₦airaland Forum

@Nutter,

I'm sorry to disappoint you - you've been as evasive (and craftily so) as you accused mlks_baby; and my questions have not been addressed. Please answer them forthwith and try not beating round the issues.

Thank you.

@Nutter,

While mlks_baby is waiting to reply yours, please answer these questions for me, if you care:

            ¤ where in Luke 12:47-48 that you referenced earlier did the Lord Jesus mention Hell or purgatory
               or half-way house?

            ¤ where in Ezekiel 36:25 did God speak of Original Sin?

            ¤ where in the Bible does Jesus or the apostles teach that baptism washes away Original Sin?

            ¤ since 'forgiveness' and 'washing away' sins are mere semantics to you, how does Leviticus 4:20
               and Hebrews 10:4 say the same thing?

            ¤ why is the result of the preaching in 1 Peter 3:18-20 not an issue?

            ¤ What have you said about your assertion that Acts 19:5 was not water-baptism but Spirit-baptism?

            ¤ where in the Bible does it say that all prophets were sent to prepare the way of the Messiah - as you earlier asserted? -

Nutter:
You make a ‘concession’ for Isaiah because of, as you say, 'his prophetic calling to announce the coming of the Messiah’. Just so you are clear, all biblical prophets in one way or the other were sent to prepare the way for the Messiah; none more so than John the Baptist who is wholly recognised as the precursor of Christ.

¤ And in your own view, let me ask you your own question: "What is the state of the sinner who has
                his/her sins ‘forgiven’ as opposed to the sinner who has his/her sins ‘washed away’?

Waiting.

Well, but, of course, there are several women leaders past and present in the world, some of which include the following:

   ¤   Presidents -

          ¤  Germany - Chancellor Angela Merkel

          ¤  Finland - (President) Tarja Halonen

          ¤  Liberia - President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf

          ¤  Chile - President Michelle Bachelet

          ¤  Jamaica - Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller

          ¤  South Korea - Prime Minister Han Myung-Sook

          ¤ New Zealand - Prime Minister Helen Clark (1999)

          ¤ Ireland - President Mary McAleese (1997).

. . . and Sirimavo Bandaranaike who was Prime Minister of Sri Lanka for about 40 years (from 1960 to 2000). There are other women leaders in business, economics, sports, arts, academia, and so many, many others. God is a loving God and He's NOT polarised to the world of men; so, yes, He has made both men and women leaders in several walks of socio-political and economic life. I believe He's greater than the gender issue.

@nferyn,

Go back and read my posts - I did not claim that those sources were contemporaneous with Jesus' time. Materials that are dated precisely as stated in my post point to what I've said. Besides that, I'm interested in knowing where the present claims have come about that Jesus was born in a cave (if He actually didn't exist), and some of the twisted Greek words that some of these 'scholars' have been misreading to the public. When I get home, I'll follow up and send you a list to go through.

The larger claims are still standing: what have been denied as being in the Jewish religion and tradition are actually there - these can be sourced from the TANACH.

Thank you for your comments, KAG.

I would never have been able to say a word on the historicity of Christ if I had not read any of those materials quoted above. The problem is, we've been told earlier that there was just nothing to indicate that Jesus ever existed; and the same sources also claimed that none of the Roman officials existed - not even Pilate! And what is staggering is that the same scholars came back to tell us that John the Baptist actually existed as a historical figure, even though they previously denied that he did.

It was such kinds of claims that drove me to obtain the copies of the materials and read for myself whether or not these claims had substance. Please believe me, KAG - when you have read them, you will see how these scholars are misleading the public; and so many people who don't take the time to check the claims will fall for them. That is why I have appealed time and again that people should go read these sources for themselves and see what is really going on!

Thank you once again for your comments.

@jagunlabi,

jagunlabi:
Deliverance of souls by present christianity is doubtful,. . .

The healing and deliverance part might just be nothing but illusions.There are plenty of those in today's world.

it's not new for you to keep up your denials. Now it only gets interesting that you can deny my claims to have experienced the power of Christ in my own life. Two things I'll tell you in that respect:

1) unbelievers will continue to deny any and everything about Christ because they really hate to be told the truth, even where experiential evidences are tendered.

2) your denials do not take away from what I know in my life - I have been actually healed and have prayed for circumstances that defy human manipulations. Further, I have seen the lives of people powerfully changed by the Gospel of Christ - drug addicts, people whose marriages were falling apart, thieves, prostitutes, and those who were on the verge of committing suicide. Now may I ask you this simple question: your Osiris - what has he done for you or anyone else? If Osiris was true and powerful, why has his/her advocates not been able to replicate the works that Christ is doing in the lives of people today?

Your denials only show me that you'd like to just do that - deny everything about Christ. But that's not my loss - it's yours. One-on-one, what has Osiris done for you or Andrew Walker?? At least, I can personally tell you what Jesus has done for me.

I extend once again to you the love and grace that are richly available in Jesus Christ: it's up to you to receive Him into you life, or to reject Him if that makes you happy after this life is over.

Blessings.

@jagunlabi,

I have told you once, twice and I'll do it again - GO READ THE TANACH AND GNOSTIC DOCUMENTS FOR YOURSELF - there are more than enough English translations and they are cheap like N5 pure water!! Your "researchers" are misleading you; and until you read the materials for yourself, you will still continue to miss the point. You have continued to run shy from my challenge, so what's the point? You picked the article of an 18 year-old UK student who did not know the simplest of the Greek language, and he twisted certain words to mislead you - and you're still holding on to that as research?

You're avoiding the critical issues here, so I'll help you by restating them:

1) your research is weak because your researchers are twisting the Greek language and you're buying their lies; I've shown you the difference between Katalemna and kataluma - you have continued to be blind to that, or you would have proven me wrong by telling me that kataluma was not Greek. (follow this link).

2) what you denied as being in the Jewish tradition and religion are actually there - go read the TANACH for yourself: why is that so difficult for you to do if you have any desire to settle this issue instead of all your efforts to sweat out your misconceptions? Just simply read the documents and come back to prove me wrong!

3) how many gnostic documents have you read? Go read the documents for yourself and see how much your researchers have sold their misrepresentations to you - that's not difficult to do, is it? If you continue to dodge these issues, you make everyone suspect you're afraid to face up to my challenges because you fear you may discover the plain truth for yourself.

4) how many of these scholars have told you that they have added to the gnostic documents when they accuse the Bible of "later additions" and all else to sell their propaganda? Go and ask your researchers why the keep changing their own documents - that isn't difficult, is it?

Now let me address your curiosity. You speak of why it is so difficult to account for a historical Jesus. My challenge is again repeated for you - go and read what your researchers don't want you to read!!

