The Forgotten Gospels of the Bible: Did Jesus Condone Homosexuality?

 The Real New Testament: Forgotten Gospels

By David G. McAfee 

Please ‘follow’ me on Twitter for future updates 

 

                The Bible exists today in hundreds of variations and languages, some with entirely different meanings. The “Bible” is composed of canonical scriptures and books that have been added and removed over time, by various Christian authorities. Many of the books that compose the New Testament are actually hundreds of years older than the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived, and most of the gospels have unknown or pseudo-named authors- even those that give a first-hand account of his actions have proven to be much more recent than his passing. But it is not the arbitrary additions to the accepted Christian canon that I believe is important, it is what was removed and forgotten that tells us most about the time period in which the Bible was being compiled.

                You may have heard of these pre-Nicene gospels, and how councils were granted permission to determine the validity of the sacred documents- but you may not be aware of the contents of the forgotten texts, some of which were written much closer to Jesus’ lifetime and should therefore be considered more valid than those created afterward. For example, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas comes to mind. The Gospel of Thomas is a sayings Gospel that contains one-hundred and fourteen sayings attributed to Jesus Christ- but this book is completely left out of the modern New Testament and lacks the life-story of Jesus in favor of dialogues and parables, its tone is completely different from those books that have remained as part of the Holy Bible in that it doesn’t mention crucifixion, resurrection, or final judgment; yet the fragments of this Gospel (discovered in 1945) date back to 130-250 CE- which is earlier than many canonical scriptures.

                The Gospel of Thomas is not the only forgotten scripture; there are still some components of early New Testaments being discovered, and some that we have recreated using commonalities between other New Testament apocrypha and the four Canonical Gospels. I am referring, of course, to the mysterious sayings Gospel simply referred to as “Q” (The name Q comes from the German Quelle, which means “source”). This is a sayings Gospel, like Thomas, but no part of this ancient document has yet been discovered, it has simply been used to describe the common source that the New Testament authors were working from.

                Thomas and ‘Q’ are important, but not as controversial among the Christian community as some of the forgotten Gospels, like the ‘Secret Gospel of Mark’. The Gospel of Mark is the first canonical Gospel in the New Testament and, in 1958, a letter was found containing what scholars believe to be a secret ending to the Mark Gospel, meant only to be witnessed by spiritual elite in the Christian community. You won’t find this passage in any modern bible, but scientists believe that this ancient scripture was indeed part of the original Holy Bible; here is a passage:

“And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.”

                This passage doesn’t just have a homosexual undertone, but implies that Jesus may have taken part in such “sinful” behavior. Nobody knows for sure what was meant by this original passage in the Gospel of Secret Mark and there are numerous other forgotten Gospels, but it does show that the time in which the Bible was being created is still very unknown to us- and the original bible compiled after Jesus’ time probably looked much different than the modern Bible that Christians regard as sacred today.

Secret Mark Gospel

Secret Mark Gospel

About these ads

41 responses to “The Forgotten Gospels of the Bible: Did Jesus Condone Homosexuality?

  1. That is probably the least likely explanation. The most likely is that it was a mystery initiation, the garb being well-attested for such things, especially in gnostic circles. Others have proposed that the disciple Jesus loved may also be this person, who is not officially mentioned outside the Gospel of John, and whom might have been Lazarus (still in his burial linen, probably, but the only one ever mentioned by name that Jesus loved), or a slew of other scenarios more probable. However, I will say that there were probably sects that took it that way (Carpocratians according to Irenaeus), and acted accordingly. BTW, none of the supposed Secret Mark (its authenticity is still debated) fragments are part of the “ending” of Mark.

  2. Maybe the mythical Jesus was bisexual. Afrer all he was said to be “with” Mary Magdaline! But of course there is a good possibility that the historical Jesus never actually existed except as a mythical character in the biblical storyland.

    • I’m sorry youre wrong about the mythical part…
      I’m a christian, and im not being biased when I say this,
      but all my athiest friends even know that jesus did exist.
      And yes there is alot of controversy over the whole mary magdeline
      issue but you need to do your research friend.

