Dumbledore's Gay

[kengs333]

Lets see... christian groups have large contingents of pedophiles abusing young boys.They do virtually nothing to stop it,oh wait, they move the offender to another parish/church/group somewhere else.

They use the gospel to hide behind .They dont really feel it is a sin. They like to preach that so that they have the young 'ens to themselves.

What is so hard to understand?

If there is a pedophile in a socalled Christian group, then they are not a Christian, regardless of what they say/believe or what others such as you say/believe. Pedophiles and other forms of sinners will always infiltrate where there are groups of Christians; that's how evil works. They set out to do what is displayed the opinions that you express; they want others to view Christianity in a negtive light, to not understand what it really means to be a Christian, and to turn you back to God.

[kengs333]

I have read the entire post up until now and I will not hold my breath getting into an argument with Kengs, it is completely useless. If you use logical flowing arguments, that are well written and concise he ignores them. If you use biblical passages that contradict him, he says you don't understand the bible. If you ask for empirical evidence he professes that he doesn't have to, which in my mind makes him lazy, just as he will not read posts longer than 200 words. I am willing to bet he has not read the Bible or any theological treatise.

This totally misrepresents my conduct on this thread.

It is my contention that Jesus was a homosexual. He did not marry in a time when men were expected to marry quite early. He had a profession that would easily afford a wife and family. He spent much of his time with 12 men, professing love of fellow man.

Geez, that's really malicious. You're of course not the first to make this assertion, and I suppose you're just making it now to try and piss me off. Well, it's not working. The Bible is quite clrear on what happens people who make such false assertions about Christ.

Back to the original contention that Dumbledore being gay may influence children to lead homosexual lifestyles, this is ridiculous.

How so? Children are influenced by everything that they are exposed to as children, that's how they learn. If children read books and watch TV shows in which everyone has a tattoo on their forehead, how many will eventually grow up and want a tattoo on their forehead?

People don't make a conscious choice one day to become gay.

Who said it just happens "one day"?

"Hmmm, I think I will become what many in society consider aberrant, perhaps costing me friends, family, jobs and even my happiness. I think I would like to really love to lead a lifestyle of secrecy and lies that may even lead me to taking my own life because of depression and a sense of helplessness. WHERE DO I SIGN UP!"

Some people are like that. For whatever reason they allow themselves to become something that is quite opposite to the expectations of society. It manifests from what others have done to them, self-hatred, hatred of society, etc. If a 13 year-old boy is manipulated into a relationship with an older homosexual and starts to realize what happens to him is wrong, then obviously he is going to start building up hatred towards the outside world; and since he has been violated and feels no self-worth, what is his only recourse? To continue on in that lifestyle.

People are gay because they have always been gay, they are perfectly normal and natural.

There have always been gays, but it's never been "normal and natural"

The fact that there "seem" to be more gays in these days is that it is more accepted and many feel more confident in coming out instead of bottling it up for their lives and committing suicide etc.

There are more gays because is more accepted and therefore more people engage in the lifestyle. Anyone who engages in homosexual or other deviant behaviour can make the conscious choice not to. If someone commits suicide because they chose to live a life of sin, then how is it anyone else's fault other than their own. Again, suicide is a conscious choice that they make, and is a reflection of the weakness of their own character.

Don't be a total moron Kengs

Hurling insults is not a good idea. You may want to not do it again.

[M.Dancer]

.

Hurling insults is not a good idea. You may want to not do it again.

I pretty sure that was a suggestion. The salient part which apperently you missed is the word "Don't" .

You should brush up on your reading comprehension.

The Bible is quite clrear on what happens people who make such false assertions about Christ.e]

I have read the bible forwards and backwards... do they become fundamentalist conservative homophobic monomaniacal televanglists?

[guyser]

If there is a pedophile in a socalled Christian group, then they are not a Christian, regardless of what they say/believe or what others such as you say/believe.

If there is a pedophile in a socalled Gay group, then they are not a Homosexual, regardless of the what they say/believ or what others such as you say/believ.

Yup, seems to work both ways, although I doubt you will agree.

[M.Dancer]

Pedophiles can't receive the forgiveness of christ?

No what happens to people who misprepresent Christ?

[guyser]

This totally misrepresents my conduct on this thread.

Um..no . That was a rather succinct wrap on your conduct. But of course you would say that instead of showing us where that would not be true.

Geez, that's really malicious. You're of course not the first to make this assertion, and I suppose you're just making it now to try and piss me off. Well, it's not working. The Bible is quite clrear on what happens people who make such false assertions about Christ.

Does it only have to be about christ? What about false assertions about other things? If it does then crap, you are doomed to the gates of hell. Oh wait, one can get off the hook by recanting....how conveeeeeeeeeeeenient. (cue church lady)

There have always been gays, but it's never been "normal and natural"

There are more gays because is more accepted and therefore more people engage in the lifestyle. Anyone who engages in homosexual or other deviant behaviour can make the conscious choice not to.

There you go again. Is thickness a trait or do you work at it? Not normal or natural, according to whom? Please link.