If you can be a gentleman and face up with the facts in front of you, go and read these historical sources -

   ¤ - Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD) - read his literary works

   ¤ - Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD

   ¤ - Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD)

   ¤ - Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), in his letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul

   ¤ - Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD

You may call all these 'myths', and that would be forgiveable as long as you're only trumpeting the same propadanda that your researchers are selling to you. I have read those materials for myself, and I urge you to read them for yourself as well - be bold and take up my challenges! One more thing your scholars have not been able to answer: if these outside sources are myths, would it be right to say that Pontus Pilate was also a myth, or that Caesar and the Romans were myths? All I ask is that you lay down your noise and go read these historical documents and prove to yourself who has been selling lies to the public - me or your researchers!!

jagunlabi, once again I'll repeat loud and clear - be a gentleman and read the sources your own researchers do not want you to read - read them and find out the truth for yourself!

Boldly, I'll beat my chest to throw you these challenges and claims:

             ¤  Your researchers twist the original languages, . . .

             ¤  misrepresent the documents, . . .

             ¤  fabricate their own stories to buttress their propaganda. . .

             ¤ add and delete some parts of the gnostic gospels and documents when
                translating them into other languages, . . .

             ¤ and then deny certain explicit elements in the Jewish religion and tradition.

These are my bold challenges and assertions and I am waiting for you to read the TANACH and the gnostic materials and prove me wrong!!

How many times have they told YOU that they are guilty of doing the same things they accuse Christians of doing? For example, the Jesus Seminar group sat down for over a decade and produced an edited version of the Bible where they added and deleted some texts which they claim are not likely the words of the original Christ. Have they told you that they are the ones adding and deleting to and from God's Word? No, they won't tell you that - because it  would simply blow up their own baked myths in their faces and show you how biased they are; then and only then will you see the whole truth for yourself. This is why this argument that you're trumping up is ever so weak because you refused to take up my challenges and still come back recycling the same old propaganda that they are selling to you.

You may not believe in Christ and you may join the camp that call Him a myth and liar - does that take away from the fact that Christ Jesus has proven Himself faithful to those who believe in Him? No. He is real, jagunlabi - He lives regardless of what your researchers are selling to you. He has proven His power in my life and in millions of others. Yet, millions are still calling Him a myth and a lie and all sorts of crazy things. We are not the ones fooled - those who refuse to read and investigate the claims of these needlessly vexed souls calling themselves researchers and scholars are jeopardising their own destinies.

Whether you realise it or not, you may come back with unproven research to continue your slurring of Christ; but He loves you, He still forgives you - are you still going to be in the camp that rejects His love and grace? The choice is entirely yours.

With goodwill, welborn.

@jagunlabi,

The "stink" you refer to is not new - it's there in the NT long before you were born:

"For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.
And who is sufficient for these things? (II Cor 2:15-16).

Anyone can say just about anything against Christianity and Christ; all we ask is: "Have you read the documents that your 'researchers' are misrepresenting?" That is the simple challenge; but so far wherever this is brought up, it always follows with the glib answer: "It stinks to high heavens!"

Everywhere this "stink" has permeated, it still sets people free. I am a living witness to testify that the pagan Osiris and all that stuff pandered from secondhand info from 18 year-olds has not delivered one soul - not theirs, not yours, not anyone else's. But the Christ they deny - (without having read the books they claim to have got their info from) - this Christ is very real, loving, takes insults from those calling Him a myth and a liar and all else. Yet, He is not like their Osiris - the NT Jesus forgives the hate and calumny of those who call His followers all sorts of things, and with loving reflection we can forgive as well. The NT Jesus is alive and people are still being healed, delivered and blessed in His Name - I know this first hand.

Most of all, inspite of your slurring the Christian faith and Jesus Christ, He still loves you, wants to forgive you, set you free from the oppression of those misleading you with information that they twist and deny - and He wants to give you life beyond the present. Will you trust Him, or will you reject Him?

May God open your eyes to see who's been misleading the public. Blessings.

@jagunlabi, First, you're the one feeling tortured by your run-away websites; second, you don't seem to be getting to the issues, and all the self-congratulatory come backs are not actually helping your case. Your researchers lied by twisting Greek words, unless you want to assert that katalemna is the same thing as kataluma (κατάλυμα), which is NOT. If you can't see that, it would not surprise me the type of websites you have been reading from that you class as "research".

About the star, may I ask you to show me the verses in the Bible, like your researcher has misled you to believe, where in fact it is ever stated that "The birth of Jesus is prophesied by a star" - you don't need to scurry to any 18 year old student for answers. Since you're pushing that agenda, please show me the verses rather than the wisecracks you keep coming back with to congratulate yourself.

Your problem is that you simply refuse to take up the challenge - go and read the documents for yourself! Your claim to have read the Bible has not been demonstrated here at all - otherwise, you should have been quoting the verses in support of your assertions.

Blessings.

If you had eyes opened, take up my challenges and read the sources I've always told you to (the TANACH, the Bible and the gnostic gospels).

I don't understand why people who make claims of some pagan deity and gnostic movements are refusing to read the gnostic documents or the Jewish religion and traditions that they say certain concepts do not appear. I still my grounds - what you deny in those books and the Jewish religion and tradition actually exist there! And as long as you shy away from reading those sources, you will never know how far away from truth your researchers are. The problem is not mine - it's yours.

All the same, God still loves you and Jesus is still the Saviour. jagunlabi, believe in Him and see what difference He could make in your life!

@jagunlabi,

First, I thank you for your magnanimity in opening this thread just for me - it shows that you're the one getting restless unnecessarily because you worry that I'm a NT Christian and have no excuses for defending my faith.

Do yourself just one simple thing and end your headaches. Go read for yourself the original sources of the gnostic documents that you're misrepresenting - it will do you a lot of good so that you can see how weak your "researchers" are!


Your Researcher is twisting words!

What you call "research" is a sob story - you're the one ferreting websites and links, and yet you can't defend one of the things you misread there. FYI I've been shown that website several times in other blogs, so it's not new. Something you need to note is this: you copied the rants of an 18 year old UK student (Andrew Walker, now 20 y.o. - follow the link; it was another weblog and his username is "Synthetics")! Meanwhile, scroll down a bit on the page and you'll see how many people (some of who haven't read the Bible enough to know) disagreed with him, and some have asked him questions to clarify his views - but he disappeared from the scene! Is that what you call research? Please! That's why I asked you to slow down and read the TANACH and the Bible - because your "researchers" are blowing smoke in your face and giving you false info.

Example: On the first weblink you recommended (http://www.experts-exchange.com/Miscellaneous/Philosophy_Religion/Q_20907422.html), your poor Andrew Walker said this (underlined words mine):

           "3. Jesus is born in a cave on 25 December or 6 January, as is Osiris-Dionysus.
           The word usually translated as 'stable' in the gospels is "katalemna" which literally
           means a temporary shelter or cave. It was widespread early Christian tradition that
           Jesus was born in a cave."

