25

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Obviously the killing of the embryo/fetus is not considered to be the taking of a life - though the guilty party *is* fined. However, the question remains if that fine is because the embryo/fetus was killed - or if because it was killed against the will of the father.

In my opinion Deuteronomy 22:23-24 answers this:

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

There are no concerns for the possible offspring of this union whatsoever. No "wait 9 months so the innocent child can be saved" clause. It is to be put to death, just like the mother.

So it seems God does not mind the killing of embryo and fetusses as such - he just cares for the father. While most pro-choicers prefer to consider the mother the more important parent in this issue, their position is still much closer to the biblical one than the pro-life position is.

*throws the ball to the opposition*

Your turn. No doubt you can find many passages to contradict me which I sofar overlooked :)

Speaking as a Christian, the Bible can be used to prove pretty much anything you care to mention. That's why I believe we should take the Bible as just one source of information about God, alongside reason, logic and faith.

I'm pro-choice, but it's not based in any religious ideology.
I can state my reasons why should you wish to hear them.

I'm pro-choice, but it's not based in any religious ideology.
I can state my reasons why should you wish to hear them.

No, there are already plenty of threads for that. I just wish to understand *why* so many Christians keep saying abortion is a sin. Considering the ample supply of pro-lifers here there surely must be one who can tell me.

The Bible also details The Rhythm Method, indicating not only that sex without the intent of procreation is okay, but that neither sperm, nor an egg are considered of any perticular importance

The Bible also details The Rhythm Method, indicating not only that sex without the intent of procreation is okay, but that neither sperm, nor an egg are considered of any perticular importance"The Rhythm Method"?

Do you mean where that guy that gets struck dead because he'd rather spill his seed than impregnate his brother's widow?
Which is usually brought in to shows that God is against that sort of thing (never mind that it was actually because the guy was willfully forsaking the sacred duty of continuing his brother's bloodline)

I just wish to understand *why* so many Christians keep saying abortion is a sin. Many of them say so because the pope/church says it. And one might consider that procreation is a natural growth mechanism for such an institution (since generally the children will be indoctrinated to follow the church as well). This can of course also be justified with God's command to "go forth and multiply" (although there's never the suggestion we ought to go overpopulate the planet, or not have fun while doing the multiplying).

"The Rhythm Method"?

Do you mean where that guy that gets struck dead because he'd rather spill his seed than impregnate his brother's widow?
Which is usually brought in to shows that God is against that sort of thing (never mind that it was actually because the guy was willfully forsaking the sacred duty of continuing his brother's bloodline)
*shakes head*
The earliest known form of contraception -and one still practiced and taught by Catholics the world over- it involves counting the days since a woman's menstration to determine when she is infertile.

Over and over again I see Christians claim that abortion is a sin, defying the word of God; that one should be "pro-life".

However, as I have already indicated multiple times, I disagree with them - basicly because I have sofar not found a Biblepassage that supports the claims of the pro-life side; but quite a few that support pro choice.

Take for instance Exodus 21:22-25

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Obviously the killing of the embryo/fetus is not considered to be the taking of a life - though the guilty party *is* fined. However, the question remains if that fine is because the embryo/fetus was killed - or if because it was killed against the will of the father.

In my opinion Deuteronomy 22:23-24 answers this:

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

There are no concerns for the possible offspring of this union whatsoever. No "wait 9 months so the innocent child can be saved" clause. It is to be put to death, just like the mother.

So it seems God does not mind the killing of embryo and fetusses as such - he just cares for the father. While most pro-choicers prefer to consider the mother the more important parent in this issue, their position is still much closer to the biblical one than the pro-life position is.

*throws the ball to the opposition*

Your turn. No doubt you can find many passages to contradict me which I sofar overlooked :)


What bible did you find this in?

What bible did you find this in?I think those passages are pretty much in every bible..
e.g.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-25&version=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:23-24;&version=31;

I think those passages are pretty much in every bible..
e.g.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-25&version=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:23-24;&version=31;

Nope, almost every bible puts its' own spin on things.

Don't use the New International version, it's really fucking wierd.

Try the King James or Good News bible.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-25;&version=9;

No, there are already plenty of threads for that. I just wish to understand *why* so many Christians keep saying abortion is a sin. Considering the ample supply of pro-lifers here there surely must be one who can tell me.


Why is abortion a sin?

Because it's the ending of a human life.

Nope, almost every bible puts its' own spin on things.

Don't use the New International version, it's really fucking wierd.

Try the King James or Good News bible.
It says basicly the same thing though, just in archaic language.

*throws the ball to the opposition*

Your turn. No doubt you can find many passages to contradict me which I sofar overlooked :)
Personally, if you decide that abortion is ok, based on the bible, then we should change our laws so that a woman that is raped is stoned to death "because she did not cry out for help".

Also, I'm not sure if people would even consider the possibility of an induced abortion at the time, for it to be mentioned in the bible. I can't imagine how anyone could induce an abortion, without extremely violent methods. That's why some couples had a dozen kids...

Why may it be considered sin? Because, at the end of the day, you are taking a life. The spirit is born from the body, not the other way around. The spirit is not suddenly inserted by divine intervention after a child is born. In this sense, when you induce an abortion, you are destroying a unique spirit and potential person, just like every single person on this forum. I believe that is why it is considered a sin.

Personally, if you decide that abortion is fine, based on the bible, then we should change our laws so that a woman that is raped is stoned to death "because she did not cry out for help".And likewise if you decide abortion is wrong based on the bible. Oh, and no eating shellfish.

Why may it be considered sin? Because, at the end of the day, you are taking a life. That's obviously not considered to be the case in the bible though. A miscarriage as result from bodily harm is not treated like manslaughter.
Although, I suppose it might be similar to killing your neighbours sheep or something.. Which is also taking a life.

And likewise if you decide abortion is wrong based on the bible. Oh, and no eating shellfish.
1. You should decide what is right and what is wrong based on your conscience.
2. Your conscience is guided by your beliefs, right?
3. Christianity is not dictated by the bible, but by Jesus and God.
4. Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels."
5. This shows how highly he valued the conception of a spirit.

That's obviously not considered to be the case in the bible though. A miscarriage as result from bodily harm is not treated like manslaughter.
Well, the fact that a religion imposes a penalty already means that there is something wrong about provoking a miscarriage, hence it's a sin. Now, if you are a Christian, you should guide your conscience through Jesus first and the bible second.

It says basicly the same thing though, just in archaic language.


No it doesn't.

One says mischief and one says serious injury.

Mischief means foul play.

Serious injury, just means serious injury.

And likewise if you decide abortion is wrong based on the bible. Oh, and no eating shellfish.



No, you're wrong.

Christ said you could eat whatever you want, he said what came out of your mouth was more important than what went in.

Heeeeeeeeere's Jesus:

Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels."Now what does it mean?
And where did he say this?

No, you're wrong.

Christ said you could eat whatever you want, he said what came out of your mouth was more important than what went in.Well it's ok by me if you want to disregard deutoronomium, no skin off my back. But don't complain about men lying with men etc.
Either take it all, or none of it. (It's not like we need the old testament, Jesus gives enough of a basis to work from)

Now what does it mean?
And where did he say this?
Gospel of Thomas... Not in the bible... Want to know why? Click here for a brief explanation. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485147)

Well it's ok by me if you want to disregard deutoronomium, no skin off my back. But don't complain about men lying with men etc.
Either take it all, or none of it. (It's not like we need the old testament, Jesus gives enough of a basis to work from)

It was Leviticus actually. Eating scaleless fish is an abomination.

One says mischief and one says serious injury.

Mischief means foul play.Does it? The dictionary doesn't seem to say so. Nevermind what it meant exactly in the time of King James
I wonder what the original version says.. Anyone here read latin, greek, arameic or hebrew?

It was Leviticus actually. Eating scaleless fish is an abomination.Ah thanks :)
Makes sense actually, since that's where most of the laws are. But I've never been good at remember where I read/heard what..

Now what does it mean?

My interpretation is that the spirit is born from the body (as the body evolves), not the other way around. The spirit is not suddenly inserted by divine intervention after a child is born.

No it doesn't.

One says mischief and one says serious injury.

Mischief means foul play.

Serious injury, just means serious injury.
So the question becomes wich one is right and which one is wrong? And who can tell us? And what other changes were made through the ages through translation?

Why is abortion a sin?

Because it's the ending of a human life.
It depends when human life begins, really. I seem to recall that the bible is not specific on that concept.

So the question becomes wich one is right and which one is wrong? And who can tell us?
No one. That is an individual's decision based on their conscience and how much they value life.

Does it? The dictionary doesn't seem to say so. Nevermind what it meant exactly in the time of King James
I wonder what the original version says.. Anyone here read latin, greek, arameic or hebrew?
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/abortion/exodus21.html

It depends when human life begins, really. I seem to recall that the bible is not specific on that concept.
But Jesus is:

Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels."

Ah thanks :)
Makes sense actually, since that's where most of the laws are. But I've never been good at remember where I read/heard what..

Only thing is these laws were to keep the Hebrew's in check during the Exodus. The author didnt want them eating pork or shellfish because if you did, chances are you suffered an infection and died in that day and age. They also forbade any sex extraneous to that of your wife because a) they didnt want more children than they could handle and b) they didnt want everyone to turn gay (not that they would have) and produce no children. They also forbade the adoption of customs from foreign lands such as the cutting of hair/beards. Since their Exodus was to Egypt, where the people were pagan, they didnt want their people to practice any pagan rituals. The styling of hair symbolized worship of certain egyptian Gods. It also explains the "You shall worship no other Gods before me" thing.

But Jesus is:

Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels."

I dont think spirit means actual physical spirit in this sense.

I dont think spirit means actual physical spirit in this sense.
Spirit means spirit:

"The vital principle or animating force within living beings."

No one. That is an individual's decision based on their conscience and how much they value life.
I like your answer. It's sensible and full of common sense. So therefore, it must be theologically wrong...

The bible is supposed to be divinely inspired to be the word of God. The translator are also divinely inspired to translate correctly, according to thoelogical scholars. Now God cannot say both mischief and serious injury at the same time. He meant one or the other. But since the bible cannot be wrong, we seem to have a conundrum on our hands. There's one version of the bible that is clearly mistranslated, which is an impossibility. Which brings back to my original question of "which version is right and how can we know?"

But I liked your answer. I really did.

My interpretation is that the spirit is born from the body (as the body evolves), not the other way around. The spirit is not suddenly inserted by divine intervention after a child is born.Well, that makes sense. But, when has it sufficiently evolved to warrant special rights? Basicly it starts without a spirit, and at some point it starts to devellop one. Presumably not before there is a rudimentary brain, right? And even then, the brain and spirit have to eveolve beyond some point to warrant more rights than, say, a mouse (which, I would suggest, also has a spirit, be it not as evolved as ours)

Spirit means spirit.

1.
a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
b. Incorporeal consciousness.
2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.
3. Spirit The Holy Spirit.
4. A supernatural being, as:
a. An angel or a demon.
b. A being inhabiting or embodying a particular place, object, or natural phenomenon.
c. A fairy or sprite.
5.
a. The part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings: Though unable to join us today, they are with us in spirit.
b. The essential nature of a person or group.
6. A person as characterized by a stated quality: He is a proud spirit.
7.
a. An inclination or tendency of a specified kind: Her actions show a generous spirit.
b. A causative, activating, or essential principle: The couple's engagement was announced in a joyous spirit.
8. spirits A mood or an emotional state: The guests were in high spirits. His sour spirits put a damper on the gathering.
9. A particular mood or an emotional state characterized by vigor and animation: sang with spirit.
10. Strong loyalty or dedication: team spirit.
11. The predominant mood of an occasion or a period: “The spirit of 1776 is not dead” (Thomas Jefferson).
12. The actual though unstated sense or significance of something: the spirit of the law.
13. An alcohol solution of an essential or volatile substance. Often used in the plural with a singular verb.
14. spirits An alcoholic beverage, especially distilled liquor.

THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

Why is abortion a sin?
Because it's the ending of a human life.

The Bible disagrees with you there - unless you can quote specific passages where the embryo/fetus is both considered and treated like a human being worthy of consideration - to counter my examples of where it is quite painfully not.

THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
ROFL :D

I'm not God...

I always go for option 1, unless it clearly doesn't make any sense.

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/abortion/exodus21.htmlThank you for that link.
That certainly explains the issue better than the discussion so far.

ROFL :D

I'm not God...

I always go for option 1, unless it clearly doesn't make any sense.

I always go for option #5, since it makes the most sense.

But Jesus is:
It doesn't specify when in your quote. It could be just as much implied at conception as at birth. Besides, it comes from the Gospel of Thomas, no? a gospel not in the bible? One that the scholars are therefore not sure is real?

Well, that makes sense. But, when has it sufficiently evolved to warrant special rights? Basicly it starts without a spirit, and at some point it starts to devellop one. Presumably not before there is a rudimentary brain, right? And even then, the brain and spirit have to eveolve beyond some point to warrant more rights than, say, a mouse (which, I would suggest, also has a spirit, be it not as evolved as ours)
Human rights are an invention of man, not God... If anything, they were based on religious teachings in the first place.

Well, the fact that a religion imposes a penalty already means that there is something wrong about provoking a miscarriage, hence it's a sin.

No - it means that there is something wrong with provoking a miscarriage against the will of the father. Your conclusion that it is the miscarriage itself which is the wrongful act needs to be backed up - since it does not seem to agree with the rest of scripture.

I always go for option #5, since it makes the most sense.
Then I argue that you are picking the one that suits your beliefs best since I cannot see how "the vital principle or animating force within living beings" doesn't make sense.

No - it means that there is something wrong with provoking a miscarriage against the will of the father. Your conclusion that it is the miscarriage itself which is the wrongful act needs to be backed up - since it does not seem to agree with the rest of scripture.
If it's wrong, it's considered 'sin', no?

It doesn't specify when in your quote. It could be just as much implied at conception as at birth. Besides, it comes from the Gospel of Thomas, no? a gospel not in the bible? One that the scholars are therefore not sure is real?
One that a murderous Catholic Bishop didn't like, thus didn't recomend it to be included in the bible.

If it's wrong, it's considered 'sin', no?

Killing a fetus against the will of the father would make it a bad thing[tm], yes.

That does however not mean that the same is true for killing a fetus *with* parental consent; unless you can provide additional Biblical context which shows that.

Well, that makes sense. But, when has it sufficiently evolved to warrant special rights? Basicly it starts without a spirit, and at some point it starts to devellop one. Presumably not before there is a rudimentary brain, right? And even then, the brain and spirit have to eveolve beyond some point to warrant more rights than, say, a mouse (which, I would suggest, also has a spirit, be it not as evolved as ours)
I think Jesus would not warrant the senseless killing of any animal either.

Killing a fetus against the will of the father would make it a bad thing[tm], yes.

That does however not mean that the same is true for killing a fetus *with* parental consent; unless you can provide additional Biblical context which shows that.
You are still taking a life. You cannot escape that.

Human rights are an invention of man, not God... If anything, they were based on religious teachings in the first place.Well if a foetus has no right to life, there's nothing wrong with aborting it.
But this may just be a semantic malfunction in the discussion.. I didn't mean rights in the sense of a bill of rights.

You are still taking a life. You cannot escape that.I take live every time I swat a fly or mosquito.
Taking life is nearly inevitable. Just walking around you crush bugs and whatnot like there's no tomorrow (at least not for the undertrod)

I like your answer. It's sensible and full of common sense. So therefore, it must be theologically wrong...

The bible is supposed to be divinely inspired to be the word of God. The translator are also divinely inspired to translate correctly, according to thoelogical scholars. Now God cannot say both mischief and serious injury at the same time. He meant one or the other. But since the bible cannot be wrong, we seem to have a conundrum on our hands. There's one version of the bible that is clearly mistranslated, which is an impossibility. Which brings back to my original question of "which version is right and how can we know?"

But I liked your answer. I really did.
The bible can be wrong, since it was written by men and men can be wrong. Particularly all the parts of the bible that are not a direct quotation of Jesus, the only true Christian authority to have set foot on earth.

I think Jesus would not warrant the senseless killing of any animal either.Good point again.
But abortion is rarely if ever senseless. It's not a procedure undertaken lightly.

I take live every time I swat a fly or mosquito.
Taking life is nearly inevitable. Just walking around you crush bugs and whatnot like there's no tomorrow (at least not for the undertrod)
If you swat flies or mosquitos for fun, it's wrong. If you take any life without a just cause it's wrong. If you walk around and crush bugs as a consequence, that is life. It's not intended.

One that a murderous Catholic Bishop didn't like, thus didn't recomend it to be included in the bible.
One that a divinely inspired murderous Catholic Bishop didn't like, thus didn't recomend it to be included in the bible.

God works in mysterious ways :)

But abortion is rarely if ever senseless. It's not a procedure undertaken lightly.
Unfortunately, I have my doubts that is always the case.

One that a divinely inspired murderous Catholic Bishop didn't like, thus didn't recomend it to be included in the bible.
Don't think "divinely inspired murder" is a thought that ever crossed Jesus' mind, but that's just me speculating. :D

One that a murderous Catholic Bishop didn't like, thus didn't recomend it to be included in the bible.
That's a stupid Dan Brown-esque argument. The Gospel of Thomas is second-century, proving that it can't have been written by Thomas in the first place and is therefore not authentic. It simply didn't stand up to the strict requirements that a text had to meet to be considered canonical.
Also, I wonder whether maybe the murderous Catholic Bishop didn't like this bit, saying 114:
"Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Or maybe it was saying 81:
"Jesus said: He who has become rich, let him become king, and he who has power, let him renounce (it)."
Well, I'm glad that these days we are rid of murderous Catholic bishops, and we're all liberal like Thomas. Boy, I'm glad women must make herself male to enter the kingdom. And I really think Bill Gates should rule us, too.
Anyway... pardon the sarcasm. The Gospel of Thomas contains a lot of overlap with the canonical gospels and was clearly heavily influenced by them. But it contains some gnostic nonsense, too.

If you swat flies or mosquitos for fun, it's wrong. If you take any life without a just cause it's wrong. If you walk around and crush bugs as a consequence, that is life. It's not intended.What if I swat flies and mosquitos because they bring down the quality of my life? (By driving me nuts, not to mention transmitting diseases).

Well if a foetus has no right to life, there's nothing wrong with aborting it.
But this may just be a semantic malfunction in the discussion.. I didn't mean rights in the sense of a bill of rights.
So if tomorrow we abolished the Human rights charter, does that make it "right" to cause genocide?

If you swat flies or mosquitos for fun, it's wrong. If you take any life without a just cause it's wrong. If you walk around and crush bugs as a consequence, that is life. It's not intended.
usually there is a just cause behind abortion. At least in the mind of those seeking it.

What if I swat flies and mosquitos because they bring down the quality of my life? (By driving me nuts, not to mention transmitting diseases).
If a mosquito bites me, I will smite it with my mighty swatter (or whatever is at hand).

Unfortunately, I have my doubts that is always the case.Undoubtedly it's not always the case.
But in general people don't always make well-considered choices. That doesn't warrant taking the choice away from them. Free will has to account for something in this world.

Many of them say so because the pope/church says it. And one might consider that procreation is a natural growth mechanism for such an institution (since generally the children will be indoctrinated to follow the church as well). This can of course also be justified with God's command to "go forth and multiply" (although there's never the suggestion we ought to go overpopulate the planet, or not have fun while doing the multiplying).


A little off subject perhaps but- as far as I know, the last pope travelled abroad to AID infested countries and convinced thousands of people who were in danger of dying NOT to use contraception. Now I didn't learn about this until after he died. I had great respect for him and still do because I know that the church and all religions bring people hope and happiness but really that seemed to me like condemning these poor people to death.:( :mad:

usually there is a just cause behind abortion. At least in the mind of those seeking it.
Sure there is a cause, no-one (hopefully) would just randomly kill a fetus for no reason. However, you can't deny that often one of the reasons is convenience. For example, if by not aborting a fetus a woman would be forced to abandon her career, then is her desire to keep her job a just cause? "Just" is hard to define.
But that really isn't the debate, so let's stay focused on the Bible. Sorry about the digression.

So if tomorrow we abolished the Human rights charter, does that make it "right" to cause genocide?
morally reprehensible, yes.
Illegal under the law... no.

Moral and law, big difference between the two.

usually there is a just cause behind abortion. At least in the mind of those seeking it.
Only God judges what is just, from a believer's point of view.

That's a stupid Dan Brown-esque argument. The Gospel of Thomas is second-century, proving that it can't have been written by Thomas in the first place and is therefore not authentic. That Thomas didn't write it does not mean it isn't his Gospel. It may have been transmitted orally before someone else wrote it down.
By this reasoning the Illiad can't be attributed to Homerus, because he never wrote it down himself.

The Gospel of Thomas contains a lot of overlap with the canonical gospels and was clearly heavily influenced by them. But it contains some gnostic nonsense, too.Why would the gnostic elements be nonsensicle? It's just a different perspective on christianity..

morally reprehensible, yes.
Illegal under the law... no.

Moral and law, big difference between the two.
Again, I'm not talking about Human laws. This thread started with a religious mindset so I'm sticking to it. I will refrain from commenting on Human laws and abortion, since there are other threads on this subject.

