Why did Jesus never travel out of his area, he only stayed in Isreal ect.. with the jews, curing people.. well why didnt he go to CHINA or INDIA ect... and cure other people... if he was the son of god (which im not doubting) then why didnt he go to other places in the world and help others out.. why has noone else heard of him other then the jews and the apostles? why hasnt he made any other apperences around the world?

what does the book talk about? but im saying why didnt Jesus ever leave town, he always stayed there. he never left... like he never traveled the world to help others, he stayed local always! i dont understand.. it seems like a good topic to start.. what do you all think?

whooppssss... sorry for the spam guys DIDNT MEAN Too.. accidently went back and didnt think it loaded haha.. my bad!


lol no probs, I've deleted the extra post for you - Thistle

Just because the Bible text does't mention Jesus
traveling to china does't mean that He did't.
He could have. But then again, the Bible says that
He was sent for the "lost sheep of Israel" which is
a figure of speech to indicte that He did miracles mostly
for His choosen people. He might have preached elswhere,
but the Bible only records one instance where Jesus
did a miracle for a gentile. He even state that He is
sent here to do things for the "Israelies" not for the
japenees. However, He might have done something for
them also. Who knows.

Another thing to realize is that Jesus lived in a time when any trip over two days was a trip that you stood a chance of not coming back from. There was no public transportation, little law enforcement beyond the boundaries of the city (Romans notwitstanding), and little reason to go beyond.

Firstly, Jesus had his plate full in Israel, but that doesn't mean he didn't leave. His ministry was only three years long and he traveled where he could and fulfilled the prophecies needed where they were supposed to be fulfilled. He did send his disciples away to preach and at times sent as many as 70 or more to preach to the masses and heal. The disciples did heal people. Then especially after Jesus was crucified, the disciples traveled all over, into Asia and Europe and Egypt.

personally I believe that the bible was merely a story book and the churches make what they will of it....
This is just myopinion.
Deadly Nightshade.
xxx.

Was there a need to travel to China or India or any other places. Maybe Jesus had his hands full in Israel.

hey aquatus i have to disagree with u, Jesus was the son of god, so he didnt have to take a two day trip, he was full of miracles, he didnt need to worry about public transportation, u no what i mean?

DBTFG, people in China and India suffered just as much as people in israel, they deserved to be helped as well, we are all the same in the end!

I actually think that China and India were much more prosperous 2000 years ago.

Know one will ever know unless doing some extensive research and or researching with religious figure who know more I the average person. The one thing I will agree upon all people and all different religious sects. will take the bible for what they read, believe and see it as. I don't think that there are many who see it the same way. {We} meaning my sister neices and nephews one day were discussing the " eye or an eye" part of the bible and we got different view points I took it as treat others how you want to be treated and turn the other cheek you know love your enemy pray for them kinda of thought, the rest of them, except my one nephew who agrees with me, all felt it was a revenge do unto others as they have done to you. See an example of how others will read something different than what you might read of the passage in the bible. I do believe Jesus is the son of God . I don't know honestly why, he did not go into other countries to help others. Very interesting question that would need to be researched. I would love to know the answer to that one.

Jesus walked everywhere. He didn't have a magic carpet and he could not appear anywhere with the snap of his fingers.

No, I don't. Being the son of God didn't keep him from having to eat, drink, and squat in the bushes on a daily basis. It didn't keep him from getting angry, depressed, and frustrated. It certainly didn't exempt Jesus from collapsing when whipped and from bleeding when stabbed. Son of God or otherwise, he had the exact same reactions to physical abuse and stress as his fellow man.

Jesus never stayed in one particular town & it seems that he was never considered highly initially in his home town Nazareth. As we know he received the holy spirit after baptism & it was from there his epic really begins after that some consider it his destiny to bear the ransom for mans sins so maybe his influence was intended to only go truly global posthumously.

Could it be because Nazareth didn't exist until being founded in 130 CE by a group of priests fleeing from the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 CE and the ensuing warfare that followed?

Now here is the Biggest Biggest Question (Religion based) of all time - CAN THE XIANS OF THIS FORUM GO ONE DAY WITHOUT SOME STUPID EVANGELIZING THREAD BEING STARTED????