      • Sarah. Nobody “KNOWS” that Jesus lived. Because nobody was there. But the evidence IS lacking, and your “atheist friends” are hardly experts.

      • “I’m a christian, and im not being biased when I say this,
        but all my athiest friends even know that jesus did exist.”

        Sarah, why is it that, if your atheist friends believe one thing but Bill R, who is presumably is an atheist, believes differently, that Bill R must be wrong and not your friends? Does being your friend magically make a person necessarily correct? But then, if your atheist friends’ belief that Jesus existed proves he did, then why doesn’t their belief that God doesn’t exist prove he doesn’t? You say you’re not being biased, but in fact your statement is utterly biased, and grossly intellectually dishonest, and downright dumb. You are doing Christianity no favors by announcing that you’re a Christian — people will tend to associate your own dreadful characteristics with the whole community.

      • Gerry Schulze

        Sarah,

        I’m one of the “atheists”* who maintains that Jesus of Nazareth more likely than not did exist, but we need to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing. When I say Jesus of Nazareth more likely than not existed, what I mean is that there was a wandering preacher from Nazareth named Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, who was the model for the stories of Jesus in the New Testament and was the preacher and philosopher responsible for much of the teaching recorded in the three synoptic gospels. He was the inspiration for some of the earliest Christian teachers. He probably was a “magician.” He probably performed healings not unlike those performed by Christian healers today, and in that pre-scientific era may have even succeeded in creating the illusion of raising a small girl or a man from a condition of presumed death.

        I do not believe he performed a single supernatural miracle, as that is impossible. Nor do I believe he personally resurrected from the dead.

        The reason I believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth is that the Gospel stories are too full of embarrassing details for the Messiah to have been made up out of whole cloth. The proponents of the new religion had too many embarrassing and contradictory details to explain away. If you were making the story up from scratch, why make your savior a Galilean? Why invent the improbable tale of a trip to Bethlehem to be born. Just make him Jesus of Bethlehem. Why go through the charade of dealing with him being baptized by John the Baptist? Make up a story where John the Baptist sees him coming and begs to be baptized by Jesus. Why have Jesus unable to perform miracles in his hometown? Why have his brothers and sisters looking for him and suggesting they think he may be nuts? The answer is the wandering preacher did exist, was well known to have been from Nazareth, baptized by John the Baptist, flubbed in his magic act in Galilee, considered by some family members to be nuts, etc.

        As to Jesus’s relationship with Mary Magdalene, the record is too slim to formulate an opinion. I think Jesus was somewhat of a gifted lunatic. Whether he was interested in sex of any kind is anyone’s guess. My wild uninformed guess would be that he was not. We all know from our experience with popular preachers of the present day that they have little trouble attracting sex partners when they choose to do so. The sources we have are amazingly silent about any sexual foibles of Jesus, although they do explain away other failings of Jesus quite nicely. The gospels obviously had to deal with well-known problematic facts about Jesus. His sexuality was apparently not one of them. I’d guess he wasn’t much interested in sex. he was more interested in the Kingdom of God.

        Gerry

        * I accept, but do not like to use the characterization “atheist.” I don’t believe in gods, but I don’t think that what figments of the imagination I don’t believe in are important enough to label me. I don’t believe in werewolves either, but I don’t call myself an “awerewolfist.”

  3. Whether he was homosexual, or condoned it Who knows. We do know that there is not one verse in the NT that quotes Jesus on homosexuality.

    Of the three verses that are often interpreted by Xtians as implig homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11), all are written by Paul, who never met Jesus.

