Revisiting the gospel truth

dave varga, montclair, nj — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 04:59:47 GMT

to the person who differentiates the `heretical' gospels written by those not apostles or eyewitnesses, from the four gospels that are in the new testament.

I believe that these accepted gospels actually were not written by the apostles, they were written down in the name of the those apostles after many decades of being passed through oral tradition.

Revisiting the gospel truth

John Charles Webb, Jr. — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:23:40 GMT

The Old Testament refers (Book of Daniel) to astrologers as "wise men". They were the scientists of the day and, most probably, literate; so they were considered "wise".
In fact, after 20 years of research and study I can make a pretty strong argument that much of The New testament is, in fact, an astronomical/astrological allegory with Jesus representing the Sun (The Light). It is, after-all, the Sun that 'dies' (sunset) and resurrects (sunrise) on a daily basis. The "apostles" (and Mary the Virgin or Virgo, and The Magdalene) may also represent the 12 signs of the ancient zodiac. One can begin to understand why astrology is debunked by Christianity once the connection is made between The New Testament and ancient astrology. Heck, any astronomer who understands The Precession of The Equinox can determine that the son (sun) 'born' of a Virgin is 'astronomical code' for the sun precessing out of the astrological sign of Virgo (The Virgin) into Leo, the sign of the King.

The allegorical approach does NOT mean the spiritual teachings contained in The New Testament are fictional. They are (seem to be) an allegorical depiction of the teachings of ancient astrology. The teachings are designed to encourage the "birth of Christ" (divine light or illumination) within the human psyche which is, initially, a "stable" of animal passions, without true spiritual enlightenment, until the concept of Christ is introduced.

The study of Christ and The Bible are indeed (also) 'scientific' (Archaeology, Anthropology, Astronomy and ancient astrological methods). In fact, I have actually tried out the teachings and found that they are true!

If anyone is interested in the Star of Bethlehem (discovered by The Persian Magi) they can click on the "my website" link near my name on this posting. The work (link) earned me a continuing nomination for a Templeton Prize in Religion.
Merry Christmas to All (especially you, Alan, you are fearless!).

Revisiting the gospel truth

Glenn Armstrong — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:05:30 GMT

"Organized Religion" is truly the root of most if not all evil. I truly believe that the world would be MUCH closer to peace if we quit argueing about FALSE GODS and realized that it all just fairy tales and outright brainwashing designed to control the followers. Glenn Armstrong

Revisiting the gospel truth

THE ONE TRUE GOD — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:08:50 GMT

GET A LIFE - STOP ALLOWING YOURSELVES TO BE BRAINWASHED BY MANIPULTIVE RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS. THE TRUTH CANNOT BE "TAUGHT". IT MUST BE LEARNED.

Revisiting the gospel truth

wild-man of Borneo — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:27:15 GMT

Science is science.

Science is knowledge of skills.

Gospel is upgraded universal communication system of our creator in planet of apes.
Master our creator's communication system in the new universal language in planet of apes.

Then find the missing key and unlock the mystery in planet of apes.

The three blind mice is out there who was lost with time in planet of apes.

With the missing key will be able to trace them in planet of apes.

The misery expose by the mystery of us - 911.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Bill Getchell, Annandale, Virginia — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:06:23 GMT

Are the gospels fit for scientific study? Yes, they are, and it has and is being done. You need look no further than Bishop N.T. Wright's monumental works, The New Testament and the People of God and his Jesus and the Victory of God.

Revisiting the gospel truth

zeke mowatt, albany, ny — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:38:02 GMT

Jesus was invented by Flavius Josephus, and the "gospels" were authored by roman aristocracy, specifically the Piso family. It has all been a cruel joke perpetrated by Rome. The gospels are full of double meanings- one meaning for the peasants and slaves, another for the arostocracy of Rome. The account of loaves and fishes? A roman joke at your expense christians! When Romans laid seige to a town they often baked loaves of bread with fecal matter in the mix and threw them over the city's walls. And "fish" is well known Roman slang for the male organ. Water into wine? Roman slang for having a p***. I know christians, which means I understand that no amount of rational thinking or historical or scientific evidence will ever be able to get through pastor's propaganda machine. But for the rest of us with half of a brain in our heads, we can continue to have a good hearty laugh- just like the romans did- at their expense.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Adam Apellasios — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:45:18 GMT

Although the indentations of indentations of the original article's block quotations somewhat paralleled the impaired or imposed alignment of ancient texts, I found the readers' cases even more impelling. Personally, I could only conclude that the argumentation presented by various sides only expands the possibilities, and now that I'm thoroughly expanded, I must consult my magic 8-ball in order to carry on my day. Shake-shake-shake: Shall I wear boxers or briefs today? Signs point to No? How am I to interpret that?

Revisiting the gospel truth

RICK READE — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:13:23 GMT

I AM 56 AND HAVE BEEN FACISNATED FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS BY THE 1ST CENTURY HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. I HAVE NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE LITERALLY SINCE I WAS 13 YEARS. OLD. I AM AMUSED BY THE CLAIMS OF THE "TRUE BELIEVERS" THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT IS AN ACCURATE AND TRUE HISTORICAL ACCOUNT RATHER THAN SIMPLY A DOCUMENT OF FAITH AND SPIRITURAL TRUTHS. THE REASON THE ALTERNATIVE GOSPELS WERE REJECTED WAS NOT BECAUSE ANY OF THEM WERE UNTRUE, BUT BECAUSE, THEOLOGICALLY, THEY WERE INCONSISTANT WITH THE ORTHODOX VOICE OF THE CANNONIZED WORKS. AS A VEHICLE OF CHRISTIAN (ORTHODOX) PROPAGANDA THEY TENDED TO PROVIDE A MESSAGE THAT IMPLIED "HERETICAL" IDEAS. IT WAS ONLY JUST BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NICEA THAT GREGORY OF NISSA SUCCESSFULLY COUNTERED GNOSTIC THEOLOGICAL POINTS ON THE NATURE OF JESUS BY THE FORMULATION THAT THE "FATHER", "SON", AND "HOLY SPIRIT" WERE ONE AND THE SAME SUBSTANCE YET DIFFERENTIATED. (IT IS IRONIC THAT GREGORY WON THE DAY FOR THE ORTHODOX AGAINST THE GNOSTIC VIEW(S)YET MODERN THEOLOGIANS SEEM TO REMEMBER HIM AS ONE OF THE GNOSTIC HERETICS, BUT THAT IS ACTUALLY ANOTHER STORY INVOLVING THE NATURE OF MAN AND HIS INTENDED RELATIONSHIP TO GOD.) IN ANY CASE, EMPEROR CONSTANTINE FORCED THE ISSUE FOR POSTERITY, AT LEAST FOR THE "TRUE BELIEVERS".

Revisiting the gospel truth

Warren Beard — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:17:03 GMT

Christians are just as dangerous as Osama bin Ladin. The evangelical set which has come to dominate the American millitary is racist and closed minded. To them scripture is unquestionable. Christianity is neo-paganism. A personified God was necessary to perpetuate a dogma of white-supremacy. The spread of Christianity was a systemic destruction and theft of the religious symbolism of foreign cultures to be replaced and "civilized" by the conquering Europeans.

Christians put lies to truth, and are great for pouring syrup on s*** and calling it pancakes. The belief in God is so fundamental that people would rather believe nonsense than consider a more rational alternative. White-supremacy is a fundamental aspect of Christianity--so much so that they transformed a semitic Christ into a blue eyed, blond haired European. Their "providence" was in fact "viciousness" and their "paternity" was "ignorance."

I can see why God destroyed civilizations in the past which refused to recognize the truth, because "change" for or toward the truth doesn't happen. People will defend their ignorance to the death.

Religion began as a description of the conditions of God, and evolved into the methodology to reach those conditions. The Bible in its compilation omitted the books describing the former, and accepted the latter. Religion, hence, in the now is more about morality than divinity.

The book of Enoch is among the apocryphal gospels and older than all of the new testament. Those books regardless of age which questioned the divinity of man were excluded.

Divinity is a preconceived notion which debate, fact, reason, nor experience are capable of changing. Let a fool be a fool.

