Priscillian,
You seem to want it both ways, you claim the gospels were doctored to reflect Paul's teaching while making the following statement: "Funny you should mention the Lord's prayer and I have to agree that this was a very important feature of Jesus' teaching. Why is it that Paul seemed to have never heard of it? I think that Jesus' marital state remains ambiguous because (as I have often stated) the gospels were influenced heavily by Paul. It is obvious that Paul was not a fan of women or marriage so the gospel writers may have reflected this attitude in the things they wrote about Jesus."

Your conclusion about Paul's attitude to women seem to reflect a homosexual conclusion on the NT attitude to marriage. Paul uses marriage as the highest human relationship as an example of Christ and the Church Ephesians 5. There is an argument that Paul was married as he was previously a member of the Sanheidran and to be a member he must be married. It is nonsense to suggest that the NT degrades women as in the context it upholds a higher position for women than was culturally practised. Compare Galatians 3: 28 where Paul states woman have equality in standing before God and claiming difference is a non-issue. I suggest you read the NT more with a balanced mind rather than reading critical commentaries.

Philo,
I can't see that what I said means I want it both ways. All I asked you is why Paul seems not to know about the Lord's prayer. Do you have any theories as to why this is? I can't understand it. If the Lord's prayer was a basic teaching by Jesus (which indeed it is...even I know it off by heart!) why doesn't Paul remind his followers to pray it as Jesus commanded? any conclusions you may come to about this are your own, not mine...I dont know the answer.

I do not reflect any conclusion about homosexuality in regards to the NT. I have no idea if anybody mentioned in the NT was homosexual. I never suggested that! I am not John Shelby Spong. I don't care about who is homosexual then or now, I don't even like Rugby or Aussie rules.

I did not say the NT degrades women. I am not reflecting critical commentaries I have read I am only reflecting what I have read in the NT. You must be thinking about some other commentator as you seem very sensitive about this point (Spong maybe?). All I said was that Paul was not a fan of sex with women or marriage. I said this because he says this himself. He says not to seek marriage if you a not married etc.

I suggest that YOU read the NT with a balanced mind and not accept without question the doctrine and dogma that some cleric has obviously stuffed into your head in the past.
Sheesh!

P.S I agree that Paul was most probably married for exactly the same reason that I suspect Jesus was. (I cannot prove this of course, just an unsubstantiable theory)

philo and Priscillian - your discussion about marriage and Paul got me wondering. 1 Corinthians 9:5 does not say if Paul was married but it certainly suggests (in the english translation) that the other apostles, Jesus brothers and Cephas were married. If Jesus did not have kids of his own he at least probably had nephews and nieces.

R0bert

Hello Philo,

I have responded/extended our discourse at the earlier site extending from this topic.

Regards.

Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, f*k off!
[silence]
Arthur: How shall we f*k off, O Lord?

saintfletcher,

The NT is a selected work from different histories and somewhat different theologies, e.g., the nature of Christ. There is a lot to it, roughly historically, as I understand:

1. The Crucifixion.
2. The creation of various Jesus house-sects
3. The Fall of the Second Jewish Temple
4. Various Gospels being written seemly a generation or two after
Jesus' death

Pause: We seem to have an historical event with multiple interpretations, starting with small J-groups midst the Roman occupation. Jewish zealots are seeking liberation. The Romans tolerate the Jews, as anitisocial, but respect a "traditional" religion.

5. Many Jews move out of Jerusalem in the aftermouth of the Jewish-Roman Wars. But as a Jewish sect, Christian-Jews still have to go back to the "Holy City" three times each year. So, many move to nearby Pella.

6. The Roman Emperor, Hadrian, (c.120) makes a decree banning Jews from the Holy City, creating the Colony of Aelia Capitolina.

Pause: How were the Jews to get back in?

7. Some (Nazarenes) in Pella, elect a (Gentile) Latin Bishop (Marcus) and formally renounce Mosaic Law to achieve entry into Hadrian's new colony. This is early second century (way before Nicea).

8. Some of those left in Pella went on their merry-way, to become the Ebionites and Gnostics (fifty sects!).

Pause: Another Roman-Jewish War. Various other gospels were being written, presumably from "feeder documents" (Philo's words, maybe not his context)from earlier periods, with many different ideas.

9. c.190-325. There were debates and half-councils.

10. In 325, there was the Council of Nicea.

Hence, overall, there were periods of fragmentation, various ideas, integration (with other religious traditions), assimilation and forced reconcilation.

11. We then move to major schicisms and the Reformation. Much later.

12. Motives? Political, not forensic.