Re: The Gospels

All right, Robbie,

I must disagree with you on three important points. The rest is mostly
personal belief.
First. Yes, John DOES say Jesus is God.
1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. 1:2The same was in the beginning with God.
1:14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
He states in a number of places in a number of ways that jesus is equal to,
therefore is, God.

Second, Yes, The Jesus Mysteries DOES explain the origin of many of the
Christian mythos, ie the stories of virgin birth, born in a stable, died on
a cross, etc that apply to at LEAST two other religions that predate
Christianity and were practiced in the area, ie I'm not talking about South
American religions that the Jews would have had no knowledge of.

Third, Yes, I am stating that some of the Nag Hammadi scrolls are more
accurate than the 4 canonical gospels. Specifically, I cite the fact that
the Council of Nicea and subsequent councils specifically denounced and
persecuted Gnostics. The Nag Hammadi scrolls were gnostic. Jesus was a
gnostic. The 4 canonical gospels disguise that fact, but many tell-tale
signs show through, ie the sign of the fish for Christianity, and the story
of throwing out the nets, Jesus tells them when. These are gnostic
derivatives specifically Pythagorean stories. I'll go into more detail on
them if you like.
tina

>>Tina wrote:
><< My problem with John is that he sees Jesus as God, not a man, whereas
>the
>synoptics are at least an attempt at relaying a story, laying out the
>facts.
> >>
>
>As I've said a few times already, it is not clear to me that the author of
>John would plainly state that Jesus Is God (in fact, he doesn't plainly
>state it, and though he MIGHT have, I maintain that he might not have).
>
>And besides which, even an utter conviction on his part doesn't seem to me
>to amount to a problem that we ought to have with him. What should it
>matter to me if Homer (might have) thought that Zeus was a god, or Achilles
>part-god?
>
>And:
><< I have far more confidence in some of the Nag Hammadi scrolls than in
>the 4 canonical gospels. >>
>
>If this confidence is in historical accuracy, I think it might be more
>closely associated with what you want to be true than with what anybody
>knows to be true.
>
>And:
><< I suggest a very interesting book called The Jesus Mysteries, the author
>escapes me at the moment. Although it doesn't;'t address problems with
>John
>specifically, it does explain where many of the mythos come from, and makes
>an excellent case for Jesus being a Gnostic, the fish symbol being a prime
>example. >>
>
>It does not "explain where many of the mythos come from" but rather
>postulates and hypothesizes where they came from. The distinction is very
>important.
>
>The two men who wrote the book, for whatever this information is worth to
>anyone, are essentially unaffilliated with the mainstream scholarship,
>secular and otherwise. They do say a few interesting and provocative
>things
>in this book that deserve attention, but the rest of the book,
>unfortunately, is such that these few are largely missed with a summary
>(and, I think, easy and reasonable) dismissal of the whole.
>
>-robbie
>-
>* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
>* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Aug 5 14:03:48 2003