Please note something here: this fellow has twisted the word "katalemna" to mean a "cave" so he could force his opinion that Jesus was born in a cave. First, he did not quote a verse in the gospels where he got the word "stable" from. Second, the Bible does not say so other than that He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger (Luke 2:7). Third, the Greek word (κατάλυμα) is "kataluma" [not "katalemna"], and it simply means an 'inn', a lodging place, or a guest chamber (check the word 'inn' in Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible; or, Strong's Analytical Concordance; or any other Greek lexicon of your choice on the word 'kataluma'). The word cave in Greek is σπήλαιον - that is, spēlaion (as in John 11:38 - "Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave [σπήλαιον, spēlaion], and a stone lay upon it".

Jesus was not born in a cave as your research website is misleading the public to believe. Furthermore, your researcher does not know Greek but twisted words to mean different things so that he could sell his story to people who would not take the time and labour to carefully check the sources he pretended to be quoting from. There are so many things wrong, twisted, misrepresented and misquoted in Andrew Walkers article - and that is what you're posting here as "research"?

I feel so sorry that you did not bring a better stuff from advanced "scholars" - the sort of fellows who have more subtle lies to tell the public. Let me recommend some for your next game: contact the following source material - the Jesus Seminar publications (they're expect at selling what they can't authenticate, but they have stronger misrepresentations than Andrew Walkers' lullaby). When you bring such, then you'll see classic debates!  

I'm a Christian, a deeply committed one, who knows firsthand that Christ lives and what I read of Him in the Bible has been proven in my life again and again. He offers salvation stronger than Osiris or any pagan deity made up to slur the Christian faith. Jesus' power is truly able to save - and it is still available today. Believe in Him and see the difference He makes from the gnostic documents or the websites you've been reading. In loving affection, I extend this invitation to you: God loves you, jagunlabi.

@jagunlabi,

I thought your own version has long been popular and making all the noise in the neighbourhood that you didn't need to ask me or anyone that question. I'm really laughing at your child's play, you know. You're asking your question out of a needless heat and passion. Since Jesus - the NT Jesus - was a myth, why are you so undecided about the issue that you jump from one website denying Him to another acknowledging that He actually existed (even though in their summations He was born in a cave, which again is not true nor could they prove it)? Don't worry. . . there's no need to vex for me, although you're free to do so if it will bring you joy. The point still remains: you don't like my defense of the NT; but that should not stop you from reading the actual materials you are denying. Read the gnostic gospels and the TANACH that your researchers are twisting: just do you that favour and save yourself the huge headache that's causing you all this worry.

Peace, Pal. Jesus is real and He still offers you His love.

The rage against Christianity is on-going, but it hasn't helped to dwindle the faith of those who have proven in their lives the reality of the explicit statements of the Bible upon which the faith of Christians is based. In the quest for a historical Jesus, one wonders why it is that when they finally sculpt the image of a Christ that they could relate to, they still fail to relate to Him. Yet, he continues to make His offer open to all - anyone who knows in their own lives that His offer is real after an experience by faith, does not need fine online articles to offer a 'Jesus' that writers haven't been able to relate to as they so claim.

Jesus loves everyone - and His offer is available to even the most opposed to Him.

God bless. 

knock-knock!! I'm here again, and I hope you wouldn't mind.

But let me point out a few things to you in your claims here. If you so desire me, I could come back and show you point by point where your claims are at best unsustained. But here are some few things to thoughtfully check out:

2. Jesus is born of a mortal virgin who after her death ascends to heaven and is honoured as a divine being; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

Christianity based on the Bible does not claim that Mary ascended to heaven after her death and was honoured as a divine being. You disagree? Read the Bible and get a verse for us to disprove me on that.

3. Jesus is born in a cave on 25 December or 6 January, as is Osiris-Dionysus.

Wrong, Christianity does not teach that Jesus was not born in a cave (check Luke 2:7 - or provide us with a verse).

4. The birth of Jesus is prophesied by a star; so is the birth of Osiris-Dionysus.

Again, the prophecy did not come by a star, but by God through the prophets of the old Testament (Isaiah 9:6 and Micah 5:2 as examples). I would be happy to see your verse from the Bible that birth of Jesus is (was) pophesied by a star.

5. Jesus is born in Bethlehem, which was shaded by a grove sacred to Osiris-Dionysus.

Born in Bethlehem - yes; shaded by a grove sacred to Osiris - do you care to prvide the verses?

6. Jesus is visited by the Magi, who are followers of Osiris-Dionysus.

Visited by the Magi - yes. That these Magi are followers of Osiris-Dionysus - care to provide the verses?

7. The Magi bring Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, which a sixth-century BCE Pagan tells us is the way to worship God.

Okay, good then: so your credulity is raised by a sixth-century report of a first-century event. Thank God for that, so now at least you agree that you are claiming Jesus was God whom these Magi worshipped?

9. The holy man who baptizes Jesus with water has the same name as a Pagan god of water and is born on the summer solstice celebrated as a Pagan water festival.

Fascinating. There's just a simple solution to this - John the Baptist was his name; and what Pagan god of water had this name?

See, you can believe anything you want, and muster all your efforts against Christianity. All I ask is read the Bible and the gnostic gospels for yourself, then you'll see what you've been mixing up.

Lastly, I wonder how it was that this pagan religion you've been talking about had no power to save or heal in the name of their pagan god(s) as much as the Jesus whom they accused of all this borrowing.

Just my thoughts.

@jagunlabi,

You make me laugh, accusing me of anger where there was none, but getting so impassioned yourself. You left no convincing proof of your assertions, just arguments of what you want to believe. Just because the Jews refused Jesus as their Messiah does not support your denial that the concepts of a dying messiah and of Son of God were foreign to the Jewish tradition and religion. I keep saying that what you deny are in very fact in their books - go read them yourself.

Right, I'm not trying to convert you by arguments - yours or mine: but I don't see why you should be complaining about my views in as much as you're campaigning for your right to express yours here. This is a public forum, isn't it? And, what were you aiming at when you make assertions and hope that only yours were supposed to hold over everyone else's?

You may read me wrongly - that's alright, because again, that's what you really want to do. I only asked you to prove your claims that I supported the Catholic tradition, even leaving you links to earlier posts to buttress my refutal; and all you could do was complain? Pal, take it easy - it was quite a simple request: if you could not prove your point, the best you could was concede that you were highly mistaken.

You feel you have noticed that anyone who does not agree with my views necessarily comes under my attack. I'm sorry - you really haven't been reading my posts. You could say that you felt I attacked you; point them out and then you'll come away with my apologies where you could justify them.

What I really expected you to do was point out from the Jewish sources themselves to show me where in the TANACH the ideas you deny are as you asserted. If on the contrary, they are there, why has that been a big problem for you to recognise them so?

I spare you the basis of your complaints in this one - at least you can rest from my "loooog epistles". On the whole, you have a right to believe what you want to, make recourse to any research or sources you want - and I hope that when others make their own inputs in debates to refute your claims, you won't suddenly start the noise about people getting angry again.

