Sells,

I have provided atgument and addressed the issue of Jesus commiting suicide head on and even cited the Bible, yet you don't reply. Theists "getting out of the kitchen" when it "too hot" does mean it is the secuarists whom are not engaging in argument.

So then we can conclude that at the Last Supper Jesus did indicate his fore knowledge of death by Roman cop, where suicide was would have been condemned by the Jews and multlation of the body a blasphmy. Moreover, substitionary randsom being at adds with Hosea 6:6. So then your agree with justifiable suicide, such as sacrifice in war or martydom. Given your posit, it is hard to see why you would be opposed to euthanasia. If sucuide is wrong in many religious faiths, and, sacrifice against Bibical instruction, would a divine entity take this cause of action.

Poly,

What is your take? Sells is not in the kitchen anymore, I suspect.

- Sells?
- Poly?

Oliver

You said
"The catch with Thomas is, that it states that Jesus' spirit accended not his body. Thomas' comment, is consistent with what a Jew say. If accepted, it would cast doubt on three later/younger gospels selected by Nicaea. The NT would be very short indeed!"

I guess that is why the Church, from the earlest days, rejected Thomas' Gospel. Im not sure why you regard Thomas as
'closer' to the original Christian story than Matthew, Luke and John. Its dating is quite uncertain and it has always been associated with the Manichaeans rather than the mainstream of the Church.

Obviously Paul represents the earliest evidence of the emerging Christian Church and deserves primacy as historical evidence for those times.

The Church, mistakenly as it turns out, believed that the four canonical gospels were authored directly by apostles. For that reason, and because they deal directly with the person of Jesus, the Gospels have always taken precendence over the Pauline corpus. If you wish to understand the early church then Paul's letters must be your primary source, not the Gospels, not Luke-Acts and certainly not apocryphal material like Thomas.

Paul, more than any other, illustrates the shift from Judaism to Christianity, from Jerusalem centred culture to the universal, proselytising Church as it developed in the years after Jesus' death. As you say, Jesus was a Jew, His disciples were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Christianity is in a continuity with Judaism but that does not make it merely a Jewish sect. Christianity emerged out of Judaism, was influenced by Greek philosophy and Gnostic ideas BUT ultimately it became something that was not Jewish, not Greek and NOT Gnostic.

As Sells points out quite validly, to understand Christianity you must follow the main trajectory of resurrection theology.

waterboy,

My understanding is that Thomas and Mark were written ejust after a period oral lore but before the other gospels. That places these two gospels closer to events. Of course, it does not follow these works are therefore correct. With later works being displaced in place as well as (later) time, we stand stand a greater chance, from tampering and local spin, to their localised stories.

Moreove, if Thomas is doubt(ahem),so must be Mark, because the same dating techniques would have been employed.

The notion of the spirit rising is consistent with the Jewish faith. Jesus was a Jew, as were the first fifteen bishops, until the time of Marcus (under Hadrian).

I agree that the actual Gospel writers were not the apostles, simply names borrowed, to lend authority.

Again, I agree that Paul was perhaps a more significant figure in establishing Christianity than Jesus, but he was long after the fact. Nicaea, was as political as much as it was religious. Roman was under pressure to survive. Constantine is likely to have seen plurism between the Christian God and Sol Invicutus. Issues relating to the Christian trinity (perhaps copied from the Eygptians) were not ratified until the Council of Constantinople.

Sells I feel does not view Christian using any lense before Nicaea of after the Enlightenment.

Regards,

Oly.

Sells and Poly,

Did Jesus have fore knowledge of his "death by cop". Is not sucuide disallowed to a Jew? And does not the OT testiment say that Yewah wants love/mercy (depending on translation) not sacrifice.

Sincerely,

Ol

Oliver

Given Jesus' obviously political activity He would have known that He was likely to attract the interest of both Jewish and Roman authorities. He would have been aware of the possibility of some sort of severe repression of His activities by either or both groups.

It is, however, a mistake to take the Gospels too literally, particularly when they attribute Divine powers to Jesus such as having foreknowledge of events like the Crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple.

You are obviously far to intelligent to take the Gospels literally therefore it seems to me your question is somewhat ingenuous. So what point, exactly, are you trying to make?

Dear waterboy

I will come back with more detail on your last question. But succincly put,

- I feel those whom believe in Christians do not realised that the faith had morphed several times even before the ens of the fourth century. It was a Jewish sect which founs itself in double trouble. First, the Jews fell out of favour with the Romans. The Christ Jews more so, because its faction disrespected the pater familaris of the ancient church. Actuallly, I think Jesus was born 7 BCE because this has important political implications for him to run as an adult to held the House of David. The House of David ministered to the Gentiles, under the Herods. Had Jesus been born when the Bible says be did, the Annas would have been coverting the Herolds under Augustus. Jesus may have been try to build a support base by extending his party into the Gentiles, which would require dropping the Law of Moses? History being a funny thing, it happened the other way around in states, the excile of the Jews to Pella (and other places), the Christian Jews having to appoint a Latin bishop to enter the Holy Lands after their expulsuion by Hadrian. Nicaea came much later. Constantine institutonalised (Koine) Hellenised Christianity.

- If one looks closely at the OT the means of Jesus' demise seems unlikely. Nor that particualr action, crucifixation. Moreover, the Son of Man is not a claim to divinity. Jesus did not see himslf as a god. A very relgious Jew could see himself touched by would Christians might call the Holy Spirit, but that did not make him divine. Divinity became a super-added attribute.

- As for our OLO colleague, Sells and Boaz-Poly, I am encouraging them to look at te first century, critically. Sells maintains than euthenasia is wrong, yet the Biblical account of Jesus' death such as I said, "death by cop".

Regards