"Engages in homosexual or other deviant behaviour , according to whom? PLease link

Hurling insults is not a good idea. You may want to not do it again.

Uh oh......internet fight.....

Edited November 17, 2007 by guyser

[jawapunk]

This totally misrepresents my conduct on this thread.

As has been stated before, I believe I have summed you up pretty concisely. I didn't jump the gun, I have read twenty odd pages of this forum afterall.

Geez, that's really malicious. You're of course not the first to make this assertion, and I suppose you're just making it now to try and piss me off. Well, it's not working. The Bible is quite clrear on what happens people who make such false assertions about Christ.

I never professed to be the first, and I don't care if you are pissed or not. This is one thing I actually believe. Either Jesus was a gay man or he did in fact have a wife and children that are either not documented or have been erased out to try to create a more cohesive argument for his messianic status.

How so? Children are influenced by everything that they are exposed to as children, that's how they learn. If children read books and watch TV shows in which everyone has a tattoo on their forehead, how many will eventually grow up and want a tattoo on their forehead?

Who said it just happens "one day"?

I think you are really reaching here. Children may learn alot of things, but sexual attraction is a fairly natural thing. I don't believe we are taught to want the opposite sex or the same sex, I believe this is a natural occurrence just as a newborn naturally gravitates towards mother's milk.

Some people are like that. For whatever reason they allow themselves to become something that is quite opposite to the expectations of society. It manifests from what others have done to them, self-hatred, hatred of society, etc. If a 13 year-old boy is manipulated into a relationship with an older homosexual and starts to realize what happens to him is wrong, then obviously he is going to start building up hatred towards the outside world; and since he has been violated and feels no self-worth, what is his only recourse? To continue on in that lifestyle.

You are right, some people are like that. But they are not the majority of gays. In fact these are people who are screaming for attention, probably because they don't get any at home. I don't believe being gay has anything to do with self-hatred or societal hatred. If anything, coming to terms with who you are makes you a much more secure and deeper person. I pretty much feel you know nothing about gay lifestyle or the mindset of a gay person, unless you are in fact gay yourself and are really messed up about it. Which could actually explain alot.

There have always been gays, but it's never been "normal and natural"

Again, I feel you are way off the mark. However, this is your opinion and not a stated fact so you are free to express that belief just as I will profess the opposite.

There are more gays because is more accepted and therefore more people engage in the lifestyle. Anyone who engages in homosexual or other deviant behaviour can make the conscious choice not to. If someone commits suicide because they chose to live a life of sin, then how is it anyone else's fault other than their own. Again, suicide is a conscious choice that they make, and is a reflection of the weakness of their own character.

I think you are proving me right here. I said that gay lifestyles are more accepted so more gay people who in the past would have kept their lifestyle and true feelings a secret are coming out. It is true to consciously make a choice not to do anything. I can also choose not to engage in herterosexual sex which would drive me crazy after a couple months. Think about a lifetime of living in secret and not engaging in the sexual satisfaction you desire. I think your idea of sin is outdated and out of touch, but your belief system is over 1500 years old. It is not 2000 however, because there is no way for any of us to know what Jesus really said considering we have no direct quotes and the earliest gospel was written well after Christs death. And some weren't written until 140 AD. How are we really to know what Jesus really said or thought about gays when so many others own judgements and moralities would have gotten in the way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

Hurling insults is not a good idea. You may want to not do it again.

You big tough guy...You going to hack my internetz? oh wait..I know, Let's tell each other we'll meet so we can fight...Ok? That would be great. Now you aren't just acting like a moron....

[cybercoma]

Pedophiles can't receive the forgiveness of christ?

No what happens to people who misprepresent Christ?

Pedophiles can receive the forgiveness of Christ, the only unforgivable sin is denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.

I'd just like to state, for the record, I deny the Holy Spirit.

[M.Dancer]

Pedophiles can receive the forgiveness of Christ, the only unforgivable sin is denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.

I'd just like to state, for the record, I deny the Holy Spirit.

I though the only unforgivable was the imperious curse?

[Rue]

I know the Romans officially crucified Jesus. But it was the Jews in power who backed this crucifixtion and wanted it to occur. I doubt if Pontius Pilate cared one way or the other quite frankly, Jesus wasn't exactly a militant.

Jawa I will respond to the above point in another religious post. I hope you feel free to debate it,

[Rue]

If there is a pedophile in a socalled Christian group, then they are not a Christian, regardless of what they say/believe or what others such as you say/believe. Pedophiles and other forms of sinners will always infiltrate where there are groups of Christians; that's how evil works. They set out to do what is displayed the opinions that you express; they want others to view Christianity in a negtive light, to not understand what it really means to be a Christian, and to turn you back to God.

Pedophiles do not necessairly have religious agenda on their minds when they molest children. The object of their intentions is not to discredit Christianity its to molest children.

In fact pedophiles are known to compartmentalize their thought processes if anything not blend them.

In case anyone is really interested pedophiles who have engaged within relious or other institututions to molest children, when interviewed and analyzed, are shown to engage in a cognitive process known compartmentalization, i.e., they keep their religious feelings seperated from their sexual ones in rigid dfferentiated roles because they know they are not compatible.