He who knows not and who knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him.
He who knows not and who knows that he knows not is lost, guide him.
He who knows and who knows not that he knows is afraid, comfort him.
He who knows and who knows that he knows is wise, follow him.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Sean, Torrington CT — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:41:51 GMT

All religious texts are of equal validity. That is to say, they are all useless except as tools to subjugate and divide people.

One would think an omnipotent god could have predicted the divisiveness caused by vague religious texts and done something about.

Perhaps your god likes to watch his creations suffer and die at each others' hands.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Bob Dineen, Falls Church, VA — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:57:59 GMT

Religon should be taught in schools. But ALL religons, at least the major three along with NO religion! The world would be a much better place is we understood each other. I was born and rasied as a
Catholic and was told from the git go that if ANYONE wanted to go to heaven, they had to be catholic. That was SO wrong. I am now an atheist and have peace of mind over superstition and and all of the 'believers' out there.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Tom Day, Atlanta GA — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:11:18 GMT

It never ceases to amuse me how fundamentalist Christians assume that they are being attacked whenever someone dares give voice to the notion that there might be more to life than The Bible - or at least The Bible that they're reading, which is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a committee's recommendations.

Regarding Lee Strobel and his "Case for Christ": I read it. It was so patently obvious that he had an agenda before he started writing it that I couldn't help but roll my eyes at it. I had fervently hoped that the book would live up to Strobel's billing of it - that he was a non-Christian with a legal background who wanted to disprove the Christian story, but couldn't. Nothing could be further from the truth. Don't bother with the book.

And to all those Christians who claim to "obey The Bible," take a look at Leviticus and Kings. I seriously doubt that you obey most of the rules there. If your response is that "the New Testament overrides the Old Testament," then you might want to take another look at what Jesus had to say - those old rules still apply.

Excellent article on a fascinating show, Mr. Boyle. Thanks.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Sean Wade — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:18:01 GMT

Not to get too off topic here... but Harold Thomas absolutely destroys the meaning of liberal in his reply. It's obvious he doesn't really know what this word means and only uses it in the derogatory sense that he hears it used by the media. Shame!

Revisiting the gospel truth

Patrick Bishop — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:32:53 GMT

[...] The magi were Zoroastrian priests. For the curious, I would like to let you know that they are still in business: http://www.avesta.org/ Studying them has been very stimulating for me, and I reccomend everyone take a look.

Something that occurred to me as I was writing this is that the early Christians would have almost certainly considered Zoroastrians pagans, just as they considered Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians. That being the case, maybe it's worth wondering exactly why the magi scene never got expunged from the nativity story.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Barry Austin, Sierra Vista, AZ — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:56:56 GMT

I just submit to you all that the Gospels are true and factual as well as supported by Old Testament predictions of events yet to be unraveled. The so-called Gnostic gospels were written during various times throughout history. However these can be likened to present day tabloid magazines we see every day at the supermarket. Just because it is written doesn't make it true. 1000 years from now, as our descendants discover our historical documents and they read of how some Hollywood star has done some shameful thing(s), will they believe it or should they try to corroborate that information with other more reputable documents of the time?

These "gospels" are likely opponents early attempts to discredit the early Christian Church. I also agree with the poster that indicated the probable date of Christ's birth is not Dec 25. The early Christian Church did integrate pagan practices and rituals to entice pagan beleivers into Christianity. History shows the Roman Catholic Church has added many things over the last two millenia that have weakened or "watered down" Christianity's strength and influence in the world.

The simple truth of the matter is without the Birth of Jesus Christ, and His subsequent Death on the cross, there would not be a Christmas Season to celebrate every winter. We would likely be still celebrating some form of Winter Solstice event as our early pagan ancestors did.

Merry Christmas and yes, Virginia, Jesus is the Reason for the Season.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Roger ledbetter katy TX — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:02:25 GMT

Sadness, Sadness, soon you will have to choose, faith or science. choose Faith.
If only I could be more eloquent with my words.
Sorrow, and sadness
Lost

Revisiting the gospel truth

Ken Presley, Rochester MN — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:15:26 GMT

So it is acknowledged that the gospels were written within 100 years of the actual experience. This means the attributed "authors" (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were dead when they were written!

There are places where the gospels seem to diverge or conflict with each other. This is constantly massaged to try to get people to believe they all say the same thing. But when books on the same topic are written over a span of time just from hearsay, they will be different. Look how many different theories there are and the resulting controversies over Abraham Lincoln's assassination. This was written down and reported in real time and yet people do not agree on the details. For some reason this is acceptable. But woe is me if I do not accept every inconsistancy in the Bible as fact. I just "need more faith" and then I "will believe". (Yes, I have been told exactly that when I have raised questions. Since the pastor/scholar/teacher cannot answer the questions, the problem then is me, not the writings.)

I am not saying that Jesus did not exist or that the basis for the stories is false. Just that the details should only be taken as window dressing that the scribes of the day each put on their own writing.

Revisiting the gospel truth

ben jonson parker az. — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:39:43 GMT

The bigger question is, did a historical Jesus actually rise from the dead? If so, he is the only person recorded in history to have done that. So with that said, if Jesus is not who he said he is then nothing matters, if he is who he said he is,then nothing else matters.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Art Carter, Orlando, FL. — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:42:15 GMT

Terry Brandli: Quote (With all this talk about the season, and historical Jesus, too bad at least one of these shows doesn't explain the facts that Jesus Christ wasn't born on December 25th. And that the most accurate date is April 19.)

Terry,

The true date of Jesus birth was Oct. 15th, which is "Tishri 15, or the Feast of Tabernacles". This is because Jesus was 6 months younger than his cousin "John the Baptist", and there is very good evidence John was born at "Passover, or March-April". There are many articles of this subject, here is a good one:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/sukkoth.htm

I am a Born-Again Christian, and God speaks to me. he told me to look into the "Significance of Oct. 15, concerning him." That's when I found this out about Tishri 15th, or the Feast of Tabernacles.

May you Lord Jesus Christ be Greatly Praised!!!

Revisiting the gospel truth

R Clayton — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:47:29 GMT

Golly, in my years since parish ministry I forgot how much of a hornets' nest you could stir up with an article. I just have a few observations.

First, there are liberal Christians who see nothing offensive about looking into some of these apocryphal gospels (not in the printed body of Scritures), though even most liberals would agree with the scholar I once read quoted who didn't see a lot of reason for those other than scholars to read them.

Second, it is mainly conservative Christians who assume that everything in the 4 Gospels is historical. Many mainline and liberal Christians make no such assumption.

Then, there was one who wrote you who wished that it was mentioned more often that the birth of Jesus was not in December, but probably in the spring. This writer did mention that the celebration was put in December to usurp the pagan holiday. What the reader did not add was, this time of year was already a significant holiday period. So many complain about Christmas being usurped by commercialism and other non-Christian celebrations. But the truth is that this time of year was not originally a Christian celebration. Let Christians celebrate Christmas and realize that the end of the year, the winter solstice, and other factors tend to bring a lot of different holidays to this time of the year.

I thought the article was a good piece and enjoyed reading the various approaches of thought. It should be added that you did quote from conservative scholars, such as the one from Asbury.

Good work.

Revisiting the gospel truth

W. Voss, St Marys, GA — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:48:10 GMT

Heresy - A fundamental error in religion; error in doctrine; heterodoxy.
Heterodoxy - The holding of heterodox opinions.
Heterodox - Holding opinions different from those established or prevalent.
Hetero - a combining form meaning different, other, dissimilar.

One person's heresy is another's opinion is another's doctrine is another's truth.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Seven Star Hand (LW Page) — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:51:33 GMT

A pivotal aspect of all of the canons and apocrypha of the three faiths of Abraham that is too often ignored or downplayed is their heavily symbolic structure and content. Recent books like the DaVinci Code have explored and alluded to the symbology that permeates these texts, but have failed to truly reveal its meaning and purposes. Without an in-depth understanding of it and a recognition of its importance, anyone trying to interpret these texts and traditions is stumbling in the dark. My book and research has succeeded where all others have failed by finally reverse-engineering and "unsealing" ancient wisdom symbology and the many ancient texts based on it.