Sure there is a cause, no-one (hopefully) would just randomly kill a fetus for no reason. However, you can't deny that often one of the reasons is convenience. For example, if by not aborting a fetus a woman would be forced to abandon her career, then is her desire to keep her job a just cause? "Just" is hard to define.
But that really isn't the debate, so let's stay focused on the Bible. Sorry about the digression.
I certainly won't deny it. You are right.

Let someone look through the bible to see what is "just" and not. I'm sure we'll find some rather startling tidbits. I'm willing to bet that we will find that convenience is sometimes seen as just. If I'm proven wrong, I'll start a thread praising whatever side of whatever subject you want.

That's a stupid Dan Brown-esque argument. The Gospel of Thomas is second-century, proving that it can't have been written by Thomas in the first place and is therefore not authentic. It simply didn't stand up to the strict requirements that a text had to meet to be considered canonical.
Please refrain from calling me stupid, please. The fact that this manuscript is from the second century doesn't prove that there wasn't an original written or dictated by Thomas himself. If there was one, the Catholic Bishop that ordered the destruction of all texts that weren't included is likely to have ordered the destruction of the original.

Again, I'm not talking about Human laws. This thread started with a religious mindset so I'm sticking to it. I will refrain from commenting on Human laws and abortion, since there are other threads on this subject.
Well you asked that if we remove the charter of human rights, would that make genocide okay. Maybe I misinterpreted your comment but you seemed to think that we viewed genocide as wrong just because of the charter.

But that is a side-argument so I'll drop it.

If a woman aborts because she forgot to use contraception and she wants to keep her looks, is that just? God knows...

Only God judges what is just, from a believer's point of view.That almost seems to imply they have no right to complain when someone behave in a way they would consider immoral (injust).
Of course, that's not always a practical stance. You can't really let thieves run free to thieve; a preliminary judgement (till God gives His final verdict) seems in place.

A little off subject perhaps but- as far as I know, the last pope travelled abroad to AID infested countries and convinced thousands of people who were in danger of dying NOT to use contraception. Now I didn't learn about this until after he died. I had great respect for him and still do because I know that the church and all religions bring people hope and happiness but really that seemed to me like condemning these poor people to death.:( :mad:
pet-peeve of mine: it's AIDS. IT's an acronym so it always need the S at the end.

Well you asked that if we remove the charter of human rights, would that make genocide okay. Maybe I misinterpreted your comment but youu seemed to think that we viewed genocide as wrong just because of the charter.

But that is a side-argument so I'll drop it.
I only mentioned the Human Rights charter because you had mentioned the "right to live"... You didn't misinterpret me. :D

That almost seems to imply they have no right to complain when someone behave in a way they would consider immoral (injust).
Of course, that's not always a practical stance. You can't really let thieves run free to thieve; a preliminary judgement (till God gives His final verdict) seems in place.

By complaining when someone behaves in a way YOU consider immoral, you are doing God's job, and he does not like that.

If a woman aborts because she forgot to use contraception and she wants to keep her looks, is that just? God knows...heh..

Well, on the other side, should a child be burdened with a mother that is so self-absorbed? It may be better of never really having existed..

If a woman aborts because she forgot to use contraception and she wants to keep her looks, is that just? God knows...
I'll tell you what I just told Germania Libra,

Let someone look through the bible to see what is "just" and not. I'm sure we'll find some rather startling tidbits. I'm willing to bet that we will find that convenience is sometimes seen as just. If I'm proven wrong, I'll start a thread praising whatever side of whatever subject you want.

I'm just not well versed enough in the bible to do it.

That Thomas didn't write it does not mean it isn't his Gospel. It may have been transmitted orally before someone else wrote it down.
By this reasoning the Illiad can't be attributed to Homerus, because he never wrote it down himself...
Good point; as I've pointed out, Thomas's Gospel contains a lot of authentic elements. However, passages like Saying 114 reveal the influence of gnosticism.
Why would the gnostic elements be nonsensicle? It's just a different perspective on christianity
The authentic, canonical gospels are the earliest biographies of Jesus and therefore closer to his life. Plus Paul's letters are the earliest Christian writings, dating within two decades of the crucifixion. They contain no gnostic elements.
Jesus' own teaching is rooted in Judaism; he constantly refers to Jewish law, custom and society. By contrast, some gnostic writings contain notions that are utterly incompatible with Judaism. For example, a lot of gnostics claimed that Jesus wasn't really physical, but actually just a spirit and merely appeared to be real; that's an idea that has nothing to do with the down-to-earth understanding of reality characteristic of first-century Judaism.
Gnostic writings are far later in origin than early Christian ones, ranging from the second to the fourth century. They are generally nonrealistic in style, and contain strange ideas. Some factions, like Sethianism, contend that the Old Testament God was evil - an idea completely alien to Jesus and his earliest followers.
Generally then, gnostic writings are far too late, vague and unrealistic to be reliable sources. Pardon the sermon.

heh..

Well, on the other side, should a child be burdened with a mother that is so self-absorbed? It may be better of never really having existed..
Maybe it's better that the child is given to adoption? God knows...

Please refrain from calling me stupid, please. The fact that this manuscript is from the second century doesn't prove that there wasn't an original written by Thomas himself. If there was one, the Catholic Bishop that ordered the destruction of all texts that weren't included is likely to have ordered the destruction of the original.
I'm sorry. I get passionate like that. It won't happen again. By the way, who is this Catholic bishop you speak of?
Also, I wonder whether the fourth-century church had the infrastructure necessary to destroy thousands upon thousands of manuscripts all over the Roman Empire. I don't think there is any evidence of such a gigantic holocaust, but please prove me wrong. I think that most likely gnostic writings were far rarer than canonical once and concentrated in the near Eastern part of the Empire.

The authentic, canonical gospels are the earliest biographies of Jesus and therefore closer to his life. Plus Paul's letters are the earliest Christian writings, dating within two decades of the crucifixion. They contain no gnostic elements.
The authentic canonical gospels where recommended by a bishop whose most famous book is called:
Against Heresies: The Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge falsely so-called.

He used this work of compassionate art to persecute, condemn and burn at the stake any Christians that didn't recognise the authority of his church. Perfect example of Christian leadership and values... *sigh*

For example, a lot of gnostics claimed that Jesus wasn't really physical, but actually just a spirit and merely appeared to be real; that's an idea that has nothing to do with the down-to-earth understanding of reality characteristic of first-century Judaism.
The Gospel of Thomas makes no such claims.

Gnostic writings are far later in origin than early Christian ones, ranging from the second to the fourth century. They are generally nonrealistic in style, and contain strange ideas. Some factions, like Sethianism, contend that the Old Testament God was evil - an idea completely alien to Jesus and his earliest followers.Generally then, gnostic writings are far too late, vague and unrealistic to be reliable sources. Pardon the sermon.
You are ignoring the fact that the originals were destroyed by the Catholic Church. The only reason why we know the Gospel of Thomas was because an enlightened monk (probably a scribe) decided to hide these documents instead of burning them. The existing Gospel of Thomas was found near a monastery, so it was recognised by the church until Irenaeus.

I'm sorry. I get passionate like that. It won't happen again.
No heart feelings... :D

By the way, who is this Catholic bishop you speak of?
Irenaeus... A monster.

Also, I wonder whether the fourth-century church had the infrastructure necessary to destroy thousands upon thousands of manuscripts all over the Roman Empire. I don't think there is any evidence of such a gigantic holocaust, but please prove me wrong. I think that most likely gnostic writings were far rarer than canonical once and concentrated in the near Eastern part of the Empire.
The best evidence we have is Irenaeus himself, since he mentions these gospels in his book. Since all copies "misteriously" disappeared, we can only assume this was the work of an authoritative and self-righteous church.

No heart feelings... :D

That is a black heart you have there. No feelings when someone apologize to you. ;)

Oh, you meant "no hard feelings"? :D

The authentic canonical gospels where recommended by a bishop whose most famous book is called:
Against Heresies: The Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge falsely so-called.

He used this work of compassionate art to persecute, condemn and burn at the stake any Christians that didn't recognise the authority of his church. Perfect example of Christian leadership and values... *sigh*
Irenaeus couldn't burn anyone at the stake. In his time (c. AD180) the Christian Church was a small minority. He did condemn heresey, though. That's quite a natural sentiment, considering that Christians were called to preserve the truth about Jesus.
The Gospel of Thomas makes no such claims.
Admittedly. I didn't say it did. That would be very strange, considering that Thomas physically verified the reality of Jesus by touching him (John 20:24-29).
You are ignoring the fact that the originals were destroyed by the Catholic Church. The only reason why we know the Gospel of Thomas was because an enlightened monk (probably a scribe) decided to hide these documents instead of burning them. The existing Gospel of Thomas was found near a monastery, so it was recognised by the church until Irenaeus.
Saying that the originals were destroyed smacks of the notorious 'invisible man' argument. "The invisible man is here!" - "Where? I can't see him!" - "That proves it - it must be him!" Saying that documents don't exist because they were destroyed neglects the rather more likely possibility that they don't exist because they were either never written or not widely circulated. However, I concede that quite possibly the Gospel of Thomas was regarded as authentic for a while. After all, it contains a lot of overlap with the canonical gospels.
Please tell me when and where this supposed burning of documents happened, who was responsible for it, and what evidence we have for it. This isn't a red herring; I genuinely don't know.

The best evidence we have is Irenaeus himself, since he mentions these gospels in his book. Since all copies "misteriously" disappeared, we can only assume this was the work of an authoritative and self-righteous church.
Again, I don't think that the Church in Irenaeus's time had the power and infrastructure to wipe out dissident writings. You must remember that this was 150 years before Constantine, when the Church began gaining more influence.

I dunno. Did they have coat hangers 2000 years ago?

Boy, I'm glad women must make herself male to enter the kingdom.
Actually, the Gospel of Thomas does say that women must make herself male to enter the kingdom, but this line is viewed by scholars with much suspicion. Two reasons:

1. It is the very last line, supporting the claim that it was added later.
2. It doesn't "feel" right in this very liberal gospel.
3. The Church was founded by Peter, who was likely a male chauvinist.

Actually, the Gospel of Thomas does say that women must make herself male to enter the kingdom, but this line is viewed by scholars with much suspicion. Two reasons:

1. It is the very last line, supporting the claim that it was added later.
2. It doesn't "feel" right in this very liberal gospel.
Good, I see your point. What you say makes sense. However, how is this gospel more liberal than the canonical ones (in terms of sayings of Jesus)?
3. The Church was founded by Peter, who was likely a male chauvinist.
That's a very popular belief, but what evidence is there supporting it? Plus, Peter must be understood in the frequently chauvinist context of his Jewish upbringing.

Again, I don't think that the Church in Irenaeus's time had the power and infrastructure to wipe out dissident writings. You must remember that this was 150 years before Constantine, when the Church began gaining more influence.
The originals could have been destroyed at any time in history, though. Also, saying the church only started to have influence after Constantine, isn't probably the most logical thought. It's much more likely that Constantine converted to Christianity and made himself pope, so that he could usurp the power of a rising church. I've read somewhere, I don't know where now that, by the time Constantine converted, Christians were already causing riots and things were getting out of hand for Roman authorities. I argue that Constantine made a very cunning move.

We are really digressing from abortion.... :D

We are really digressing from abortion.... :D
Yes, we are :) But it's quite interesting.
The originals could have been destroyed at any time in history, though. Also, saying the church only started to have influence after Constantine, isn't probably the most logical thought. It's much more likely that Constantine converted to Christianity and made himself pope, so that he could usurp the power of a rising church. I've read somewhere, I don't know where now that, by the time Constantine converted, Christians were already causing riots and things were getting out of hand for Roman authorities. I argue that Constantine made a very cunning move.
Constantine didn't make himself pope, that wouldn't have been possible. Here's the list of popes for the time in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes#Began_AD_250-499
You can see that Constantine, ruling from AD 306-337, was never pope. Anyway, the notion that Christianity was on the rise and that Christians were starting religious wars has been popularised by Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" (both the book and the film), but it's false. In fact, when Constantine became emperor the Christians had just suffered the worst persecution in their history and were in no position to wage war against anyone.

Good, I see your point. What you say makes sense. However, how is this gospel more liberal than the canonical ones (in terms of sayings of Jesus)?

That's a very popular belief, but what evidence is there supporting it? Plus, Peter must be understood in the frequently chauvinist context of his Jewish upbringing.
So that you understand where my next thoughts are coming from, hear me first:

Forget that Dan Brown BS. I have never read the book and the film is just ridiculous, even if a tiny bit of it may be true. Reality is much more exciting than this piece of fiction.

Anyone who doesn't believe that Mary Magdalene was an apostle is probably not very well informed on Early Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas is one reference. She's mentioned in this dialogue as asking questions. If she was there, who made sure she wasn't remembered? Who lead Christianity after Jesus' death? Peter. So, if we accept her as an apostle, maybe we should accept the Gospel of Mary (http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/marygosp.htm) as a valid piece of evidence. In it, Peter treats Mary with contempt:
"Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?"
When just a few moments earlier he had said:
"Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Saviour loved you more than the rest of woman."
Jealousy of Peter? You tell me...

Again, if you accept the possibility that Mary was indeed an apostle and, according to Peter in the Gospel of Mary, the "Saviour loved [Mary] more than the rest of woman", try reading the very end of John and replacing "the beloved disciple" with Mary and any male reference to a female reference.

Then Peter, turning around, saw a disciple following. [my note: why would the disciple not be named?]
This was the disciple whom Jesus sincerely loved,
the one who had also leaned on Jesus' breast at the supper and asked, "Lord, who is going to betray You?"
Peter seeing him, said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?"
Jesus said to him, "If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you? You follow me."
This saying therefore went out among the brothers, that this disciple wouldn't die.
Yet Jesus didn't say to him that he wouldn't die, but, "If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you?"
This is the disciple who testifies about these things, and wrote these things. We know that his witness is true.
There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written,
I suppose that even the world itself wouldn't have room for the books that would be written.

If we accept that Peter was a male chauvinist, he must have passed his feelings to his followers who, eventually, edited manuscripts to hide the identity of Mary. Why did the Catholic Church made Mary a saint? Guilt feelings? God knows.... The truth is out there. Seek and you will find.

Irenaeus couldn't burn anyone at the stake. In his time (c. AD180) the Christian Church was a small minority. He did condemn heresey, though. That's quite a natural sentiment, considering that Christians were called to preserve the truth about Jesus.
Well, his work was used to burn people at the stake so, even if he did not have that power then, he left the wood to feed the fires.

Saying that the originals were destroyed smacks of the notorious 'invisible man' argument. "The invisible man is here!" - "Where? I can't see him!" - "That proves it - it must be him!" Saying that documents don't exist because they were destroyed neglects the rather more likely possibility that they don't exist because they were either never written or not widely circulated. However, I concede that quite possibly the Gospel of Thomas was regarded as authentic for a while. After all, it contains a lot of overlap with the canonical gospels.
Please tell me when and where this supposed burning of documents happened, who was responsible for it, and what evidence we have for it. This isn't a red herring; I genuinely don't know.
Only God knows. I don't think that we can find evidence of destroyed things, unless someone was stupid enough to keep any records of that destruction. Let me ask you the question in another way:

Who were the guardians of these Gospels and why did they all disappear, until 1945 when these copies were found near a monastery? Why would a monk scribe bury these gospels, if not because he didn't want them to be destroyed?

You see, I don't need to prove anything to anyone. Each one of us must decide what they want to believe, based on logic... Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever see any physical evidence of such a holocaust of knowledge, unless some monk was either stupid or clever enough (depending from the point of view) to keep a written order to destroy these books.

That is a black heart you have there. No feelings when someone apologize to you. ;)

Oh, you meant "no hard feelings"? :D
We non-native speakers.... :headbang: Yes, that's what I meant... thanks for the correction... hehehehe :D

Anyone who doesn't believe that Mary Magdalene was an apostle is probably not very well informed on Early Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas is one reference. She's mentioned in this dialogue as asking questions. If she was there, who made sure she wasn't remembered? Who lead Christianity after Jesus' death? Peter.
The only one of the four canonical gospels that was created directly under Peter's influence (according to tradition) is Mark. Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew; Luke was written by a companion of Paul; and John was written by John the apostle. All of these are extremely credible. They are the earliest gospels. All portray Mary Magdalene as a follower of Jesus; none slander her in any way. None describe her as an apostle, whilst providing a list of the actual twelve apostles whom Jesus apointed (twelve, to symbolise the twelve tribes of Israel). It isn't until much later that gnostic texts begin elevating Mary Magdalene.
Again, if you accept the possibility that Mary was indeed an apostle and, according to Peter in the Gospel of Mary, the "Saviour loved [Mary] more than the rest of woman", try reading the very end of John and replacing "the beloved disciple" with Mary and any male reference to a female reference.

If we accept that Peter was a male chauvinist, he must have passed his feelings to his followers who, eventually, edited manuscripts to hide the identity of Mary. Why did the Catholic Church made Mary a saint? Guilt feelings? God knows.... The truth is out there. Seek and you will find.
The "beloved disciple" is John himself. That's why the beloved disciple isn't named; it's the author of the gospel himself. Similarly, Luke doesn't identify himself in Acts, even though it's clear that he was there at the time. That John is the beloved disciple is plain from the very passage you quoted (John 21:24). At the cross, Jesus appoints the beloved disciple (John) as guardian of his mother Mary (John 19:25-27). John is commanded to take Mary to his own home; that suggests that he was male in the context of the day.
Moreover, Mary Magdalene's name is not omitted in accounts of the resurrection. In fact, Jesus appears to her personally (John 20:11-18). In John's gospel, the "beloved disciple" and Mary Magdalene are always separate persons.
In light of this, John's gospel never so much as hints at Mary Magdalene being an apostle. I discount the later gnostic texts on account of their being late in date and fantastical in content (from what I know) - but then I haven't studied them in detail.

Only God knows. I don't think that we can find evidence of destroyed things, unless someone was stupid enough to keep any records of that destruction. Let me ask you the question in another way:

Who were the guardians of these Gospels and why did they all disappear, until 1945 when these copies were found near a monastery? Why would a monk scribe bury these gospels, if not because he didn't want them to be destroyed?

You see, I don't need to prove anything to anyone. Each one of us must decide what they want to believe, based on logic... Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever see any physical evidence of such a holocaust of knowledge, unless some monk was either stupid or clever enough (depending from the point of view) to keep a written order to destroy these books.
I'm not saying the Church never destroyed dissident documents, it may well have happened. However, we can't just assume that without evidence. Also, you do need to prove it... otherwise it's just an unsupported assumption.
Since we have no record of large-scale persecution of gnostics, I assume that gnosticism may eventually just have died off all by itself, or swept away by Islam in the seventh century.

Yes, we are :)You can see that Constantine, ruling from AD 306-337, was never pope. Anyway, the notion that Christianity was on the rise and that Christians were starting religious wars has been popularised by Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" (both the book and the film), but it's false. In fact, when Constantine became emperor the Christians had just suffered the worst persecution in their history and were in no position to wage war against anyone.
Aaahh... Ok. :headbang: Well I had vaguely heard that Constantine was a pope and, since you mentioned him, I thought that was an historical fact... In any case, my beliefs are not based on him being a pope anyway... I didn't even know it was questioned whether he was a pope or not, until now. :D

Er... does anyone want to talk about abortion? We kind of hijacked the thread...

Aaahh... Ok. :headbang: Well I had vaguely heard that Constantine was a pope and, since you mentioned him, I thought that was an historical fact... In any case, my beliefs are not based on him being a pope anyway... I didn't even know it was questioned whether he was a pope or not, until now. :D

To be perfectly historically accurate, there were no actual popes until long after Constantine. At the time of Constantine, those who are now listed as "popes" of the times were simply the bishop of Rome at the time. The bishop of Rome had no more power within the Church as a whole than the bishops of the other four major Sees. However, as time went on and the split between the Eastern and Western Church became more pronounced, the Western Church tended to look to the bishop of Rome as an absolute authority. Calling all of said bishops "popes", however, is really a bit of revisionist history.

Constantine did have power within the church, as did his sons after him, but was never officially a head of it.

I'm not saying the Church never destroyed dissident documents, it may well have happened.
I know you are not, you are asking the question.

However, we can't just assume that without evidence.
If that's so, why believe in God? Faith does not require evidence. Again, I ask you:

Where did all the other Gospels go, why did they go and who made them go?
Irenaeus is the evidence they existed, confirmed with the discovery in 1945.

Also, you do need to prove it... otherwise it's just an unsupported assumption.
The evidence was destroyed when the gospels disappeared.

Since we have no record of large-scale persecution of gnostics, I assume that gnosticism may eventually just have died off all by itself, or swept away by Islam in the seventh century.
How many people were burned at the stake by the church (whenever)?

On matters of faith, my friend, evidence is not needed.

To be perfectly historically accurate, there were no actual popes until long after Constantine. At the time of Constantine, those who are now listed as "popes" of the times were simply the bishop of Rome at the time. The bishop of Rome had no more power within the Church as a whole than the bishops of the other four major Sees. However, as time went on and the split between the Eastern and Western Church became more pronounced, the Western Church tended to look to the bishop of Rome as an absolute authority. Calling all of said bishops "popes", however, is really a bit of revisionist history.

Constantine did have power within the church, as did his sons after him, but was never officially a head of it.
Hi Dem. :) thanks for the clarification.