  4. Not likely. First, it doesn’t make any sense to say that the Secret Gospel of Mark or any other book was part of the “Original Holy Bible.” The idea of an “Original Holy Bible” is anachronistic. There were various different canons for the first few hundred years. It wasn’t as if there was a Gideon’s Bible at the Inn that Mary and Joseph couldn’t get into because of the Christmas rush in Bethlehem when the star shone bright and the calendar read zero A.D.
    Second, the very concept of homosexuality as a sexual preference is a modern concept. Consider how the Romans considered homosexuality. It wasn’t shameful if one was the dominant partner. Of course, the Jews had the same attitude reflected in their scriptures–probably.
    Third, I think there probably was a Jesus of Nazareth who is the model for the gospels, simply because there’s too much embarrassing stuff in the gospels that the Christians have to explain away that they could have simply left out if they wanted to make him up out of whole cloth. They wanted him born in Bethlehem so he could fulfill their mistaken understanding of prophesy about the Messiah. Too bad he was Jesus of NAZARETH, so they had to make up the implausible tale about his parents shlepping to Bethlehem so he could be born. They had to explain away the fact that everyone in the region knew that John the Baptist was a much bigger deal than Jesus was. So the deal is, if Jesus was also a poofter, they’d have to be explaining that away too in the gospels, but they don’t. So I figure Jesus probably wasn’t gay. He was pretty clearly a loonie, and we can tell that by reading through the lines. All the nutty stuff about him wouldn’t be in the gospel about the savior if the local folks didn’t know it.

    • “He was pretty clearly a loonie, and we can tell that by reading through the lines. All the nutty stuff about him wouldn’t be in the gospel about the savior if the local folks didn’t know it.”

      How can you possibly make any judgement on his sanity from what is written about him?

      • Gerry Schulze

        Andrew:

        I’m sorry I missed this when it was originally posted.

        Jesus taught that if your hand causes you to sin, you should cut it off. If your eye causes you to sin, you should poke it out. See Mt. 18:8. Christians cannot accept this teaching and say it is poetic or symbolic, but symbolic of what? It appears clear that it was not figurative. Jesus meant to be taken seriously. To teach someone to maim himself/herself is insane.

        Jesus allegedly cursed a fig tree for not having any figs for him to eat. Mt. 21.

        After telling the rich young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor, he promised his followers that anyone who gave up home or mother or father or brothers or sisters would have a hundred times as much. How could someone have a hundred times as many mothers and fathers?

        The incident in which Jesus threw a tantrum at the temple sounds very insane to me. Remember, that the moneychangers and sellers of sacrificial animals performed a vital function at the temple.

        Jesus’s cryptic instruction to his followers to eat his body and drink his blood is madness. John 6. Many disciples deserted Jesus at that time. Of course they did. This doctrine is disgusting.

        Jesus told his followers not to worry about taking care of their needs. do not worry about what you will eat or what you will wear. The birds have no storeroom or barn. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Luke 12:22-32.

        Jesus’s teaching about being “born again” is nonsensical. Read John 3. You can superimpose all kinds of meaning on it, but if you take what Jesus says and don’t add anything of your own to it, Nicodemus is right, and Jesus is a lunatic.

        Then we get to the confusing evidence of Mark 3. Mark is the least reliable of the synoptic Gospels, but it suggests that at least some of Jesus’s family members also thought he was mad.

        My theory is that the Gospels were written with an audience that would have heard stories of the historic Jesus of Nazareth in mind. Certain well-known facts about Jesus had to be dealt with. Some of those facts had to do with incomprehensible, crazy sounding teachings and sayings for which he was famous.

        Christians have tried hard to import meaning onto these statements, but to me, those efforts fall flat. The far more likely scenario is that those things Jesus said were simply nuts, and the evangelists had to deal with them.

        Do I say everything Jesus said was nuts? By no means. Jesus was, for the most part, an outstanding moral teacher. Most of his teachings are good. There’s no reason for me to expound on that. The good and beautiful parts of his philosophy have been spread by his followers. But there is also some of it that is more of the lunatic variety. I think Jesus was both a gifted moral philosopher and somewhat of a lunatic. Those two things can co-exist. I think Jesus also most likely was intimately familiar with the Hebrew scriptures, and in fact probably was better at reciting them and arguing them than the Scribes and Pharisees. It was probably that ability of his that infuriated them. Most wandering magicians and preachers probably couldn’t stand up to the authorities when it came to the religious tradition. Jesus could argue scripture with the best of them. That explains the “where did he get all this, isn’t this the carpenter’s son?” stuff that appears in the gospels.