As Mr. Web points out, some of the symbology is astrological and astronomical and the leaders of Christianity have purposely hidden this fact in an effort to recast ancient Hebrew symbolism and allegory as literal events and miracles. Though my research and book (follow my name link) explore many other aspects, my research agrees with Mr. Webb's assessments on some points. I present starkly different conclusions about the veracity of the historical assertions of the New Testament and Christianity though and the stated purposes and effects of religion in general.

The topic of symbolism is pivotal to every endeavor related to uncovering the truth about the foundations of ancient Near Eastern and North African religious texts. These texts, which are most often associated with the traditions of all three Faiths of Abraham, are heavily steeped in similar symbolism that is clearly apparent in the very earliest mystical and religious traditions. Similar symbolism is found in archeological, astronomical and astrological settings, as well as in the mystical and wisdom traditions of the earliest civilizations.

It is undeniable that early humanity thought and communicated with a more symbolic mindset than we do today. This is redundantly and consistently proven by the nature of all early alphabets, hieroglyphs, and the consistently symbolic manner that early architecture, art and knowledge were structured. Likewise, the narratives of most ancient wisdom traditions use strikingly similar symbolism within consistent contexts and themes. Furthermore, the use of numeric symbolism was pivotal to every ancient wisdom tradition. It is likewise a central aspect of Hebrew prophecies and wisdom texts and is widely evidenced in ancient archeological sites worldwide. This symbolic mindset is still readily apparent in all non-European societies and was prevalent in most pre-Christian European traditions.

All ancient religious, mystical and wisdom texts have been shrouded in mystery for millennia. They remain enigmatic for one reason: The ability to understand ancient symbology was lost in antiquity. Consequently, the earliest known texts and traditions treat it as mystery and religion because the ancient cultures at the dawn of our current cycle of civilization were unable to decode them. All of the available evidence demonstrates that the ancient wisdom, mysticism, and religion of Africa and Asia arose using closely related symbolism about similar topics and concepts. This and other evidence clearly alludes to a common source originating in an epoch prior to what we label as recorded history.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Beth Collings, Eads, TN — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:52:30 GMT

I have no belief in the Christian word. Regarding Christmas, we all know it did not take place on 12/25. Do smart people who are Christians just throw their logic out the door when they leave work? I am a Taoist and am a good person. I hold no bad thoughts toward others. We are all free to choose.

Revisiting the gospel truth

claude demers, West Springfield, Mass. — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:16:23 GMT

I find it amazing as a Child of God, Born Again in Feb. 1991, that many, many people in all areas of life attack the credibility of the Word of God and have NEVER read the Word!!! When people make their comments and/or findings and have read the Bible from Genesis thru Revelation, then I respect their words. Until that happens, keep your opinions to yourself. Have a great day!

Revisiting the gospel truth

Daniel Booker — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:46:36 GMT

Don't forget that neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses either. In fact, Mark's is recognized as the earliest "orthodox" gospel and is dated around A.D. 52, approximately 25 years after the events it describes. Meanwhile, Matthew the eyewitness for some reason borrows heavily from Mark instead of relying on his own recollection. And John? His gospel is dated somewhere between A.D. 90-100, around the same time he is credited with Revelation. Given the inconclusive nature of the latter work and his advanced age, it must raise some questions about his memory of what happened 70 years before.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Curious — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:53:13 GMT

Umm.. wouldn't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John need to be in the manger scene if they were "eyewitnesses" as Harold claims?

Revisiting the gospel truth

RK, Ottawa, Canada — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:58:24 GMT

Well, I do not claim to have read the Bible, any of its versions, nor do I claim to be a know-it-all. In fact, I am actually a Muslim and not a Christian, although I solemnly believe in Jesus, Moses, David and all the messengers from God. The only difference is my belief in the "messages" we have today.

I know the topic under discussion is the Bible and the many versions of the writings of the Apostles and whether or not they are original or have been modified over time. I recall one of the comments in this article that says we must obey all that is in the Bible and not question it, and another comment that says the First Church had approved of the writings of the Apostles. I do not doubt they have, but those that were in the First Church do not exist anymore to verify if any "version" of the Bible after their existence continues to be acceptable.

It is in the nature of human beings to elaborate on words, to allow greed and desires to get in the way of the truth, so why do we all so adamantly deny that this could have been the case with the Bible? I know that many might be arguing that it is the same case with the Holy Koran and with the Torat, and it might be. The only argument I can give against any change to the Holy Koran is the fact that Islam calls upon all followers to fully memorize every word of the book. This, in my opinion, might have helped preserve the writings as any change or modification could have been easily detected by strict followers. I personally do not know of any that have fully memorized the words of the Bible since the time of the Apostles, nor do I know of a need for Christians to do so. Same goes for the Torat, although I do admit I might be mistaken.

I don't mean to mix religions in here not to offend any of them. I actually think that, as a believer in God and in his holy messengers (some might not know this but Muslims believe Jesus was only a messenger of God), that we must not look to the words or the literal meanings of teachings that come in any message, but we must understand the underlying lessons, the truths to what was really meant. It does not really matter what year a book was written nor who wrote it, what matters is the meaning of what is written and if it instinctively matches what your soul and spirit feel. All messages from God ask for love, forgiveness and faith. So why do we bother so much about the truths and forget about these "truths"?

Revisiting the gospel truth

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:03:28 GMT

OK, you've stirred the pot of superstition soup again for the year! Watch it, you may end up with a whole bunch of fatwas on your head!

To quote a bumper sticker "If you're born again, does it mean you have two navels?" Sorry, Mr. Demers, opinions, being like unto navels, everyone is entitled to at least one, and are equally free to express them in the US of A, whether or not you agree.
Remember the oath administreed to anyone entering the military and federal office. It's called defending the Constitution, not a point of view or a politician, only the Constitution.

"Although I disagree with what you say, I shall defend to the death your right to to say it!"

Now that we have settled that (he says, buttering up the Man), how about some of your patented inside coverage of the Spitzer data analysis (see the Rob Roy Britt article on the S&T front page). Now, that is cosmic.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Bil Clement, Santa Fe, New Mexico — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:05:54 GMT

I have studied (as an academic amateur) conservative biblical interpretation, Gnostic allegory, archeological time-lining and story-telling mythology to augment my search for understanding of the Teaching of the Master Saints. In reference to the above intelligent and emotional responses regarding truth, fiction, reality and spirit that often comes to fore when a discussion of a Master Teacher such as Christ (Zarathustra, Baha'u'llah, Plato, Rumi, Guru Nanak, Soami Ji Maharaj, Sawan Singh Ji and many other unnamed Sat Gurus or True Masters) is brought to a democratic forum of free speech, I am amazed that such seemingly opposed points of view all have an accrual effect. All are true, and compose Truth as only an integrated individual can grasp.

The historicity of Jesus is of varying importance: more so to the literalist, less so to the esoterisits. Accuracy in the text is subject to erosion and entropy, and interpretation of it is bound by the referential education of the interpreter. Any relatively integrated individual, though, develops an increasingly intuitive ‘corrective filter’, a tuning fork of a sort, that assists in winnowing out the Truth from the true stories available to all (for all the stories, in this perspective, are true ones). It is an abstract chasm that must be leapt over before the Teaching, and the Saint Teacher, can be perceived by the individual. I will say that this is my referential understanding of the Second Coming.

Some (many) do it through emotive faith; some believe they have done it, and only their doubt will tell true who is who. Some (fewer) make it on intellect: beliefs that bear fruit in individual knowing and accumulate into an intuitive logic. Their experience is beyond description, though fortunately some still try to tell the story of it. Once every human can cross the chasm, this debate will cease. That point, in some distant history, will be the end of mankind and the last Second Coming of Earth.

There is a logic that one Saint’s teaching is not enough to carry a message through the erosion of time and linguistic migration. The Teaching must surface again and again, flowing out from the qualified lives of human beings that have been born both appointed and more-or-less integrated, relative to the population they are born among. They live as we live, have Minds (personalities) much as we do, but have also been given an appointed task, as we have. Theirs will involve a surrender that can only be perceived by those who experience their lives, living with them in their immediate environment. When the Teacher dies (for they are also mortal), the same, One Teaching that has been given though each Master’s lifetime is subjected to the corrosive elements that are endemic to physical reality: matter, energy, time and space. The Spirit of the teaching is unaffected; the letter, word and text must necessarily be, though, for they are bourn by and of this reality.