It took the priests 60 years to found Nazareth? How did that happen?



Don't be mean, Beowulf. The thread is perfectly legitimate. Granted, it would be nice if certain people didn't use it as an excuse to praise God or bash him, and stuck to the topic...

I thought Jesus traveled to Kerala in India with Mary after faking his death.
No offence to the religous people here!

Not being one of those priests, I really have no idea. They settled there because it was free of "Gentiles" and there was relative freedom from "contamination" from interaction with them. The period of 68 CE to about 140 CE was very unsettled as on group after another of the Jews rebelled against the Romans, until the Romans tired of it and shipped the large majority out; replacing them with a more controlable gentile population. As for being mean, they are being mean with their constant whining and evangelizing and after a time you just get tired of it. We are here trying to understand and explain (in secular terms) the unexplained mysteries of the world, not to be evangelized or put up with Xian Fellowshiping. If they want to fellowship, they can go to Xian websites.

Beowulf, Nope because Nazareth DID exist long before being officially founded. Open your Bible & read Luke 4:14 through 4:30 & tell me THEN that Jesus was never in Nazareth or that he wasn't brought up there ?!!!

The name of this particular part of UM is
"Spirituality & Skepticism" and this thread falls into that category.Your right,we are here to understand and explain the unexplained mysteries of the world BUT who says it has to be in "secular terms"?Who are you to define how everyone here should accept explainations?I haven't seen anything that I would consider "fellowship" here,only honest Q&A.

It obviously bothers you to read these types of threads,why do you do it?Is someone forcing you?

First and foremost, Luke was written about 3 to 4 generations after the supposed occurrences, so does not count as an eye-witness account. Second, Mythology is not accepted in a debate, you are in essence attempting to use the bible to prove the bible and in a rather inept way at that! Now let’s approach this in a logical way, not as brainwashed robots parroting dogma:
Well, let’s look and see if we can find Nazareth…..OOOO, the only source that lists Nazareth before the 4th century CE is the New Testament! Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list. The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature. Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. His epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all. No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century. None of this would matter of course if, rather like at the nearby 'pagan' city of Sepphoris, we could stroll through the ruins of 1st century bath houses, villas, theatres etc. Yet no such ruins exist. In short order, Christian apologists fall over themselves to explain 'But of course, no one had heard of Nazareth, we're talking of a REALLY small place.' By semantic downsizing, city becomes TOWN, town becomes VILLAGE, and village becomes 'OBSCURE HAMLET'. Yet if we are speaking of such an obscure hamlet the 'Jesus of Nazareth' story begins to fall apart. For example, the whole 'rejection in his homeland' story requires at a minimum a synagogue in which the godman can 'blaspheme.' Where was the synagogue in this tiny bucolic hamlet? Why was it not obvious to the first pilgrims like Helena – it would, after all, have been far more pertinent to her hero than a well? If JC had grown up and spent thirty years of his life in a village with as few as 25 families – an inbred clan of less than 300 people – the 'multitude' that were supposedly shocked by his blasphemy and would have thrown him from a cliff, would not have been hostile strangers but, to a man, would have been relatives and friends that he had grown up with, including his own brothers. Presumably, they had heard his pious utterances for years. Moreover, if the chosen virgin really had had an annunciation of messiah-birthing from an angel the whole clan would have known about it inside ten minutes. Just to remind them, surely they should also have known of the 'Jerusalem incident' when supposedly the 12-year-old proclaimed his messiahship? Indeed, had no one mentioned what had happened in Bethlehem – star, wise men, shepherds, infant-massacre and all? Why would they have been outraged by anything the godman said or did? Had they forgotten a god was growing up in their midst? And what had happened to that gift of gold – had it not made the 'holy family' rich? If Nazareth really had been barely a hamlet, lost in the hills of Galilee, would not the appellation 'Jesus of Nazareth' have invoked the response 'Jesus of WHERE?' Then again, if Nazareth had really been a tiny hamlet, the nearest convenient 'mountain' from which the god-man could have been thrown – a cliff edge – would have been 4 km away, requiring an energetic climb over limestone crags. Would the superman really have been frog-marched so far before 'passing through the midst of them' and making his escape? Of course, all these incongruities exist because the 'Jerusalem incident' and the whole nativity sequence were late additions to the basic messiah-in-residence story. Be that as it may, was there even a tiny village? Here is an answer: In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52). A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest. Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921, 434f). In that war, it's inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31). Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan's troops. The survivors – 2,130 woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city was completely and decisively wiped out. Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their dead? In the tombs further up the valley! With Japha's complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of Nazareth. At a later time – as pottery and other finds indicate(see below) – the Nazareth site was re-occupied. This was after the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 AD and the general Jewish exodus from Judea to Galilee. The new hamlet was based on subsistence farming and was quite unrelated to the previous tomb usage by the people of Japha.

