Two years ago, September 11 caused us to think a lot about the purpose of our lives...

> Perhaps he's stating their view because he
> agrees.

Perhaps.

> I'm not sure this question has any
> relevance, but it could be possible to
> answer by reviewing the dating of the works.

It had relevance because Thomas' Gospel was viewed (accused) as borrowing from the other Gospels. The implication being that the other Gospels came first and thus are more authoritive.

If it is agreed that Thomas' Gospel came first it means the others are copy cats and Thomas' work is the more authorative.

That is its relevance.

> That statement seems really bold, especially
> coming from someone who often comes down
> hard on others for making unsubstansiated
> claims. Why you would make a statement like
> that without any support?

Because I see no need to get into endless debate pulling things out of the Bible to make my case. Those who are interested can open up the New Testament and discover the differences themselves. Do so by picking one "story" and reading it in each Gospel.

For example. Pick the story of the scene at the Cave, or the Nativity, or whatever. Then read all four versions of that same story one after the other. You will see the differences.

Further. My "unbacked" claim was in response to an unbacked claim. Tit for tat, so to speak.

> I hope the recent "bashing" trend
> on these boards isn't moving on to major
> religions.

Nah - not from me anyway. No-one can win a religion bashing. In the end it degenerates into insults and ends with neither party changing their mind. If anything, each walks away with even firmer resolve to their point of view.

> I assume the Church to which you refer is
> the Catholic church? If so, let me just say
> that I'm not defending them.

> But counterpoint: the non-church folk
> actually have a lot more to lose if the
> Bible is "proved" true. At the
> very least, it could change one's whole
> outlook.

True. You get no arguement from me there. In fact, going by the various religions and their system, if any one of them is true, there are going to be a lot of other people who will be terribly upset.

If Buddhism is really it, then non-Buddhists will die and be reborn for all eternity.

If Judaism is it, then unless you convert or are born into it... tough luck for you.

If Christianity is it, then poor Jews for they would turn out not to be the chosen ones after all.

If Is-lam is it, then all those who are not Moslems (and Al-lah knows), will not like it very much.

And if Jainism is it, then boy, the next 20,000 years or so are not going to be very enjoyable. And as Jainism predicts its system not to last through until then (correct me if I am wrong), then there will be no salvation for anyone.

As for reading the books the "elders" read and know and being wise for "followers" to also read. That is MY take on it. I've read the Bible (and the Mormon one too). And the Quaran. And other authoritive works on various religions as well as works relating to uncover "truths" about those religions. I find the subject (of religion) fascinating. And thus have no prejudice for or against any one particular religion. They all have good points. They all have bad points. Take what you can use and discard the rest.

Michael Ross