I'm not upset - really I'm not. That doesn't mean that I've to sit and gullibly acquiesce to your views were they are wrong, in order to be a peaceful person according to your ideas. jagunlabi, I'm a peaceful person - all I wanted was that you get to the real source of the books and Jewish religion that you're misrepresenting. You'll find a tremendous difference from what your sources have been saying. I know because I've read the books and spoken to Rabbis as well. Read the TANACH - the answers are all there!!

Peace to you.

@virozuru,

There's no problem using either of them - they may not actually be referring to the same thing. One is asking "What Day Is The Sabbath?" while this one is taking it one step further to its application by seeking to address the question of whether or not people should go to Church of Saturday. As long as we know where to post our concerns, point carried.

Blessings.

@jagunlabi,

I never expected you'd come back with anything but such weak idiosyncracies. It's characteristic of people who have nothing worthwhile to say but just want to make some noise - which is not a right I deny you in an open forum.

Oh brother! You read me as an angry person? You're the one who needs to dress warm - I'm a very happy person. But when I debate issues, you'll notice it's not my style to make flimsy statements that I can't sustain. That's why, yes, I take my time to write my "epistles" and contain all points that are raised. I didn't see you addressing my challenges though - not even one; just excuses that I'm "angry" - at what, or who. . . you? Don't make me laugh! 

Now let me clear some things you muddled up -

jagunlabi:
First of all,i am not the one throwing tantrums but you.What i did was merely presented my own point of view,and what was your own response?Tirades.It is very obvious in your posts that you are the angry one,angered by the opinions of others because they differ with yours.

¤  no one has complained that I'm angered by the opinions of others which differ from mine - you'd be
      the only feeling that way. As an example, Rev. Fletcher's opinions quite differ from mine, but take a
      look at my recent posts and see the "anger" you're describing that doesn't exist!

jagunlabi:
After writing all that epistle of circular reasoning that least convinces,why are you against catholism then when you believe so much in Peter's authority?
On one hand you support catholism,the next you are calling them pagan worshippers.You are really a very confused person.

¤  my "epistles" are not based on 'circular reasoning' (did you mean 'secular reasoning' instead?); and
      certainly, my write ups are convincing enough to debunk what you stated earlier. Your claim that the
      the concepts of a dying messiah and of "Son of God" were not of the Jewish religion and tradition is
      convincingly debunked by the fact that what you denied were actually in the Jewish books, religion,
      and tradition.

  ¤  Nowhere did you ever read me as supporting Catholicism, so don't start another misinformation you
      can't sustain. Second, nowhere did I call Catholics pagan worshippers; and in fact, my memory serves
      me right that you were the one addressing them as pagans; whereupon I made my input that quite to
      the contrary, I believed that everyone who has trusted Christ as Saviour is my brother and sister in the
      common faith of our Lord - you can remind yourself and verify this info from this link.

  ¤  Did you ask yourself if my belief in Peter's authority was as Pope or Apostle? You really have your
      points mixed up, and it would really be exciting if you could do me the favour of linking me to any
      page or line where I supported the idea of Peter being a Pope, for a Pope and an Apostle are two
      different things - even Catholics who are knowledgeable will tell you that.

jagunlabi:
Sorry that i do not have time to write looog epistles like yours because that is just excersise in futitility.I get dizzy very quickly when i am going round and round in senseless circles of debate.

¤  No problem, I don't get dizzy as you - I take my time and do a very thorough assessment of issues in
      debates, and I've no apologies and excuses for my "looog epistles". Secondly, you probably were not
      quite adjusted if all you read were "senseless circles of debates" - I've heard that countless times from
      people who cannot face up to their claims, so yours is not new.

jagunlabi:
I will leave you with this,though;
Over a couple centuries,biblical scholars have found out and established that Jesus never left his church for Peter to continue,and i tend to believe them because their arguements obtained from their various researches of texts from the canonical gospels and the gnostic manuscripts support that.

¤  Now, I'll respect three things in that statement: (a) nowhere does the NT say that Christ left the Church
      for Peter to continue; it only says that He gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom (see Matt. 16:19) - so, as
      far as I never contradicted that, I don't see what your point is. (b) you're free to believe what you want,
      but  that  does not  necessarily  mean that your beliefs  disprove the firsthand experiences of those
      who have trusted in Christ and have seen results - which is why I challenged you and your researchers
      to provide only one verse in the gnostic documents that can match the promises of the NT - just one verse
      would suffice; and you have not done so. (c) there are lots of things the researchers will tell you that you
      can't prove from the gnostic documents as long as you refuse to read them for yourself.

jagunlabi:
The passage that says,"Upon this rock i build my church" has been agreed to be a later add on,and i believe them.I can give you links to support this arguement,but you probably won't look at them because it goes against your belief,and that i respect and understand,so i won't bother.

¤  Small wonder - I could provide you a whole list of passages that so-called researchers deny are in the
      'original' texts of the Bible, but which they claim were later additions. I can't stop laughing. Have you ever
      wondered that these same researchers will NOT tell you the same things about the gnostic documents?
      For example, of the 39 English translations of the Gospel of Thomas alone, several editions and versions
      have additions between verses; and yet I bet you that you will not find any statement from your researchers
      admitting that they have added those verses. Please don't take this as a bogus claim - I have all 39 English
      translations/versions of the Gospel of Thomas in my personal library; and I urge you to read from the source
      rather than from your researchers' novels before making your assertions.

jagunlabi:
So you will be the one throwing tantrums on this forum and not me,when threads are opened on these traditions.So dress warm.I won't have problems with them because i am far more openminded than you are in this matters.

¤  I have never sought to deny or defend the existence of the so-called "alternative christian traditions" you
      have been preaching on Nairaland; nor have you brought out any verse from the ones you have
      personally read. The "gaining grounds"claim that you're talking about is a mute point in as much as no one
      has ever attempted to use the Gospel of Judas to start an "alternative Church" - it's simple: Judas was a thief, a
      betrayer, and he committed suicide; so who's going to join a church like that? What promises and what miracles
      do the gnostic gospels offer you or your researchers? "Gaining ground" - I can't laugh enough! 

jagunlabi:
Oh,by the way,the Magdalene is still the consort and favoured apostle of Jesus christ.Afterall she was the one with the epithet of "Apostle of all apostles".You can throw tantrums on that all you want,it won't change anything.
Chiao!

¤  jagunlabi, don't sweat it out, pal. Assertions that have no evidence of proof such as are testable in the NT
      don't worry me at all - and I don't see how they should be a bother to you and your researchers. It costs me
      absolutely nothing to face them each and every line when they surface; but it simply amazes me that all you
      do is refuse to face the challenges earlier posted under the excuse that it makes you "dizzy very quickly". I
      understand. . and sympathise with that. But neither on Nairaland nor anywhere else have I ever shrunk from
      or have had to shiver about unauthenticated gnostics.

I wish you a very pleasant Sunday. 

Continuing. . .