[quote=beowulf,Oct 19 2004, 05:35 AM]
[quote]
Now here is the Biggest Biggest Question (Religion based) of all time - CAN THE XIANS OF THIS FORUM GO ONE DAY WITHOUT SOME STUPID EVANGELIZING THREAD BEING STARTED????
[right][snapback]315114[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I think an even bigger question is -WHAT HAPPENED IN YOUR LIFE THAT CAUSED YOU TO HATE CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANITY SO MUCH?

Yes I said hate!You go way past the point of simply debating or debunking Christianity,you absolutely hate it and us!You can't even say the name "Christ",you insist on using the moronic term "Xian"(very childish BTW!).

So what was it?Molested by a clergyman as a child?Parents beat you everyday and say they were just following the bible?Prayed to God about something that was very important to you and didn't get it?What?

And why would my personal feelings towards Xianity be any of your business...as long as you folks keep your religion where in belongs (in your homes and in your churches) you will hear nothing from me, but come out in public and start your mindless drone male bovine manure and I will show the world how stupid it is...OKay, does that meet your approval, if it doesn't - LIVE WITH IT!

I notice that Beowulf is right, you folks can't go one day without posting your myths and dogma!

bewoulf, I researched what you wrote.
It makes sense, but its absolutely innacurate.

And what makes you say that - give your data and information that makes you come to that conclusion?

I have looked at all that I could find on the archaeology of Nazareth and every archaeologist that I could find agrees that there is nothing at the site of Nazareth that is older than mid 2nd century AD. They did find the remains of a farm shed outside of Nazareth that dated to about 400 AD and that's it. I would kinda like to see Norman's information too!

My bad, I meant 400 BC!

Jesus faked his death?

That is one theory, another is that he never existed as Christians know him!

So much for free speech................once again it's "I don't like what your saying so shut up or I'll attack you".You do this even thou NO ONE is forcing you to read these religous threads..............you don't like them,don't read them!

If you want to debate or debunk these topics that's fine,but that's not your game-you want to destroy the subject and ban it from any discussion.All on the basis of YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS!Not everyone believes the way you do or agrees with what your PREACHING,so LIVE WITH THAT!

As for meeting my "approval" it seems your the one who requires everyone to meet yours.

And that goes two ways, if you don’t like my postings, then don’t read them.



I debunk these ridiculous subjects to let those who have not yet been brainwashed by the vile cult know the truth as recorded by history, not mythology. If it puts your knickers in a twist, too bad, so sad. I only ask that you take your religion to the places that it belongs, the last time I looked, the website was named Unexplained Mysteries not “Let’s all rock for Jesus”!



No, I don't ask that they meet my approval, just meet the subject of the Forum. Supposedly nothing in the bible or the Xian religion is unexplained so take your fellowship to where it belongs.

Bad day or what?

I believe Luke was no more than 3 generations max. being no later than 80 ce but if thats too distant for your liking then you tell me how John1:45 & 1:46 mentions Nazareth when your unfaltering facts assume Nazareth wasn't there ... surely you have an idea of when John was written ... I only use Luke as an example as he was a Doctor & perhaps most credible of all NT authors. Also Matthew mentions Nazareth in 4:13 & Mark in 14:67 & 16:6 ... my point is 4 writers all well before 130 ce mention a town you say didn't exist so 4 to 1 I say you haven't convinced anybody.
You see Beowulf if there is evidence of something its impossible to say it doesn't exist, just because you have put forth interesting & compelling information that only proves Nazareth is not mentioned elsewhere most certainly does not prove your point at all. You find something = proof of something ... You find nothing = proof of nothing

Oh sorry I wasn't aware that this was a rule, where is this written ? & I 'd like you to point out what part was Mythology & I'll debate you that it's not.

