Jesus who? Oh Christ if I know!
Are we talking about same sex marriages here?
The Da Vinci Code is a fictional book and now a movie. It is interesting enough. What is even more interesting is the reaction by the Catholic Church! I wonder what is behind that? Coul it be that the book got too close to some truths?

Pricillain,
How about you save two posts just to answer this subject 2 x 350 will allow you 700 words - fits easily.

That gnostic gospels have now surfaced in the domain of the unchurched people is their reason for fascination. These were well known by the early Church and denounced as alien to the truth of monotheism long before Nicea and are well read and debated in serious study by the Christian Church today. The problem is this facination causes the new readers to believe there is more to the Jesus story than what we have been told.

The Holy Grail is a medieval legend about the cup used in the last supper. The first appearance of the term is in a romantic writing about the legend of King Arthur. Dan Brown believes it is Mary of Magdala who carried the bloodline of the child of Christ.

Since you believe it is possible Jesus was married and Paul influenced the Gospels why did he not include Jesus in his authority to have a wife accompany him in his journeys as he states of the Lord's brothers and Peter in 1 Corinthians 9: 5? Surley Jesus if married would have given more authority to his argument. All early writings refer to Jesus brothers, sisters or mother but never a wife.

Aristotle gave us three criterion upon which to evaluate documented claims. 1. Was it an eyewitness account? 2. How many copies of the record exist? 3. Does other sources corrobate the evidence? Not all the followers of Jesus even understood his teachings even Thomas and Philip were confused about his relationship to God.

What are your research qualifications?

Absolutely no qualifications in theology I am proud to say. No university degrees. No formal research experience at all. However, I have an interest in theology that is not bounded by a literalist belief system unlike you who see the scriptures as god inspired and a "revealed truth". Formal qualifications in theology almost guarantee a non objective approach. Research into Christianity is easy because there is only one recognised source of "truth".
and textual evidence to make the following statements:

1: "It is no good quoting the Paul inspired gospels to prove anything about Jesus and womem."

Did I say womem? I meant women. Paul does not encourage relationships with women (I'm NOT saying he is homosexual, maybe asexual), Jesus relationship with women (in a sexual way) is left undefined although he is a bit rough on his mum sometimes. See next answer for reason

[a] Please give evidence the gospels were inspired by Paul.

Nowhere in the gospels does it say. "This gospel has been inspired by Paul"
We do however have to consider the following:-
1. All known gospels were written after Paul wrote.
2. Some gospels agreed with Paul's writing
3. Many gospels disagreed. (as evidenced by the snippets we have)
4. 4th C Irenaeus condemns all the gospel's that disagree with Paul as heretical and almost all are destroyed
5. The remaining 4 gospels are held up as the only "truth" this "truth" corresponds to Paul's teachings
I therefore conclude that the 4 gospels we know and love today are Paul inspired or at least do not present a view in variance with Paul's beliefs. They do however introduce concepts that Paul did not mention. Small things……. like a walking talking Jesus.
My only textual evidence is the gospels, the remnants of the other gospels, the dating of Paul's writings and the dating of the 4 canonical gospels. I have assumed that the dates derived by a number of scholars are more or less correct. All agree that the 4 canonical gospels came AFTER Paul.
(to be continued)

Answer to Philo part 2

[b] Please give evidence of Paul's attitude to Jesus and women that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

I have no evidence for this. If I suggested this then I am really stupid.

2: "I think they are Paul inspired propaganda that completely obscure an historical Jesus to the point that we have no real knowledge of him."
[c] Please give evidence the gospels are Pauline inspired propoganda.

See above

[d] From what sourse did Paul write the Gospels?

Did I say Paul wrote the Gospels? If I did this then I am really worried.
Paul did not write the Gospels. Paul did not meet an historical Jesus therefore had could not write a first hand account with any authority. Similarly, the authority of the other authors of the 4 canonical gospels must be questioned.

[e] Why did he give his life for the things he believed?