Gnostic documents are not needed for that.The jewish TALMUD disagrees with a dying and rising messiah,and neither is the concept of "Son Of God" a part of the jewish tradition.Such concepts are not of the jewish religion and tradition.Forget not that the OT is a version of jewish TORAH.Why do you think that the jews refused to accept Jesus as the true messiah?

Good question. The Jews refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah for the very same reason that their own Scriptures tell us: they would be blinded for a season until the fulness of the gentiles is accomplished. You didn't leave me any quotes, but here - let me help you on a few from the OT - Isa.6:9-12 & 53:1.

First, If you understood Jewish tradition and history, you'd not make the mistake of thinking that the Jews based their religious life solely on the Talmud (also known as the Oral Law or "Aggadah"; but rather on the TANACH - which is a compendium of the Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim (that is, the Five Books of Moses, Prophets and The Sacred Writings). It is the TANACH that the Jews regard as the entire God-given Holy Scriptures, not subject to editing, updating or alterations; as was the case of the Talmud, which was later updated and further extended over a few hundred years to later be called the Gemara.

A proper Jew never rested his faith on the Talmud, but rather on the TANACH. And when you examine this document for yourself, you'll surely find the concepts of "a dying and rising messiah", as well as the teaching on the concept of "Son Of God" - whether or not they believed this to be the Christ. What you denied are actually in the Jewish holy books.

Yes i have read the bible many times before,and there is nothing tattered about these assertions as they present a valid alternative.If anything can be described as "tattered assertions",they would be the divine inspirations behind the NT,'because they are getting old and less convincing.

"Getting old and less convincing" is the borrowed slogan of classic doubters. I guarantee you that when you have experienced the promises found in the Bible for yourself, your doubts would long be well taken care of. Reading the Bible 'many times before' is not the same thing as experiencing the power of God. Atheists have read the Bible more times than you know - but not one of them that I know of has tested out the challenges offered in the Bible. Experience God's power for yourself and know the difference - complete your inquisitiveness by believing what the Bible says and then you can know if God's promises are tattered.

Do you want a lecture?Sorry,no time,but i will say that i know enough,from reading the old testament,watching docus and reading books written by jewish and non-jewish theological scholars.

Your claims here are not convincing; or you might have been reading the wrong books, watching the wrong documentaries and reading scholars who missed the point. As an example, I just told you the difference between the TALMUD and the TANACH - they are not the same and no Jewish scholar worth his salt will tell you that the TALMUD is the authority for the Jewish religion and tradition.

Rather funny that you of - all people - should demand for objectivity and abstinence from preconception!
As far as theological debates are concerned,every debater suffers from lack of objectivity and preconception,and that includes you!

Granted - but you're top on the list! You should rather have backed up your claims by telling us what you know for yourself, not what you have ferreted from secondary sources. At least, that would have been a bit more objective and not preconceived. You made so much noise about the Gospel of Judas without having read it for yourself; when I did read it (I have an English translation now), I was so sorry to note that the media blew the whole story out of proportion.

If you don't know about the Jews, ask them - they will tell you what their tradition and history is all about. And until you read the gnostic gospels for yourself, relax and don't assume you know just because somebody told you so.

Peace.

@jagunlabi

Obviously, you didn't make any research and your assertions are needless because I had suspected your biases were based on the overblown media hoo-ha that feed your own view and what you want to believe. Is there a need for me to provide you with an answer to your questions? If you're saying that the gnostic texts "are as valid as the ones in the NT", does that not show that you're clearly saying that the NT is also valid? So, where's your reason for preferring the former to the latter when you have not even read one of the gnostic texts?

I do not have to read them before i can believe in their validity.Historical documents and researches of biblical scholars have done all that for me,and that is good enough.
Did you verify objectively,the validity of texts in the NT before accepting them as the gospel truth?

Let me rest your heart - yes, I personally validated the NT text in my own experience. To date I have read over 49 gnostic documents (including over 39 English translations of the Gospel of Thomas), and I can dare say the NT says what it says and proves what it says in my life. I'll give you a few examples in the NT: (a) Jesus promised that those who believe will pray in His name and what they ask shall be granted (John 14:13 and 16:24) - that has been proven time and again in my life. (b) The NT promises that those who believe in Jesus will be born again and shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 1:12 and Acts 2:28) - that also has been proven in my life and is my daily experince. (c) In many NT texts, there are OT prophecies that have been fulfilled. For example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is prophetically spoken of in Psa. 16:10 and Acts 2:24-27 speaks of its fulfillment. How do I know that they agree? Because the consequence of Jesus resurrection is that He ascended and poured the Holy Spirit so that those who believe might receive. I believed, and I also received. Anyone who has not experienced these facts can easily deny them - which is what your researchers have done for you: they have denied and sold their denials to you, and that's why you can as well refuse to personally validate your claims while relying on their denials. The strength of your own assertions would be that you personally check the documents out for yourself - not rely on secondary "research" that says next to nothing.

Before you launch your next protest, all I ask you to do is personally validate the NT for yourself - I did so for myself and that is why I can confidently speak of what you're reading. My challenges to you are -

(a) find for me only one promise in the gnostic documents that you or anyone else on this Forum can experience. If you have done research for yourself, you'll find that the scholars you might be referring to cannot state one promise in the Gnostic materials that they can prove in their lives as powerfully as the NT offers. Anybody can do research on any document; I challenge you and your scholars to bring out a verse from the gnostic documents that can match the NT promises. . . don't bother for two; just one verse will do for now.

(b) find for me any verse in the gnostic documents that you have personally read that refers to an OT prophecy being fulfilled. One thing you have to realise is that the gnostics did not believe in the OT nor in Jewish tradition or religion. So, I'll wait for you to read the OT for yourself, then match them with any number of gnostic material you can find, and try to explicate and match them in terms of fulfillment. I reserve my comments until you have done so.

The gnostic gospels have made it clear to me that there were alternative ideas about early christianity,and the institutionalizing of christianity was not as smoothsailing as purported by the NT.They showed that there was a fierce debate on what Jesus teachings were and their meanings.
They also made it clear that NT is just church propaganda.

It's easy to write off the NT as Church propaganda if you've neither read the NT nor any gnostic documents for yourself. That's what I had challenged you to do, and until you do so your assertions will continue to grow weak on the premise that some "researchers" have helped you with your ideas. Second, whoever was telling you that early Christianity had a smoothsail from the start didn't do his homework properly. Just read the book of Acts, and if all you find is smoothsail before you get to the 10th chapter, then your researchers would have a point. Your claim to have read the Bible is weakened here by this brouhaha about smoothsail - no one can miss this point from a mile off if they have truly read the Bible for themselves, not claiming that they have.

How consistent are the documents in the NT?Do they make coherent sense too?Methinks not.

Oh brother! Read the NT - not the novels that feed your agenda. You're only throwing tantrums without having read what you're decrying.