Your point being what exactly ?

Is this comment fair Beowulf ?! personally I take no offence but may I ask you to maintain a level of integrity that attacks the topic rather than the writers.
My last point is that in one hand your saying this thread does not constitute an unexplained mystery & therefore does not belong here yet on the other hand you claim against the words of 4 canonised books the allegation that Nazareth did not exist in Jesus day & in doing so have actually created an unexplained mystery in its own right & justified the topic belonging here so umm thanks ??!

Simply... CHristian are a greedy bastard... Beside that other part of world would mock Jesus if he try any of that stunt.

I am going to try to be as kind as I can, You evidentially have trouble understanding that a single reference is not acceptable proof of anything. Nowhere, including your OT, does Nazareth get mentioned except in the 3 gospels, the earliest of which was Mark (possibly written sometime between 65 and 80 CE) followed by Matthew and Luke (written within a decade or two of Mark) no one, including the early Church Fathers, knows for sure when or by who the gospels were written. They were not mentioned until mid 2nd century CE and not named until late 2nd century CE. The early Church Fathers made statements to the fact that no one knew who wrote the gospels. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not written by eyewitnesses and do not claim to have been. John, the latest was written around 120 CE and could not for that reason be written by the Apostle (unless he lived to be well over 100 years old). While Luke does seem to be credible as far as history goes, so is MacBeth, Beowulf, and King Lear, but historic credibility does not translate to truth. It just means the Shakespeare and the author of Luke did their historical homework. As far as Nazareth goes, even your current Xian scholars believe that the gospel authors misunderstood, that Jesus was a member of an apocalyptic sect known as Nazarenes (from the Hebrew word meaning “the root”. As I pointed out and you so arrogantly ignored, there was a graveyard located at the site of Nazareth (the graveyard of Japha, located 1 mile away) and Jews would not live where the “unclean dead” was because of sanitary laws.



No, you have that wrong, something is proof of something, nothing is good evidence that something does not or did not exist…Your argument just went out the window!



That’s easy, open the bible to the first page of Genesis, hold it open, then go the the last page of Revelations, hold it open too. All between those two pages is mythology as per the official definition of myths and mythology: the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people.



My point is, you have to have more than one source to prove the validity of something. That’s like a cop telling you that he has a warrant for your arrest that says you robbed the 1st Nat’l bank (even tho you were in another state at the time, he knows this is true because the warrants says so…So it must be true! Sorry, attempting to use the bible to prove the bible is ludicrous.



When a writer uses false information knowingly (the old tired Xian Apologists ploys of arguments from authority and using the bible to prove the bible) then I let them know how inept their arguments are.



You never took Logic in school did you?

Beowulf, I havent been on this site long but since I have I admit I have been impressed & intrigued by the wealth of facts you have the ability to demonstrate. Dont get me wrong I agree with the factual parts of your dialogue. The information you possess way exceeds that of most laymen scholars. Information like that has power & its your choice to be constructive or destructive with it. On this occasion its the point your making with the facts you yourself used that Im debating against.
OK you taught the story of the Priests settling Nazareth between 60 - 130 ce with the reasons for their exodus, but why did they choose Nazareth exactly ??. My esteem of your knowledge leads me to believe that you must know the probabilities at least.
As for logic this is the truth ... no I didnt study logic as a pure subject in any form of my education. However I ask you does this seem logical to you ?? Being a Jew under Roman rule at the time must have been hellish. These guys were being persecuted left right & centre & as you inferred the Nazarenes were an "apocolyptic sect" there is high chance that there whereabouts would deliberately be something known only to insiders. My point is ... those Priests chose that spot on the map now known as Nazareth over everywhere else & despite its turn offs that you referred to such as the graveyard of Japha, was because it was already there. The Nazarenes had been living there for sometime prior to open public knowledge & it sounds much like a place the Romans wouldnt suspect.
As for Mythology ... this is the Bible were talking about Beowulf.This is a rich historical book, Ive read it twice & in 3rd read & I cannot accept it being classified as Mythology. This isn't King Arthur & Camelot or Gulliver, myths either from composite character or pure fantasy share nothing in common with the Bible IMHO.
As for the dating of the Gospel of John I am from the school of thought that dates it to 50 - 60 ce (yea I know before Mark but its my opinion) I am led to believe its the oldest of the 3 books of John at least, again just IMO

Why did the israelis get such attention from Jesus?