Integration of science and religion (or the reflected principles of Scientific and Religious) is as much a noble goal as it is anathema. This conundrum appears whenever the Mind is forced to face off with its benefactor, Soul. These two realities cannot be integrated in physical parameters, yet in the time/space realm of the human being, they are somehow inseparable. Because of that dynamic, in my understanding of course, the above discussion will always appear as a never-ending debate.
Therefore, should we refuse to study the opposite component of our own Truth, and deny our own integration? Only the resistant Mind fears such a goal, one that has yet to acknowledge its dependence on the thing it cannot grasp: the inexplicable.

Integration in this sense refers to a Mind (personality, if you will) that accepts, after an exhausting struggle against, and eventual surrender to, this notion: it doesn’t have to know Everything to have access to Anything it needs or unselfishly desires. It only has to Know its Self. This is at the core of any Master’s Teaching. One of the more powerful keys to unlocking that Self knowledge was highlighted in Jesus’ version of the Teaching: Forgiveness of ‘sin’—of others, and our own.

Revisiting the gospel truth

CW — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:23:12 GMT

Doesn't anybody else find it odd that at least 1200 years before the birth of Christ takes place there was a religious cult worshipping Mithra, who was born on December 25th of a virgin, surrounded by Magi? Further, Mithra had 12 desciples, had the power to send his worshippers to heaven or hell, and to be a follower you had to drink of the blood and eat of the flesh of the "bull" of Mithra. Mithra was considered the light of the world. He later died for his follower's sins and was considered the son of a God. He had a "last supper" before he died and rose from the dead. Mithra's main focus of worship was in Rome. Sounds familiar?

Constantine at Nicaea in 321 AD, who was responsible for gathering together a group of Bishops who were to decide on a faith that everyone could follow, happened to be a Mithra worshipper. Any of the Bishops who didn't agree were either sent away or killed. But the all important thing at that time was to get together a faith that Constantine could use to control the people.

The true worshippers of Christ, who believed totally different ideas, were later put to death for heresy in not believing the conglomeration put together by Constantine. Some who managed to survive were slaughtered by Pope Innocent the III hundreds of years later (amongst the many he slaughtered for not believing what he wanted. Such an icon that he was of his faith)!

Revisiting the gospel truth

Robert Rous, Sturbridge, Ma — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:47:28 GMT

Do you want to equate science with religion? How about these facts. There is not one documented contemporaneous attestation for the "historical" life of Jesus outside of the "gospels." If a person was healing people and had crowds following him and was raising a fuss, why didn't his contemporary Pliny, a meticulous Jerusalem historian mention anything about him? The gospels in their current form did not exist until around 400 AD. The early church fathers understood that all of this including the Christ myth was just that...Mythology. That is, stories with an archetypal, moral meaning. How many saviors were there throughout history? How many virgin mothers? I could take any of you to an art museum right now and show you Isis and Horus and Mary and Jesus and many other pairs, and you would not be able to tell the difference. The feminine Divine is symbolized by the Mother figure...who gives miraculous birth to the Hero. The problem is the level of conscious development of the vast majority in our culture, who are not very well developed. At the literal mythic level of consciousness, people need a literal interpretation. People at this level have not accepted themselves and disown and project their own evil "out there." It is a well known fact in depth psychology that Satan is a mass projection of the collective's disowned Shadow. Another characteristic of this low level of spiritual development is duality and all or nothing thinking. Read the news. Watch the current political regime in the USA and duality becomes apparent. However, Reality is not split and divided. Reality is an undivided Unity. Most so called Christians are full of guilt and self loathing and unable to take true responsibility for themselves. Hence the need for a physical literal savior god...out there.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Peggy O'Rourke, Pittsburg, MO — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:50:44 GMT

My, what an awesome discussion! I would like to add a couple of points. I believe that it is generally accepted that none of the authors of known Christian manuscripts were first hand witnesses, but writing from oral traditions, which in this day and age would be called hearsay or a second-hand source and therefore, inadmissible to the body for consideration as fact--inspired or not.

I adore ancient history and admire the dedication of those determined to find that one piece of physical evidence that eludes and prevents them from proving their case--that their religion is the true religion based in historical evidence, not hearsay.

However, let us lay aside our narrow views of religious dogma and consider the message of the "Christ Spirit." The basis of most world religions are the same gentle principles taught by the The Buddha, the Jewish Prophet/Rabbi Jesus, and Mohammed. Only when the zealots of the sects began writing their hearsay, or heresy, did we lose the true teachings, began developing our isolating dogmas using them to justify our political agendas--crusades, jihads, inquisitions, etc.

Today, our scientific theories and philosophies have gone full circle and are supporting the mystical unknown. We have torn the universe apart atom by atom, electron by electron, and string by string and have found--nothing. We are back to looking for the God who directs the universe. Whether you believe in transubstantiation, the resurrection of the body, the reincarnation of the soul, or all the virgins you could want, you believe in the miracle and continuance of life outside of the physical world.

Let's approach this Holy-Day Season from those beliefs we hold in common and not our theo-political differences.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Asad, Atlanta GA — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:56:04 GMT

What CW is refering to is the ancient pagan religion of Mithraism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mithraism#Similarities_to_Christianity

Revisiting the gospel truth

Pat Hogan — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:04:18 GMT

Oh now come on! Geez, you people from Earth are so only you. How about us from another place? Too bad I couldn't bring along our version of what you call the Bible but when I showed up here I was naked and without any prior knowledge what so ever. Of course since then I have been shown histories of people, places and things that I'm left to interpret for myself, I also get to create my own and watch others create theirs. Hey for those I never meet this go round I hope to see ya elsewhere ….. next time.

Revisiting the gospel truth

John, North Orlando, FL — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:27:58 GMT

Boy, talk about the freaks coming out at night! Or actually when someone mentions ########## and the other gospels.

Tom Day: read the Matthew 5 passage carefully. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Jesus also said "To obey is better than sacrifice." He also said in John 4 "An hour is coming when the worshippers will worship neither at this mountain nor Jerusalam" to say that temple worship would not be around much longer. How's that for the Old Testament worship restrictions still applying. And Paul, personally appointed by Jesus as the apostle to the Gentiles, plenty of times (try Acts 15 and Galatians for one) said that the Old Testament judicial and ceremonial laws didn't need to be followed by non-Jewish Christian converts. Guess you just kind of forgot that part of the New Testament, didn't you. Having never read Strobel, your bad review of it, combined with your ignorance of what the New Testament and Jesus say, makes me think it might be worth reading. Nevertheless, your rant was at least a bit more coherent than much of what was written here, at least.

As far as the magi are concerned, Zoastrian or not, it seems fair to reason from the book of Daniel that Daniel was the leader of the Magi, and since Daniel got the prophecy about the "sevens" in Daniel 9:24-27, he may have tipped off the Magi to be on the lookout for the Messiah. The years involved would give them an idea, although they would have to be understood as "approximate" and perhaps some conditionality involved (OT prophecies involved a lot of implied conditionality). But that the Magi were at Jesus's house (not stable) nearly 2 years after his birth in large part because of Daniel centuries before seems like a very good hypothesis.

Alan, don't see what the big deal about your article is on either side. Christian scholars need to study that info to know about the time period, and scientific atheists need to be less close minded about studying religion. After all, religion is in history, and a key to knowing how people tick. The article seemed to be evenhanded to me.