@jagunlabi,

You really seem to be nowhere. Since you have all the answers and are so passionate about your assertions, please tell me:

 ¤ how many of the gnostic documents have you read for youself to assert that "they are as valid as the ones in the NT?"

 ¤ what is the central message of the gnostic gospels from what you have personally verified, not the overblown media
    hoo-ha you often rely on?

 ¤ how consistent are the gnostic documents to even make one coherrent sense to you?

 ¤ what gnostic document have you found to be consistent with the OT prophecies proving/disproving Jesus' crucifixion?

 ¤ have you read the Bible for yourself to establish your assertions or you're just interested in recycling the worn and tattered
    prejudices of whatever sources feed your view?
   
 ¤ do you have any OT prophecies to disprove Jesus' crucifixion, death and resurrection, before asserting that they are
    not consistent with the OT prophecies?

 ¤ what do you know about the OT prophecies and the Jewish tradition?

I don't know it all, but do me the favour of answering those questions objectively rather than from your preconceived points of reference.

God bless.

@nferyn,

Thanks once again for taking the time to go through my presentation and posting a reply.

However, the whole discussion rests on one premise - the nature of the tools employed in investigation. We see things from different lines of reasoning, and you have not been able to follow my perspective on a few things. At the moment, there are lots occupying me in my busy schedule. But it would be good to read those books I recommended in my earlier post, after which you may decide for yourself if Earl Doherty and S. Acharya were objective in their approaches to their subjects. I hold my comments until then.

Second, since you do not have access to the original text, it is somewhat astonishing that you'd rather be polarised to believing that something is in error by mere specualtion. It's true that I don't have the original texts either; but why do I believe that the Bible says what it says and is by itself true in what it says? I'll give you a few of my reasons -

¤ the power of its statement.
The Bible is not a book devoted to intellectual exercises - it speaks to the heart in such a way that its power
transcends scientific investigation. At least, I know that science is a very limited tool for investigating world
phenomena; and if you'd be objective enough to admit it, no scientist worth his salt has been able to explicate
the non-scientific phenomena of healing by prayer. This may sound all gross to you; but nferyn, I've personally
been healed and so I know why I believe that the Bible is true in its declaration.

¤ the power of its evidence
What you call 'convincing evidence' will continue to elude you if you're accustomed to believe the skeptical denial
that outside sources have given to authenticate the Bible, at least in part. First, you posited that only
Flavius Josephus made mention of Christ; and then you seemed to have ignored the list I proffered of Cornelius
Tacitus, Thallus, Pliny the younger, Emperor Hadrian, and Ignatius. Even when you might seem to have conceded
that those documents exist as outside evidence that Jesus did exist, you wrote them off as "it is not entirely
unikely that a historical Christ did exist." Again, I want to hold my comments until you have personally read
these full works yourself; and if you're objective enough, you'll see that you've been paying too much attention
to skepticism for your own good. (no harm meant).

In addition to the power of its evidence, if Jesus Christ did not exist and Christianity is a hoax all along, how is
it that my personal experience proves that praying in the name of Jesus Christ has the results of the power
in that Name as I read of in the Bible? How do you explain that? If you have experienced something personally
for yourself, even when you cannot measure the experience scientifically, you will not broadly deny its reality.

¤ the power of its coherence
Let's even for a moment allow the joke that the gnostic material have their own value as properly Christian,
why do the gnostic advocates consistently fail to interpret its message? I'm not a gnostic; so it's not mine
to interpret the gnostic gospels. However, as a Christian, the Bible makes a much more coherent collective
sense - and any unbiased reader can see that. That's why I asked you earlier if you have studied Paul's
epistles before making the statements you made earlier; more often than not, so many people go by what
skeptic novels say about the Bible than what the Bible itself says. That is why I took the time to read as
much of the gnostic gospels as I could lay my hands on - and last night I finished reading the Gospel of Judas:
I'm sorry to say that the media blew the story out of proportion!

I don't want to be tedious to you with a lengthy read, but let me offer you this: you may be a skeptic, and as long as you refuse to apply the only test the Bible requires for proving its reality, you will always find its message elusive. Why is this so? Again, let me remind you - science has its limitations; and if you want to subject everything in the world to science, you're miles away from arriving at any coherent understanding of proving the Bible for itself, and you'll leave a lot of questions unanswered in some many other non-Christian issues.

Like you, I am not really in favor of argumentations ad verecundiam; but "examining arguments on their merits without having to rely on authority" is sadly a contradiction of your first statement. You may not rely on Biblical authority; but have you not been quoting authorities in your earlier arguments?

Perhaps one of these days I might be amused enough to show you what you missed in Gauvin's piece; but good though that you were sharp enough to recognise that his "polemic style may be a bit overblown."

As to finding atheists to debate any issue, oh believe me - I've encountered loads of them. The one thing I find is that most of them are not tolerant, rational in their presentation, or just simply refuse to be objective. But, perhaps, you are the second of the lot I've met who's quite on the gentlemanly side.

Good to read your presentation.

Defining The Term

Depending on who's defining what, the term 'religion' will continue to elude proper contexts of application in the many perspectives of discussions. In secular, social and scholastic discussions (like statistical or demographic applications), Christianity is as much a religion as other faiths - Islam, Bahá'í, Hinduism, etc. Some other faiths or worldviews (like Taoism) do not view themselves as a religion in much the same way that many Christians want to view the Christian faith as non-religious. There's a negative connotation as well as a postive one about the definition of 'religion'; but again, it depends on who's defining the term and for what purpose.

Let me attempt a working definition for the purpose of this response, which is by no means its all-inclusive meaning (the reference is mine ):

"Religion is a response to a set of core beliefs and values expressed in the practices of its adherents."

It is in that sense that I'd be discussing the topic and including such faiths as Christianity, Islam, Bahá'ísm, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. But again, although it's a limited attempted definition, it does not view skepticism, agnosticism, or atheism as 'religions' even though they are legitimate expressions of core beliefs and values on their own. The difficulty of defining religion could be read in (1) source one, and (2) source two.


Is Christianity Ever Viewed as a Religion?

Of the five Biblical references I've read, three of them are in reference to Judaism - the Jews' religion (see Acts 26:5, Gal. 1:13, and Gal. 1:14); one is used in general terms (James 1:26) and the last is in reference to the practical essence of Christianity (James 1:27). It is this last usage that is contested today by many Christians, and it reads simply: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (KJV). There are three elements we should observe in that verse:

¤ Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father - the essence of Christianity is purity and this was what James argued in favour of. Notice also that when he mentions 'God and the Father', he was making a clearly distinct appeal to Christianity because that is the quintessential confession of Christians - to address God as "Father" (Islam does not address Him as Father, even though it also preaches purity).

¤ To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction - this is just the same thing as showing practical love to people, and that is something which Christ Himself preached as a mark of true discipleship in Mark 10:21 - "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." (Paul made reference to the same point in I Tim. 6:17-18).