        Anyway, Andrew, that was a good, legitimate question. I’m sorry I didn’t notice the email notifying me of it earlier.

  5. It appears that not only do contemporary Christians cherry pickBible verses that agree with what they want to hear, but the makers of the bible also cherry picked the books that make up the bible based on what they wanted the people to hear.

  6. People should read the works of the scholar John Boswell for a thoroughly-researched examination of the acceptance of homosexuality, and the inclusion of same-sex marriage, in the early Christian church.

    The fact that history has evidently expunged these traditions is evidence of how things have been cherry-picked by later Christians for their own political purposes.

  7. How in the heck are there so many different people commenting on how these different events might have come about?? How does anybody know really? What i just gathered from this whole thing including the comments, is that not only does the Bible confuse me and most of you but who is doing the teaching and why aren’t you all being taught the same thing? I want to know how and who you have to know around here to get some straight up truth.

    • kayla, “what is truth”? (John 18:38).

      That everyone here propounds different viewpoints here, or indeed everywhere, is because we all do our own reading, studying, searching, theorizing and debating. The best advice I can think of is to forego seeking absolutes and learn to like living in the gray areas.

    • Kayla:

      I have to second John on that one. I don’t think there is any such thing as “straight up truth.” The best you can hope for is a carefully considered probability.

      Gerry

  8. Listen brothers and sisters, we have it all wrong. Jesus’ teachings were far more intelligent than our human minds can really understand, and he knew we wouldn’t agree with alot of the things, which he stated. This doesn’t mean they were wrong. People have to much Jesus in there Christian walk and not enough GOD. What i mean by this is; Jesus was sent hear to us from GOD, to save us from ourselves. The only way he could do this , was to give us the gospel, raw and uncut, and then suffer a crucifixional death. He spoke in parables with the hopes of us using our minds and human experiences to search the word even more for truth. Then he wanted for us to take his teachings (that were sometimes hard to swallow), and let it connect with the new covenant laws that is written on our hearts (hebrews 8:8-10). Of course Jesus sometimes sounded insane when teaching, but it had to be done that way. It is not his fault that we were and are still so lost, that we can’t understand. Seek first the Kingdom of GOD and his righteousness and then all the truth will follow. We have to remember that GOD is the (I AM). So to all you folk and your comments, if you want the truth about things such as homosex, it will be revealed to you, if you really desire to know. Use the power of prayer to build up your relationship with GOD and you will begin to walk christlike. Amen

  9. Tell the world that the warner and giver of glad tidings has been sent into the world,be watchful so that you wont loose him?

  10. Tell the world that the warner and the giver of glad tidings has been sent to the world,take heed as he approaches

  11. Most of history is written by the victors and hence slanted.Contemporary writings normally promotion sayings for a point of view, selective of its stats. That is as true down the centuries as now.That was as true when the bible was assembled by the Pope (in the 12thc?), proved by the discovery of a swaith of gospels, more cotemporious than the ones in the bible, in Egypt in 1945, they had been ordered to be destroyed in the 12c. It was at this time that womens role in the church was hugely demoted. The bible therefore appears to have been sanitized to conform to a particular Catholic view (given strength earlier by the Caesars conversion to Catholisism and the might of arms) over the next centuries carried out genocide against alternative points of view. No excuse for Cromwells purging of Catholics.Nor any excuse against persecution of alternative beliefs.
    There is plenty of evidence that women played important roles in the very early Christian church`s organisation and ceremonies. No writings before Paul, well after Jesus supposed crucifiction that homosexuality should be vilified. Which the Roman society and earlier Greek society considered a purer form of sex.As an historical observation this was probably comonplace at the time, particularly with people with authority,the rest would be just trying to survive.
    The anecdotes of the time (and later legends) the word of mouth passing down of stories gives jesus a 1000% more credibility than Robin Hood,even he is known to have existed but maybe not quite as large as his legend (he couldn`t have nicked off the poor, they had nothing.