I really don’t know as history didn’t record why. It did hint that (after the destruction of Japha by the Roman forces) the area was one of the few left in Judea that was free of “Pagan” taint. Since Jewish priests attempted to avoid contamination from exposure to Gentiles and their culture, that might actually be the reason.



Since the Nazarenes are believed to be a less strict sect of the Essenes, Quran (the home place of the Essenes) would probably also be their base of operations.



Unfortunately for that theory, there would have to be “occupation debris ” (the garbage that accumlates when someone lives in a place) in the tombs and their immediate area and there is none. They couldn’t easily carry it off as that would alert the Roman authorities. Guess we are stuck with the above reason of lack of Gentile/Pagan contamination… Incidentially, the priesthood of the Jews were rabidly anti-Essene/Nazarene and the feeling was avidly returned by them (reason 2 that your theory don’t float).



As for the Bible being historical, it misses the boat until after the return from Exile. All prior to that was pure mythology and that afterwards was politically motivated mythology. As for the NT, pure and simple recruiting/evangelizing mythology prepared by the early church, but still mythology just the same. Just as the mythology of other religions, the bible is unsubstantial mythology, but if you wish to believe otherwise, your life, your choice.



Your school must be very small, since the vast majority of secular and Xian scholars agree that John not only was the last of the gospels, but also a very late gospel, written sometime between 100-160 CE. Here is what the British scholar, Dr Maghee, has to say about John:

The one which does seem to be independent of the others in large measure is the last in the New Testament and the last one completed. The first three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because they tell essentially the same story—they have the same viewpoint. John is quite different from the other three, omitting—apparently deliberately—much of their content. The author seemed to feel another full account could serve no purpose but that there was scope for refinements—doctrinal clarifications and additional material to answer criticisms. The author of John was writing a work to complement the synoptics. The high prestige of John for Christians partly comes from Paul's description of John in Galatians 2:9 as one of the pillar apostles, the others being Peter and James, but it is unlikely that John the apostle wrote it. Very little, if any, of the New Testament is written by people who knew the Son of God in person. Despite its own claims, the signs are that it was written late, so long after the events it records that the apostle John must certainly have been dead. John could have been written as early as 100 AD or some say, certainly mistakenly, as late as 160 AD. It is not mentioned by Papias or Marcion writing about 140 AD and Justin Martyr only quotes from it tentatively in 163–167 AD as if he knew his readers would not regard it as authoritative. Not until the third century did it become generally accepted. John propagates a well developed theological outlook, its parts being linked together as a uniform whole to a much greater extent than the other gospels. It is more than the set of pericopes—units of oral tradition—that can be seen in the synoptic gospels. John is more didactic, philosophical and theological than the synoptics. It is mainly discourse rather than narrative, and depicts Jesus as giving lengthy disquisitions rather than the homely sayings and parables of the other gospels. These long connected discourses suggest the source was a program of sermons, possibly derived from originals by the evangelist, which were worked up by authorities in one of the regional churches. The history of the church is of doctrine becoming more and more elaborate not of it being simplified. Furthermore the evolution of Jesus from man to messiah to divinity to equality with the Almighty places John late in the timescale—advanced elements would not be lost once established so it could not have preceded the synoptics.

J.C did enough miricles and works that the world heard about it, mabie not at the time but hey here we are talking about jc right now.... we all got to hear about it, the idea was to prove that god exists and cares and in the future would do the same for all god fearing mankind., at least thats the way i understand it.

The only problem is that all those miracles were reported only in that book of mythology, nowhere else.....Makes you wonder why none of the essayists and historians of that period (of which there were many) totally ignored such things as raising the dead, turning wine into water, night turning to day, an earthquake that opened the graves of the "Saints" and they (the Saints) walked thru Jersusalem. I guess they musta been sleeping thru all of this! You can't even prove that JC even existed and you are asking that a book of mythology be accepted as the truth!

