Paul1405,

There is no question that Jesus existed, but certainly there are questions surrounding him.

As we know the Gospels were written a considerable time after Jesus' death, and by those who had never met him.

In “Trial of Jesus of Nazareth,” SGF Brandon states that two Christian groups existed.

Those of the Church of Jerusalem comprising of Jesus’ original apostles and desciples, including Mary, (Jesus’ mother), James (his brother), Peter and John. This group taught a "Christianity" at such variance with Paul's gospel, that Paul himself referred to is a "another gospel ... another Jesus. Particularly so when reporting Jesus' trial and death. The Jerusalem community perished in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.

There was obviously a serious rupture between the original Jerusalem group and that of the Pauline.

Paul, indeed, distances himself from the Jerusalem group in a letter to the Galatians:

“I would have you know, bretheren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man ... but came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Paul’s intention was to establish that his teachings were divine in origin, independent from that taught by the original apostles.

In Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, he defends himself from the Jerusalem group, which believed him of unsound mind, of being delusional. The Jerusalem community maintained Jesus’ death as a ‘human event’; Paul, on the other hand, claimed it as a ‘mystical event'.

Paul: “... even though we once regarded (oidamen) Christ from a human point of view, we regard (ginoskomen) him thus no longer ...”

The above is taken from Brandon's work. He was a Christian theologian.

There is so much about the historic Jesus which is fascinating, and open for scholarly debate; this is always interesting

Personally, I have no problems with people who are sincere and of faith. I believe that in many ways they should be applauded. This does not, of course, accept of religious beliefs which are dogmas of hate, or violence, etc.

Danielle, "When I was familiar with the gay community, I was aware that not all gays shared the same practices or attitudes. Indeed, some divisions were sharply divided"

All the more reason to question just who is behind the push for 'gay marriage', which appears to be media-led, with the media being led by the publicly funded national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. In turn, the media is being astutely manipulated by a small number of gay activists, 'Gay Pride', who do not represent the majority of gays, and by the other usual suspects the self-styled 'Progressive' elite, the well-educated, comfortably-off Cafe Latte Left.

Homosexuals especially the males, have forever been irrevocably opposed to adopting heterosexual cultural mores and the expectations and regulations affecting them. They relished their freedom, their 'outlaw' status, where they chose what forms of relationship they preferred and managed their own affairs free from the strictures and interference of government.

What a change the bullying Gay Pride and Progressive activists have wrought. You could be excused for imagining they are all lawyers or people with substantial assets to compete for, because the outcome of their zealotry has been the exact opposite of what gays and even the Left have always been for.

Now the State through (ambiguous) broadening of the de facto definition and extension of it to cover homosexuals, presumes to tell gays (as the State so informs heterosexuals!), the status of their relationships (regardless of the gay's intent and statement on entering the said relationship) and even the disbursement of assets and income on separation. Family law now rules homosexual relationships and lawyers are dong very well out of it, thank you very much indeed.

The Statist political 'Progressives' have won their cultural war already. But even so, they have more social re-engineering to do, which necessitates further hijacking of gay politics to attack the Marriage Act and their hated enemy, Christian churches.

What political 'Progressives' will not do however, is hold themselves accountable for the many negative consequences of their interference in and re-jigging of social policies.

onthebeach,

You make so many valid comments.

Certainly, the gays I knew were far from interested in marriage. They regarded it as something heterosexuals "endured" (sort of).

I believe much of the problem is the PC crowd. Most of us were inculcated with ideas of respect and acceptance for other races, cultures, religions and societies. One didn't go round abusing people who were different. Indeed differences were to be rejoiced.

Yet we didn't ignore elephants pounding round the room, which needed to be addressed. If the British had been PC, suttee would be still practiced in India.

This was the norm for so many of us.

However, with PC has come, as you state, social engineering. Somehow, we must be conform to the colour "beige" ...

Danielle,

Thank you for the kind comment.

There is a lot of Selfism about. That alone explains a lot.

Father Joe, where on earth did you dig up that pair of yokels, they were doing fine until they hit me with that religious clap trap of theirs. When will these village idiots realise the god stuff is mans imagination. Oh that's right they are all village idiots so will never realises the truth of it all.