> As I understood it, they credited Luke with that one. I've never
 > bothered to hunt it down. It adds nothing to the important matter
 > of Jesus's alleged divinity.

 NP> No it doesn't. Is the subject of his divinity of particular
 NP> importance to you ?

  No... but logically, it is the only important thing in the New
Testament. If Jesus was not god, then he was just another charismatic
wanker like Mohammed, John Smith, Hitler and Billy Graham.

 NP> And as I pointed out to him, Johns gospel is the most
 NP> politicised, and in the view of a lot of scholars the most
 NP> unreliable as far as accuracy is concerned. 

  I agree. It is obvious that it paraphrases the rest.

 NP> I think that they have placed the gospel of John at 90CE at the
 NP> earliest. IOW about 60 years after the events.

 NP> Try writing a detailed description of personal events from 1933
 NP> to 1936 with 2 other accounts as your only reference. And
 NP> consider that you would also be under pressure to conform to
 NP> the current political ideals of today. By the time you changed
 NP> things to reflect political correct and non racist language,
 NP> you wouldn't have a lot of the reality left. 

  Exactly. You end up writing for your own time, even if you do not
agree with it. To make sense of the Bible, you have to try and place
yourself in the timeframe, bearing in mind that the people writing it
were ignorant fanatics. It's no surprise that it contradicts, but to
me, the most significant thing is the claim of divinity, and how
little of the account is devoted to this crucial (pardon the pun)
claim.

  The crap about virgin birth, the star and the angels was abviously
added later (and is silly), and by the time Jesus is fleshed out as a
real person, you can see how he was pushed into the claim aainst his
better judgment. The resurrection is passed off in a few sentences...
the *one* sinificant thing that would have proved divinity is brushed
over almost casually.

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---