On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:59:36 +0000, The Doctor wrote:

> In article , Dave Cross 
>  wrote:
>>On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:19:35 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> In article , Dave Cross
>>>  wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:30:37 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article , The
>>>>> Master  <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Dave Cross wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are many other similar gospels. Many of them were considered
>>>>>>> for inclusion in the new testament - but were excluded because
>>>>>>> they didn't agree with the version of christianity that Paul
>>>>>>> promoted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because modern Christianity doesn't follow Jesus at all, but rather
>>>>>>Paul's perversion of it.  Yads is no Christian, he is a Paulist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I follow Christ as In Matthew, MArk, Luke John and Acts!
>>>>
>>>>Which are books that were written to agree with Paul's view of Jesus.
>>> 
>>> None.
>>
>>I wasn't asking a question. I was stating a fact.
>>
>>You really need to read a good book about the early history of your
>>religion. Did you know there was a battle for leadership between James
>>(the brother of Jesus) and Paul?
> 
> Are you saying the 4 Gospels and Acts and frauds?

No. I'm saying that they are frauds at all. I'm saying that they are only 
a relatively small part of a much wider literature that was written about 
the life of Jesus. Much of this literature has widely differing views on 
the nature and message of Jesus.

I'm also saying that when the followers of Paul beat the followers of 
James for control of the early church, then they began to systematically 
suppress the books that didn't support their theology.

None of this is at all contentious. As I've said a number of times. Read 
a book about it.

Dave...

In article ,
Dave Cross   wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:28:23 +0000, Dave Cross wrote:
>
>> No. I'm saying that they are frauds at all. 
>
>That should be: "I'm _not_ saying..."
>
>Oops.
>
>Dave...

Apology accepted.
-- 
Member - Liberal International	
This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca	Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!  
USA petition for dissolution of your nation!

In article ,
Dave Cross   wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:03:08 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article , Dave Cross 
>>  wrote:
>>>On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:59:36 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article , Dave Cross
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:19:35 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article , Dave Cross
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:30:37 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>>> The Master  <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Dave Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are many other similar gospels. Many of them were
>>>>>>>>>> considered for inclusion in the new testament - but were
>>>>>>>>>> excluded because they didn't agree with the version of
>>>>>>>>>> christianity that Paul promoted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because modern Christianity doesn't follow Jesus at all, but
>>>>>>>>>rather Paul's perversion of it.  Yads is no Christian, he is a
>>>>>>>>>Paulist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I follow Christ as In Matthew, MArk, Luke John and Acts!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which are books that were written to agree with Paul's view of
>>>>>>>Jesus.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> None.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wasn't asking a question. I was stating a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>You really need to read a good book about the early history of your
>>>>>religion. Did you know there was a battle for leadership between James
>>>>>(the brother of Jesus) and Paul?
>>>> 
>>>> Are you saying the 4 Gospels and Acts and frauds?
>>>
>>>No. I'm saying that they are frauds at all. I'm saying that they are
>>>only a relatively small part of a much wider literature that was written
>>>about the life of Jesus. Much of this literature has widely differing
>>>views on the nature and message of Jesus.
>>>
>>>I'm also saying that when the followers of Paul beat the followers of
>>>James for control of the early church, then they began to systematically
>>>suppress the books that didn't support their theology.
>>>
>>>None of this is at all contentious. As I've said a number of times. Read
>>>a book about it.
>> 
>> All frauds. Prove your statement.
>
>Nothing I have said is a fraud. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying 
>to you. As I never tire of suggesting - read a book.
>
>Dave...

As I said, you corrected the above in a previous post.
-- 
Member - Liberal International	
This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca	Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!  
USA petition for dissolution of your nation!