Speaking of mythology and Nazareth, etc. The City of Troy was thought to be a myth only until 1870 when it was found.

Before that it was just a crapload of mythology written in books of myth..... and Homer the blind poet whom wrote of it was thought of as a blind guy that writes good stories, and not one who wrote of a real place.

Troy and the Trojan War were complete myth and legend until some German dude found it.



So if mythology as it is termed isn't accepted in a debate, then there is no room for knowing the truth. As what is called myth, may not be myth at all....

The only problem here is we know where Nazareth is, and the facts (archaeological and historical) do not fit the legend/myth. You spoke of a myth becoming fact, here we have an accepted (by xians) fact being shown to be a myth!

Beowulf, thanks for the reply I guess we have to agree to disagree regarding the origins of Nazareth. My opinions may defy more scientific data but Im sticking with it as those 4 writers do mention Nazareth prior to what data can prove ... and Im open to the possibility that modern science hasn't found the proof yet.
About the dating of the Gospel of John. As you know there are 3 NT books attributed to John (Son of Zebedee (sp?) ... John, John1 & Revelations). Mainstream bible theory dates John1 to 85 - 95 ce & Revelations to 95 ce. However when you compare the Gospel of John, its literary style is entirely different, and due to this I prefer to date it before rather than after. History notes early writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian & Clement of Alexandria claiming that John himself wrote these 3 books (tho Clement claims John wrote to supplement the synoptics I believe the first book of John was simply written independantly of them) a slightly later writer Origen also attributes the books of John to have been actually written by John.
I disagree on the theory by Dr Maghee most profoundly on the dating of John. Many have proposed that the seemingly 'more developed' theology in the Gospel of John must mean for a date later than the synoptics. However that argument is moot when we compare 'Romans' agreed by most to date around 57 ce yet is every bit as developed (theologically) as John. John 5:2 refers to a pool near the sheeps gate in the present tense indicating a time prior to the fall of Jerusalem. Then in John1 we gain the impression of an 'older' John ... one that refers to his readers as 'children'. This is the basis of my belief that John was perhaps the oldest book of the NT.

Remember though only you consider it a myth. Therefore where many people accept Matthew, Mark, Luke & John as historically correct like I do, you don't. If you considered any 1 of these 4 as historically acceptable then you would only have 'Lack of' archaeological evidence to go on. And I challenge you to show me an archaeologist that can say for sure they've excavated the exact right area.

Wow, I find it fascinating that someone could fake their own death after a spear was thrust underneath His ribs, piercing the heart. Not to mention the flogging that exposed His internal organs. That certainly is a neat trick.

If you don't like the thread topic, then why post on it or visit it? I haven't seen any evangelising on this thread.

Papias, Marcion, and Justin Martyr were all adults and writing when Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement were born and consequently much closer in the time stream to the authors of the Gospels. I would imagine that they were be a bit more "in the know" than their later colleagues. Incidentally Marcion considered the writings later known as the Gospel of John to be fake, for some reason he only accepted what would later be known as Luke of all the Gospels!



First, I am far from alone in my contention (only 1 in 7 of the world's population are Xian) and with absence of secondary secular contemporary sources, the histocracy of the Gospels is called task. What that means is that we have only the word of the Gospels that they are telling the truth. Even Paul does not mention Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, Wisemen, Angels (at the birth), Shepards (again at birth), water into wine, walking on water, or any such miracles. This is the man that supposedly knew the Apostles and it seems that they would have recounted these things and very impressed, he would have reported them too, even as second-hand stories. He did not, he barely even mentions the crucifixion (no beatings, no trial, no Judas, none of the mythology Xians love so well) and this is from the man who founded modern Xianity. What you practice today is Pauline Xianity, the church of Jerusalem died with the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans and Pauline Xianity took over.



I don't recall asking your advice Heartattackman, if you don't like my posts, then don't read them - OK?

I know it's a pretty lame question but this is mine:

-If god created humans, who created god?
***
Oroboro syndrome any one?