Hi Bob

 >  NP> Ahem ..... Now Five gospels since the discovery of the Gospel
 >  NP> of Thomas in the Nag Hammaddi (sp) texts

 >   I thought they were calling that a second version of Luke.

No. You must be thinking of some other text.  This one is definitely
verified (as best they can) the Gospel of Thomas.  The book is at a friends
place at the moment, so I can't quote exactly, but it starts..

These are the  words (writings) of Thomas Didamos......


 >  NP> It is just a collection of .... And Jesus said..... And Jesus
 >  NP> said......
 >  NP> It does make an interesting read as some of the writings are
 >  NP> _nearly_ the same as in the other gospels, but some others are
 >  NP> unique and espouse ideas that the mainsteamers would probably
 >  NP> not agree with.

 >   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.

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


 >   I was jumping on Theo for taking *one word* out of John, and then
 > using a different translation of that one word to build a crazy
 > theory
 > that Jesus was a revolutionary like Che Guavera in drag, fighting an
 > entire Roman cohort (of 600 soldiers according to Theo's loony book)
 > in the garden of Gethsemane.

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

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

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

Cheers
Niels Petersen

--- FMail/386 0.98