Er... does anyone want to talk about abortion? We kind of hijacked the thread...
:D

The "beloved disciple" is John himself. That's why the beloved disciple isn't named; it's the author of the gospel himself. Similarly, Luke doesn't identify himself in Acts, even though it's clear that he was there at the time. That John is the beloved disciple is plain from the very passage you quoted (John 21:24). At the cross, Jesus appoints the beloved disciple (John) as guardian of his mother Mary (John 19:25-27). John is commanded to take Mary to his own home; that suggests that he was male in the context of the day."
Interestingly enough, I believe the Eastern Orthodox church has defended in the past that Mary Magdalene arrived to Ephesus, where the Gospel of John is believed to have been written. Her remains are there.

Moreover, Mary Magdalene's name is not omitted in accounts of the resurrection. In fact, Jesus appears to her personally (John 20:11-18). In John's gospel, the "beloved disciple" and Mary Magdalene are always separate persons. In light of this, John's gospel never so much as hints at Mary Magdalene being an apostle. I discount the later gnostic texts on account of their being late in date and fantastical in content (from what I know) - but then I haven't studied them in detail.
Maybe you should try to listen to the other side of the argument. I argue that the Catholic Church is biased.

Why would a non-apostle and a woman be allowed to hear private conversations like that described in the Gospel of Thomas? This is senseless, isn't it?

Also, are you sure that the Gospel of John is called like that because it was written by John? Pay close attention to how the Gospel starts...

It starts talking of John the Baptist, not the Apostle... What an fantastical coincidence, no?

If that's so, why believe in God? Faith does not require evidence. Again, I ask you:

Where did all the other Gospels go, why did they go and who made them go?
Irenaeus is the evidence they existed, confirmed with the discovery in 1945.


The evidence was destroyed when the gospels disappeared.


How many people were burned at the stake by the church (whenever)?

On matters of faith, my friend, evidence is not needed.
Hang on a second. Whether there was a large-scale persecution of gnostics is not a matter of faith, but of history. You can't say, "Oh, I choose not to believe that the Second World War happened." That WW2 happened can be proven beyond reasonable doubt (though not technically). If there is no evidence of a persecution of gnostics, then it is logically more reasonable to assume it didn't happen than to say it did happen, and all evidence of it was destroyed.
God's existence can't be proven, but it's reasonable to assume he exists. For example (sorry for bringing up an ID argument that's been done to death), the complexity and beauty of the universe suggest a creator. But much more importantly, the historical evidence points to Jesus actually performing miracles, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and rising from the dead, vindicating his claim to be God. I would suggest that it is reasonable to believe in the canonical gospels, therefore it is reasonable to believe in God.
As for the disappearance of the gospels, their rarity is not a proof of their being destroyed. Our manuscripts of most ancient writings are usually from centuries after the text had first been written and frequently fragmented. The fact that we have so many copies of New Testament books from antiquity shows that there were literally thousands upon thousands of New Testament books in circulation. Remember that it usually takes extraordinary luck for documents to be preserved. Our lack of gnostic scriptures may simply show that they were not as widely circulated as the canonical gospels.
Various people were burned at stake by the Church. However, it is very simplistic to view "the Church" as a monolithic bloc that didn't change over two millennia. The fact that the Catholic Church burnt "heretics" in the fourteenth century is in no way evidence that they did so in the fourth.

As for the disappearance of the gospels, their rarity is not a proof of their being destroyed. Our manuscripts of most ancient writings are usually from centuries after the text had first been written and frequently fragmented. The fact that we have so many copies of New Testament books from antiquity shows that there were literally thousands upon thousands of New Testament books in circulation. Remember that it usually takes extraordinary luck for documents to be preserved. Our lack of gnostic scriptures may simply show that they were not as widely circulated as the canonical gospels.
Rarity??? They disappeared completely for 1900 years and only came to light because someone decided to hide them. Also, if they were not widely circulated, why did Irenaeus bother writing a book about overthrowing heretic gnostics? Why did he mention those gospels? Why were they such a threat?

If anyone wants us to go back to abortion, let us know about it... hehehe :D

Interestingly enough, I believe the Eastern Orthodox church has defended in the past that Mary Magdalene arrived to Ephesus, where the Gospel of John is believed to have been written. Her remains are there.
The fact that John and Mary may have lived in the same city hardly proves that she wrote John's Gospel.
Maybe you should try to listen to the other side of the argument. I argue that the Catholic Church is biased.
I don't disagree; however, based on the "who is earliest?" evidence I am inclined to believe the canonical gospels. The inherent qualities of the canonical gospels also make them more credible.
Why would a non-apostle and a woman be allowed to hear private conversations like that described in the Gospel of Thomas? This is senseless, isn't it?
Well, the gospel of Thomas is later in origin than the canonical gospels. And I see no reason why a woman shouldn't hear private conversation. After all, Jesus did talk to Mary privately after his resurrection.
Also, are you sure that the Gospel of John is called like that because it was written by John? Pay close attention to how the Gospel starts...

It starts talking of John the Baptist, not the Apostle... What an fantastical coincidence, no?
John (Yehochanan, meaning "the LORD is gracious") was a common Jewish name. Actually, John's gospel starts by "re-telling" the creation story, revealing Jesus' divinity. John the Bapist is mentioned as a witness to Jesus' coming, but he's there almost in brackets, and it's pointed out that he is not himself the light. Check http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=31
Actually, it's quite clear that John wrote the gospel attributed to him. Why? Because it has so many common themes with his letters (1 John, 2 John, 3 John) that the author is overwhelmingly likely to be the same. These themes are primarily light and darkness, the word become flesh, and some others.

*shakes head*
The earliest known form of contraception -and one still practiced and taught by Catholics the world over- it involves counting the days since a woman's menstration to determine when she is infertile.

It's only about 60% effective, though.

EDIT: Also, why is spilling seed bad? If you put it in a woman, a lot of it comes out anyway. Usually being sopped up by a tissue and put into the trash or down the toilet. Isn't that kind of a roundabout way of doing the same thing?

Rarity??? They disappeared completely for 1900 years and only came to light because someone decided to hide them. Also, if they were not widely circulated, why did Irenaeus bother writing a book about overthrowing heretic gnostics? Why did he mention those gospels? Why were they such a threat?
In the historical context, apparently Irenaeus felt threatened by Greeks who arrived in his see advocating "heresies", and that probably led him to write a comprehensive "guide" to heresies.
Some writings of well-known ancient writers haven't survived at all. For example, large portions of Tacitus' Annales are missing, but that's in no way evidence that they were destroyed.
Other ancient manuscripts, for example the Archimedes palimpsest, have only come to light more than two thousand years after being originally written. That's not evidence of persecution.

It's only about 60% effective, though.

EDIT: Also, why is spilling seed bad? If you put it in a woman, a lot of it comes out anyway. Usually being sopped up by a tissue and put into the trash or down the toilet. Isn't that kind of a roundabout way of doing the same thing?
Yay! Someone who hasn't gone off on a tangent! :D

Yay! Someone who hasn't gone off on a tangent! :D

Don't be dissin' on tangents! Some of the funniest people in the world go on wild tangents, ranting about random shit.

Don't be dissin' on tangents! Some of the funniest people in the world go on wild tangents, ranting about random shit.
I'm not dissing the tangent, I was myself going rampant on it. In fact, I wrote some short essays on this tangent. It was great fun.

I'm not dissing the tangent, I was myself going rampant on it. In fact, I wrote some short essays on this tangent. It was great fun.

Oh yes. No matter how heated or strenuous a debate gets, I always have fun and can usually keep quite a bit of respect for the other person.

The fact that John and Mary may have lived in the same city hardly proves that she wrote John's Gospel.
I personally have my doubts that John ever lived in Ephesus at all... It's absolutely senseless that two followers of Jesus went to the same place to spread the word. If the church kept Mary's remains there, where are John's?

I don't disagree; however, based on the "who is earliest?" evidence I am inclined to believe the canonical gospels. The inherent qualities of the canonical gospels also make them more credible. Well, the gospel of Thomas is later in origin than the canonical gospels. And I see no reason why a woman shouldn't hear private conversation. After all, Jesus did talk to Mary privately after his resurrection.
You are backtracking. "Who is earliest" in origin is impossible to prove. You are talking of copies and the original Gospel of Thomas is lost. The only existing copy of the Gospel of Thomas is believed to be older than the book Irenaeus wrote, which already mentions the Gospel of Thomas.

Have you heard of the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas? Whether you decide to believe or not in it is really up for grabs. What I find most curious about it is how Jesus tells Judas "You will become the thirteenth"; another indication that there might be 13 apostles, not 12.

John (Yehochanan, meaning "the LORD is gracious") was a common Jewish name. Actually, John's gospel starts by "re-telling" the creation story, revealing Jesus' divinity. John the Baptist is mentioned as a witness to Jesus' coming, but he's there almost in brackets, and it's pointed out that he is not himself the light. Check http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=31
Actually, it's quite clear that John wrote the gospel attributed to him. Why? Because it has so many common themes with his letters (1 John, 2 John, 3 John) that the author is overwhelmingly likely to be the same. These themes are primarily light and darkness, the word become flesh, and some others.
Right after the first paragraph about creation, the author choses to tell the story of John the Baptist and you say "in brackets"??? You do realise this is rhetorical bullshit?

It all reeks of lies, sorry... The Catholic Church's story is not historically consistent, if you look beyond the evidence they present.

Why would Mary write John's gospel? She has her own gospel.

Other ancient manuscripts, for example the Archimedes palimpsest, have only come to light more than two thousand years after being originally written. That's not evidence of persecution.
No, but the evidence of persecution of the Gospel of Thomas is supplied by a Bishop of the Catholic Church.

Why would Mary write John's gospel? She has her own gospel.
Because she might have named the Gospel in honour to the man that Jesus regarded most highly, the one who baptised him and who is the very first person mentioned in the Gospel of John; John the Baptist.

Because she might have named the Gospel in honour to the man that Jesus regarded most highly, the one who baptised him and who is the very first person mentioned in the Gospel of John; John the Baptist.

*shrugs* He might've been the MAN Jesus regarded most highly, but it's obvious that out of everyone, Mary was the closest person to him. She was "the one that got it" - the apostle that completely understood him and his message.

I personally have my doubts that John ever lived in Ephesus at all... It's absolutely senseless that two followers of Jesus went to the same place to spread the word. If the church kept Mary's remains there, where are John's?
Er, most of the tombs of apostles are presumably fake. I have no idea where John lived, but I neither see why it wouldn't be Ephesus nor why John's Gospel was supposedly written in Ephesus. If we assume that John wrote Revelation, then he probably died on the island of Patmos.
You are backtracking. "Who is earliest" in origin is impossible to prove. You are talking of copies and the original Gospel of Thomas is lost. The only existing copy of the Gospel of Thomas is believed to be older than the book Irenaeus wrote, which already mentions the Gospel of Thomas.
It's fairly certain that all of the canonical gospels are indeed first-century, which would make them the earliest. Even if Thomas's Gospel should mysteriously turn out to be a very early document (and I doubt it, considering the clear gnostic influence on it), it would still be overwhelmed by the collective witness of the canonical gospels. But as I have said before, the contents of Thomas are a mixed bunch - some of it is confirmed by the synoptic gospels. Considering things like the realism of the writing, authorship, corroboration etc. it seems to me like the canonical gospels must be the earliest.
Have you heard of the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas? Whether you decide to believe or not in it is really up for grabs. What I find most curious about it is how Jesus tells Judas "You will become the thirteenth".
I have heard of the Gospel of Judas; in fact I've read it. Please compare it to the consistent, clear, realistic narrative of the canonical gospels. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus randomly appears and disappears, proclaiming obscure Sethian beliefs that seem wildly at odds with, note this, both the canonical gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Judas makes no sense in the context of first-century Judaism (what on earth would "the immortal realm of Barbelo" have meant to a Jew?).
Right after the first paragraph about creation, the author choses to tell the story of John the Baptist and you say "in brackets"??? You do realise this is rhetorical bullshit?
In John 1, the first five verses are about creation through the Son. This is followed by three verses about John, emphasizing three core truths:
1. John was sent by God (verse 6)
2. John's mission was to bear witness to Jesus (verse 7)
3. John himself was not the promised light (verse 8)
This is then followed by ten verses about Jesus. My point was that John's story is told here in very theological terms. He prepares the path for Jesus, but is utterly subservient to him. What was the point about John the Baptist, anyway?
It all reeks of lies, sorry... The Catholic Church's story is not historically consistent, if you look beyond the evidence they present.
I'm not a Catholic, never have been, and never will be. That's nothing against Catholics, but I don't believe in the authority of the pope. I am a Christian, which I believe is reasonable based on the evidence. I've yet to find any historical inconsistencies.

Because she might have named the Gospel in honour to the man that Jesus regarded most highly, the one who baptised him and who is the very first person mentioned in the Gospel of John; John the Baptist.
Then how do you explain the undeniable parallels between John's Gospel and John's letters, in which the author undeniably identifies himself as a man ("the elder")?

No, but the evidence of persecution of the Gospel of Thomas is supplied by a Bishop of the Catholic Church.
He only supplies evidence that the gospel of Thomas was considered heretical. That doesn't mean it was persecuted.

He only supplies evidence that the gospel of Thomas was considered heretical. That doesn't mean it was persecuted.

If someone was calling me a heretic, I'd consider myself to be slightly persecuted.

I don't see why it's so heretical, though, it's a story of a man who couldn't believe and found faith through Jesus himself. It also happens to be one of my favorite "A Perfect Circle" songs.

If someone was calling me a heretic, I'd consider myself to be slightly persecuted.

I don't see why it's so heretical, though, it's a story of a man who couldn't believe and found faith through Jesus himself. It also happens to be one of my favorite "A Perfect Circle" songs.
Well, I mean, the Gospel of Thomas does contain some obscure and slightly dodgy bits. I guess it wasn't so much utterly heretical as just obscure, strange and largely worthless. After all, one of the main criteria for Scripture is that it must be useful (2 Timothy 3:16,17). But you have the advantage of actually having read the whole Gospel, whereas I haven't.
Also, saying that you're wrong (i.e. in the context of religion, a heretic) doesn't mean I'm persecuting you. Otherwise we've been persecuting each other for hours.

I haven't been following the thread so forgive me if someone has aleady mentioned this. Jewish thought on the matter is that you do not recieve your soul or actually become a person until you take your first breath of air which would lead one to believe that an aborted fetus/embryo is not a human being. This is contrary to the Christian belief that life begins at conception.

I haven't been following the thread so forgive me if someone has aleady mentioned this. Jewish thought on the matter is that you do not recieve your soul or actually become a person until you take your first breath of air which would lead one to believe that an aborted fetus/embryo is not a human being. This is contrary to the Christian belief that life begins at conception.
Is this because of Genesis 2:7, where God breathes life into the man's nostrils, or the various times the "breath of life" is mentioned? It's an interesting thought, but is it actually in the Tanakh? After all, Christians follow the Bible, not extrabiblical Jewish thought.

Well, I mean, the Gospel of Thomas does contain some obscure and slightly dodgy bits. I guess it wasn't so much utterly heretical as just obscure, strange and largely worthless. After all, one of the main criteria for Scripture is that it must be useful (2 Timothy 3:16,17). But you have the advantage of actually having read the whole Gospel, whereas I haven't.
Also, saying that you're wrong (i.e. in the context of religion, a heretic) doesn't mean I'm persecuting you. Otherwise we've been persecuting each other for hours.

Heh heh. I like puns. *cough*


I don't think there should be any criteria other than "I knew Jesus". That should be the main thing. Even people who "Knew people who knew people who knew Jesus" might have something interesting to say.

They should've been compiled into one bigass book, or many bigass books if it wouldn't hold, and then for those who don't really care about Jesus himself they just want the gist of it and get it over with, they would have the Bible, which would be "The Abridged Version of God's Word".

I don't think there should be any criteria other than "I knew Jesus". That should be the main thing. Even people who "Knew people who knew people who knew Jesus" might have something interesting to say.

They should've been compiled into one bigass book, or many bigass books if it wouldn't hold, and then for those who don't really care about Jesus himself they just want the gist of it and get it over with, they would have the Bible, which would be "The Abridged Version of God's Word".
Well, useless books aren't too great.
How is the Bible abridged? It's quite a tome. The books selected for the New Testament are those the early church considered authentic and useful. The rest is less so.
Anyway, I'm going to supper now, so I'll see you guys later.

It's fairly certain that all of the canonical gospels are indeed first-century, which would make them the earliest. Even if Thomas's Gospel should mysteriously turn out to be a very early document (and I doubt it, considering the clear gnostic influence on it), it would still be overwhelmed by the collective witness of the canonical gospels. But as I have said before, the contents of Thomas are a mixed bunch - some of it is confirmed by the synoptic gospels. Considering things like the realism of the writing, authorship, corroboration etc. it seems to me like the canonical gospels must be the earliest.
But since the original copy of the Gospel of Thomas was destroyed by some "mysterious" entity for "mysterious" reasons, aside the simple fact that the followers of Peter deemed it a heretic threat, we'll never know for sure which came first. Of course, since all apostles lived at the same time, there is no reason to believe one came substantially earlier than the other.

Also, the Gospel of Thomas is a perfectly sound transcribed conversation. It's quotations, not rhetorical speech like the texts that wrap the 4 Canonical Gospels in the bible. It quotes Jesus directly and it's consistent with Christian values. What is not consistent is with the concept of an authoritative church, perverted by self-righteous and power-hungry men.

I have heard of the Gospel of Judas; in fact I've read it. Please compare it to the consistent, clear, realistic narrative of the canonical gospels. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus randomly appears and disappears, proclaiming obscure Sethian beliefs that seem wildly at odds with, note this, both the canonical gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Judas makes no sense in the context of first-century Judaism (what on earth would "the immortal realm of Barbelo" have meant to a Jew?).
As I said, I am not addressing the ideology of the Gospel of Judas but only the very simple fact that its author addresses Judas as "the thirteenth [apostle]"; suggesting there were thirteen apostles. This is consistent with the Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Mary, only not with the Church of Peter. You see, the 4 cannons fall under the same banner and it's possible that they have been edited to hide truths. The reality is that we have 3 different accounts conflicting the version of the Catholic Church.

In John 1, the first five verses are about creation through the Son. This is followed by three verses about John, emphasising three core truths:
1. John was sent by God (verse 6)
2. John's mission was to bear witness to Jesus (verse 7)
3. John himself was not the promised light (verse 8)
This is then followed by ten verses about Jesus. My point was that John's story is told here in very theological terms. He prepares the path for Jesus, but is utterly subservient to him. What was the point about John the Baptist, anyway?
The point was whether the Gospel of John had been written by John the Apostle of named after John the Baptist. I believe in the second option and my belief is backed by Jesus high regard to this man. Back to the Gospel of Thomas:
Jesus said, "From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born of women, no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted. But I have said that whoever among you becomes a child will recognise the (Father's) kingdom and will become greater than John."
I'm not a Catholic, never have been, and never will be. That's nothing against Catholics, but I don't believe in the authority of the pope. I am a Christian, which I believe is reasonable based on the evidence. I've yet to find any historical inconsistencies.
If you are not a Catholic, you have no reason to believe them so blindly. Look for the existing evidence inside and outside the church and make your own assumptions.

Well, useless books aren't too great.
How is the Bible abridged? It's quite a tome. The books selected for the New Testament are those the early church considered authentic and useful. The rest is less so.
Anyway, I'm going to supper now, so I'll see you guys later.

Why would you take out any of the word of god? I'd like to know as much as possible, really, not just the various stories and fables surrounding it. Yeah, it's a tome - but there's still so many unanswered and skewed questions and situations, that I can't help but think that what they considered "useful" was a bad criteria to go on. Man is -very- fallable, so when he goes "Eh, what's this piece of junk?" and throws away the hope diamond, I get sad.

Well... I'm pretty sure the bible has always said abortion is wrong. I see it otherwise, though, but thats just me.

Then how do you explain the undeniable parallels between John's Gospel and John's letters, in which the author undeniably identifies himself as a man ("the elder")?
I haven't read John's letters, so I don't know what those parallels are... All I need to know I get from Jesus himself, through the various quotes that I find in ALL the gospels I can get my hands on...

As to the rest of the scriptures and texts, I only accept those parts that "feel" consistent with the speech of Jesus.

Why would you take out any of the word of god?

Well, for instance if you are planning on conquering a neighbouring country, it would be quite convenient if the book did not forbid such actions...
Or if you really dislike lobsters, it is quite convenient to leave out the part where Jesus said "Oh yeah, you know that Leviticus book ? Those rules no longer apply man. Oh, and please start smoking pot instead of burning goats - Daddy has decided that smell is more pleasing to Him".

Well... I'm pretty sure the bible has always said abortion is wrong. I see it otherwise, though, but thats just me.

Well, yes - people *say* that; but noone seems to be able to provide an actual reference. References that indicate the opposite however are easily found.

It is like the apple: everybody knows Eve gave Adam an apple; but when one actually reads the Bible one sees that it only mentions a fruit, and trees that grow figleaves. Not that that means the fruit wasn't an apple - but the facts seem to point to a fig.

Well, useless books aren't too great.
How is the Bible abridged? It's quite a tome. The books selected for the New Testament are those the early church considered authentic and useful. The rest is less so.
Anyway, I'm going to supper now, so I'll see you guys later.
"The books selected for the New Testament are those the early church considered authentic and useful", according to a self-righteous man who didn't have a clue about true Christian values.