Revisiting the gospel truth

CJ ROLPHE, Kalispell, Montana — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:51:46 GMT

Watched all the shows during the last two nights on NGEO. I was facinated by the responses from all who narrated. I have read the bible several times but always had a great deal of difficulty with many of the passages. I also felt there were and are too many discrepancies in the bible. I am not a religionist but I am very close to God and I think I understand Jesus in my heart. God gave us choice and that is dependent upon our knowledge and history. Jesus was sent to explain our choices to those who would hear. Sadly too many humans follow what they believe is "truth" set out by other humans. This is the greatest joke of religion. I respect their right to choice but do not agree that it is necessary to believe what they say based on words written by another person, just because that person lived 1800 years ago(gospels written long after Jesus died). Those of you that believe say they were there...first of all the gospels were not written by the people that were there..they were written 60 years later. I believe that is based on scientific fact....everything that was written was "judged" by the church 180 years later..is that not also scientific fact? So..if I wanted to create a religion based on an inspiring event in the world, and needed to control my followers and expand the religion to great depths, again, to control my followers, I suppose I too would pick the least controversial of the "gospels" (again written by men) to create the "bible". And of course at the time, women were not allowed any role in society, therefore, Mary Magdelene had to become a "whore" to be believed. Nothing will change as a result of these revealing gospels, however, for those of us that already "know" in our hearts that religious definitions of God were incredibly ridiculous, we can now relax with a better understanding of "human" history.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Ekim. — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:13:39 GMT

God, if he does exist, surely would have nothing to do with parasitcal humans. It WHO CREATED THIS MAGNIFICENT UNIVERSE.. come on stop believing we exist because God has chosen us.We created God and Jesus to do away with our so called sins and have this human need to find the tree of life and everlastng life. All myth,to justify our wrongdoing in life and say we are forgiven because their is Jesus.Also the only reson religion and christianity has exusted so long is not a mystery but , man created this guilt attached to not beleiving thus we do not want to go to hell so we beleive as sheep follow. not wanting to be sent to the infernal underworld.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Jeff Thieret, Pittsburgh PA — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:18:21 GMT

I consider myself a realist who applies rules of logic in my daily routine activities. I try to personally reconcile how the 'cult'of Christianity could survive after its leader is declared a criminal of Rome and then swiftly, shamefully, publicly executed.

The followers of Jesus not only kept the 'cult' together after his execution, but they willingly went into harms way to preach their 'dead' leader's message? Ten of the original 12 apostles died as martyrs. Judas allegedly died by his own hand for his infamous betrayal. Only John died a natural death on Patmos. Saul (Paul) of Tarsus, an original Christian bounty hunter, not only converted to the new 'cult' but died a martyr to the faith as well. What drove these men to risk everything over a failed and executed rebel-leader? Why did they not fear death?

As these zealots spread Jesus' message across the known world, interest grew in their master and 'cult' founder. If there is a likely time frame for the creative history of Jesus being back-written, it is here the founder might be mythologized in the very Roman way of the day. But the myth is undeniably founded upon some important realities, realities that led 10 close disciples and Paul to lay down their lives for the message that their master gave them.

The message of Jesus is no doubt real, as he was. Josephus the Hebrew-Roman historian verifies his existence in his chronicles.

Unless future codices are uncovered that shed light on Jesus' formative years, we are left with what the Gospels, written decades after Jesus' death, portray. Still, it is the very survival of the message contained within those Gospels that is the true miracle.

Christianity defied all the odds. It literally survived and then conquered mighty Rome, the most feared Empire in Jesus' day. That in itself provides much food for thought.

Revisiting the gospel truth

CW — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:29:50 GMT

Dear John from North Orlando, Just one point, you mention that Paul was personally appointed by Jesus. Paul never actually met Jesus - he had spiritual meetings with Jesus - "spiritual" not physical meetings. So, we only have Paul's word for anything that is supposed to have taken place between Paul and Jesus. Perhaps Paul had an awakening in the Gnostic sense.

Revisiting the gospel truth

CW — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:33:21 GMT

P.S. Jesus told us that the laws will never be gone until the end of the earth no matter what Paul says and yet as Christians we do not follow the 10 commandments. Nevertheless, a good part of the Gospels was written as previously stated in other posts, from word of mouth. Mark and Luke for example, never met the Christian historical Jesus.

Revisiting the gospel truth

John~Cincy — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:46:20 GMT

Alan,

As a long time reader of yours, I thought the article meet the high standard of writing and evenhandness that I have come to expect from you. I am quite certain that you and I do not agree on the origin of the universe, God, Jesus Christ, and the blood atonement. But the article wasn't titled, "What John from Cincy believes." You presented what people are doing in regards to the topic at hand.

What I like about articles like this is that I get to know what others are thinking. It allows me to review what I believe, change what I believe if warranted, and see what that person believes that thinks differently than I.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Robert R, Sturbridge, Ma. — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:42:47 GMT

It amazes me as I am reading this discussion and identifying the distorted thought memes disguised as facts and erroneous beliefs. As far as Lee Stroebel goes...his book is not even credible and was torn apart long ago. Many of you have been brainwashed and infected by a meme that assumes a physical literal being named Jesus existed in time. Yet there is no evidence and the so called evidence that the Christians are pointing to here would not stand up in a court of Law. Yet a Christian will hold to a faulty belief that God would throw you in hell for not "believing the gospel." What kind of God is that? That is no God....that is your childish projection of evil onto God. Such a God would not be a God...but an evil sadist. You are simply ignorant of the historical facts. The Christ is a symbol of your own Higher Self. Buddha, Krishna, ET, Superman, and Luke Skywalker are also hero symbols that symbolize the Self. If you continue looking outside for the Christ, you remain in darkness. The Bible itself says that the Kingdom is within. The Bible also says in this same parable that people look here and there and everywhere and do not find it. You are looking in the wrong place...look within...and then loose your fear and ignorance.

Revisiting the gospel truth

LJ, Cincinnati, OH — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:05:07 GMT

Bill: Your assertion that the Bible has not been changed in any way is incorrect. If you use the King James (or Authorized) Version of the Bible (one of the more popularly used in the USA and the UK), or any translated version thereof, you are using an edited version. It is commonly known that the committees performing the translation for King James edited some passages, removed others (that did not fit the "canonized beliefs of the time"), and added some that did not exist. They compared their works to the current English-translated Bible of the time, despite knowing that its translations were incorrect and politically influenced. Further, the current (1769) version of the King James Bible (originally made in 1609) deviates even further from the original texts by translating the translation. Thus, to believe in the most prevalent copy of the Bible is to believe in a politically-motivated book that holds to the structure of the times rather than the “truth” of the original books.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Craig from Seattle — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:14:55 GMT

The gospel is a book, written by humans. However spiritually inspired, it is beholden to the limitations of human language and understanding. Do not pass your church's understanding of it as truth and all others' as heresy - believing you are above fault is blasphemy, and worshipping a book is idolatry. God speaks to us through our hearts and minds. Ignore the gifts of conscience and free will in exchange for your human-compromised view of the Word at your own risk.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Mikde Burke, Indianapolis, IN — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:19:50 GMT

It should be obvious that the religions of all peoples were invented by early humans as a way to explain what they could not understand.

And since then the strongest of our species have used religion to control the masses for their own benefit.

And if you are really open minded you'll look back at history and see that more human beings have been butchered in the name of one "god' or another than for any other reason. Just look at the middle east and you will see the same thing still going on.

I just wish we could all look to the stars and see hope and knowledge instead of signs from god!

Revisiting the gospel truth

dsd — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:22:33 GMT

This has been an interesting read. Quite a wide variety of opinions have been expressed. Fun to read.

OK, I'll throw in my 2 cents. Some people on here have mentioned the effects that the Romans (especially Constantine) had on Chistianity. It certainly was a profound effect. Christmas being celebrated on 12/25 is certainly one effect of the "paganization" of Christianity (although I don't know if Constantine had anything to do with that specifically). Constantine did bring in many aspects of Rome's pagan religion when he converted to Christianity. Many of these things are still evident today. The biggest, I believe is the move away from monotheism. The Bible teaches us of one (and only one) God. However, after Constantine, the "Christian" church now has not only this 3 headed trinitarian god, but Mary has been deified along with countless other "saints". All of this is from the Roman influence.

That is why it is important to study scripture for yourself, and to strive to learn the faith of the first-century Christians.