¤ to keep himself unspotted from the world - worldliness is a bane to true Christian spirituality, and there are countless verses scattered all over the NT warning against this trend; I'll reference just two here - "Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen." (I John 5:21) and "Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world" (Tit. 2:12).

In other words, James used 'religion' in positive terms of the true essense of the Christian faith - purity, love and true spirituality. In this sense he would have been applying the term in positive light. In a somewhat negative reference which he discouraged (James 1:26), he counts an outward performance without the inward substance as really vain religion.


So, Is Christianity a Religion or a Way of Life?

Christianity is both; and again you would have to ask who's defining the term and for what purpose. Defining religion as "a response to a set of core beliefs and values expressed in the practices of its adherents" makes Christianity a religion. The reason is that, Christian believers hold 'a set of core beliefs and values' that they express 'in their way of life'. These set of core beliefs include (some of which you already are familiar) -

¤ God is the Creator and Father of those who believe in Jesus Christ

¤ Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour who died, rose again and ascended

¤ The Holy Spirit is essential for the Christian life and witness

¤ Believers are to shun unrighteousness & immorality, and pursue godliness and holiness

¤ The Bible is the Word of God.

How do these core beliefs constitute or affect the Christian "way of life" (or lifestyle)? As God is the Creator, Christians have great respect for the sanctity of life; Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Saviour gives hope and great impetus for every aspect of living, transactions between people, and relationships that confess the virtues of Christ in practical terms. Of course, none of these make sense without the power of the Holy Spirit and respect for the Bible as the Word of God - it is there that the principles of righteousness, holiness, and fidelity are explained and understood. There are many other set of values that Christians hold, and you could make sense of them as long as they are not tangential to the core beliefs and values.

However, the negative connotation of 'religion' is disavowed by Christians (myself included) - as exemplified in James 1:26. In effect, what that verse says to me is "shun hypocrisy and religious sanctimony." Oh well, I should quote it first: "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain." Conceitedness, duplicity and insincere piety are expressed in many shades than found in James 1:26. People can tend to be "religious" and be blind to reason, faith, and the true meaning of life - this is the definition of 'religion' in a bad context that gives rise for the disavowal of many Christians saying that Christianity is not a religion; and I agree with them.


How Else Can We View Christianity As A Way Of Life?

I'm one of several millions who view Christianity more as a relationship than as a mere set of rigid codes to be fastidious about. My faith is anchored in a living Person - although non-Christians may disparage this belief because Christ is unseen now, but will be one day. This relationship involves a family setting in which by faith we understand that God is our loving Father who cares in supernatural ways for believers, and indeed His love extends to everyone in the world. The first commandment captures this explication of Christianity as a relation:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with
all thy strength: this is the first commandment." (Mark 12:29-30)

The second is predicated on the first:

"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment
greater than these." (Mark 12:31).

We live in a world where people thirst for reality; and what is love if it cannot be expressed with purpose and deep commitment to the same? That love finds its purpose in God who draws our hearts to Himself as our Father and we His children by faith in His Son Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is when anyone talks so much about God, love and faith without a corresponding reality of his preaching - that's where the idea of "empty, dead spirituality" stems, and that is the sense of religion that Christians reject. My faith is a lifestyle that finds purpose and fulfillment in the God who is real and winsome.


Phew! I hope that has been a bit helpful. Many blessings.

@ Papa & blueiyke,

I'm surprised that you could sound like this. Did I blame pastor Chris or the Holy Ghost for anything? I think that was really childish and taking things a bit too far. Second, to say that afterall he didn't force people to attend his crusades is really arrogant. And Papa, travellers should have been forced to attend the convention if they were heading somewhere else; and because they didn't, good for them that they "THINK" their easter was ruined, abi? Please spare me. Even the Lord would not sanction this type of talk from you. Just because you want to defend Christ Embassy does not mean you'd have to go out of your way to sound so unreasonable. Please read I Cor. 10:32. As Christians, we ought to know better than cashing in on the discomfort of others with an arrogant smirk.

Donnie made the remark that there was "enough parking ground and more than one entrance", and one is left wondering why the traffic would have been such a problem inspite of "truck loads of police and traffic wardens deployed to the venue in addition to the several hundreds of traffic control workers our ministry trained for the program."

donnie:
Secondly, i should inform you that we had truck loads of police and traffic wardens deployed to the venue in addition to the several hundreds of traffic control workers our ministry trained for the program. We have enough parking ground and more than one entrance thank you.

I was just making an observation about the sad experiences that non-participants were exposed to was not necessary, and could have been avoided; and you just saw something else for all the hoo-ha you wrote about my blaming pastor Chris or the Holy Spirit when there was no need for all that. Just calm down and be objective. What would you have felt like if you were headed for your own convention and another church's convention held you up in an air-tight traffic? Please be reasonable and concessional to the feelings of other people. And if you can't afford that, be my guest and continue to expose your religious sanctimony.

jagunlabi:
A question for all;
Should Judas - on the face of this new manuscript - be rehabilitated and be made a saint?

Quite a number of theologians have been fighting for his rehab for decades now,and there are rumours now that the pontificate is considering it.
What are your thoughts on this.

@jagunlabi, you've asked a very sane question, infact one that is scheduled as a seminar topic we've been assigned in our preliminary research for next week. I baulked out of it because there was insufficient material to gather for my paper at this time. But a few thoughts came to mind:

On what basis would the Gospel of Judas be accepted as a true representation of the event(s) that led to Jesus crucifixion? For one thing, the author of the Judas text has not been verified, and there are no pointers (besides the text itself) that Judas was a saint. If I have to look outside the NT sources and the OT prophecies of Jesus' betrayal (such as Zech. 11:12-13), there has not been a hint as far as I know that Judas proved to be anything than what the NT says of him.

There have been a few debates between theologians and among the Pontificate towards a possible consideration of a rehab of Judas. However, the latest I heard was that it is fast receiving a negative vote. Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, head of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science, spearheaded the call for the Judas rehab; while Monsignor Giovanni D’Ercole, a Vatican theologian, opposes the rehab campaign. The latter claims it was "dangerous to re-evaulate Judas and muddy the Gospel accounts by reference to apocryphal writings. This can only create confusion in believers." ([url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1981591,00.html]see the article here[/url] and scroll down to see relevant section, or do a search yourself).

On the whole, it would be difficult for me as a Christian to view Judas as a saint if there are no independent sources yet to prove that he was not a thief or of questionable character as the NT says of him (see Luke 6:16 & John 12:6).

donnie:
Inasmuch as we regret the inconveniences the program caused travelers, you cannot hold Pastor Chris responsible for the traffic jam? Afterall, he did not force the people to come out to meet him at the express? Were there not several other 'good friday miracle night' programs in Lagos? You should understand that like in any country around the world, it is not our responsibility to take care of traffic but that of the police. So if you want to blame anyone, blame the Police.