  12. Actually it is well documented that Jesus lived, one would have to desire to be blind to this fact to not see it.

    1) The Apostles have all been verified to live, and they testify to the life of Christ and him being Emmanuel in the New Testament Books of the Bible

    2) Roman Empire Court Records verify Jesus’ existence, and that of his parents Mary and Joseph who were interviewed

    3) Josephus, the Jewish historian mentions Jesus the Christ by name, along with his deeds and his followers.

    • Where exactly did you get this information of yours? Please do give me the sources for your claims in points 1 and 2. There are absolutey no records for this jesus character anywhere outside of the bible, nor are there any records for any of the apostles. Every last book of the NT is known to have been written generations after the supposed events.
      As for your comment about Josephus, so what? He was simply writing about a known group and what they believed. Means absolutely nonthing.

    • Marcel Kincaid

      It’s striking that so many Christians resort to lies to shore up their “faith”. There is absolutely no such verification of the existence of the apostles, and there are no such Roman records. And the fact that Josephus refers to “Jesus who was called Christ” to clarify which it is of the 23 Jesuses he mentions doesn’t prove anything since he wrote it in 93 AD and so is just recording the claims of others. There probably was such a person, but it isn’t “well documented”, certainly not to the degree that one would have to willingly blind themselves to it.

  13. Too much debate brings confusion and doubt to those who have an open mind. Open our hearts to him instead, accept him and have faith. While there may be some scientific evidence of the “existence of a man named Jesus” as well as other evidence, we should not go simply by this. For our evidence is in having the word of God in our hearts.

    • Joe, I don’t know about you, but my heart is filled with blood pumping to keep me alive – no God in there!

      Have faith? Belief without evidence is hardly a virtue, my friend. Why have faith in Jesus? Why not one of the other millions of gods and prophets from varying cultures? Because you said so? No thanks.

    • ‘Too much debate brings confusion and doubt to those who have an open mind.’ How can one claim an open mind if one is not willing to engage in discussion and debate? If the debate is causing confusion and doubt this may point to problems with your beliefs rather than problems with the debate.

  14. Joe couldnt agree more, why are people so determined to undermine the belief in god.?.if you are so sure why argue? I think atheists have more faith than christians “so life is all just an accident a bang a whatever a coincidence…now that takes a lot of faith to believe that. The old saying the lady does protest to much… maybe some of you should ask yourself who you are really trying to convince

    • Libby, being an atheist requires absolutely no faith – just based on what I can see in my daily life, I can tell you I’ve never seen any evidence of an all-powerful Creator – so to say that doubting the existence of said Creator requires faith is absurd.

      You have that saying wrong, but I think it would more closely apply to those Christians who feel the need to read and comment on an atheists’ website to protest it and claim her religion as the one True religion and push the burden of proof to non-believers. Most often this comes from insecurity in one’s own belief system. Since I lack a belief system entirely, I’m free from such constraints!

    • Libby,

      (1) It doesn’t take a lot of faith to believe in scientific theories, there is quite a lot of evidence for those things.
      (2) We argue because we don’t particularly like ignorance. I am a teacher and it is my job to try and guide people towards understanding. Also many of us are tired of having religious people use their beliefs to justify discrimination and/or law/tax exemption; the time has come for rational people to be the voice of reason.

  15. Marcel Kincaid

    Libby, all it takes to be an atheist is a lack of the sort of immense stupidity and intellectual dishonesty that you so thoroughly display. Belief in the Big Bang isn’t a matter of faith, it’s a matter of a wealth of accumulated evidence. The idea was proposed by the Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître in 1931, but it didn’t replace the view of a “steady-state” universe until after 1964, when radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation that Big Bang theory was predicted by, and thus served to confirm, the theory (we now have many other confirming lines of evidence).

  16. Marcel Kincaid

    Oops, make that “was predicted by Big Bang theory and thus served to confirm the theory” rather than “Big Bang theory was predicted by, and thus served to confirm, the theory”.

  17. Ok, you have blatently stated that you do not believe in Christ. You seem to go to great lengths to disprove him, and (maybe unintentionally) attempt to sway Christians away from faith. May I ask… what good does this do you? What pleasure or goal do you wish to get out of it? What does it matter to you if someone else believes and you don’t? I have never met you. Your beliefs have no influence on my life. Why all the talk? And who the hell cares about your degrees?

