OK Boaz, assuming for a moment that I accept your argument...

>>I reiterate.. we are not following the ideas of one man, but a team<<

Assuming this, could you explain the difference between following the interpretation of one man, and a "team"?

The point remains totally valid, that your adopted stance towards religion rests upon interpretation, by normal, everyday human beings. As indeed does every version of Christianity, and the vast majority of other religions.

What puzzles me is how this fact inevitably escapes attention. What you are effectively arguing is not that one version is right and another is wrong, but that one individual's - oh, sorry, team's - interpretation is somehow better than another's.

As I mentioned earlier, Jesus himself had no notion of "Christianity" as the cult became known, and I suspect, from the scant information that survives about him, that he would have disapproved strongly.

In fact, I'd assume that he'd be horrified at the manner in which the example he set is continually being revised, adapted, modified and selectively interpreted.

Would you not agree?

Fellow Human,

We talk of -nasty genes- but I wonder if we concur on what is nasty.

Standing in the western liberal tradition whose catch cry is - individual rights- the majority Islamic position on blasphemy & proselytizing would seem to be ‘nasty’

However, I am thinking if one is standing in another tradition which places -loyalty to God- as paramount, perhaps these may not be seen as negatives.

I mean if God is all wise/knowing and you have a record of his literal word/blue print then there are likely to be a number of issues that are simply not open to the democratic processes.

What say you?

Dear Pericles you raise a most interesting and important issue.

The difference between one man and a team is this.

Firstly it begins with Jesus himself. He is the 'one man' from which it all comes. But he himself gathered a team around him, and it is from they that we receive the traditions about Him. The Gospels are not contradictory in any way which undermines the nature of Christ expresed in the others. John, while very different, is complementary not contradictory.

Sure, Matthew might mention 2 blind men while Mark may mention 1... and the chronological order of some events may not be the same in one Gospel or the other, which of course raises the question of the authors purpose, which was not to give a complete and strict biography of Jesus, but to convey the information about Salvation in Him. It does not matter if Luke compiles a number of parables in one section and we might see those parables in a different setting in Matthew.. because the idea that Jesus only told his parables once is fanciful.

Then..there is the issue of his followers taking the message of his Word and Resurrection to the world.
It should be remembered that Jesus Himself sais "You are witnesses of these things" and that "Thus it is written in the Law, Psalms and Prophets" (about his sacrificial death and resurrection) Luke 24

I tend to agree that our Lord would not be thrilled with the inter-denominational squabbling which used to go on. (not so much these days)
But did he intend a 'Church' to come to be? absolutely! The Church is His body and the body has many parts.

All of it begins with Him and takes the word about Him to the world. The simple fact that this is occurring in a human framework means there will be differences of understanding.

Discernment is needed to separate the weeds from the wheat. (a parable of his)Matt 13:24ff Please read it.

You are still missing the point here, Boaz.

>>The Gospels are not contradictory in any way which undermines the nature of Christ expresed in the others<<

I don't have a problem with the fact that the versions contained in the Bible are reasonably consistent with each other. After all, they were, as a group, carefully selected for exactly this purpose. It would hardly be sensible if the canon had included stuff that was internally contradictory.

But the fact remains that it is indirectly reported, way after the events it is supposed to record, by people with a vested interest in putting together a coherent and convincing narrative.

In other words, it is just another interpretation of history, designed specifically to create a religious movement.

And that is the only point at issue here.

You claim that it has some kind of uniqueness when compared with other factions, cults and creeds. That is fine with me, and entirely necessary for you to invest so much faith in its contents.

Where we disagree is when you use this interpretation as some form of weapon against those with whose own interpretation you disagree.

And while you make these kind of statements with breathtaking naivety, I know we will continue to have issues:

>>I tend to agree that our Lord would not be thrilled with the inter-denominational squabbling which used to go on. (not so much these days)<<

Is this how would you describe your relationship with Islam?

An "interdenominational squabble"?

Pericles.. sure.. I totally agree that in one sense the Canon is an interpretation of history by people who had a vested interest in it forming a foundation for the living faith that they held.

The thing is.. they already had the faith, based on the Gospel communicated to them by word alone. For an example of that Gospel I refer you to Peters speech in Acts 10 to Cornelius.

Now.. the rest is an expansion on that same Gospel. Yes..it was guarded by the Apostles and Church fathers. But please remember they did all this from a position of social exclusion and military oppression at times. Their primary interest was truth...

The glaring contrast with the work of one man, such as Mohammad... is that it's much easier to identify self gratifying content in a work by one man. I find no self gratification, carnal self glorification, no promotion of any state, in the words of Jesus nor in the Canon. Yes, Jesus' claim to be Son of God was forthright, but this itself brought Him nothing but what he predicted, i.e.. a cruel and painful death for your and my sins.

If one looks at a man who surrounded himself with women, and claimed specific justification for furthering and enhancing this rather comfy situation, the reasonable mind would call into question the source of his writings and definitely not accept them as from a Holy God.

What you see in the unfolding of Islam is acceptance of Mohammad's word based mainly on military advance. People pledged alleigance to him when he won victories. I don't even have to argue this, it is clear from the Muslim sources themselves. The thing is...they simply don't see that as a problem whereas I and those who think... do.

No, Boaz, you are still arguing in a totally circular manner.

>>the reasonable mind would call into question the source of his writings and definitely not accept them as from a Holy God<<

The "reasonable mind" that you refer to, and that which I would call a "reasonable mind", cannot possibly be the same.

And therein lies the problem.

Your a piori position is that Paul and his friends were sincere, and had nothing to gain from the invention and/or embellishment of a story, while everyone else (you pick on one particular religion, but you really mean all) perforce creates their story out of greed, malice, envy, powermongering or whatever.

What you refuse to accept is that those you have chosen to be the sole bearers of the tale that you accept, might equally be consumed by the same vices.

History is forever being sanitized, and I have no doubt in my mind that these stories that you rely upon so heavily are nothing more than carefully selected propaganda sheets, often using each other as a "source", (Mark seemed to be a very popular foundation document for this practice) all designed and selected to reinforce the emotional blackmail indulged in by the church leaders.

The weight of evidence, from my point of view, is firmly against them being truthful. For example, the "miracles", that preposterously provide the lie to the entire set of documents.

Kind, nice to people, caring, charismatic perhaps, wise even, all are qualities that I can accept for your hero.

But there is not one single shred of non-aligned evidence for Lazarus.

Wouldn't you expect that someone would have found it interesting enough, perhaps, to make the columns of the Bethany Mercury?

Or the Al-'Azzariyyah Comet, perhaps, given the confusion over exactly where it took place. Bethany, Al-'Azzariyyah, hey, what's in a name? After all, nothing really important took place there, eh?.

So this particular "reasonable mind" begs to differ with your "reasonable mind" on this, and many other wild assertions you make about your own religion as well as - more reprehensibly - that of others.