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...

In article ,
Andy Leighton   wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:01:24 +0000 (UTC), 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.
>
>Really.  Quite a lot of theologians don't believe so.  Most theological
>historians (the kind of people who look at the early church) don't
>believe so.  This isn't an atheist only thing we are talking about.
>
>Have you heard of Bishop Irenaeus (later sainted) one of the earliest
>church fathers?  He wrote a lot against Gnosticism and one of the books
>he didn't think much of was The Gospel Of Judas.
>
>From this we can prove.
>
>1.
>The Gospel Of Judas is older than Irenaeus (who died in 202 CE).
>Irenaeus's wrote his attack in approx 180 CE.  Therefore the Gospel
>of Judas most likely dates to late 1st century early 2nd century CE.
>Which puts its first fixed form to about the same dates as every other
>book in the New Testament.
>
>2.
>That at that time there was a struggle within the church as to which
>faction had the 'truth'.  If there was not, a powerful Bishop wouldn't
>spend months (maybe years) writing a book denouncing the Gnostics.
>
>-- 
>Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
>"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
>   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Welcome to academia.
-- 
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!