    I don’t have a degree. I have life experience. Its actually a big deal, life experience. I read the Bible several times in my 35 years of existence. What did I get out of it? Forgive my enemies, show kindness to all living things, and be accountable. I don’t see how the argument is always whether or not jesus existed… when the message is valuable. Shit, if there are inaccuracies, it is still valuable. For instance, as referenced above … you mentioned Jesus instructing others to cut off their hands. Of course, he wasn’t speaking literally. When you have a loved one, or a desire, or a bad habit that causes you to become unhealthy, what do you do? Let it go.

    • I also want to add the drink my blood eat my flesh reference. Yeah, insane. However, Jesus only wanted serious followers. He only wanted people who were dedicated to his cause. He never hid that. He was very upfront about his intentions, and didn’t mind if people didn’t follow him (let the dead bury the dead). I mean, he literally came out and said that if you followed him, you would be saved. “What’s the worst they can do, kill you? You belong to God…” big words. The hard truth is that his actions backed up his words. You can’t label him a demon or insane because everything he said he followed with action. So, to me, the value is in the lesson, not the inaccuracies. You have two degrees. Have you read Mere Christianity? Have you read anything other than what your professors assigned? Or did you just pick out what are obvious mistakes ( a story written thousands of years ago will have many discrepancies over time) without even learning about the em

      • Without even paying attention to the message. You accuse Christians of cherry picking… it seems you do as well. You twist every flaw to meet your view. Who gives a shit? Why should someone follow you…??? What values to you stand for, other than the downright obvious anger and disgust for someone else’s faith? it seems to me that you are the hypocrite. I am a military vet, a lesbian, an actual person with values and I stand by them. What positive things do you stand for, other than… well, nothing. I see a lost and angry young man set on disproving believers for his own personal satisfaction. I don’t give a rats ass about your book, elequant words, or loss of personal integrity. You have a right to say it, but no right to bully christians or anyone of any faith. If anything, I think you just want attention and money. If you enjoy learning, learn something new.

      • Oh, and I forgot to add. I encompass all beliefs. Spirituality always trumps religion. I apologize for being abrasive, but the very people who proclaim themselves rational~ (as noted above) in my opinion~ need a lesson in reality. Ten million Bon Jovi fans can’t be wrong. There is a reason that the Bible has always been on the bestseller list. Folks have learned to actually find guidance and hope.

  18. Hmmm, something doesn’t sound right in one of your statement, Mr. Mattock where you stated; and I quote:(1) It doesn’t take a lot of faith to believe in scientific theories, there is quite a lot of evidence for those things. Hmmm, is not a theory just a guess, just a fancy way of saying I am taking an educated “guess”. So you admit science is not in its entirety; correct. Yes there you’re right there is a lot of supporting evidence for certain things we have come to know as fact. Like the God particle !!!!
    (2) We argue because we don’t particularly like ignorance. I am a teacher and it is my job to try and guide people towards understanding. Also many of us are tired of having religious people use their beliefs to justify discrimination and/or law/tax exemption; the time has come for rational people to be the voice of reason. First of all in the united states religion is a right, protected under the law, and you sir are a “teacher”, have you ever heard of the first Amendment. Let me guess they forgot to teach that you in college or in the public school system. Not that I can personally trust an educator to day because of the massive sex scandals and abuse that goes in public school, I was one victim of public school abuse, and yes I am bias towards teachers today. Second; your job as a teacher is not to teach bigotry and biased education, you are to teach thats it. Thirdy where in history has religion itself been racists, for the action people do not make a religion racists. So are you referring to the “Jewish” trans atlantic slave trade, that school do not teach, when in truth it was jews who controlled and built the slave trade, such as Aaron Lopez (1731–1782) of Newport Rhode Island . Or the Islamic corsaire who sold slaves to Jews, they were famous for raids and human trafficking, off the coast of Africa. Are you implying that every religion is evil, hates, and is bigoted? Because I do not understand why and alleged atheists is reading the bible? To be an atheist who reads the bible, is like an agnostic who believes in God. You all call forth, sarah as a, bias hypocrite, yet you do not see the splinter in your own eye!!!! What is an atheist, a confused soul who lacks wisdom and understanding; and chooses to refuse the validity of spiritual life. I do love Jesus and what he was trying to teach humanity, before the orthodox church in the first council of Nicaea; politicized christianity. So prove that God does not exist, Prove that there was no Jesus. Instead of using a bible against christians because you lack real logic in your discussion. For I think it is totally bias to read the bible and call yourself an atheists, that sir is an oxymoron, if you know that means!!! I would not want my children in your classroom at all sir, you’re a disgrace to free thought, logic and reason, and in my opinion a traitor to the ideals of free public education.