Revisiting the gospel truth

ekim, — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:29:37 GMT

The truth will come in time. One day eons from now, when man has devastated the earth and her resources, we will have no choice but to look up to the skies, and be it livable space stations or colonies on the moon or elsewhere, will we still be waiting for the second coming? Spirituality is in each of us, look inside for your comfort, as this is what prayer is anyway, it gives comfort and relief.Find this, in yourself and you will no longer be held hostage by moneygrubbing priests and preachers who live off your guilt. Time has a way of telling the truth.

Revisiting the gospel truth

CJ ROLPHE, Kalispell, Montana — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:08:41 GMT

[...] We will always need forgiveness (we think) because we are always "sinners"! But that isn't the real problem with religion..nor the real reason. Let's face it, there is only ONE REASON for religion and that's MONEY folks!

Jeff T: I would like to bring to your attention that in the world TODAY human beings are sacrificing themselves (martyrs?) because of their beliefs in their religions. Are these people to be put on pedestals because they "believe" and follow the Koran? And wasn't the Koran written by a "man"? Whether considered "holy" or "unholy" was this not another example of continuing the true relgious fanaticism, as it was in biblical times. What is the difference???? Because Christianity is your religion and Islam is theirs? Come on people, there is no difference...just time and belief systems. It is all the same. My God is the best God! (And He chuckles quietly in the back of the theatre while the show goes on!!!)

Revisiting the gospel truth

Peggy O'Rourke — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:22:19 GMT

Come on folks! You can't quote Scripture to substantiate the Bible! The new testament was CREATED by the Council of Nicene to unify the beliefs of 4th century Romans into a government sponsered religion. Spouting 20th century fundamentalist dogma has absolutely nothing to do with it. A religion sect which condemns non-members for their beliefs, while extolling the validity of their own, condemns itself. The truth is not exclusive.

Revisiting the gospel truth

R. Birdwell — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:08:44 GMT

People like to quote the Bible when it's convenient. So shall I: John 14:12 "He who believes in me will also do the works I do and greater works than these will he do." Now, how many of you believers have healed the sick or raised the dead today? You haven't or you can't?

Revisiting the gospel truth

Lawrence, Elkin, NC — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:15:35 GMT

As I read the blog with comments, it comes to mind the two Sides mentioned in the book of Revelation. (And there truly is only Two Sides)

SIDE 1) Jesus = Light of the world...do you need or want a little light?? this blog sounds like we're groping for enlightment?? this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world but men LOVE darkness....(John 3:19)

SIDE 2) Babylon = Confusion. (Rev 17:5) this city is started in Genesus 11. and their intention was to reach to heaven. Rev 17:1 calls her the great whore. The paid lover. One has one opinion, another has another opinion ... Confusion. They never investigated Jesus to get their Light.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Joe — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 03:31:59 GMT

That is the genius of the writers of the bible, they knew the human frailties and needs. Also that to keep humanity in line and continue with the religion they pitted the human good vs evil, light vs dark. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. They knew as time marched on and humans progressed that knowledge would ultimately expalin and be able to research what they wrote.So there is the guilt, if you do not believe you are evil. I would bet there are many more non believers/agnostics, who are as moral and good than there are religious folks who preach the word but have tunnel vision, they have been brainwashed from birth striving for this eternal heavenly afterlife, that they surely will not see the heaven they seek with their hypocrisy. Confusion/light of the world, come on, can't you think for yourself and see the true light, that your soul/heart is the light and comfort, you need not have a man/preacher/priest interpret what GOD wants of humanity.

I have read the Bible from front to back and see it as a moral guide more than 'if i do not believe i will go to hell.'

Jesus was a wise man if he indeed stated what he is credited with in the Bible but,
GOD?

GOD is the very space you live in and the sky you live under, the time and space of the universe, energy, dark matter. But a vengeful creator, I do not believe.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Chet Twarog, Hudson, MA — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:25:23 GMT

The "light" of this world is a Yellow Dwarf Star, spectral type G2V, "God". In Ancient times it was "Apollo" or "Zeus" or "Ra" or "Amun" or ....
It still astounds me that so many can't quite get it that the monotheistic "God", YHWH, of the ancient Hebrew tribe was worshipped as the one true god of Israel, as their lord and protector/punisher, out of the polytheistic gods of the time. That is why the Ancient Hebrew tribe's first commandment in the text of Exodus 20:1-17 in the New Revised Standard Version is as follows:

"Then God spoke all these words: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me."

Because there were many gods in those times!

Because they are all imaginary and make-believe.

Happy Winter Solstice 2006!

Revisiting the gospel truth

Peggy O — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:43:51 GMT

Hum. Last time I researched this topic, I believe Revelations was written by John of Patmos about a bad dream he had, not John the Son of Zebedee. Oh, by the way, The Course in Miracles and the Book of Morman were also inspired of God and at least we have first person documentation for those; more than the Bible.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Paul Villeneuve Snap Lake Northwest territories,,Canada — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 08:49:17 GMT

The main reason no one contradicted anything about the Bible prior to this century is that the church would kill anyone in opposition..Remember the 5th commandment, because the church never did. Anyway why would a high intelligence go to the details of letting everybody suffer so he can torture the ''BAD''ones after he ressucitates them and allow the ''Good''ones to have what they are not allowed to have while in this life..?

Revisiting the gospel truth

Jacoob, Akron, Ohio — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 07:37:11 GMT

Wow...lot of different debates and topics being thrown around in here! Talking about the validity of Christianity, I find Acts 6:17-42 very interesting. Peter and the other apostles were going to be condemned to death for preaching about the risen Christ. A Pharisee named Gamaliel stood up and addressed their accusers and said something very profound. He spoke of other so called "messiahs" and their followers - Judas the Galiilean, Theudas, and others. When they were killed their followers dispanded adn the movement died out. He told them to leave the apostles and Peter alone because if their ways are of man then it will go away on its own, but if its of God, then you will not be able to stop it. This is very interesting. Peter, who was terrified and denied Christ was now preaching about His ressurection in the very city Christ ahd been killed! What could cause a change like this? Why would this scared man who denied Jesus eventually follow Christ all the way to his own death?

Revisiting the gospel truth

Rob Beecroft — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 08:37:27 GMT

For those people who have trouble understanding the Bible, I can only say that understanding of the Bible is given by God, not by man. Faith comes by hearing and reading the Word. Also, as hard as this will be for many who read this, God lead the writing of the Bible. The apostles did not have to be at the manger, to know exactly what happened at the birth of Christ. God gave the direction (and utterance) for those words to be written. And a 80-90 (or more?) year old apostle John may well have writtten the whole Book of John, and Revelations during his stay on the island of Patmos.

As far as the SYMBOLIC date of Jesus Christ birthday ... it may well have been in the fall. The day the Lamb of God was born on is not as important as to the reason why He came (Save His people from their sins) or how important his death was (the before mentioned Lamb ... a propititation for our sins, a washing away of the sins).
This message will probably bring condemnation from many out there; those who state the gospels are made up, etc. Remember that the prophecies of the Old Testament came true in Jesus' life and death. The jews at the time of Christ were looking for a man more like King David, to bring their country back to the forefront of the world, to shake off their Roman oppressors, etc. In reality, Jesus came to shake off oppression, but it was all about the spiritual, not the physical. The same will happen at His second coming. We christians, and a whole lot of non-christians are looking for a return that will be much different than how it will really happen. Thankfully, God will shorten the time for his elect.

I have begun to digress, however. Praise God, I hope this message will reach who He needs it to. Read the Word! Follow after God, not man! God Bless, and Merry Christmas!

Revisiting the gospel truth

John Romanoski, Bridgeport, Ohio — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 19:54:06 GMT

Faith is a gift of God and none of the critics of religon have that gift. Let them read "Faith and Reason" an encyclical by Pope John Paul II.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Magnum Serpentine. Tennessee — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 04:15:21 GMT

Its funny...

Now I hear a new hype put out by Christian Reconstructionist..."Oh the true gospels were only those written by those who actually saw Jesus" Judas saw Jesus (Gospel of Judas) Thomas Saw Jesus (His Gospel he wrote)And many others did too and they wrote their accounts and Gospels about Jesus which are just as good as the 4 in the Bible now.