If he did, he would not write a five-volume book called "Against Heresies: On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis".

Instead, he would meet the "Gnosis" and try to talk them out of their ways. PERIOD. A true Christian should not go any further than that...

Well, for instance if you are planning on conquering a neighbouring country, it would be quite convenient if the book did not forbid such actions...
Or if you really dislike lobsters, it is quite convenient to leave out the part where Jesus said "Oh yeah, you know that Leviticus book ? Those rules no longer apply man".



Well, yes - peple *say* that; but noone seems to be able to provide an actual reference.
References that indicate the opposite however are easily found.

Oh of course, I wasn't saying the people who "edited" the bible weren't using coersion or personal preferences at all. I think the bible is possibly the most corrupted book in the history of man.

References that indicate the opposite however are easily found.
As far as I know, there are no references in the bible about "parent induced abortion".

I think the bible is possibly the most corrupted book in the history of man.
I think you are right. And we all paid a heavy price. We're still paying a heavy price...

But since the original copy of the Gospel of Thomas was destroyed by some "mysterious" entity for "mysterious" reasons, aside the simple fact that the followers of Peter deemed it a heretic threat, we'll never know for sure which came first. Of course, since all apostles lived at the same time, there is no reason to believe one came substantially earlier than the other.
Might I point out that we obviously don't have the original copies of the four canonical gospels either. Does that mean that they were destroyed by a "mysterious entity"? Who is this strange oppressor who goes around destroying various documents?
Also, the Gospel of Thomas is a perfectly sound transcribed conversation. It's quotations, not rhetorical speech like the texts that wrap the 4 canonical Gospels. It quotes Jesus directly and it's consistent with Christian values. What is not consistent is with the concept of an authoritative church, perverted by self-righteous and power-hungry men.
John, which you are so eager to ascribe to Mary Magdalene, is the only gospel that has significant rhetorical passages; the synoptic gospels are for the most part simple narratives, detailing what Jesus said and did. I'm not quite sure how the canonical gospels apparently support an "authoritative church" or "self-righteous and power-hungry men", since they contain many warnings against cruel rulers, oppressors and self-righteous people.
As I said, I am not addressing the ideology of the Gospel of Judas but only the very simple fact that its author addresses Judas as "the thirteenth [apostle]"; suggesting there were thirteen apostles. This is consistent with the Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Mary, only not with the Church of Peter. You see, the 4 cannons fall under the same banner and it's possible that they have been edited to hide truths. The reality is that we have 3 different accounts conflicting the version of the Catholic Church.
Jesus chose twelve core followers. However, later various other people are described as apostles: Paul, for example, is the thirteenth apostle! (Judas, by contrast, is one of the Twelve, which is why I'm puzzled by what the Gospel of Judas apparently says; he was later replaced by Mathias.) Even today, various Christians, especially those of a Charismatic background, claim that apostles are still around, based on Ephesians 4:11. I'm not sure where the canonical gospels supposedly enshrine that there can only be twelve apostles. Personally, I believe that "apostles" refers to the leaders of the first generation of the Church.
The point was whether the Gospel of John had been written by John the Apostle of named after John the Baptist. I believe in the second option and my belief is backed by Jesus high regard to this man.
Jesus clearly had a high regard for John the Baptist, but John the Apostle was the beloved disciple. John's story is told in far less detail in the Gospel of John than it is in, say, Luke. Moreover, I've already pointed out that the Gospel of John and his letters show close parallels, as well as various proofs from the text itself (e.g. John's identifying himself at the end).
If you are not a Catholic, you have no reason to believe them so blindly. Look for the existing evidence inside and outside the church and make your own assumptions.
I don't believe everything the Catholic Church tells me. They have a habit of making up new, unsupported dogmas, e.g. the bodily ascension of Mary into Heaven. I used to be a skeptical atheist, but was convinced by the Gospels themselves.

As far as I know, there are no references in the bible about "parent induced abortion".

Nope, but there are plenty of references to children, unborn children and their deaths. And the general trend seems to be that God doesn't give a [censored] about what happens to the unborn; just about the effect it has on the parents.

"The books selected for the New Testament are those the early church considered authentic and useful", according to a self-righteous man who didn't have a clue about true Christian values.

If he did, he would not write a five-volume book called "Against Heresies: On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis".

Instead, he would meet the "Gnosis" and try to talk them out of their ways. PERIOD. A true Christian should not go any further than that...
Er, now suddenly Irenaeus on his own chose the New Testament canon? Why then does he make reference to some noncanonical books, eg 1 Clement?
Which true Christian value did Irenaeus not know, then?

Nope, but there are plenty of references to children, unborn children and their deaths. And the general trend seems to be that God doesn't give a [censored] about what happens to the unborn; just about the effect it has on the parents.
Unfortunately, Jesus never spoke about abortion of life, only about life...

I would argue that God leaves the last word on the action to the person who is responsible by the action. That is free-will. This doesn't mean that your choice is right or wrong; that probably depends mostly on the circumstances around the action...

Unfortunately, Jesus never spoke about abortion of life, only about life...

I would argue that God leaves the last word on the action to the person who is responsible by the action. That is free-will. This doesn't mean that your choice is right or wrong; that probably depends mostly on the circumstances around the action...
You see, abortion wasn't the greatest of issues in rural first-century Jewish society. It's no wonder he didn't mention it.

You see, abortion wasn't the greatest of issues in rural first-century Jewish society. It's no wonder he didn't mention it.

You'd think since god knew it would be a big deal eventually, he would've just covered the gammet and talked about it all.

Or maybe he did and the people decided it was "unimportant" canon because they didn't understand what he meant.

Er, now suddenly Irenaeus on his own chose the New Testament canon?
As a writer himself, he was the brains behind the selection and he rationalised the selection. Others mostly approved his ideology.

Why then does he make reference to some noncanonical books, eg 1 Clement?
Don't know what you are talking about. Care to explain?

Which true Christian value did Irenaeus not know, then?
"Do not judge, lest you be judged."
"Love your enemy."

Of course, by judging him a monster, I'm sinning. Still, I'm comforted by the fact that I'm not writing books about persecuting people.

You see, abortion wasn't the greatest of issues in rural first-century Jewish society. It's no wonder he didn't mention it.
Kind of what I said about 100 posts ago...

As a writer himself, he was the brains behind the selection and he rationalised the selection. Others mostly approved his ideology.
And the evidence for that is...?
Don't know what you are talking about. Care to explain?
Sure, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus:
Irenaeus cites from most of the New Testament canon, as well as the noncanonical works 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas; however, he makes no references to Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John or Jude.
It takes a bit more than one man to determine the entire canon. At Irenaeus's time, though, apparently most people already approved of the books he endorsed.
"Do not judge, lest you be judged."
"Love your enemy."
Of course, by judging him a monster, I'm sinning. Still, I'm comforted by the fact that I'm not writing books about persecuting people.
"Not judging" doesn't mean that you can't tell anybody they are wrong. Jesus went around telling the Pharisees they were wrong. He loved his enemies and yet prophesied that they would be judged.
I guess I'm hampered by the fact that I haven't read Irenaeus (have you got a web link?), but if possible, I'd like a quotation where he explicitly talks about killing heretics and destroying their writings.

You'd think since god knew it would be a big deal eventually, he would've just covered the gammet and talked about it all.

Or maybe he did and the people decided it was "unimportant" canon because they didn't understand what he meant.
Saying that abortion isn't really talked about in the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't give us useful principles in approaching the question. It does.

I'm going to see Mission Impossible III now. See you guys.

Might I point out that we obviously don't have the original copies of the four canonical gospels either. Does that mean that they were destroyed by a "mysterious entity"? Who is this strange oppressor who goes around destroying various documents?"
The same one that deemed them heretic? No mystery there... While we may not have the originals, since these did deteriorate with time and had to be replaced, the four canonical gospels are part of the most sold book of all times, while the other Gospels "mysteriously" disappeared from the libraries of the Catholic Church.

John, which you are so eager to ascribe to Mary Magdalene, is the only gospel that has significant rhetorical passages; the synoptic gospels are for the most part simple narratives, detailing what Jesus said and did. I'm not quite sure how the canonical gospels apparently support an "authoritative church" or "self-righteous and power-hungry men", since they contain many warnings against cruel rulers, oppressors and self-righteous people.
Maybe because they do not question the authority of the Apostles like the Gospel of Thomas does, for example? In this Gospel, like in the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary, we see private conversations between Jesus and his pupils and - at times - you get the feeling that the Apostles' faith was weak and their insight poor. After all, we're talking of largely uneducated men...

Also, look at the Vatican to see how the result of the bible (not just the 4 canonical gospels). For centuries, the Pope effectively ruled over the Christian European Monarchies. Remember the Inquisitions? How rich is the Vatican? Does the Pope not live like a King (even if today he has see his power taken away)? Does he not receive a crown when he takes the place? Does he not sit on a throne? Your obsession in defending Catholicism is really not consistent with your non-Catholic stance. What are you trying to prove?

Jesus chose twelve core followers. However, later various other people are described as apostles: Paul, for example, is the thirteenth apostle! (Judas, by contrast, is one of the Twelve, which is why I'm puzzled by what the Gospel of Judas apparently says; he was later replaced by Mathias.) Even today, various Christians, especially those of a Charismatic background, claim that apostles are still around, based on Ephesians 4:11. I'm not sure where the canonical gospels supposedly enshrine that there can only be twelve apostles. Personally, I believe that "apostles" refers to the leaders of the first generation of the Church.
My view is that the "apostles" are those who were directly taught by Jesus; any other definition is worthless for me. I have enough evidence to believe there were 13 apostles, including Mary. This is confirmed by 3 accounts, against the version of the Catholic Church.

Jesus clearly had a high regard for John the Baptist, but John the Apostle was the beloved disciple. John's story is told in far less detail in the Gospel of John than it is in, say, Luke. Moreover, I've already pointed out that the Gospel of John and his letters show close parallels, as well as various proofs from the text itself (e.g. John's identifying himself at the end).
The author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself as "John". You have not shown one piece of sound evidence that the "beloved disciple" was in fact John the apostle.

I don't believe everything the Catholic Church tells me. They have a habit of making up new, unsupported dogmas, e.g. the bodily ascension of Mary into Heaven. I used to be a skeptical atheist, but was convinced by the Gospels themselves.
Well, you certainly sound like a blind follower of Catholic dogma to me...

Well... I'm pretty sure the bible has always said abortion is wrong. I see it otherwise, though, but thats just me.

And I am pretty sure abortion procedures werent around in biblical times so how could it say so?

And I am pretty sure abortion procedures werent around in biblical times so how could it say so?

Ways to end unwanted pregnancies are hardly new... they were just somewhat more risky to the females health.

Some examples: http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/Stephanie_Doerfler/Abortion.html

Ways to end unwanted pregnancies are hardly new... they were just somewhat more risky to the females health.

Some examples: http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/Stephanie_Doerfler/Abortion.html

Like I said...Biblical times.

And the evidence for that is...?
Look in the link you provided me...
"Irenaeus was the first Christian writer to list all four of the now canonical Gospels as divinely-inspired, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which he (Marcion) asserted was the one and only true gospel."
And "Saint" Irenaeus' divine inspiration to justify the choice of the 4 Gospels is:
There are four winds, four corners of the earth, so there must be only four gospels.
From here we can only assume that God wasn't aware then that Earth was actually round...
Sure, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus:
And what is your point? Sorry, I don't get it.
It takes a bit more than one man to determine the entire canon. At Irenaeus's time, though, apparently most people already approved of the books he endorsed.
Obviously it only took one to say we needed 4 Gospels, one for each corner of the Earth.
"Not judging" doesn't mean that you can't tell anybody they are wrong. Jesus went around telling the Pharisees they were wrong. He loved his enemies and yet prophesied that they would be judged.
I guess I'm hampered by the fact that I haven't read Irenaeus (have you got a web link?), but if possible, I'd like a quotation where he explicitly talks about killing heretics and destroying their writings.
You can tell people they are wrong if you think so. What you cannot do is condemning them to any sort of punishment. I have no right to tell anybody they will burn in Hell for this or that. As I said before, a true Christian should not go any further than attempting to talk people out of their ways. He would not "overthrow" them or write books damning them all to be purified by fire...

Are you blind or do you not want to see?

I'm going to see Mission Impossible III now. See you guys.
May MI3 show you the light, so that you too can see the truth... :D

*shakes head*
The earliest known form of contraception -and one still practiced and taught by Catholics the world over- it involves counting the days since a woman's menstration to determine when she is infertile.

If no one has pointed this out yet --


That method is ineffective, as women's cycles are not naturally regular, and counting days tells one nothing about ovulation. That is an estimate, and is often VERY inaccurate in younger women. A woman is capable of ovulating once, twice, or not at all during a cycle. Thus, the counting of days is useless and can often result in unwanted pregnancies.

Because even in the bible the people were smart enough to realize that babies in the womb are not a real life.

Like I said...Biblical times.

Those were from ancient Rome and older than the new testament. I am quite certain that the people living in the time the old teestament was written also knew that stomping a pregnant woman is not good for the survival chances of the fetus - sionce they actually bothered to put a comment about that in the bible.

If no one has pointed this out yet --


That method is ineffective, as women's cycles are not naturally regular, and counting days tells one nothing about ovulation. That is an estimate, and is often VERY inaccurate in younger women. A woman is capable of ovulating once, twice, or not at all during a cycle. Thus, the counting of days is useless and can often result in unwanted pregnancies.

I did!

I did!


Thanks -- I've been sorting through the pages and I must've overlooked it. Nice to see someone else on NS is fairly educated about reproductive health.

Ways to end unwanted pregnancies are hardly new... they were just somewhat more risky to the females health.

Some examples: http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/Stephanie_Doerfler/Abortion.html

Who are Soranus and Dioscorides? Do you know?

The OP was interested in "what 'God' thinks of abortion"

but I'm curious about why the OP restricts this to "what 'God' thinks of abortion according to the Bible."

I cannot fathom what basis there is for considering the Bible as a valid source for what God thinks or doesn't think ~now~.

I can understand someone believing that the Bible illuminated something of God's thoughts as of "back then". I'm skeptical of even that much credit going to the Bible, but I can understand it.

Just wondering, what does God think about skateboards and Osterizers, according to the Bible? (Note: that's a rhetorical question that's not really looking for an answer.)

I cannot fathom what basis there is for considering the Bible as a valid source for what God thinks or doesn't think ~now~.

Because I see "the Bible says it is a sin" be used over and over again.
Of course, how so many people know with absolute certainty that "God considers it a sin" if it *isn't* in the Bible or cannot be derived from it is an intruiging question. Did He speak to them in their sleep perhaps ?

Just wondering, what does God think about skateboards and Osterizers, according to the Bible? (Note: that's a rhetorical question that's not really looking for an answer.)

It is actually a false comparison. Ways to end pregnancies were already known and in use when the bible was written; and cases where such a thing happens are actually mentioned. The Bible *does* speak about the death of fetusses, it just doesn't speak of them in the same way most Christians do.

Such things can not be said about skateboards.

Here's a quote about John the Baptist:

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb."
[Luke 1:15]

Looks like I got in a little late on this thread, but I'll go ahead and give the Jewish perspective on the issue. I'll go ahead and repost the verse as well, so everyone is familiar with what I'm talking about.

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning.

The opening post drew a good conclusion, at least from the one specific verse in Exodus 21:22. This is the only verse in the Bible that specifically talks about a fetus being killed by a person. Its also one of the sections in the Bible that deals with law, rather than narrative. From this verse we know that a fetus is not considered equal to born children; in fact, the punishment for killing a fetus here is equal to the punishment for destroying property, like breaking a man's roof. The fine is first determined by the husband, and if that proves difficult, its determined by reckoning.

When Christians are presented with this verse, they often try to reinterpret it, based on English syntax and even ignoring that grammatical structure, by saying that the damage refers to the fetus. To nip this in the bud, I'll just point out that the subject in this verse is 'woman' and thus modifiers, like 'damage ensues', refers to the woman, and not the fetus. So no, it doesn't refer to a fetus being miscarried but staying alive. It refers to a miscarriage with no further damage to the woman.

And just so you all know that I'm not some crazy lone Jew giving his interpretation, I'll poing out something else. The Jewish Publication Society commentary on this verse states:

Halakhic exegesis infers that, since the punishment is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder.

It doesn't get much more clear than that. In addition, when doing scholarly interpretation and exegesis of a verse, context is important. This includes the cultural, historical, and grammatical contexts of the verse, as I've always stated. Because this is a Jewish text, and the Jewish interpretation (given above) of this verse is the oldest, it will always be seen as the most authoritative and accurate in scholarly circles. In essence, only Christians dispute the interpretation, based on Christian tradition and zero scholarship.

Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible does it prohibit the killing a fetus. Christians often attempt to use verses from narratives to demonstrate why a fetus is a 'person' and why killing it is equal to killing a born human. Yet, these are all subjective interpretation, and all have a number of problems. To illustrate, I'll refer to a previous post:

Here's a quote from John the Baptist:

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb."
[Luke 1:15]

So, from a biblical perspective, the child is filled with spirit in the womb. Unfortunately, it only tells us this happens in the womb, but that is vary vague. It could be conception, it could be from the moment the brain starts functioning or it could be when the foetus starts capturing sensations.

Problem 1. Assis' interpretation assumes that being filled with the spirit = being a 'person' equal to those born. It doesn't state this.

Problem 2. Assis' interpretation assumes that this one instance applies to all fetuses. It never states that, its just as easy to assume that it refers only to this one fetus, and that only this one was filled with the spirit. It never says all fetuses are.

Problem 3. Subjective interpretation of 'spirit.' In this context, although Luke was written in Greek, the term "Holy Spirit" is quite distinct from other concepts such as "spirit" or "soul." It doesn't state that the child has a soul or 'spirit' at birth.

The second problem is a prime example of the illogical conclusions drawn by Christians based on their subjective interpretations. They assume from one instance, such as that above, or John "kicking in the womb", that it applies to all children. However, the verse never states that children are "filled with the spirit in the womb." It states that this one single child was to be filled with the Holy Spirit while in the womb. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that all children have souls or spirits while in the womb; nowhere in the Bible does it state that they are persons. In fact, nowhere in the Bible does it ever state that killing a fetus is sinful or wrong. Rather, for killed fetuses, it applies property law rather than person law. This is why Judaism has been predominately pro-choice.

In fact, you wont find much against abortion in early Christian literature, or throughout Christian history. It only starts occuring around the 4th century, and ironically as a result of St. Augustine's misinterpretation of the very same verse in Exodus. It doesn't become a refined doctrine until Thomas Aquinas' version of natural law, Pope Innocent III's doctrine of "quickening", and Pius IX's declaration of "ensoulment."

Problem 1. Assis' interpretation assumes that being filled with the spirit = being a 'person' equal to those born. It doesn't state this.

Problem 2. Assis' interpretation assumes that this one instance applies to all fetuses. It never states that, its just as easy to assume that it refers only to this one fetus, and that only this one was filled with the spirit. It never says all fetuses are.

Problem 3. Subjective interpretation of 'spirit.' In this context, although Luke was written in Greek, the term "Holy Spirit" is quite distinct from other concepts such as "spirit" or "soul." It doesn't state that the child has a soul or 'spirit' at birth.
Actually, I think you have a point here and I should clarify my last post.

Up until this thread, I had never read or quoted the bible to discuss abortion. My personal views on abortion have always been dictated by science and respect for life, not religion since I'm not religious really - just a lone follower of Jesus' way of life. As it has been mentioned before, the bible doesn't really say much about the issue, other than those references already mentioned.

Regarding my last post, I went to a Christian pro-life site to see how they defended it from a religious perspective (a first), to see if I could help clarify the issue. TS's comment prompted me to question this quote and actually look it in the bible, within its context. When I did this, I realised that this was not a quote from John the Baptist as I thought it was (my mistake) but from an angel talking to John's mother about John. So, really this quote does indeed refer to a special baby named John and we could assume that his case of being filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb is an exception.

As to the difference between 'Holy spirit' and 'spirit', I really haven't got a clue... :D The only thing I know about 'Holy Spirit' is that it is mentioned when people pray (something I don't do) and do the sign of the cross (which I don't do either). I have no clue about its theological meaning or whether all people have it or whether it's a special gift. From the quote about John, it does seem to be the later but, as I said, I don't know.

Only if the fetus disobeys his father.