  19. You claim to be an atheist but spend all your time arguing about Jesus. That’s because He’s so real that you cannot but acknowledge Him. I doubt if there’s any other subject that you spend so much time on. We all know the truth at some level deep down in our souls, whether we acknowledge it or not. Don’t spend your time arguing and trying to fault Jesus, you can NEVER succeed in that. He is God, and that is why He has surpassed time; and is the most known universal name. Rather, spend time to think about eternity. if you say you’ll just be in the ground when you die, good for you. But I bet you, it would have been too late for you to repent. Repent now! for it is appointed unto man once to die, after that the judgment. (Hebrews 9:27).

  20. Saying that Jesus didn’t exist is like saying any major figure in history didn’t exist. Every major religion and historical document on this type confirms his existance as either a man, son of god, lunatic, or all combined. You can’t say you don’t know he existed you ignorant fool lol.

  21. Some of you need to learn what the word “theory” actually means. It does not mean “guess”. Not even close. Anyone who says that a theory is just a guess is but a dictionary away from understanding. Your tremendous ignorance of science does not equal knowledge. It is just that: ignorance.

  22. as to if jesus actually existed or not, im mainly convinced by what hitchens said, which was that there was likely was some sort of mad rabbi type figure, just because of alot of the lies about his life that were told ( there being a census, which never happened, among other things) point to there possably being a person, because why lie about the trip to bethlehem, if he was purely made up, you could have just made up him starting off there. As well having women being the people testifying to his coming back from the dead isnt exactly the best witnesses for the time, so if it was completely made up youd atleast have better witnesses. though the onlything it points to is that a person similar to him could have or likely existed, nothing to do with his actual godlyness

  23. Hi David,

    I would like to bring to your attention to a response to this post from myself and a friend Tyler Vela. Our criticism can be boiled down to the following:

    The factual and other historical errors in this post are more than likely the result of a failure to engage on any level with secondary scholarly sources on 1) the dating of the New Testament documents, 2) the canonization of the New Testament, 3) the dating of the Gospel of Thomas (or any “pre-Nicene Gospel for that matter), 4) the nuances of the culture and historical climate of antiquity, 5) the furore surrounding the Secret Gospel of Mark and its likely counterfeit origins.

    To keep this short i will simply detail one objection (more fully explained in the link to the full essay below). You write:

    “Many of the books that compose the New Testament are actually hundreds of years older than the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived, and most of the gospels have unknown or pseudo-named authors…”

    If we grant the most common liberal dating of 2 Peter at 150 CE, considered to be the last book in the New Testament to be written, we are left with a difference between around 120—150 years from the life of Jesus to the composition of 2 Peter. And what evidence do you have to support the plurality of the “hundreds of years” you suppose? None whatsoever. Directly from the essay:

    “We cannot imagine he has any evidence! He is demonstrably wrong and when we consider how rapidly his platform is expanding, these errors become all the more egregious and misleading to so many who look to him as an “expert” (after all this is what it means to be a scholar) or at the very least, a reliable guide through these issues.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/205950801/Review-of-McAfee-s-The-Forgotten-Gospels-of-the-Bible-Did-Jesus-Condone-Homosexuality-by-NJ-Bruzzese-and-Tyler-Vela

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s