Why does anybody?. Why do you? Because he really believed what he preached. I do not think Paul was a liar or charlatan but probably the greatest theological genius in history. Paul was the Mozart, the Einstein, the Leonado Da Vinci of religion.

[f] Why did Paul change religion from Pharisee heirarchy to persecuted follower of Christ?

Initially, I guess, because of his experience on the road to Damascus. Paul was obviously a man of principles and came from a background of strong religious tradition from a number of sources both Jewish and Pagan. Paul was a new religion waiting to happen.

3: "Better to take note of what Paul says about the historical Jesus... which is nothing.
[g] Did Paul believe in a historical Jesus?

I don't think so because he never mentions one. I concede however that I may be falling for the old "..evidence of absence..." trap. If Paul was aware of an historical Jesus then he did not think enough of his life and teaching to mention it. Do you think he thought Jesus was a real person? If so, why?

I have really enjoyed answering your questions Philo ....any more?

I love seeing the thoughts in this specific thread. Firstly, i have no education of theology at all. I have been active in church few years back, but having doubts in my thoughts all along. Atm, i am agreeing mostly to priscillian about his post and everything else.

Philo, some questions that you have mentioned before, can simply be replied as "freedom of speech", and "freedom to believe". I did not deny the gospel, but i do question them (agree to some that priscillian said). that's what you do when you started to believe in something. all that da vinci code book did make sense, whether it is true or false, and i think it was overreaction from vatican for banning the movie.

What i would like to ask is some of my "original" thoughts before i start quitting church. so i do hope the reply i get is objective, not subjective.
1. Why is jesus birth date was on 25th of Dec, when scientist claims that it is not even close to it and not in bible too?
2. jesus, father and holy spirit is one and the same. so which one do we pray to? or it doesn't matter?
3. the bible did say something about hell right? then if our Father is forgiving, why is there a hell for? i don't think it has any use then, would it? if you're going to say that only a believer would be accepted to heaven, then won't it be a forceful action?
4. this one is dodgy, but it's a question nevertheless. What is our purpose in life? i thought i read in the old testimony that god created us so that we can be equal with him, and i believe that no one in this world would be as equal as god.
5. what happened to jesus in between teen-age to his 30s, when he start preaching about christianity?
6. In dan brown book, he wrote that companion in *whatever* language means spouse. dunno about truth, but word does evolve through time

Dear Ghouss,
1. Jesus birth date is not disputed. Nearly everybody agrees that Jesus' birth date is unknown. The 25th of December was a important date for pagan religions so it was used to celebrate the birth of Jesus, which in my book is fair enough.

2.The Trinity, in my humble opinion, is one of the sillier pieces of Christian doctrine. I have never understood it but it may be useful to you to google the Council of Nicaea which was presided over by Emporer Constantine (a pagan) who encouraged trinity doctrine to overcome a potential division in the early church. Wikipedia has a good article on the Council of Nicaea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

3.Hell. I'm sure it exists because I was forced to attend a single sex private religious school, I also was forced to attend a football match once. Both these experiences gave me an insight into hell.

4.The purpose of life? Now I suspect that everybody has a different answer to this question but I always refer to a famous quote in Conan the Barbarian. When he is asked "What is the best thing in life" he answers:
"To crush your enemy, Watch them flee before you and listen to the lamentation of their women".
My answer would be that the purpose of life is to attempt to discover the purpose of life.

5. Early life of Jesus. Absolutely no evidence about Jesus' early life. There is some speculation that he was a carpenter in Nazareth others have said he spent his early life in Egypt. Basically no-one knows anything about Jesus before his baptism by John. The nativity stories are purely political, designed to established Jesus' authority and a fulfiller of Jewish scripture.

6. I don't know if Jesus was married or, if he was, who he was married to. Dan brown wrote a boring novel based on the speculations of others. I think the Catholics were mostly upset about the "monk" Silus who was an assassin and member of Opus Dei. I'm not surprised they got upset about this. I don't think the book was ever banned.