The same one that deemed them heretic? No mystery there... While we may not have the originals, since these did deteriorate with time and had to be replaced, the four canonical gospels are part of the most sold book of all times, while the other Gospels "mysteriously" disappeared from the libraries of the Catholic Church.
You appear to assume that the gnostic gospels lost to the canonical ones because of brutal oppression. However, it is well possible (and morel likely) that the canonical gospels won simply because they were deemed authentic whereas others weren't. Again, if the absence of a document proved that it was destroyed, then every ancient author we know was apparently condemned as a heretic. Think about it. Assuming the Gospel of Thomas was a widely circulated document and had plenty of adherents. Assume further that the Church (despite actually being a persecuted minority at this point) somehow burned most copies and slaughtered the gnostics. Wouldn't that be such a major event that someone, somewhere, sometime would have mentioned it? There are solid reasons why the gnostic gospels are not included in the canon.
Maybe because they do not question the authority of the Apostles like the Gospel of Thomas does, for example? In this Gospel, like in the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary, we see private conversations between Jesus and his pupils and - at times - you get the feeling that the Apostles' faith was weak and their insight poor. After all, we're talking of largely uneducated men...
The canonical gospels frequently portray the disciples, and, interestingly, Simon Peter in particularly, as being very slow to learn, had little insight and less faith. James and John quarreled over who would be greatest in the Kingdom and called fire down from heaven on enemies; Peter denied Jesus and was at one time harshly addressed by him as "Satan". The main thought when you contemplate the apostles from the canonical gospels is "what a bunch of losers". It's amazing how they are transformed by the Resurrection.
Also, look at the Vatican to see how the result of the bible (not just the 4 canonical gospels). For centuries, the Pope effectively ruled over the Christian European Monarchies. Remember the Inquisitions? How rich is the Vatican? Does the Pope not live like a King (even if today he has see his power taken away)? Does he not receive a crown when he takes the place? Does he not sit on a throne? Your obsession in defending Catholicism is really not consistent with your non-Catholic stance. What are you trying to prove?
Again, I am not defending Catholicism, but Jesus himself, his earliest disciples and the Bible. I have no intention of defending the atrocities and exploitation committed by and in the name of the Papacy. Which passages in the Bible/the canonical gospels support the way in which the popes have lived like kings, crushing all opposition and exploiting the poor? I think you would be hard pressed to find any.
My view is that the "apostles" are those who were directly taught by Jesus; any other definition is worthless for me. I have enough evidence to believe there were 13 apostles, including Mary. This is confirmed by 3 accounts, against the version of the Catholic Church.
OK, in that case by "apostles" you probably mean the Twelve (or thirteen, in your interpretation). Well, if so, then the assumption that there were originally twelve apostles is supported by all four of the canonical gospels, plus Acts, Paul's letters and Revelation (we've neglected the rest of the New Testament so far). I think my case is fairly well supported from the early sources. Also, if Judas is the thirteenth apostle, then presumably Mary Magdalene is one of the first twelve? Just to clarify.
The author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself as "John". You have not shown one piece of sound evidence that the "beloved disciple" was in fact John the apostle.
I believe I have, by pointing out the close parallels between John's gospels and his letters. If you examine the actual texts, you will find the similarity very compelling.
Well, you certainly sound like a blind follower of Catholic dogma to me.
It really has little to do with Catholicism. You appear to assume that the Catholic Church is an unchanging entity, from the moment of its birth seeking to eradicate Mary Magdalene and any dissidents. But the Church, like any organisation on earth, has evolved. The time that we are discussing may rightly be considered pre-Catholic, if Catholic is taken in its modern-day sense. Few of the ritual, organisation and dogma of the Catholic Church was fully formed at this point.

You appear to assume that the gnostic gospels lost to the canonical ones because of brutal oppression. However, it is well possible (and morel likely) that the canonical gospels won simply because they were deemed authentic whereas others weren't.

The idea that they won because they were "deemed authentic" is inconsistent with what Early Christian Fathers actually wrote about many of the Gospels that were left out. Even after the process of canonization was finalized, Bishops retained the canons they had been previously using in their individual communities for quite some time.

It should also be noted that one of the canonical gospels, John, was rejected by Church Fathers like Iraneaus because it was deemed to be unauthentic and Gnostic in origin.

Again, if the absence of a document proved that it was destroyed, then every ancient author we know was apparently condemned as a heretic. Think about it. Assuming the Gospel of Thomas was a widely circulated document and had plenty of adherents. Assume further that the Church (despite actually being a persecuted minority at this point) somehow burned most copies and slaughtered the gnostics. Wouldn't that be such a major event that someone, somewhere, sometime would have mentioned it? There are solid reasons why the gnostic gospels are not included in the canon.

The Church Fathers themselves mentioned how they destroyed numerous heretical works, even during the time of persecution, which contrary to popular Christian belief was relatively light and for a short period of time. The reason we know about so many lost texts is because of Orthodox polemic against them.

Other events of note would be the burning of the Library at Alexandria. Someone sure mentioned the Christians doing this.

Again, I am not defending Catholicism, but Jesus himself, his earliest disciples and the Bible. I have no intention of defending the atrocities and exploitation committed by and in the name of the Papacy. Which passages in the Bible/the canonical gospels support the way in which the popes have lived like kings, crushing all opposition and exploiting the poor? I think you would be hard pressed to find any.

The problem here, and I'm sure someone has pointed this out to you, is that your opinion of "Jesus himself" is based on Catholicism. Your idea of who Jesus really was is based upon the four Gospels that were chosen by the Catholic Church.

In history, we use the dichotomy "Jesus of faith" and "historical Jesus." The former is Jesus as the Gospels portray him, and the latter, the "historical Jesus", refers to the origin of the Gospel mythos. For quite some time modern scholarship has rejected the idea that the Gospels are "Jesus himself."

And as for being "hard pressed" to find Biblical passages to support the acts of the Papacy, here is one for you, right from Jesus as the mythos portrays him:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luke 19:27)

I believe I have, by pointing out the close parallels between John's gospels and his letters. If you examine the actual texts, you will find the similarity very compelling.

Each of the Gospels are pseudopigraphic. They were written anonymously, and later attributed to the apostles, like John. Nowhere in the texts does it actually say that Matt, Mark, Luke, or John wrote a single one of those works. The names were a result of Church tradition. And you're comparing an anonymous, pseudopigraphic work with letters suppossedly by John that are also disputed in modern scholarship as being pseudopigraphic.

I wonder why only Christian apologists see these suppossed similiarities and keep pretending like John actually wrote them?

Look in the link you provided me...

And "Saint" Irenaeus' divine inspiration to justify the choice of the 4 Gospels is:

From here we can only assume that God wasn't aware then that Earth was actually round...
The earth is described as having four corners in the book of Revelation. It's an image. The Gospels weren't chosen because someone decided that you really needed four gospels because there were four corners of the earth. Rather, it just so happened to be that the gospels that were considered authentic were four in number. That just happens to be the number of "corners of the earth", and Irenaeus was praising God for that pattern. It is, by the way, also the number of living creatures in the Apocalypse, which is why each of the evangelists has traditionally been associated with one of them.
And what is your point? Sorry, I don't get it.
My point was merely that if Irenaeus basically compiled the Christian canon, then it's surprising that he includes books that were later excluded, and vice versa.
Obviously it only took one to say we needed 4 Gospels, one for each corner of the Earth.
As I've pointed out above, you've probably got it the wrong way round. That would seem plausible to me.
You can tell people they are wrong if you think so. What you cannot do is condemning them to any sort of punishment. I have no right to tell anybody they will burn in Hell for this or that. As I said before, a true Christian should not go any further than attempting to talk people out of their ways. He would not "overthrow" them or write books damning them all to be purified by fire...

Are you blind or do you not want to see?
Jesus went around telling people that they would be punished. Does that mean he did something wrong? Does that make him a sinner?
I'm not quite sure wherein my blindness lies. Remember, I journeyed from skepticism to faith.

The earth is described as having four corners in the book of Revelation. It's an image. The Gospels weren't chosen because someone decided that you really needed four gospels because there were four corners of the earth. Rather, it just so happened to be that the gospels that were considered authentic were four in number. That just happens to be the number of "corners of the earth", and Irenaeus was praising God for that pattern. It is, by the way, also the number of living creatures in the Apocalypse, which is why each of the evangelists has traditionally been associated with one of them.

Yes, Christianity, borrowing heavily from pagan traditions, emphasized numerology and its symbolism quite a bit. Moving along...

The Gospels were independently evaluated and as it turned out, there just "happened" to be four. Assis was much closer with his evaluation. Iraneaus himself originally rejected the Gospel of John, because it was derived from Gnostic communities and mostly rejected among the early Orthodox. He did want four Gospels for his Christian community, and wanted to counter the growing popularity of this Gnostic text, so he attempted to justify the inclusion of John by saying its different teachings were "spiritual" (calling it the 'spiritual gospel') and using the four corners justification for why there must be four.

Also keep in mind that Iraneaus wrote before an official canon. The four Gospels came after Iraneaus, by over 200 years, based on the teachings of this early Church Father that four was the number to be decided at.

As I've pointed out above, you've probably got it the wrong way round. That would seem plausible to me.

No, Assis has it quite right. Iraneaus came long before canonization. He didn't comment on a canon that already existed - a Christian NT canon didn't exist yet, and early Christians used numerous books outside of today's canon.

The four Gospel model was based on Iraneaus' teachings, he didn't write about a four Gospel model due to a previous selection and canonization of such. It was even disputed by early Christians if the four Gospels to b.e in the canon would include the Gospel of John or the Gospel of Peter.

The idea that they won because they were "deemed authentic" is inconsistent with what Early Christian Fathers actually wrote about many of the Gospels that were left out. Even after the process of canonization was finalized, Bishops retained the canons they had been previously using in their individual communities for quite some time.
Give an example, please. I'm not disputing your point, but I am fairly uninformed.
It should also be noted that one of the canonical gospels, John, was rejected by Church Fathers like Iraneaus because it was deemed to be unauthentic and Gnostic in origin.
If so, then Irenaeus is apparently wrong. John was clearly anti-gnostic, inasmuch as he wrote against the gnostic docetists (2 John 7). Sorry, I assumed that Irenaeus accepted John's Gospel. Ahh, Wikipedia lied to me!
The Church Fathers themselves mentioned how they destroyed numerous heretical works, even during the time of persecution, which contrary to popular Christian belief was relatively light and for a short period of time. The reason we know about so many lost texts is because of Orthodox polemic against them.
The last great persecution under Diocletian was by no means light. However, I concede that we must not imagine that the Roman Emperors were on some sort of vendetta to destroy the church.
Other events of note would be the burning of the Library at Alexandria. Someone sure mentioned the Christians doing this.
That smacks of conspiracy theory and invokes the "invisible man".
The problem here, and I'm sure someone has pointed this out to you, is that your opinion of "Jesus himself" is based on Catholicism. Your idea of who Jesus really was is based upon the four Gospels that were chosen by the Catholic Church.

In history, we use the dichotomy "Jesus of faith" and "historical Jesus." The former is Jesus as the Gospels portray him, and the latter, the "historical Jesus", refers to the origin of the Gospel mythos. For quite some time modern scholarship has rejected the idea that the Gospels are "Jesus himself."
Have I pointed out that I am a History student? Again, "the Catholic Church" could do very little because it didn't exist; it was pretty much in its infancy at the time. I think it's a safe bet to assume that the four gospels are authentic, because, after all, they are the earliest documents and are inherently consistent and credible, something that few gnostic documents can claim for themselves. "Modern scholarship" is a diverse thing. On one extreme you will find evangelical scholars, on the other you will find the Jesus Seminar.
And as for being "hard pressed" to find Biblical passages to support the acts of the Papacy, here is one for you, right from Jesus as the mythos portrays him:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." (Luke 19:27)
In the context of the passage, this is Jesus (the king) proclaiming judgement on those who reject his rule. It's a parable about the Day of Judgement and has nothing to do with the church.
Each of the Gospels are pseudopigraphic. They were written anonymously, and later attributed to the apostles, like John. Nowhere in the texts does it actually say that Matt, Mark, Luke, or John wrote a single one of those works. The names were a result of Church tradition. And you're comparing an anonymous, pseudopigraphic work with letters suppossedly by John that are also disputed in modern scholarship as being pseudopigraphic.

I wonder why only Christian apologists see these suppossed similiarities and keep pretending like John actually wrote them?
Well, it's kind of safe to go with tradition if nothing speaks against it. Admittedly the gospels are pseudopigraphic. However, it is likely that they were written by the people they are attributed to, whereas later gnostic documents boast of being written by important people in order to sound impressive. It was in no-one's interest to attribute a gospel to Matthew, Mark or Luke. Matthew was a tax collector and thus not exactly the most virtuous of people, and Mark and Luke were nobodies. John is the only trickier case, but again, there is no reason to dispute authorship. His gospel was certainly not written by Mary Magdalene.

Yes, Christianity, borrowing heavily from pagan traditions, emphasized numerology and its symbolism quite a bit. Moving along...
Oh, please tell me you're not one of those "Nothing in Christianity is original" people... yes, of course there was a transfer of cultural elements, but that went both ways.
The Gospels were independently evaluated and as it turned out, there just "happened" to be four. Assis was much closer with his evaluation. Iraneaus himself originally rejected the Gospel of John, because it was derived from Gnostic communities and mostly rejected among the early Orthodox. He did want four Gospels for his Christian community, and wanted to counter the growing popularity of this Gnostic text, so he attempted to justify the inclusion of John by saying its different teachings were "spiritual" (calling it the 'spiritual gospel') and using the four corners justification for why there must be four.
You're obviously better informed than I am. I assumed that John was very anti-gnostic because he declared the docetists "antichrists" (2 John 7). Is there any way to get Irenaeus's writings on the net?
No, Assis has it quite right. Iraneaus came long before canonization. He didn't comment on a canon that already existed - a Christian NT canon didn't exist yet, and early Christians used numerous books outside of today's canon.

The four Gospel model was based on Iraneaus' teachings, he didn't write about a four Gospel model due to a previous selection and canonization of such. It was even disputed by early Christians if the four Gospels to b.e in the canon would include the Gospel of John or the Gospel of Peter.
I'm just wondering where Irenaeus got this incredible authority from that allowed him to single-handedly decide on the canon?
Admittedly there are various non-canonical "gospel" texts from antiquity. But I've yet to see anything that can match the canonical gospels in terms of early date, coherence, realism and authenticity (for example, recognising Jesus' Jewish background).

Give an example, please. I'm not disputing your point, but I am fairly uninformed.

Sure, one example of early Christians contemporary with Iraneaus are the Alogi. They rejected the Gospel of John specifically on the basis that it was Gnostic, and stated that it was really written by a Gnostic named Cerinthus.

If so, then Irenaeus is apparently wrong. John was clearly anti-gnostic, inasmuch as he wrote against the gnostic docetists (2 John 7). Sorry, I assumed that Irenaeus accepted John's Gospel. Ahh, Wikipedia lied to me!

Christians always tend to do this - the infamous double-standard. So Iraneaus was relevent and accurate for you when he supported your point, until it contradicts your pre-conceived Christian beliefs, and then he was wrong.

John borrows Gnostic termonology consistently, such as the use of the "logos", identical to that of Gnostic platonism. Furthermore, you're confusing 2 John with the Gospel of John. They are different texts, and 2 John is not accepted by modern scholarship as being of the same authorship as the Gospel of John and 1 John (both of which are of the same pseudopigraphic authorship).

Michael White, in a textbook from Yale Divinity School I have on hand (From Jesus to Christianity), wrote regarding the Gospel of John that it was found right alongside the Gospel of Thomas in Nag Hamadi.

In fact, on John, he has an entire section titled "John, Thomas, and Docetism: The Evidence of 1 John." Keep in mind, unlike 2 John, 1 John was written in the same community as the author as the Gospel of John, but not likely by the same author. In this section he wrote:

"The well-known use of the term Logos ("Word") in the prologue of the Gospel (John 1:1-18) relies on the sepculative appropriatation of the Wisdom tradition of Philo."

"The Johannine Gospel seems to be intend on trying to hold [Gnosticism and Orthodoxy] together by asserting that Jesus is the Logos or man from heaven who "became flesh and lived among us.""

"Legends about John espousing a docetic theology still circulated in the middle to latter part of the second centry in the apocryphal Acts of John."

And, on your claim that it was rejecting a docetic theology, White wrote that this was a result of a compromise to reconcile the two modes of thought, not a rejection of docetism:

"Would reflect a debate among Christians over docetic theology and a later form of the Gospel developed to settle the conflict in a normative fashion."

The last great persecution under Diocletian was by no means light. However, I concede that we must not imagine that the Roman Emperors were on some sort of vendetta to destroy the church.

No, it was light, compared to the persecution against Jews and every other enemy group during that comparison. Its only been enhanced by Christian propaganda. Even Eusebius wrote that he would exaggerate and only tell things that enhanced the Christian cause, and that it was a glory to lie for the Church.

That smacks of conspiracy theory and invokes the "invisible man".

The fact that Christians burned the Library at Alexander smacks of conspiracy theory? Emperor Theodosius ordered the destruction of all pagan centers of learning and the Bishop Theophilius complied by having the Library destroyed. Its quite clear in the historical record. I don't think anyone rejects it or calls it a conspiracy theory, in fact its common knowledge.

Have I pointed out that I am a History student? Again, "the Catholic Church" could do very little because it didn't exist; it was pretty much in its infancy at the time. I think it's a safe bet to assume that the four gospels are authentic, because, after all, they are the earliest documents and are inherently consistent and credible, something that few gnostic documents can claim for themselves. "Modern scholarship" is a diverse thing. On one extreme you will find evangelical scholars, on the other you will find the Jesus Seminar.

The Catholic Church did exist when it canonized the four Gospels. They were not canonized by some Christian body that existed before the Church. Early Christians also identified as the Catholic Church before the RCC existed. You seem to be confusing the RCC with the pre-RCC Christians, virtually all whom identified as "Catholics" and carrried the tradition on to the formation of the RCC.

And you wont find any peer-reviewed works from the "evangelical scholars" who support Christian apologetics. Rather, like the textbook I cited above by a noted "evangelical scholar" at Yale, they agree quite consistently with secular historians. The apologists would have you believe things like John being anti-Gnostic, whereas the "evangelical scholars" conccur with the Jesus Seminar on this one. I should also mention that the Jesus Seminar has consistently achieved peer-reviewed status with its works, while Christian apologetics is quite scant in that area.

In the context of the passage, this is Jesus (the king) proclaiming judgement on those who reject his rule. It's a parable about the Day of Judgement and has nothing to do with the church.

Right, your personal interpretation is the correct one. Forget thousands of years of Christian interpretation on it. Your modern, pop-culture interpretation with no historical basis must be the right one.

Well, it's kind of safe to go with tradition if nothing speaks against it. Admittedly the gospels are pseudopigraphic. However, it is likely that they were written by the people they are attributed to, whereas later gnostic documents boast of being written by important people in order to sound impressive. It was in no-one's interest to attribute a gospel to Matthew, Mark or Luke. Matthew was a tax collector and thus not exactly the most virtuous of people, and Mark and Luke were nobodies. John is the only trickier case, but again, there is no reason to dispute authorship. His gospel was certainly not written by Mary Magdalene.

Authorship is disputed as a historical concensus. White lists for each of the four Gospels, in a ranking system, that authorship is "unknown." He doesn't even give it a status of "disputed" like with some texts that we could possibly know the authors of. The only reason people today think that those people wrote them is due to later Church tradition. There are no first-century accounts of those Gospels being attributed to those authors; there are no accounts at all of their authorship until Christianity begins to get on its feet, and even then Christian groups disputed it, like the Alogi.

Doesn't the fact that early Christian groups disputed their authorship and that modern scholarship rejects the authorship completely give you "reason to dispute authorship?"

You also seem to be caught up in the improper use of inductive reasoning. Its the false Christian assumption that they had "no reason to lie." Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were common names in the Jesus tradition by the time the Gospels were written, and thus there was every reason in the world to attribute the Gospels to those names. Just as many letters and Gospels were attributed to other apostles. Yet, once again the double-standard comes up, as you use the false inductive reasoning in favor of the canonical Gospels while rejecting every other early Christian work that did the exact same thing.

Oh, please tell me you're not one of those "Nothing in Christianity is original" people... yes, of course there was a transfer of cultural elements, but that went both ways.

Well, it would be wrong to say that there is strictly "nothing original." However, the vast majority of the Jesus story elements are borrowed. Not just cultural elements, but sections that are borrowed word for word from pagan texts, as well as entire plotlines. Back then, when creating a mythos or story, it was a complement to steal and borrow ideas. However, today, the Gospel authors could easily be sued for plagerism and intellectual theft. That is how unoriginal they are.

You're obviously better informed than I am. I assumed that John was very anti-gnostic because he declared the docetists "antichrists" (2 John 7). Is there any way to get Irenaeus's writings on the net?

Well, what you have to remember is that 2 John was written not only by a different author, but in a different community than the Gospel of John and 1 John. The anti-Gnostic sentiments found in 2 John doesn't mean that John the apostle actually wrote all three, and thus all writings attributed to John are anti-Gnostic.

Irenaeus' writings should be at earlychristianwritings.com

I'm just wondering where Irenaeus got this incredible authority from that allowed him to single-handedly decide on the canon?
Admittedly there are various non-canonical "gospel" texts from antiquity. But I've yet to see anything that can match the canonical gospels in terms of early date, coherence, realism and authenticity (for example, recognising Jesus' Jewish background).

Irenaeus got to claim "apostolic tradition." He was a student of Polycarp, who claimed to be a student of the apostle John. Thus, through that apostolic line, he was seen as having the correct teachings from the apostles by the early Orthodoxy. And he really wasn't doing anything other early Christians weren't doing, each community leader single-handedly decided upon the canon of Christian writings for their communities, and often fought with one another about it. It was a 'heretic' named Marcion who first came up with the idea to even canonize Christian texts, and view them as 'scripture.' Iraneaus' four Gospels was in rebuttal to Marcion's canon, which included only Luke and the writings of Paul.