@Donnie, I beg to disagree with you here about that insinuation. The Police did not organise the Christ Embassy convention, so Christ Embassy is responsible to ease up traffic build up occasioned by that event, regardless the number of particpants. If there were no conventions that day, the traffic would not have been additionally traumatic for travellers.

@exu, millions have dismissed it as a fairy tale or worse, so no one owes you an applause for even acknowledging the story of Christ. You can disagree with someone or a worldview without being caustic. Does that make sense?

My dear nferyn,

That was a good rejoinder you posted, and I'll be first to concede that we are seeing things and interpreting historical antecedents from differing frequencies of application. Let me make the following observations as well:

(1) There are several 'scholars' besides Earl Doherty and Elaine Pagels who posit such hypotheses as Paul's writings being gnostic in nature and the error insertions in translations. What is interesting is that such scholars, including Earl Doherty himself, would come back to counter those claims in other 'researches' they conduct and postulate. I've read quite a few and if you have the time you may want to read other non-Christian authors/works on the same subject like:

¤ The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Told - by S. Acharya.
¤ Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" - by Earl Doherty.

In the latter case, Doherty leaves more questions than answers as he failed to give any hint about any academic or legal proficiency on his part at all. Observe carefully that the authorities he refers to are mostly folks of the Jesus Seminar group, whom even other non-Christian scholars can't trust in any erudite scholarstic sense! Not only so, but by appealing to these latter groups for proving his point, he actually defeats himself because his working hypothesis is that Jesus was a myth, whereas the Jesus Seminar believed that He existed (even though they debate the accuracy of the NT).

Now the question is, if errors were inserted in later translations, what were the original words in the texts? You ought to have the 'original texts' to prove that something was an error. This is something that the likes of Elaine Pagels, Earl Doherty, the Jesus Seminar group, S. Acharya, and several others have not been able to answer. You're more likely to get a migraine from the excuses they banter about than have a straight answer as to how they came about the 'error insertion' hypothesis.

Let me even ask you, nferyn - have you studied Paul's writings for yourself before agreeing that they are gnostic in nature? I'd be interested to see a concise outline of your own scholarship on this.

(2) The secondary sources which you claim are highly dubious are the same sources that Elaine Pagels and the Jesus Seminar group reference in most of their works. For the infidels.org sources in reference to the historicity of Christ, I've read statements like, "such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world -- by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith -- by every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales." (by Marshall J. Gauvin). What you should understand is that Gauvin is being arrogant and does not have the facts before being so garrulous. Excuse me, but what does he mean by "every independent thinker in the world"? Does he really know every independent thinker in the world? Is that what one would call scholarship? And when he posits that these thinkers rely on experience, you'd hardly find Gauvin himself relying on experience but just playing cacophony. When a person is stating facts based on historical antecedence without prejudice, perhaps that's one mark of scholarship; the rest is left to anyone's interpretation. Fact: Jesus actually existed. Prejudice: There was no mention of him anywhere! Research: what do the archeogical findings by non-Christian scholars show? - There was such a figure known as Jesus. Otherwise the Romans would be a myth and Pontus Pilate would be a fairy tale.

(3) Well, then I'd ask you to do just one simple thing: what was the message of Christ? Did the gnostics preach that message? "After the orthodox gained power" is always the reference appealed to by some who want to legitimize the gnostics as apostolic Christianity. It's all here a matter of interpretations, and the persecution you're referring to did not arise from apostolic Christianity. The gnostic movements were a distinct group (legitimate in the sense that they existed in history) from apotolic Christianity; they were not persecuted by the apostles or thrown out of Christianity - they left on their own accord (cf. 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.". Please don't try to confuse the facts: 3rd century persecution is not the same as 1st century persecution. Apostolic Christianity was not tolerated by the various secular governments of the day; and only later did the Roman civil leaders try to use it to their political advantage.

(4) and (5) - great.

(6) oh, you bet - more source material are bound to surface. To date I've read over 39 English translations of the Gospel of Thomas; 43 other 'Gospels' of gnostic affiliation, and I've just obtained a copy of the Gospel of Judas in English which I'm yet to touch because of my busy schedules. But I agree with you that we probably won't make much sense of the gnostics as we all have various perspectives of looking at the issue.

Thank you for your patience and tolerance. Not many people with atheistic or agnostic leanings (sorry if I'm gravely mistaken about your position) have displayed the level of rationality and sensible discussion as you have.

Warmly.

Thank you for your response. You captured a point in this line:

ijele:
let us seek the will of God and learn how to worship him in truth and spirit!

God bless.

_______________________________

PS.
Sorry for asking, but I wonder at your style at emboldening everything you type. No hurts to me, but I'm just curious. Again, I observed a few typos, for I guess you might have meant 'Spirit' (singular), not 'Spirit[b]s[/b]' (plural) when speaking of God (see John 4:24) - perhaps, you might like to take another look at this line:

ijele:
God is Divine Sprit[b]s[/b] and Must be worship in Truth and Sprit[b]s[/b] and Not with Emotions!

Regards

I'm beginning to wonder why all the hoo-ha about Christian celebrations - Easter, Christmas, etc. If Christianity celebrates the incarnation, people will complain and consign it to the birth of a Roman pagan deity (Mithra?); if we celebrate the death and resurrection of the Saviour, there'll always be another Roman pagan deity or Greek equivalent (Kronos?) who made reservations solely for himself/herself/itself on that day.

These same people or websites from where they get their complaints have not coughed about the Bahá'í holy days and festivals (the Ridvan, Naw-Rúz, Birth & Martyrdom of the Bab, Birth of Baha‘u‘llah, etc); the Islamic festivals (Ramadan, Eid-ul-Adhia, the Hajj, etc.), and several others.

As Christians, what's wrong in celebrating the fact that
(a) Christ was born
(b) Christ died and rose again
(c) Christ ascended and poured out the Holy Spirit
(d) Christ provided better promises in His vicarious death for us
(e) Christ heals
(f ) Christ promises His soon return and the rapture?

Some of these may not be holidays around the world; but why have the celebrations of Christ's birth, death, resurrection and ascension become problematic to anyone and everyone who has no qualms about other holidays?

If the angels rejoiced at Christ's birth (Luke 2:13-14, irrespective of Dec. 25 being the debated date), and the early Christians celebrated His death, resurrection and promise of His soon return (I Cor. 11:26), why does it give a few people sleepless nights because I choose to rejoice in the fact as well? Sorry, can't let the stones take my place in praising Him - that would be a wonder no website can explain.

Jesus Christ loved me enough to come from heaven, died, rose again, ascended to heaven, poured out the Holy Spirit, and by believing in Him - I've proven in my life and experiences time and again that He is real. That's why I praise Him; that's why I celebrate His name and deeds; that's why I rejoice that His promise of the rapture will come to pass - regardless what complaints people may have. I'd only extend an invitation to such people to leave behind all the prejudices and sincerely seek this Christ.

He lives, He saves, He heals, . . . He comes back soon.