As in the case of the Revelation of St. Peter, the reason only 4 gospels got into the bible was a popularity contest. Many letters of Paul were not included and don't you think Mark and the others wrote more than just what they have in the Bible? If I had been with Jesus I would have wanted to write it all down and I doubt that 4 gospels is the whole story. In fact, 2 of the gospels were lifted directly from the famous Gospel "Q".

Commentary by Magnum

Revisiting the gospel truth

Luis Rafael Pereira, Bronx, New York — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:54:55 GMT

Well, i guess that John Lennon's song Imagine will be a very nice contribution to all those deep thoughts about religions and beliefs. Remember this?

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace.

I'm sure you all know the rest.
Happy and prosperous 2007!

Revisiting the gospel truth

Mike V, Boise, Idaho — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:50:01 GMT

Why aren't we discussing the factual merits of Homer's account of the Illiad and the Odyssey? You can find many examples throughout Greek and Roman history where these accounts were treated as a true telling of the actions of men and the Gods, yet today most people dismiss Homer's work as mere storytelling.

In my eyes, there is no difference between the Odyssey and the New Testament. One is simply backed by a more popular organization and still held as truth.

Faith is nothing more than belief in something without actual proof. There should be no reconciliation between science and religion because the concept of faith undermines the very foundation that good science is built upon.

I find any argument about the true history of Jesus very frustrating because too many people begin with the assumption that he is the son of God. That is no empirical way to get at the truth of the matter.

Revisiting the gospel truth

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:45:02 GMT

The New Testament says the last words of Jesus were, "My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" Goes to state of mind. He was NOT under the delusion that he was a son of God. The term "son of theos" comes from Augustus, adopted son of the deified Julius Caesar. In Romans 1:3, Paul says Jesus was born of the seed of David (meaning he had a HUMAN father) and "was declared Son of God by the resurrection from the dead." This is the same way that a Roman Emperor became a deity. He was DECLARED a deity by proclamation of the Senate. At least 90% of the New Testatment story is an attempt to create a fictional version of Jesus that could compete with (a) the gods of Greek and Roman mythology and (b) the Emperor cult. At the moment of his death, a Roman Centurion said, "Surely this man was son of God." A Roman - and an officer with the rank of centurion - said Jesus died as noble a death as any Roman, and thus deserved the same title as the Emperor. Does anybody really think that happened? Crucifixion is designed NOT to allow the victim to die a noble death. When Julius died, a comet appeared in the sky, which his followers said was his soul ascending to the skies. To keep up, early Christians said there was a star in the sky above the birth of Jesus. These are just STORIES, with no credibility or basis in fact. The CON - the next step above a lie - is saying that faith in God allows you to know the truth. All of these stories were invented decades after the real Jesus was dead, to feed the public's appetite for an End of the World cult that promised an imminent Resurrection of all the dead. It didn't happen. End of story.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Albert Pate, Pikeville, NC — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:08:13 GMT

Here are a few words, in response to your solicitation of opinion on this vital matter. This is a Christian plea that runs counter to popular Evangelical opinions on it.

I believe that if Jesus is not God, then we, of all creatures, are most to be pitied. If our Creator did not mercifully come to us to give us guidance, then nothing we do matters. I believe He has come more than once, and that He will come again. The alternative is all the possibilities of randomicity in the infinity of Time. I believe our mission is more urgent than that. We must find an alternative to Earth.

Mankind is in perils from powers and principalities. “Whom Satan would destroy, first he makes mad.” some wise man once said. According to Cowper, the wise writer who supported our ancestors in their struggle against the errors or The Church, that culminated with the St. Bartholomew Day massacre of Reformists and Jews:

"When nations are to perish in their sins,
'Tis in the Church the leprosy begins;"

Much evil has been done in the name of God. I believe that we are under the control of the power we so loosely refer to as God, in ways we can not even imagine. I believe that man is vital to God, because we are the knowing link between Him and His Creation. I think it is our God-given business to “scientifically” expand our knowledge of God, His Creation, and our relationships to them. I believe that is why I have a son in the rocket development business. We are going out of this world. Humanity must accept this mission.

It does not seem likely to me that our country could have got into the mess it’s now in without a higher than human hand in the matter. President Bush has neither the knowledge nor the imagination to have created the mess we have in our military adventures. I only hope he can see the need to seek safe havens for a human remnant somewhere off Earth, if humanity is to survive its own suicidal aggressive tendencies.

The modest fumbling steps of our childhood in space will teach us the first lessons of what we must know to realize the universal destiny of humanity. What we learn on our way to Mars, and beyond, will be vital for our survival. On the way to Deep Space, we must take and hold “high ground” beyond the reach of the violently irrational, who are willing to die to kill those who disagree with their religious/political beliefs.

We are thinking creatures, driven by our thoughts to explore. Our religions tell us, Earth is not our home. It is our incubator. Some of us must be ready to live on another planet, before someone turns our incubator into an oven.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Ray Lambert, Clearwater, Florida — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:15:15 GMT

Human history is filled with myths. Myths contain "truths." They are the glue or commonly held beliefs which hold groups of people together. Whether Washington chopped down the cherry tree is not the "truth" of the story. The "truth" held by his countrymen is that he was a man of inegrity.

To make myths into literal facts is a distortion. The "truth" underlying myths can be lost when mythical stories are read through a literal lens. For example, to read literally the stories of the birth of Jesus in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew requires acceptance of disputable and unsubstantiated "facts" such as the Roman census in Luke. The underlying "truth" or glue which the census conveys is that the writer of the Gospel of Luke wrote about something held in common by his group: Jesus was a descendant of David and was the promised Messiah who was to come from Bethlehem, the birthplace of David. The "truth" is not whether the census occurred or not. The "truth" is about a commonly held belief by a particular group of people in the latter part of the first century of the Common Era.

Revisiting the gospel truth

ttoupal — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:34:21 GMT

church serves a purpose. in absence of school, church teaches what is needed in the community. in absence of autocratic cast systems, church serves as matchmaker. we all like jesus or other major symbol of virtue that is of course a male. and so on and so it goes.

you must admit, church organizes and unifies. it competes with modern technology and companies that are cut throat. it survives because of simple faith and human spirit. matchmaker.gettogether.net.industry never would dare to claim that it will be around in 30 years from now and it will never give you anything that closely resembles guarantee; furthermore, companies in the various industries that compete with organized religion only attempt to deliver the promise of a hope or love or truth that compares with your local institutionaled mass market god tax free building o plenty people hoping for sex and salvation.

you see the local service, while imperfect, contains real people who gather for a common purpose.

the problem with church is that they have not developed anything new in the last 2000 plus years. they all think jesus is going to come to the year 2015 or whatever and save this world. does jesus buy some nike's and chevy corvette and begin his work or what.

my view is he is a powerful symbol that closely matches the new salvation or whatever. as a symbol he accomplishes so much more than he ever did as a man. his angel without a doubt is a special angel, however, the new salvation requires a new beginning. two baby angels so to speak, the last to walk out of heaven are here among us and represent the ones closest to god, weak without love, strong when loved and capable of a rare strength that all other angels fear when not ignorant. they guard the gate to heaven, thier blocked in both hatred and love, their presense is obvious when you look at the world around you with patient, curious scrutiny. their way to love is blocked. their way to salvation is destoyed. they walk among unloved. their need is blatenly notices. yet everyone continues their own existence with no care, regard or help.

when everyone realizes they let salvation in the presense of these two angels starve for love, when everyone realizes all the love they sqaundered in their own ego pleasing world. when everyone realizes that it was more important to have power, wealth, control, posession than to take the time to rescue these creatures, they will simply fall back into their routine and pray to god for help.

good luck,

Revisiting the gospel truth

Monk Lawrence, Mesa, Arizona — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:42:54 GMT

I believe in God channeling messages in the energy of the sun. I believe that Paul's Revelation in Chapter 9 (around verse 15) is still true today but we have to use mathematic abstraction methods to prove this. Therefore, God is defined by science, SCIENTIFIC NOTATION DESCRIBES SAVING ALL OF MANKIND! The Holy Spirit infused "new life" into my existing life on April 19th of this year (2008) but a date someone believes Jesus Christ was born in your posts. The numerology of my personal life suggests me to be God's chosen "sixth angel of wrath" turning the pages of the Holy Bible to Revelations Chapter 10 (in the year 2010)!