The early date of the Gospels is misleading, as well. Many myths have been developed and created around people within a multi-generational time span, so there is no reason to believe that the Gospels being a few decades off (at their earliest dating schemes) from Jesus gives them any more historical accuracy than Tacitus writing about myths and gods about contemporaries. Rather, it should be asked why there are no contemporary writings of Jesus, when so many historians abounded in the area, and even recorded mundane details of daily life, in addition to dozens of "messiahs" and miracle workers. Surely if the Jesus of faith existed, one of those historians would have recorded it. But nothing.

They are hardly coherent either, as there are a number of contradictions between the two. And since two of the three synoptics (Matt and Luke) are based on Mark, they should really be identical. But two Gospels written based on a previous Gospel don't give weight to the story any more than if I were to write a book, and then someone were to read my book, set it next to them, and write a similair version.

And the realism and Jesus' Jewish background are highly questionable as well. The Gospels were written in Greek, with a strict polemic against Jews, and miss out on many aspects of Jewish society and Halacha. Contrary to Church tradition of their authorship, its very likely that they were written by Goyim or Hellenized Jews who knew just enough about Jewish culture to get by, but not about the details of Jewish law. They portray the Temple leaders as violating numerous laws in the arrest of Jesus, yet don't seem to point out that they were sinning in doing so, as they loved to do in other places with more common violations. From that we can conclude that the Jesus arrest myth was created as a polemic against the Jews, yet without a complete understanding Jewish law.

In addition, most of Jesus' teachings (like the rule on adultery, parables, golden rule, etc.) were stolen directly from the extremely popular Rabbis Shammai and Hillel, who were Pharisees (and founded the Pharasaic schools of thoughts by these names), yet portray Jesus as conflicting with Pharisees constantly; Pharisees who are seemingly unaware of their own teachings, as if Jesus were teaching some crazy new ideas.

I'm not sure how recognizing Jesus' Jewish background would make them authentic, but its also questionable how much they recognized it, and once again how familiar with the Jewish scriptures they were. An example would be how Luke and Matthew have conflicting geneologies, both of which are uneligable for a messianic claiment, due to a lack of a biological father and being descended from Jeconiah.

Of course these weren't details that would be recognized by Christians, especially not the Christians the Gospels were written for or by, who were mostly Goyim or Hellenized Jews. Even today, most Christians don't realize how inaccurate and anti-Semitic the Gospels are in their portrayal of Jews, unless they are familiar with Jewish culture and law.

You appear to assume that the gnostic gospels lost to the canonical ones because of brutal oppression. However, it is well possible (and morel likely) that the canonical gospels won simply because they were deemed authentic whereas others weren't.
I don't think the Gnostic gospels lost to the canonical ones due to brutal oppression. I think the Gospels were suppressed on a very weak rationalisation of 4 Gospels for 4 corners of the Earth, by a man who had not met Jesus and who - therefore - had no way to certify other texts inauthentic. Also, my argument is that this decision was largely provoked by a man who did not hesitate in inciting hatred towards other Christians who he not agreed with, even if he was not directly involved in their persecution and overthrow. Inciting hatred is against Christian values. Accusing someone with heresy at that time was punished with death, so a religious leader pointing a finger at someone and shouting 'heretic' was bound to have dramatic consequences, sooner or later. Think about this: What happened since the church lost its power over Nations? Christianity divided and different sects grew exponentially. Now this is exactly how Christianity evolved. Each Apostle went his way to spread the word. It was unavoidable that several different sects resulted from this. While I should concede the possibility that Irenaeus intentions were not of burning people at the stake, and that this didn't happen at the time, I am amazed as to how Gnostics simply vanished, while only one sect remained. Since you went away I've been reading a bit more about him and there is an argument that his intentions were to unify the church, which is understandable. However, unity does not come from division and finger-pointing. This was a basic tenet of Jesus.

Again, if the absence of a document proved that it was destroyed, then every ancient author we know was apparently condemned as a heretic. Think about it. Assuming the Gospel of Thomas was a widely circulated document and had plenty of adherents. Assume further that the Church (despite actually being a persecuted minority at this point) somehow burned most copies and slaughtered the gnostics. Wouldn't that be such a major event that someone, somewhere, sometime would have mentioned it? There are solid reasons why the gnostic gospels are not included in the canon.
We don't need to assume that the Gnostic Gospels were widely circulated and had plenty of adherents. This is proven by Irenaeus himself, when he writes about the heretic movements. You continue to ignore that this text was in the hands of the Church and that Irenaeus did in fact deemed it as heretic. They had a responsibility to store Jesus words but, instead, they decided - on arguable grounds - to loose them. Whether its complete loss was due to neglect or active destruction, only God knows. Either way, it does not clear the church from its loss. At no point did I state that there was a massive extermination of Gnostics in a particular moment in time or a huge bon fire night where they burned all the documents. What I do argue is that there must have been some indication from someone within the church to destroy them, otherwise a monk scribe wouldn't have buried it. If there wasn't such an order, why would a monk bother burying these documents? Wouldn't they just stop copying them until they disappeared through neglect? Does that make it any better? Why would the Gospel of Thomas be deemed as heretic anyway? Give me a good reason...

The canonical gospels frequently portray the disciples, and, interestingly, Simon Peter in particularly, as being very slow to learn, had little insight and less faith. James and John quarreled over who would be greatest in the Kingdom and called fire down from heaven on enemies; Peter denied Jesus and was at one time harshly addressed by him as "Satan". The main thought when you contemplate the apostles from the canonical gospels is "what a bunch of losers". It's amazing how they are transformed by the Resurrection.
True. However, I do believe the Gnostic Gospels go even further in emphasising the divisions between the Apostles, which could have been one reason why Irenaeus considered them dangerous, particularly if we consider the organic growth and division of the Church. However, the Gospel of Thomas has a very blunt passage, for anyone trying to establish an authoritative church:

Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."

Also, one of Irenaeus arguments to class these 3 gospels (Thomas, Mary and Judas) as heretic was that the Apostles claimed to have received a private teaching. However, in the bible there are references to these private teachings so is argument his inconsistent.

Again, I am not defending Catholicism, but Jesus himself, his earliest disciples and the Bible. I have no intention of defending the atrocities and exploitation committed by and in the name of the Papacy. Which passages in the Bible/the canonical gospels support the way in which the popes have lived like kings, crushing all opposition and exploiting the poor? I think you would be hard pressed to find any.
Support of authority can me achieved by suppressing information where Jesus chalenges religious authority. I think the later is what we are looking at.

OK, in that case by "apostles" you probably mean the Twelve (or thirteen, in your interpretation). Well, if so, then the assumption that there were originally twelve apostles is supported by all four of the canonical gospels, plus Acts, Paul's letters and Revelation (we've neglected the rest of the New Testament so far). I think my case is fairly well supported from the early sources. Also, if Judas is the thirteenth apostle, then presumably Mary Magdalene is one of the first twelve? Just to clarify.
Correct.

I believe I have, by pointing out the close parallels between John's gospels and his letters. If you examine the actual texts, you will find the similarity very compelling.
I fear I may not be qualified to go into so much detail, like text analysys to compare authorship. However, I do know that the authorship of all the Gospels is widely contested by modern scholars. We must remember that most of the Apostles were likely illeterate and the writing style may have depended on the scribes, not the Apostles dictating.

It really has little to do with Catholicism. You appear to assume that the Catholic Church is an unchanging entity, from the moment of its birth seeking to eradicate Mary Magdalene and any dissidents. But the Church, like any organisation on earth, has evolved. The time that we are discussing may rightly be considered pre-Catholic, if Catholic is taken in its modern-day sense. Few of the ritual, organisation and dogma of the Catholic Church was fully formed at this point.
In my view, and according to the teaching of Jesus, the church has a lot to evolve, beginning with the ending of the papacy and the luxury of the Vatican. Neither one nor the other are compatible with true Christian values

The early date of the Gospels is misleading, as well. Many myths have been developed and created around people within a multi-generational time span, so there is no reason to believe that the Gospels being a few decades off (at their earliest dating schemes) from Jesus gives them any more historical accuracy than Tacitus writing about myths and gods about contemporaries. Rather, it should be asked why there are no contemporary writings of Jesus, when so many historians abounded in the area, and even recorded mundane details of daily life, in addition to dozens of "messiahs" and miracle workers. Surely if the Jesus of faith existed, one of those historians would have recorded it. But nothing.
Well, you obviously question Jesus existence, which is understandable since his existence threatens Jewish religion and your sources seem to be Jewish. I find it really hard to believe he didn't exist and I was an Atheist until I became an Agnostic, 6 months ago. You find it strange that no contemporary historians recorded his life and you also say messiahs and miracle workers were abound. According to what is believed, Jesus' life was short, more so his preaching life. It is perfectly plausible that miracle accounts may have been invented by some of the Apostles or even their followers, to reinforce Jesus' divinity. Even I question them. However, it is absolutely amazing how such a myth could have originated with so many ramifications, while presenting a very consistent "Jesus personality" throughout. With so many different authors inventing a myth and borrowing from different sources, the chances of them presenting a consistent Jesus would be nil. The alternative is a massive conspiracy happening in the 1st century, requiring a reasonably large group of authors, at a time when literacy was a privilege of a small minority. However, most literate men would either be rich, priests or romans and none of these three groups would welcome Jesus' teachings. From here, it is also very easy to assume that many of those who had the ability to write about him would either not want to recognise him as the Messiah or place their lives in the hands of Jewish priests. There are very few Roman and Jewish historical records, like Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger and the Babylonian Talmud, of which the first two are contemporary. You may try to discredit them but you cannot say there are no records. Arguably, anyone with a Jewish bias is not the right person to be discrediting these authors. From here, I accept that you can question the existence of Jesus if you believe in the miracle accounts and super-powers but it's not so easy to question his existence if you stick to the image of a compassionate man who captured people's attention in such brutal times. His message was likely to offer much comfort to common people, who probably feared the Jewish priests as much as they feared the Romans. From here, it is perfectly plausible that his fame only grew outside his small community after his death, as the Apostles spread out.


And the realism and Jesus' Jewish background are highly questionable as well. The Gospels were written in Greek, with a strict polemic against Jews, and miss out on many aspects of Jewish society and Halacha. Contrary to Church tradition of their authorship, its very likely that they were written by Goyim or Hellenized Jews who knew just enough about Jewish culture to get by, but not about the details of Jewish law. They portray the Temple leaders as violating numerous laws in the arrest of Jesus, yet don't seem to point out that they were sinning in doing so, as they loved to do in other places with more common violations. From that we can conclude that the Jesus arrest myth was created as a polemic against the Jews, yet without a complete understanding Jewish law.

In addition, most of Jesus' teachings (like the rule on adultery, parables, golden rule, etc.) were stolen directly from the extremely popular Rabbis Shammai and Hillel, who were Pharisees (and founded the Pharasaic schools of thoughts by these names), yet portray Jesus as conflicting with Pharisees constantly; Pharisees who are seemingly unaware of their own teachings, as if Jesus were teaching some crazy new ideas. I'm not sure how recognizing Jesus' Jewish background would make them authentic, but its also questionable how much they recognized it, and once again how familiar with the Jewish scriptures they were.
It is claimed that Jesus grew close to a temple and was often found among Jewish priests. It is possible that he was being educated to become a priest himself, gaining access to written scriptures and explaining why he was so 'enlightened' and educated. If so, he would have shared some teachings and could have borrowed those parables, while not being in full accordance with Jewish laws and their harsh application. As a compassionate man he would not approve public executions, which I believe were common at the time. The fact that Jesus and Jewish priests clashed can be easily justified with the fact that - as he rebelled - he became a threat to the priest's authority. You mention that the Gospels do not point out the sinning of the priests but, at the point of Jesus arrest, it is arguable that the Gospels are not so much about moral teachings anymore but more about a narration of the events that lead to Jesus death.

Of course these weren't details that would be recognized by Christians, especially not the Christians the Gospels were written for or by, who were mostly Goyim or Hellenized Jews. Even today, most Christians don't realize how inaccurate and anti-Semitic the Gospels are in their portrayal of Jews, unless they are familiar with Jewish culture and law.
Out of curiosity, could you give some examples of this?

It is Gods will that every life is scared, killing life e.i. an abortion is against Gods will. Thats just my take, as a Christian.

It is Gods will that every life is scared, killing life e.i. an abortion is against Gods will. Thats just my take, as a Christian.
yes but do you have any biblical proof of that. that IS the topic of the thread, not your personal opinion

yes but do you have any biblical proof of that. that IS the topic of the thread, not your personal opinion
You need biblical proof? It says not to kill, an abortion is killing a life. There for its wrong, its right there in the bible.

You need biblical proof? It says not to kill, an abortion is killing a life. There for its wrong, its right there in the bible.

Actually it never "says not to kill." The prohibition states "you shall not murder." A murder, by definition, is an illegal killing. Killing a fetus is not listed as being against any of God's laws in the Bible, so it doesn't fit the criteria for a murder.

You need biblical proof? It says not to kill, an abortion is killing a life. There for its wrong, its right there in the bible.
yes i need biblical proof. look at the title of the thread and read the first post.
that is the topic. your personal feelings on abortion are irrelevant.

What if I swat flies and mosquitos because they bring down the quality of my life? (By driving me nuts, not to mention transmitting diseases).
If a mosquito bites me, I will smite it with my mighty swatter (or whatever is at hand).
Since this thread has been completely hijacked anyway, I couldn't resist sharing this with you:
Assis's national animal is the fly, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the dung.
:D

I'll have to break this up to respond more clearly.

Well, you obviously question Jesus existence, which is understandable since his existence threatens Jewish religion and your sources seem to be Jewish.

It actually isn't a tenant of Judaism that Jesus didn't exist, thats my own personal interpretation, based on my secular reasoning, rather than anything I get directly from Judaism. There were even polemics from the Jewish side against Christians when the church began to form, such as the Toledoth Yeshu, so its safe to say that Jews (at least during the 4th century, some time after his suppossed existence) believed he existed and had an alternate version. The same with Celsus and his dialogue as he believed a Jew would see it, around the 2nd century.

I find it really hard to believe he didn't exist and I was an Atheist until I became an Agnostic, 6 months ago. You find it strange that no contemporary historians recorded his life and you also say messiahs and miracle workers were abound. According to what is believed, Jesus' life was short, more so his preaching life. It is perfectly plausible that miracle accounts may have been invented by some of the Apostles or even their followers, to reinforce Jesus' divinity. Even I question them. However, it is absolutely amazing how such a myth could have originated with so many ramifications, while presenting a very consistent "Jesus personality" throughout.

I was actually a Christian until I went to school for religious studies. The more I studied, and the more I study, I slowly drift from Jesus being a real person to Jesus being an archetype compliation based on the dozens of "messiahs" that existed and previous myth. But anyway...

Is the Jesus myth really more amazing at its origination and ramifications than any other myth? All myths came from someplace, and most religious myths have had extreme ramifications, though I'm not sure what specifics we're talking about here.

Now, the idea that Jesus was a single man and that miracle accounts were invented falls under the 'historical Jesus' category. Many people do believe that, and there is quite a bit of support for it. I just take it a step further when I believe it was all invented; I do it for the same reasons I believe the miracle accounts were invented, because they weren't original, but borrowed from pagan myth. If we look at the historical precedent for the Jesus story, we can find the same plotline in a number of myths that existed in the Judea area contemporary, and were very popular among Goyim and Hellenized Jews. Thus, if we reject the miracles as being stolen from pagan tradition, its just as reasonable to reject the whole Jesus mythos.

I would also dispute that the Jesus personality as you put it is consistent. Its consistent in the canonical Gospels, because one was original and two were copied off of it. That isn't amazing, thats literary theft. Aside from the canon, Jesus is a very diverse and inconsistent figure. In some early Gnostic accounts, he isn't even a physical being, and in others just a concept.

Now, when early Christians couldn't even agree on if Jesus existed as a physical person, that might be a red flag for people to question his existence at all.

With so many different authors inventing a myth and borrowing from different sources, the chances of them presenting a consistent Jesus would be nil. The alternative is a massive conspiracy happening in the 1st century, requiring a reasonably large group of authors, at a time when literacy was a privilege of a small minority. However, most literate men would either be rich, priests or romans and none of these three groups would welcome Jesus' teachings. From here, it is also very easy to assume that many of those who had the ability to write about him would either not want to recognise him as the Messiah or place their lives in the hands of Jewish priests.

Multiple authors didn't sit down, excluded from one another, and create myths from different stories that turned out to present a consistent Jesus. Most of the Jesus tradition is linear in origin. The remaining synoptic Gospels, for example, copy Mark. So it isn't amazing that they are consistent. And later authors would be familiar with these writings, playing off of them, as was the tradition and trend in literary style during that time period.

Its also a misconception that literacy was uncommon during that time period. People were far, far more literate than most recognize today. Jews were especially literate, even in foreign languages, so much so that during the Hasmonean dynasty there was a Rabbinical ban on studying in Greek, and they were required to study in their native languages. And often the most literate and educated were the Hellenizers, who embraced (and thus were familiar with) Greek culture, life, and religion. The same culture, life, and religion borrowed from in the Jesus myth.

Now, it doesn't seem like a conspiracy when we realize that there was originally a 'source' document of the Jesus myth, his life, or sayings, (such as the hypothetical Quelle source) that all previous Jesus traditions would be wound around. This was a tradition passed on, not one created by different authors that had no knowledge of one another. In addition, the sources and myths that were borrowed from were common, and would be even moreso, to Hellenized Jews and Goyim. The plotline of the mythos, the sayings, teachings, etc. were the most popular of the teachings, ones that were almost axiomatic or trendy for lack of better terms, not ones that the authors would have to go purusing writings for.

There are very few Roman and Jewish historical records, like Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger and the Babylonian Talmud, of which the first two are contemporary. You may try to discredit them but you cannot say there are no records. Arguably, anyone with a Jewish bias is not the right person to be discrediting these authors. From here, I accept that you can question the existence of Jesus if you believe in the miracle accounts and super-powers but it's not so easy to question his existence if you stick to the image of a compassionate man who captured people's attention in such brutal times. His message was likely to offer much comfort to common people, who probably feared the Jewish priests as much as they feared the Romans. From here, it is perfectly plausible that his fame only grew outside his small community after his death, as the Apostles spread out.

Tacitus and Josephus aren't contemporary to Jesus. Josephus was the earliest, and I wont try to discredit him, even though the mentionings of Jesus are questioned as possible interpolations. But Josephus was born after Jesus' alleged death, and wouldn't be writing for decades afterwards. Tacitus was even later.

Something to note about Tacitus, too, is that he wrote about myths as if they were facts. Such as the deity Serapis hanging out with Emperor Vespasian. There were no real "histories" during that time period, as the concept of a natural, factual, objective history really didn't exist as we know it today. Tacitus also only mentions the followers of a 'christ' who was executed by Pilate, and Pilate executed many messiahs. It probably was a result of Christianity, I wont argue that, but we really can't know for sure. Either way, Josephus and Tacitus aren't actually contemporaries, such as say, Philo, who wrote more than these authors combined, and never once mentioned Jesus.

It is claimed that Jesus grew close to a temple and was often found among Jewish priests. It is possible that he was being educated to become a priest himself, gaining access to written scriptures and explaining why he was so 'enlightened' and educated. If so, he would have shared some teachings and could have borrowed those parables, while not being in full accordance with Jewish laws and their harsh application. As a compassionate man he would not approve public executions, which I believe were common at the time. The fact that Jesus and Jewish priests clashed can be easily justified with the fact that - as he rebelled - he became a threat to the priest's authority. You mention that the Gospels do not point out the sinning of the priests but, at the point of Jesus arrest, it is arguable that the Gospels are not so much about moral teachings anymore but more about a narration of the events that lead to Jesus death.

Only Levites were priests, and I don't think I've ever heard the idea that Jesus was a Levite before. Both geneologies, as flawed as they may be, don't even hint at it. The priests were also Sadducees, and the Gospels borrow much more heavily on Pharasaic teaching. If there was a real Jesus that the myth was based on, it would be far more likely that he was a Pharisee than a Sadducee.

I'd also like to reiterate that Jewish society was extremely literate. You didn't have to be a priest to have access to Jewish texts. All good Jewish men were expected to study the Torah daily, and they were afforded access to it by the numerous religious institutions in their communities. Jews would even fund the young men in their communities so they could stop working and study to be scholars.

Now, on to some things in the Gospels you pointed out.

First, the historical record would tell us that the public stoning during this time didn't exist. In fact the Talmud tells us that executions of any kind were so uncommon that a bet dein that executed a person once in 70 years was considered 'bloody' or 'destructive.' The idea that Jews were running around as strict legalists, who killed each other at the drop of a hat, is a common myth and misconception in Western society due to 2000 years of Christian teaching that it was so. The reality of it is that a woman would never be stoned during this time period as being an adulteress, and if she were, she would have to be convicted in a court first. On-the-spot stonings may have existed in ancient Israel, but they ceased with the formation of the Rabbinic Judaism of the Pharisees.

Also, Jesus didn't clash with Jewish priests in the Gospels as much as he did with the Pharisees, who were not priests and generally oppossed the way the Temple was being run by Sadducees. However, the Gospels don't seem to cite the difference between the two very clearly. I don't think most Christians today really know what a Sadducee or a Pharisee is, except using the term as an explicative for a hypocrite. In any case, the Sadducees were the minority group, they ran the Temple, but about nothing else. Rabbis organized the Jewish community and decided on Jewish law, the Jewish law that everyone followed on a daily basis, Sadducees rejected this concept of 'oral law' completely. They really had no authority for Jesus to compromise. If anyone was dangerous to the Sadducees, it was the numerous dominating organized religious sects that existed, such as the Pharisees. Thus, the whole idea that Jesus was a threat is inconsistent with the historical record as well, considering that compared to the other threats he was nothing.

Now, we know that the Gospels are not a first-hand account or narration of Jesus' death, but a fabrication, because they are told from the third person point of view without anyone to actually witness this. How did the author know what was going on in the Temple when Jesus suppossedly had this private, nighttime trial (private, nighttime trials didn't exist btw)? Or what went on in the priests' house after the fact? Or between Jesus and Pilate all by themselves? Or between Jesus and Herod? Did informers in every location go to contact the author of the Gospel so that they could relate to him "first hand accounts?" Why does no one ever seem to notice that its written in third person concerning private accounts, which excludes the logical possibility that the author witnessed such things, or even got the account from someone who did witness it?

Out of curiosity, could you give some examples of this?

Examples of anti-Semitism in the Gospels, absolutely.

1. Jesus uses racial slurs against Samaritans.

"He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." (Matt 15:24)

Now, in all fairness, this is questionable regarding anti-Semitism. Its a racial slur against a Samaritan, rather than a Jew. However, it is one of the things most people try to overlook, or don't understand, when reading the text. A 'dog' was and is a Semitic racial slur. No one really knows that Jesus is using a racial slur in this passage, and those that find out usually try to excuse it as something else. But thats what it is.

2. The rejection of legitimate Jewish heritage

"Abraham is our father," they answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire." (John 8)

They were Jews, this much is a fact. It could be argued that they were "bad Jews", but the idea that they were not truly Abraham's children is distinctly anti-Semitic. This evolves into Paul's doctrine of "True Jews", i.e. that Jews as Judaism and the world recognizes are not real Jews, but Christians are, and the Church Fathers polemics of the same note. There could be nothing more vile and anti-Semitic than attempting to reject the Jewishness of Jews.

3. Purjorative usage of the term "Jew"

This is another example of something that wouldn't be recognized with a casual reading. The Gospels frequently draw a dichotomy between Jesus and "the Jews." The way the phrase "the Jews" is used in the gospels is a purjorative, to separate Jesus as separate and distinct from the Jews. It also doesn't draw a distinction between these suppossed 'bad Jews' and all Jews. Its universal in its condemnation of "the Jews" rather than specific in condemning bad people in general.

John 1:19 "Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was."
John 2:18 "Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
John 2:20 "The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
John 5:1 "Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews."

Just a note, John 5:1 is written as someone who is distinctly an outsider 'looking in.' If John were written by a Jew, it wouldn't be "a feast of the Jews." but rather "our feast" or at least a feast by name. When you celebrate Thanksgiving or the 4th of July, would you describe it as a "Feast of the Americans?"

John 5:18 "For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
John 7:13 "Others replied, "No, he deceives the people." But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews."

John 11:8 "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?"

Another example of how there is a clear dichotomy between Jesus, his followers, and the Jews. If Jesus and his followers were being portrayed as Jews as well, would the author of John write about his followers talking to Jesus (who was a Jew) and saying "the Jews are gonna get you?" If you were an American, and you had an American teacher, were living in America, and some Americans attacked you, would you say to your teacher "the Americans are going to get you?" The writing style and syntax has a distinct anti-Semitic bent. I could go on and on with more examples of the purjorative usage of the term, there are dozens in John.

4. Blood libel

Matthew 27:25 "All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

This is a perfect example of what would become the blood libel. Augustine wrote about how the Jews were cursed and responsible for killing Jesus because of it, as did Christians throughout the ages, and how Jews just loved blood, couldn't get enough of it. In fact, the US State Dept's Report on Global Anti-Semitism in 2002 decreed that accusing Jews of killing Jesus, as the Gospels do, is anti-Semitic.

There are more examples. The Gospels rarely give a positive portrayal of Jews, they misrepresent Jewish life and society, they use slurs against Jews, they try to distinguish Jesus and "the Jews" as being two separate entities, and they attempt to strip the heritage of Jews away from them. Many people today are anti-Semitic because of the Gospels without even knowing it.

From the previous discussion, the idea that Jews ran around stoning people for little infractions of the law is a gross misrepresentation of Jewish culture that portrays them as violent, bloody murderers. And this idea is from the Gospels. However, this sort of thing didn't happen, Judaism carried out less capital punishment than Christians or other socities. Yet everyone is running around with the anti-Semitic misconception that Jews were strict legalists to death, all because of the Gospels' inaccurate portryal of Jewish life.

Actually it never "says not to kill." The prohibition states "you shall not murder." A murder, by definition, is an illegal killing. Killing a fetus is not listed as being against any of God's laws in the Bible, so it doesn't fit the criteria for a murder.
killing a fetus is killing a baby. Killing a baby is surely an illegal killing. Thus it is against God's will and law.

killing a fetus is killing a baby. Killing a baby is surely an illegal killing. Thus it is against God's will and law.

The Bible never says a fetus is a baby. Actually, the verse we were discussing states that a killed fetus is a violation against property, not against people.

I was actually a Christian until I went to school for religious studies. The more I studied, and the more I study, I slowly drift from Jesus being a real person to Jesus being an archetype compliation based on the dozens of "messiahs" that existed and previous myth. But anyway...

Is the Jesus myth really more amazing at its origination and ramifications than any other myth? All myths came from someplace, and most religious myths have had extreme ramifications, though I'm not sure what specifics we're talking about here.

Now, the idea that Jesus was a single man and that miracle accounts were invented falls under the 'historical Jesus' category. Many people do believe that, and there is quite a bit of support for it. I just take it a step further when I believe it was all invented; I do it for the same reasons I believe the miracle accounts were invented, because they weren't original, but borrowed from pagan myth. If we look at the historical precedent for the Jesus story, we can find the same plotline in a number of myths that existed in the Judea area contemporary, and were very popular among Goyim and Hellenized Jews. Thus, if we reject the miracles as being stolen from pagan tradition, its just as reasonable to reject the whole Jesus mythos.
Jesus' miracles are by no means borrowed from pagan myth. Rather, they are replications of Old Testament miracles. For example, the feeding of the five thousand is a clear allusion to God feeding the Israelites with manna from heaven (as Jesus himself makes very plain in John 6). Jesus raising people from the dead is an allusion to, for example, Elisha raising a widow's son. And so on.
I would also dispute that the Jesus personality as you put it is consistent. Its consistent in the canonical Gospels, because one was original and two were copied off of it. That isn't amazing, thats literary theft. Aside from the canon, Jesus is a very diverse and inconsistent figure. In some early Gnostic accounts, he isn't even a physical being, and in others just a concept.

Now, when early Christians couldn't even agree on if Jesus existed as a physical person, that might be a red flag for people to question his existence at all.
The true nature of Jesus haunted Christianity for a long time. The problem, however, was not history (because the fact that Jesus clearly "looked" and "felt" very physical, not even docetists denied), but theology. How can Jesus be fully God and fully man? And so you get docetists, monophysites and Arians all trying to cut through that Gordian knot. The canonical gospels support the view that Jesus was fully God and fully man.
Multiple authors didn't sit down, excluded from one another, and create myths from different stories that turned out to present a consistent Jesus. Most of the Jesus tradition is linear in origin. The remaining synoptic Gospels, for example, copy Mark. So it isn't amazing that they are consistent. And later authors would be familiar with these writings, playing off of them, as was the tradition and trend in literary style during that time period.
Mark is very short, though, and both Matthew and Luke contain volumes more information. The birth narratives, for example, the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, post-resurrection appearances (which aren't in the earliest Mark manuscripts), etc.
Tacitus and Josephus aren't contemporary to Jesus. Josephus was the earliest, and I wont try to discredit him, even though the mentionings of Jesus are questioned as possible interpolations. But Josephus was born after Jesus' alleged death, and wouldn't be writing for decades afterwards. Tacitus was even later.

Something to note about Tacitus, too, is that he wrote about myths as if they were facts. Such as the deity Serapis hanging out with Emperor Vespasian. There were no real "histories" during that time period, as the concept of a natural, factual, objective history really didn't exist as we know it today. Tacitus also only mentions the followers of a 'christ' who was executed by Pilate, and Pilate executed many messiahs. It probably was a result of Christianity, I wont argue that, but we really can't know for sure. Either way, Josephus and Tacitus aren't actually contemporaries, such as say, Philo, who wrote more than these authors combined, and never once mentioned Jesus.
Josephus's mention of Jesus is likely to be a mixture of original writing of his and Christian interpolation. Nonetheless, he still mentions Jesus being executed etc. As for Tacitus, Roman authors loved to spice their stories up with fantastical myths, that much is true. But that was Roman historiography, whose scholarly standards weren't very high. Greek historiography, in the tradition of Thucydides, was different, and the way Luke writes puts him in the Greek tradition.
Examples of anti-Semitism in the Gospels, absolutely.

1. Jesus uses racial slurs against Samaritans.

"He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." (Matt 15:24)

Now, in all fairness, this is questionable regarding anti-Semitism. Its a racial slur against a Samaritan, rather than a Jew. However, it is one of the things most people try to overlook, or don't understand, when reading the text. A 'dog' was and is a Semitic racial slur. No one really knows that Jesus is using a racial slur in this passage, and those that find out usually try to excuse it as something else. But thats what it is.

2. The rejection of legitimate Jewish heritage

"Abraham is our father," they answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire." (John 8)

They were Jews, this much is a fact. It could be argued that they were "bad Jews", but the idea that they were not truly Abraham's children is distinctly anti-Semitic. This evolves into Paul's doctrine of "True Jews", i.e. that Jews as Judaism and the world recognizes are not real Jews, but Christians are, and the Church Fathers polemics of the same note. There could be nothing more vile and anti-Semitic than attempting to reject the Jewishness of Jews.

3. Purjorative usage of the term "Jew"

This is another example of something that wouldn't be recognized with a casual reading. The Gospels frequently draw a dichotomy between Jesus and "the Jews." The way the phrase "the Jews" is used in the gospels is a purjorative, to separate Jesus as separate and distinct from the Jews. It also doesn't draw a distinction between these suppossed 'bad Jews' and all Jews. Its universal in its condemnation of "the Jews" rather than specific in condemning bad people in general.

John 1:19 "Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was."
John 2:18 "Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
John 2:20 "The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
John 5:1 "Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews."

Just a note, John 5:1 is written as someone who is distinctly an outsider 'looking in.' If John were written by a Jew, it wouldn't be "a feast of the Jews." but rather "our feast" or at least a feast by name. When you celebrate Thanksgiving or the 4th of July, would you describe it as a "Feast of the Americans?"

John 5:18 "For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
John 7:13 "Others replied, "No, he deceives the people." But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews."

John 11:8 "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?"

Another example of how there is a clear dichotomy between Jesus, his followers, and the Jews. If Jesus and his followers were being portrayed as Jews as well, would the author of John write about his followers talking to Jesus (who was a Jew) and saying "the Jews are gonna get you?" If you were an American, and you had an American teacher, were living in America, and some Americans attacked you, would you say to your teacher "the Americans are going to get you?" The writing style and syntax has a distinct anti-Semitic bent. I could go on and on with more examples of the purjorative usage of the term, there are dozens in John.

4. Blood libel

Matthew 27:25 "All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

This is a perfect example of what would become the blood libel. Augustine wrote about how the Jews were cursed and responsible for killing Jesus because of it, as did Christians throughout the ages, and how Jews just loved blood, couldn't get enough of it. In fact, the US State Dept's Report on Global Anti-Semitism in 2002 decreed that accusing Jews of killing Jesus, as the Gospels do, is anti-Semitic.

There are more examples. The Gospels rarely give a positive portrayal of Jews, they misrepresent Jewish life and society, they use slurs against Jews, they try to distinguish Jesus and "the Jews" as being two separate entities, and they attempt to strip the heritage of Jews away from them. Many people today are anti-Semitic because of the Gospels without even knowing it.
Samaritans were looked down upon by ordinary Jews as well, for having intermarried with non-Jews and not worshipping properly. Remember the parable of the good Samaritan, or John 4, where Jesus talks at length with a Samaritan woman?
The whole thing about being Abraham's children. What Jesus is basically saying throughout John's Gospel is that if the Jews took their Old Testament seriously and genuinely believed it, they would understand that Jesus himself is the fulfilment of Scripture, to which all Scripture points. Therefore, rejecting Jesus is like rejecting the Tanakh and thus one's spiritual heritage.
The whole "Feast of the Americans" thing. You might say "Feast of the Americans" if you're writing for the benefit of a foreigner who knows little or nothing about American culture. I guess we can assume that the target audience of the Gospels were non-Jews.
The whole blood libel thing is, of course, extremely sensitive. In the gospels, it is asserted that the Jews killed Jesus, based on the premise that "the Jews" also killed the prophets (cf. the parable of the wicked tenants). However, the Romans must be equally responsible. But saying that maybe some Jewish religious leaders, who managed to incite a crowd, wanted Jesus dead 2000 years ago isn't in and of itself anti-semitic. Deducing from that that all Jews are "Jesus murderers" and ought to be punished is.

Right, your personal interpretation is the correct one. Forget thousands of years of Christian interpretation on it. Your modern, pop-culture interpretation with no historical basis must be the right one.
Hang on a second. Could I just quote the whole thing? This is from the English Standard Version:
11As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12He said therefore, "A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13Calling ten of his servants,[a] he gave them ten minas,[b] and said to them, 'Engage in business until I come.' 14But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.' 15When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16The first came before him, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.' 17And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant![c] Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.' 18And the second came, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made five minas.' 19And he said to him, 'And you are to be over five cities.' 20Then another came, saying, 'Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' 22He said to him, 'I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?' 24And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.' 25And they said to him, 'Lord, he has ten minas!' 26'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'"
This seems to talk about stewardship and making use of our resources until Jesus comes back. I can't detect the Church or an endorsement of the killing of heretics anywhere. I think you may have taken that verse out of context a bit. I can't see what might be particularly "pop culture" about my interpretation, or why it might lack an historical basis. I am not aware of other interpretations, but please give me some.

Jesus' miracles are by no means borrowed from pagan myth. Rather, they are replications of Old Testament miracles. For example, the feeding of the five thousand is a clear allusion to God feeding the Israelites with manna from heaven (as Jesus himself makes very plain in John 6). Jesus raising people from the dead is an allusion to, for example, Elisha raising a widow's son. And so on.

Oh, even the early Church Fathers disagreed with you. They realized that the myths were borrowed, and so did the rest of the world, and thus they tried to excuse it. Enter Justin Martyr's doctrine of "Diabolical Mimmicry." They claimed that the miracles were identical to the pagan myths not because they were copied (as the educated non-Christians believed, like Celsus, and like modern scholars believe), but that they were identical because the Devil knew ahead of time that Jesus would do these miracles and thus set up religions to copy him. When even early Christians admitted they were borrowed from pagan myth, albeit with an excuse, I'd have to say your interpretation is that of modern pop-culture Christianity, with no historical basis. Examples from Justin Martyr's First Apology:

Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.

If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honor, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Meander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

Similar to above, Justin Martyr compares the birth of Jesus and his status as the "Word of God' to that of Mercury, who was also born in a similar way and who was also the "Word of God." He goes on to compare the crucifixion with the lives of the sons of Jupiter, which were on par according to him. Finally concluding by comparing the birth of Jesus with Perseus, and his miracles with that of Aesculapius.

And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.

And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.

Now, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Greco-Roman mythology, but many of Jesus' miracles are almost identical to those of say, Dionysus, or Aescluapius. The Gospels actually copy the pagan texts word for word in many instaces, such as "Forgive them, they know not what they do" (Bacchus in Euripides' play, The Bacchae) or "Many are called, few are chosen" (Plato in Phaedo). In addition, the vast majority of NT miracles have no counterpart in the Tanach. You can claim that things like feeding the masses reminds you of mana in the wilderness, or raising the dead like Elisha, however the miracles described in the Gospels are not just similiar, but identical, to pagan miracles. And early Christians admitted this, as we see above. It would be impossible to deny, so they had to find an excuse, here it is:

The devils... said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven.

And when [the devils] heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of.

And when, again, [the devils] learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Aesculapius.

And the devils, indeed, having heard this washing [baptism] published by the prophet, instigated those who enter their temples, and are about to approach them with libations and burnt-offerings, also to sprinkle themselves.

Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

No no, the devils did it!

Now, you can choose to believe that the NT appears to copy pagan myth because devils created the pagan myth beforehand to trick believers when Jesus would come around, or you can choose to believe that the Jesus myth copies pagan myth. However, its absurd to deny that it appears to copy the pagan myth and alludes to the Tanach, because neither early Christians believers who took the former route, nor early skeptics or modern scholars who took the latter buy the nonsense that it copies the OT in any way.

The true nature of Jesus haunted Christianity for a long time. The problem, however, was not history (because the fact that Jesus clearly "looked" and "felt" very physical, not even docetists denied), but theology. How can Jesus be fully God and fully man? And so you get docetists, monophysites and Arians all trying to cut through that Gordian knot. The canonical gospels support the view that Jesus was fully God and fully man.

The canonical Gospels never once state that Jesus was a deity in any way. Strangely enough, Gnostic Gospels do. However, the canonical Gospels are easily interpreted as meaning such. And they should be, since the doctrines of the Bianity and Trinity were created before canonization. The Gospels were selected to reflect pre-existing Catholic doctrine, the specific doctrine that Jesus was Divine (The Bianity, decided at Nicea) and the specific doctrine that added the Holy Spirit (To create the Trinity, at Constantinople). Only after a large Orthodox clergy began to emerge and Orthodox doctrine was voted on to separate it from Heresy were Gospels selected to reflect this doctrine.

Keep in mind that Early Orthodoxy used Gospels not inlcluded, and even after canonization continued to do so. In fact, the 'heretics' like Arius were favored by many of the most learned Church Fathers, such as Eusebius, yet was driven out via politics, not by superior theology.

Mark is very short, though, and both Matthew and Luke contain volumes more information. The birth narratives, for example, the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, post-resurrection appearances (which aren't in the earliest Mark manuscripts), etc.

Thats what happens when you have a source document and use it to build on. Of course they are longer, because they used the tradition and continued to add the mythology. The development of Matthew and Luke weren't exclusive to one another either. Michael White, in the text I cited in a previous post, calls this the "literary dependency of one Gospel on another." There are three main formulas accepted by scholars listed on a chart in his book, they go like this:

1. Mark and a 'Q' source were both used for the writing of Matthew and Luke individually, with Matthew and Luke not influencing one another.

2. Matthew was written first, which was then used to write Luke. Finally, both Matthew and Luke were used to formulate Mark.

3. Mark was written first, used to write Matthew, which was used to then write Luke.

I prefer the third, however the first is the most popular among modern scholars according to White. In any case, the "volumes of information" are accounted for.

Josephus's mention of Jesus is likely to be a mixture of original writing of his and Christian interpolation. Nonetheless, he still mentions Jesus being executed etc. As for Tacitus, Roman authors loved to spice their stories up with fantastical myths, that much is true. But that was Roman historiography, whose scholarly standards weren't very high. Greek historiography, in the tradition of Thucydides, was different, and the way Luke writes puts him in the Greek tradition.

Well, like I said, I'm not interested in getting into the accuracy of Josephus or Tacitus. The fact is, neither were contemporary. We have zero contemporary accounts of this man existing, when contemporary to him some of the most meticulous historians lived in and wrote about the entire area.

Thucydides wasn't any different. He filled all of his historical works with his personal opinions and interpretation. He simply was less religious, so he used deities to accounts for events less frequently. However, Thucydides predates Luke by half a millenia, and there is no way to make a historical link between Luke and any type of Greek history, save for the fact that it was all written in Greek - and not even the same kind of Greek. The former was classical, the latter koine. Please, they aren't even close.

Samaritans were looked down upon by ordinary Jews as well, for having intermarried with non-Jews and not worshipping properly. Remember the parable of the good Samaritan, or John 4, where Jesus talks at length with a Samaritan woman?

Maybe you missed the whole point of this. The Gospels are not accurrate historical portrayals of Jewish society. To conclude anything about the way Jews acted toward foreigners from the Gospels is like believing something about Jews from Mein Kampf.

The whole thing about being Abraham's children. What Jesus is basically saying throughout John's Gospel is that if the Jews took their Old Testament seriously and genuinely believed it, they would understand that Jesus himself is the fulfilment of Scripture, to which all Scripture points. Therefore, rejecting Jesus is like rejecting the Tanakh and thus one's spiritual heritage.
The whole "Feast of the Americans" thing. You might say "Feast of the Americans" if you're writing for the benefit of a foreigner who knows little or nothing about American culture. I guess we can assume that the target audience of the Gospels were non-Jews.

No, I can read quite clearly "what Jesus is basically saying." He said that they were not children of Abraham (Jews) but children of the Devil. Modern Christians always try to reinterpret things like this with their politically correct, pop culture views. Early Christians had no problem being anti-Semites, however. Augustine, St. Basil, etc. all used this very verse to describe how they were not Jews, and how they were cursed, had the mark of Cain, etc.