Revisiting the gospel truth

lowell geier — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:07:21 GMT

IS DECEMBER 25TH A HOAX

It seems that every year at about Christmas time we see a rash of articles and letters to the editor in the newspapers discounting the fact that our Lord's birthday falls on Dec. 25. Now some of these articles are by people who lay claim to the word Christian. Really I must ask, where is their Faith? When a non-Christian attacks the Faith, this a Christian can expect.

What can we say in favor of Dec. 25th as being the true birth date of our Lord. First of all let something be clarified. Scripture is believed by Christians to be divinely inspired. The date of Christ's birth is not quoted in it. There is not one word of scripture that is not for our enlightenment. No word of scripture is recorded for any other reason than to be conducive to our eternal salvation. Dec. 25th as being Christ's birth date is not mentioned in it, therefore the exact date of His birth must be immaterial in so far as our eternal salvation is concerned. Nevertheless Tradition is strongly in favor of Dec. 25th as being the real date of our Lord's birth. Why? Let me ask a question. If the Church, or should I say the Apostles did not know the birth date of Jesus Christ, then how did they know the information that is contained in the first two chapters of St. Luke and the first two chapters of St. Matt? Where would they have gotten this information if not from the mother of Jesus, who lived for many years after the death of our Lord? Besides the mother of Jesus having first hand knowledge of it, would she have kept the Church in the dark about it when she transmitted the account of His birth in such exactitude to them and also of St. John the Baptist. Another point can be brought to the fore: did not Joseph and Mary have to travel to the place of their birth to register for a census that was being taken of the whole Roman world. Would not the birth of Jesus have been recorded at that time? Of course it would. The Romans were meticulous at keeping records as is evident in scripture in Luke, Chapter II-V 1,2,3,4. III-V 1,2. and also in the records of the temple. While it is true these records were lost to the world over the centuries, up until Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in 70 AD by Titus the Roman General, these records were most likely available and were also more than likely available from the Roman archives.

Now in support of my thesis I am going to quote some pretty reliable personages that have made a great study of this. First a paragraph from "The Liturgical Year" by Abbot Gueranger, O.S.B. Chap. one. "The History of Christmas" Quote:
'The custom of celebrating the Solemnity of our Savior's Nativity by a feast or commemoration of forty days' duration is founded on the holy Gospel itself; for it tells us that the Blessed Virgin Mary, after spending forty days in the contemplation of the Divine Fruit of her glorious Maternity, went to the Temple, there to fulfil in most perfect humility, the ceremonies which the Law demanded of the daughters of Israel, when they became mothers.
The Feast of Mary's Purification (Feb. 2) is, therefore, part of that of Jesus' Birth; and the custom of keeping this holy and glorious period of forty days as one continued Festival has every appearance of being a very ancient one, at least in the Roman Church. And firstly, with regard to our Savior's Birth on Dec. 25th, we have St. John Chrysostom (354-407 AD) telling us, in his Homily for this Feast, that the Western Churches had, from the very commencement of Christianity, kept it on this day. He is not satisfied with merely mentioning the tradition; he undertakes to show that it is well founded, inasmuch as the Church of Rome had every means of knowing the true day of our Savior's Birth, since the acts of the enrollment, taken in Judea by command of Augustus, were kept in the public archives of Rome. The holy Doctor adduces a second argument, which he founds upon the Gospel of St. Luke, and he reasons thus; we know from the sacred Scriptures that it must have been IN THE FAST OF THE SEVENTH MONTH* that the priest Zachary had the vision in the Temple; after which Elizabeth, his wife, conceived St. John the Baptist: hence it follows that the Blessed Virgin Mary having, as the Evangelist St. Luke relates, received the Angel Gabriel's visit, and conceived the Savior of the world IN THE SIXTH MONTH of Elizabeth's pregnancy, that is to say, in March, the Birth of Jesus must have taken place in the month of December.'

* Lev. XXIII-V 24 and following verses. The SEVENTH MONTH(or Tisri) corresponded to the end of our September and beginning of our October.-Translator.

Now, since the above is evidence from the religious point I am going to quote a secular historian, a contemporary of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In this quote I wish to show that in those days they also kept a set of public archives in the local provinces that were under Roman rule. The source is from the "Works of Flavius Josephus" Wars of the Jews, Book II, Chap. XVII, Paragraph 6. 'The others then set fire to the house of Ananias (high priest), and to the palace of (King) Agrippa and Bernice; after which they carried the fire to the place where the archives were reposited, and made haste to burn the contracts belonging to their creditors, and thereby to dissolve their debts:” I don't think I have to go any farther. These archives were on a pare with our County Recorders offices in these United States where all the local records are kept. I could go on but I believe I have made my point so I rest my case.

A TABLE OF THE JEWISH MONTHS

In Josephus and others, with the SRO-Macedonian names Josephus gives them, and the names of the Julian or Roman months corresponding to them, out of the very learned Ezekiel Spanheim, in Havercamp’s edition, Pg. 407, with some small improvements.

Hebrew names Syro-Macedonian Names Roman Names

1. Nisan Zanthicus March and April
2. Jyar Artemisius April and May
3. Sivan Daeisus May and June
4. Tamuz Panemus June and July
5. Ab Lous July and August
6. Elul Gorpiaeus August and September
7. Tisri Hyperberetaeus September and October
8. Marchesvan Dius October and November
9. Casleu Appellaeus November and December
10.Tebeth Audynaeus December and January
11. Shebat Peritius January and February
12. Adar Dystrus February and March
( ) Veadar, or the Second Adar, intercalate

Revisiting the gospel truth

DGentry, Alabama — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:54:34 GMT

Seems to me the obvious differences in opinion make for good conversation but accomplish nothing.
How many who have posted have had their opinion changed since reading what someone else posted?
I would presume none.
We each hold dear what we believe.
2000 years have not changed that basic principle.
Some died willingly or were put to death without a choice simply because of what they belived.
I doubt a handful of those posting here would be willing to do so if it should come to that.
But it does make one feel good inside somehow, to know that others can read their opinions.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Syd Jamieson, Toronto, Ontario — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:01:42 GMT

I believe Jesus, to use his Greek name, did not intend to establish a new religion. I also strongly believe he was being literal when he said: 'Ye must be reborn', (or however it was translated) He meant that when you die, you come back. Reincarnation. There's no way you can get at the truth after only one life. There is a lot of fiction in the Bible, perpetuated by zealots. Yeshua, or Yeshi to his friends, was a Rabbi and also a big fan of Epicurus, among others. You can see it in many things he says, or is alleged to have said. I believe he was well-read, and interested in humanity as a whole, and studied other faiths. Anyway, have a happy season, all.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Robert Smith — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:17:00 GMT

My what an Anti-Christian hatefest we are having here. Why not try respecting the opposing views of religious people instead of castigating them as you do? Show some restraint in your remarks. Personal attacks and hateful remarks demonstrate your narrowmindedness.

Revisiting the gospel truth

Dee Dee — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:13:54 GMT

Wow, what a stimulating discussion. Glad I stumbled on this site. I think anything is possible; I understand astrology and see the astrological allegory in the bible, but that does not mean that Jesus did not exist. I often question his existence. Then there are the gnostic gospels which I am studying and they have a completely different view than the established church. The Thomasines, the Johannites, and what about women priests at the church of Antioch? And then there are the 7 miles of manuscripts and files in the secret catacomb library at the Vatican. Can anyone of us go there and read them? They say Pope Leo claimed the Jesus myth has been very profitable for the church/empire. I think an important piece we're missing is the TALMUD. We cannot study this without studying the TALMUD. What does it say about Jesus and Mary? What does it say about the gentiles (the goyim)? I think the key to understanding any scriptures or teachings that came from ancient Isreal is not complete without learning the TALMUD.

Revisiting the gospel truth

aizat, kota kinabalu, sabah, malaysia — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:16:20 GMT

I think that all the evidence that says the bible is truth is a big lie.. all of us had been fools by the irresponsible person. Find the true religion will help you in future. Assalamualaikum...