The whole blood libel thing is, of course, extremely sensitive. In the gospels, it is asserted that the Jews killed Jesus, based on the premise that "the Jews" also killed the prophets (cf. the parable of the wicked tenants). However, the Romans must be equally responsible. But saying that maybe some Jewish religious leaders, who managed to incite a crowd, wanted Jesus dead 2000 years ago isn't in and of itself anti-semitic. Deducing from that that all Jews are "Jesus murderers" and ought to be punished is.

Well, reading through the Gospels it would appear that the Romans technically killed him. But like you write, the Gospels assert that Jews killed Jesus. Pilate is depicted of washing his hands of Jesus' blood, and the Jews saying "let his blood be on us" (forget that Pilate had to be removed from his post for being so violent and insensitive to the Jews, in addition to executing so many). However, the Gospels were written either by Goyim, or by Hellenized Jews for a Goy audience. Thus, they depict an anti-Jew, pro-Roman attitude.

This seems to talk about stewardship and making use of our resources until Jesus comes back. I can't detect the Church or an endorsement of the killing of heretics anywhere. I think you may have taken that verse out of context a bit. I can't see what might be particularly "pop culture" about my interpretation, or why it might lack an historical basis. I am not aware of other interpretations, but please give me some.

In all fairness, you seem to be under the common Christian curse of "the way I interpret it is what it really says." I'm not going to get into what it "really means" with you or any such thing. What I am telling you is that Christians have interpreted Jesus' words to advocate violence. It was this verse that Christians have used throughout history to justify the execution of heretics.

The interpretations of Jesus being against Jews, that Jews are children of the devil, that they have a blood libel, and that Jesus endorses violence against heretics have been the majority view all throughout Christian history. The Church used these interpretations to justify things like the Crusades, the mass execution of heretics, stealing land from Jews, forcefully converting Jews, keeping Jews in ghettos, etc. And it didn't stop with the RCC, because Protestants were even worse in their persecution of Jews and heretics, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, both of whom advocated (and carried out in some instances) the execution of Jews for being Jews.

Now, it would seem that the violent interpretations of Jesus and Christianity that existed for the majority of its history at least count for something. Modern Christians may not see it this way, but all throughout history Christianity seemed to.

Thanks for your thoughts TS...

Well, as the sceptical Agnostic that I am, I don't personally believe (or disbelieve) in the existence of God and I don't think that it is possible for me to certify either positions with enough certainty. So, I can actually hold the same position on the existence of the historical Jesus, even if I tend more to the "he did exist" camp. Still, I don't think it is possible at this stage to certify that either. To be quite frank, I am so open-minded about it that I don't even discard completely the idea that some benevolent alien, from a much more advanced civilisation, stopped by for whatever reason and decided to try to help humanity by descending on earth and playing a trick based on knowledge it had gathered on our mythologies (which could explain a lot of the miracles and/or his sudden disappearances described by the Canites). You really don't need to comment on this as it is really just a crazy thought that I don't usually consider... :D

It actually isn't a tenant of Judaism that Jesus didn't exist, thats my own personal interpretation, based on my secular reasoning, rather than anything I get directly from Judaism. There were even polemics from the Jewish side against Christians when the church began to form, such as the Toledoth Yeshu, so its safe to say that Jews (at least during the 4th century, some time after his suppossed existence) believed he existed and had an alternate version. The same with Celsus and his dialogue as he believed a Jew would see it, around the 2nd century.
So, it it is perfectly plausible that, at some point in history, a man as subversive as Irenaeus, did attempt to erase the memory of Jesus from within the Judaic community. Certainly his job would be much easier than Irenaeus, since this would imply erasing less evidence (possibly from one or two historians only).

I was actually a Christian until I went to school for religious studies. The more I studied, and the more I study, I slowly drift from Jesus being a real person to Jesus being an archetype compliation based on the dozens of "messiahs" that existed and previous myth. But anyway... Is the Jesus myth really more amazing at its origination and ramifications than any other myth? All myths came from someplace, and most religious myths have had extreme ramifications, though I'm not sure what specifics we're talking about here.
In my mind, no myth can be greater than the existence of a father-like God, so I agree that the story of Jesus is no more amazing than His. All myths come from somewhere and most from the same place; the human mind. However, I have doubts about Jesus falling into that later category. I won't try to argue 'against' your thoughts, given my Agnostic position, but rather offer an alternative possibility (aside the more creative UFO version). The ramifications I was talking about were the Apostles and/or Gospels themselves; the different ideologic ramifications that made up early Christianity (which Iranaeus wished to see stamped out). You see, my view on this is that there was obviously a strong ideologic struggle about the nature of Jesus, from the 1st to the 2nd century, and that people were being persecuted and slaughtered for believing in his existence and professing their faith in him. Both these factors support that people chose to believe it blindly, when they had been presented with a much safer and more institutionalised alternative (Judaism). Such a strong religious break happening in such a reasonably small place, against an established faith, should imply at least two things; Jesus did in fact exist (at least as a man) and/or Judean people were extremely disassociated with their local religious leaders, which could in itself result from the existence of a small group of authoritative and self-righteous Judaic (as opposed to Roman) leaders in Judea.

Now, the idea that Jesus was a single man and that miracle accounts were invented falls under the 'historical Jesus' category. Many people do believe that, and there is quite a bit of support for it. I just take it a step further when I believe it was all invented; I do it for the same reasons I believe the miracle accounts were invented, because they weren't original, but borrowed from pagan myth. If we look at the historical precedent for the Jesus story, we can find the same plotline in a number of myths that existed in the Judea area contemporary, and were very popular among Goyim and Hellenized Jews. Thus, if we reject the miracles as being stolen from pagan tradition, its just as reasonable to reject the whole Jesus mythos.
Well, certainly the miracles bring Jesus back to a divine or super-powerful creature, which I have serious doubts about (while not discarding it completely). I suppose you can argue that but it is also arguable that Jesus himself borrowed those sources and so did the people after him writing about him. In the context you mention (of this myth being popular), the Gospel of Judas offers an amazing alternative, with Jesus actually planning his execution possibly to re-enact the myth and sacrifice himself in an attempt to set an example; passively "dying for a friend" and/or/equals "dying for your beliefs". The fact that many people lost their lives for professing faith in his existence and divinity, shortly after his projected death, only supports that these people must have had a good reason to believe blindly in that popular myth; like having seen him and knowing someone trustworthy who had seen him.

I would also dispute that the Jesus personality as you put it is consistent. Its consistent in the canonical Gospels, because one was original and two were copied off of it. That isn't amazing, thats literary theft. Aside from the canon, Jesus is a very diverse and inconsistent figure. In some early Gnostic accounts, he isn't even a physical being, and in others just a concept. Now, when early Christians couldn't even agree on if Jesus existed as a physical person, that might be a red flag for people to question his existence at all. Multiple authors didn't sit down, excluded from one another, and create myths from different stories that turned out to present a consistent Jesus. Most of the Jesus tradition is linear in origin. The remaining synoptic Gospels, for example, copy Mark. So it isn't amazing that they are consistent. And later authors would be familiar with these writings, playing off of them, as was the tradition and trend in literary style during that time period.
Well, I probably need to read a bit more of the Gnostic accounts, but at least from Mark, John, Thomas, Judas and Mary, I actually defend that he is extremely consistent in personality and views, even if his nature or origin may be less consistent. However, it is very arguable that there was a linear origin in these since they are very different accounts. While there are a few cross-overs, again Jesus personality (not nature) remains intact. We always see a very charitable and extremely enlightened man about human nature, their qualities and faults. This supports the theory that there existed a man, whose nature was interpreted by different people in different ways. Some viewed him as divine while others as a man, a spirit or even an entity with some very mysterious ways. You say that later authors were familiar with Jesus, but this does not make them enlightened enough to understand his true values to the point they can rewrite about him without making some judgemental mistake or perverting his personality somehow. It is this consistency and lack of practical judgement in Jesus that boggles me, since this is a human quality that it is still extremely rare today, a quality that implies an extremely enlightened mind, never mind a few to write about him.

Its also a misconception that literacy was uncommon during that time period. People were far, far more literate than most recognize today. Jews were especially literate, even in foreign languages, so much so that during the Hasmonean dynasty there was a Rabbinical ban on studying in Greek, and they were required to study in their native languages. And often the most literate and educated were the Hellenizers, who embraced (and thus were familiar with) Greek culture, life, and religion. The same culture, life, and religion borrowed from in the Jesus myth.
I accept that literacy may have been much more common than it is thought today but - still - we should not forget that Jesus is believed to have spent most of his time among the poorest of the poor, the crippled, thieves and prostitutes and all the outcasts of society. Therefore, this suggests that his average crowd was substantially more illiterate than the average population.

Now, it doesn't seem like a conspiracy when we realize that there was originally a 'source' document of the Jesus myth, his life, or sayings, (such as the hypothetical Quelle source) that all previous Jesus traditions would be wound around. This was a tradition passed on, not one created by different authors that had no knowledge of one another. In addition, the sources and myths that were borrowed from were common, and would be even moreso, to Hellenized Jews and Goyim. The plotline of the mythos, the sayings, teachings, etc. were the most popular of the teachings, ones that were almost axiomatic or trendy for lack of better terms, not ones that the authors would have to go purusing writings for.
Well, if there was such a common source to ALL the Gospels like the hypothetical Quelle, it would be amazing that no reference to such a beautiful work of art survived (if it was so popular), particularly if we consider your comment about Jews being much more literate than it's recognised today. Instead, I find it more plausible that the "Quelle" you are talking about could be the result of the combination of the several Gospels deemed heretic by Irenaeus and later lost. Apparently, the Gospel of Thomas does provide some of the quotes that appear in the synoptic Gospels. Again, I would argue that it might be quite a difficult task to find several authors who were able to grasp Jesus' strict values and way-of-life from the Quelle and then manage to add to the story without their main character loosing its moral and personality's consistency.

Tacitus and Josephus aren't contemporary to Jesus. Josephus was the earliest, and I wont try to discredit him, even though the mentionings of Jesus are questioned as possible interpolations. But Josephus was born after Jesus' alleged death, and wouldn't be writing for decades afterwards. Tacitus was even later. Something to note about Tacitus, too, is that he wrote about myths as if they were facts. Such as the deity Serapis hanging out with Emperor Vespasian. There were no real "histories" during that time period, as the concept of a natural, factual, objective history really didn't exist as we know it today. Tacitus also only mentions the followers of a 'christ' who was executed by Pilate, and Pilate executed many messiahs. It probably was a result of Christianity, I wont argue that, but we really can't know for sure. Either way, Josephus and Tacitus aren't actually contemporaries, such as say, Philo, who wrote more than these authors combined, and never once mentioned Jesus.
I believe there is a reference to James' arrest, mentioned as "brother of Jesus", but I don't know where from. Certainly it's difficult to have any certainties on so little information which, as you say, was sometimes hardly factual. Again, the fact that there are no records of Philo mentioning of Jesus could be explained in several ways: It could have been suppressed by someone, like Iranaeus wanted to happen with Gnostic Gospels, Philo was afraid of risking his life to write about someone he did or didn't believe or he simply wasn't interested in recording his life, because he was outraged at Jesus' claims. Impossible to know for sure... but we do know History tends to repeat itself and powerful men are most often not very worthy of trust, if they feel their power under threat.

Only Levites were priests, and I don't think I've ever heard the idea that Jesus was a Levite before. Both geneologies, as flawed as they may be, don't even hint at it. The priests were also Sadducees, and the Gospels borrow much more heavily on Pharasaic teaching. If there was a real Jesus that the myth was based on, it would be far more likely that he was a Pharisee than a Sadducee. I'd also like to reiterate that Jewish society was extremely literate. You didn't have to be a priest to have access to Jewish texts. All good Jewish men were expected to study the Torah daily, and they were afforded access to it by the numerous religious institutions in their communities. Jews would even fund the young men in their communities so they could stop working and study to be scholars.
I was going to ask you how could priests could only be Levites and also Sadducees, when I realised I should know better than that and do a bit of research of my own to see if it was an easily answered question; as it was. Up until today I didn't know the meaning of these denominations, just as I didn't know the meaning of the word Pharisees. So I guess I have a lot to learn before I can come to any 'conclusions' of my own. From what I could tell from a quick search, and forgetting the possibility of Jesus being a Levite, Judeans where split into Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. All three share the same religious source, Judaism, but they all had conflicting ways of life even if no group imposed their ways on the other. Of all these sects, the one that is certainly most like Jesus are the Essenes, with their monastic way of life, their refusal to sacrifice animals as a form of worship, carrying weapons solely for the purpose of protection and refusing to be involved in trade. Many of their practices and beliefs were contrary to those of the other two sects and they certainly stand out as the most charitable of the three. The Pharisees do seem to clash with the views of the Essenes, if not theologically (immortality of the soul) at least in their way of life (e.g. not allowing people to take food from their home to another on the Sabbath). The Sadducees clash in other views that we could associate to Jesus "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" vs. "An eye for an eye makes the world blind". Though the later words are Ghandi's, it is an idea that is consistent with the story of the famous adulterous woman (Mary Magdalene?). So Jesus may have been essentially an Essene, while it is also possible that he didn't associate himself with none, while borrowing a bit of all. However, Essenes are believed to have elected leaders to defend the groups interest's and it's not impossible that Jesus had been one of them.

First, the historical record would tell us that the public stoning during this time didn't exist. In fact the Talmud tells us that executions of any kind were so uncommon that a bet dein that executed a person once in 70 years was considered 'bloody' or 'destructive.' The idea that Jews were running around as strict legalists, who killed each other at the drop of a hat, is a common myth and misconception in Western society due to 2000 years of Christian teaching that it was so. The reality of it is that a woman would never be stoned during this time period as being an adulteress, and if she were, she would have to be convicted in a court first. On-the-spot stonings may have existed in ancient Israel, but they ceased with the formation of the Rabbinic Judaism of the Pharisees.
Yes, I realise now that public executions were extremely rare and that, out of all the sects, the most likely to perform one would be the Sadducees, with their "Eye for an Eye" views. Since the Pharisees seemed to be the ones in 'power' at the time of Jesus, then it is easy to assume they didn't happen. This poses a very interesting question: When the Pharisees bring the famous adulterous woman (Mary?) to Jesus, they ask him what should be done to her reminding him that the written law commanded death. It is mentioned in the bible that this was a trick question, which makes perfect sense because the Sadducees - not the Pharisees - were the ones who would be most likely to carry out such a sentence. When Jesus refutes the possibility of execution, the Pharisees are left without answer since they didn't inflict such penalties themselves. Wow...

Also, Jesus didn't clash with Jewish priests in the Gospels as much as he did with the Pharisees, who were not priests and generally oppossed the way the Temple was being run by Sadducees. However, the Gospels don't seem to cite the difference between the two very clearly. I don't think most Christians today really know what a Sadducee or a Pharisee is, except using the term as an explicative for a hypocrite. In any case, the Sadducees were the minority group, they ran the Temple, but about nothing else. Rabbis organized the Jewish community and decided on Jewish law, the Jewish law that everyone followed on a daily basis, Sadducees rejected this concept of 'oral law' completely. They really had no authority for Jesus to compromise. If anyone was dangerous to the Sadducees, it was the numerous dominating organized religious sects that existed, such as the Pharisees. Thus, the whole idea that Jesus was a threat is inconsistent with the historical record as well, considering that compared to the other threats he was nothing.
Well, now I actually have to disagree with you. While I won't question just yet the content of the Gospels, if we look at Jesus like the Essene he probably was, he would be on a crash-course with both Pharisees and Sadducees. From here, it is arguable that the two usually opposite sects were unified against Jesus, particularly if he was gaining popularity (which inevitably comes with some degree of influence and power). You see, from what you told me and from what I have learned, Pharisees had the 'power' of daily life law, while the Sadducees controlled the 'religious power' that came with the temple. It is easily arguable that Jesus questioned both these powers, since he questioned all power. In the Gospel of Thomas, he clearly clashed with both "Let one who has become wealthy reign, and let one who has power renounce it."

Now, we know that the Gospels are not a first-hand account or narration of Jesus' death, but a fabrication, because they are told from the third person point of view without anyone to actually witness this. How did the author know what was going on in the Temple when Jesus suppossedly had this private, nighttime trial (private, nighttime trials didn't exist btw)? Or what went on in the priests' house after the fact? Or between Jesus and Pilate all by themselves? Or between Jesus and Herod? Did informers in every location go to contact the author of the Gospel so that they could relate to him "first hand accounts?" Why does no one ever seem to notice that its written in third person concerning private accounts, which excludes the logical possibility that the author witnessed such things, or even got the account from someone who did witness it?
The fact that they are from a third person point of view means little, in itself. First of all, we have to consider the fact that scribes wrote Gospels while illiterate Apostles dictated. If we look at the scene described in the Gospel of Thomas, everybody is mentioned by name and it's perfectly possible that this was intentional, so that the text didn't focus too much on anyone other than Jesus, even if these are still individual accounts that emphasise somehow the Apostle whose name is in the title. This is normal, I suppose, since each individual would have a particular experience with Jesus which would have marked them most. To support that idea, we know from Iranaeus how he was worried about Gospels emphasising a particular Apostle. It is possible that this was a common concern for the scribes making copies to make them more neutral and focus on Jesus. As to the nigh-time trials, the unusual alliance of both Pharisees and Sadducees could have resulted in unusual and extreme situations, as usually can happen when all power comes under the same banner and there is no independent power to balance this out. Human nature abounds of such examples. As to the accounts of situations where no one was supposed to be there to listen, these are certainly much more difficult to explain. It has crossed my mind that someone, possibly Mary (as his 'wife') may have been allowed to follow Jesus and have some contact with him after his arrest. The idea that Mary could have been with Jesus when he was taken to Herod or when he spoke with Pilate certainly seems very unlikely. However, If she had been recognised as his 'wife', could she have spoken to Jesus between his arrest and crucifixion? God knows...


Examples of anti-Semitism in the Gospels
Thank you for highlighting these. Don't want you to think I was questioning that they existed but, as someone brought up in a Catholic Country, I am naturally desensitised to anti-Semitic wording, since I am not a Jewish myself and am really not knowledgeable of Jewish culture. While I recognise your points, I think we have to be careful when we analyse the wording of Christian Gospels and take a few factors into account. Jesus was a Jew himself and never claimed not to be one. Thus, any pejorative usage of the word 'Jew' is likely to be a later addition by Catholic writers. So, when he says something like "Damn the Pharisees!" he's not being anti-Semitic but anti-Pharisaic. The usage of the word 'dog' while talking to a Samaritan, is probably a clever pun. My interpretation is that he may be using a fact of life "tossing food to the dogs" combined with the offensive meaning of the word 'dog' to emphasise his outrage at the practice, when some children are probably lacking food. Your reference to the rejection of legitimate Jewish heritage as anti-Semitic obviously ignores that Jesus was a Jew himself. As anti-Semitic it may be today, as a result of exploitation of the Catholic Church, at the time Jesus was trying to say something else using very aggressive wording. You cannot ignore the remaining context and a few lines before he does say "I know that you are Abraham's seed, yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you." So Jesus didn't really believe they were not children of God. Instead, we should assume that he was telling the Apostles that they were renouncing their own Father, through their inability to hear Jesus words and recognise him for who he was.

The most important factor we must take into account is that all the manuscripts that stayed in the hands of the Catholic Church are likely to be tainted with anti-Semitism; given the religious power struggle and considering the Church's past. Certainly, accusing Jews of killing Jesus is as ridiculous as accusing Hindus for killing Mahatma Ghandi, for very obvious reasons.

Ultimately, I agree that most (if not all) of the bibles in circulation are likely to contain certain passages which could be interpreted as anti-Semitic when they weren't at the time (e.g. references to Pharisees), while having passages that are clearly anti-Semitic (e.g. using the word 'Jew'). Obviously, the later is a result of writings after Jesus, since Jesus could never be anti-Semitic himself. It is also interesting to look at the usage of wording in what would become the main Catholic language; Latin. In Portuguese, for example, 'Judean' and 'Jew' translate to the same word 'Judeu'; this detail may escape from someone who is less familiar with Latin languages. I'm not sure about others, but in Portuguese is certainly the case. This obviously makes the word dangerously vague since the reader won't be able to distinguish which meaning should be interpreted. In my extremely old Portuguese dictionary, the first listed meaning for 'Judeu' is [/i]'Judean'[/i], [/i]'Jew'[/i] comes second and in third I find 'bad man'. *sigh* :mad: So Latin offered a really mischievous tool against the Jewish community, throwing these three meanings in the same bag. If we read the Gospel of Thomas, which escaped censorship of the Catholic Church, the word 'Jew' is never mentioned; instead it uses 'Judean'.

No doubt, this is a fascinating story and - most likely - none of us will ever know the true version (unless there is life after this - which I doubt). It is very possible that evidence on all sides of the argument are likely to have been tainted by manipulative men. I would think it would be extremely naive to assume that no Jewish leader would ever feel compelled to erase the memory of Jesus from within, just like the Catholic Irenaeus did. Every time I look on the internet or talk to someone I discover some new information that sheds light into other possibilities. Jesus an Essene? I didn't even know Essenes had existed or what they were like, up until today, to consider it's possibility.

Mind, I'm no scholar. I didn't even like history when I attended school, probably because of the way it was taught. My tools are my brain - trained to be creative -, a computer and the internet. I'm not trying to say here I have all the answers, only trying to reconstruct a plausible version of the possible life of a man who left a wealthy inheritance, usurped and subverted by many and truly understood by very few.