What forensic psychiatry has found with sexual deviants is that when they have a sexual impulse they know society will not not approve of and they feel guilty about it or feel it makes them dirty or evil, (it remains unresolved in their minds) and they were brought up with fundamental religious values, they are more likely to take on the role of a religious figure who damns such behaviour in an attempt to clean themselves or rid themselves of their feels of guilt or self-hatred.

This is why for example Jimmy Swaggart rages publically about the evils of adultery but of course in private life is addicted to sex with prostitutes or why a politician makes a career of calling gays evil and unGodly but goe swinto public washrooms to engage in sex with strangers of the same sex.

The more they obtain pleasure from their forbidden actions, the more guilty they feel and the more compelled they feel to take on a personna that publically rages against what they do in private.

Eventually their public rages become so loud and irrational they break down usually with some sort of action where they compromise themselves.

Some psychiatrists theororize the more pronounced the compartmentalization and extremes between the inner and outer personnas become, the more likely the subconscious tries to sabotage the external personna in an effort to resolve the splt between inner and outer identities.

What crime investigators have found oiver the years is that pedophiles usually have two tell-tale traits. One is they like tp put themselves in a position where they have access to children so if that means becoming a teacher, a boy scout, etc., that is what they do. ....but pedophiles also have another trait.... if they come from a rigid family background where they were taiught sex was "dirty"-they tend to take on roles or personnas in the public where they can rage to the public about the very actions they feel compelled to do in private and can't stop themselves from doing-its their way of trying to make themselves feel clean or legitimate,

In fact a sociopath doesn't go around preaching what they do is good, just the exact opposite. I doubt if you sat with Paul Bernardo he would try argue to you what he did is normal and should be accepted. He would in fact probably try make himself out to be quite a sympathetic gentle man who is a romantic. Its why for example Karla Hamolka can come on t.v. and turn on the tears on cue and make herself appear the victim as opposed to victimizer.

Its why so many clergymen have been able to give sermons raging about gays and calling them pedophiles, and then shortly after the sermon molest a choir boy. Compartmentalization of conflicting thoughts enables these conflicted personnas to play out at the same time.

You all know about Jimmy Swaggart or politicians raging about family values.

How about the Cardinal who gets caught and says he was simply doing research, Peter Townsend of the Who used that same"resear5ch" pretense when he was caught. When Billy Preston got caught, he denied he knew the boy was underage.

Bobby Bonds has no problem telling the world he doesn't take sterpoids.

That is how compartmentalization works,

The difference is this though. In someone repressing homo-sexual sex urges, but is NOT desiring underage boys, once he or she is taught to accept their urges as natural, their compartmentalization ceases and they have no need to rage against the world which is actually their way of raging against themselves. If they don't hate themselves they no longer need to rage.

With pedophiles however, the ones who don't feel guilty and truly think its normal , do not adapt outer personnas of rage-they form networks with others just as quiet and calm as themlseves to get access to children.

The kind of pedophile who rages outwordly hates himself because of the values he was brought up with.

With pedophiles, unlike gays who are consenting adults not hurting anyone, pedophiles do hurt people and so the therapy is not one that teaches them to accept their desires as normal and healthy. In fact it tries to contain them.

Very few therapists believe you can actually cure pedophilia. At best you can contain it with drugs and limited kinds of behvioural modification.

There is a new legal fiction that criminal defence lawyers have created that argues a pedophile could simply be a normal person who just one time acted strangely due to stress but its legal fiction used as a defence.

People under stress don't suddenly become pedophiles. Its an urge they always had and access and opportunity enabled it to come out not the stress.

In fact with true stress people become sexually impotent or unable to engage in sex (frigidity) (lowered libido).

Edited November 17, 2007 by Rue

[kengs333]

As has been stated before, I believe I have summed you up pretty concisely. I didn't jump the gun, I have read twenty odd pages of this forum afterall.

You need gayser's opinion as a guide, do you?

I never professed to be the first, and I don't care if you are pissed or not. This is one thing I actually believe.

I never said that you professed to be the first, and no, it does not piss me off in the least that you would make such an assertion. It only does yourself harm in the end.

Either Jesus was a gay man or he did in fact have a wife and children that are either not documented or have been erased out to try to create a more cohesive argument for his messianic status.

How about neither, and to spare you the trouble and time in speculating, no other form of mortal union. Christ was sent for one purpose, and one purpose only.

I think you are really reaching here. Children may learn alot of things, but sexual attraction is a fairly natural thing. I don't believe we are taught to want the opposite sex or the same sex, I believe this is a natural occurrence just as a newborn naturally gravitates towards mother's milk.

Yeah, it is a natural thing and raised in a natural environment, the natural result will be the normal form of attraction will be between male and females. But I wouldn't consider civilization to be a natural environment, whether ancient Rome or 21st century Canada. Which is why people have to be taught to be moral and normal.

In fact these are people who are screaming for attention, probably because they don't get any at home.

I highly doubt it.

I don't believe being gay has anything to do with self-hatred or societal hatred. If anything, coming to terms with who you are makes you a much more secure and deeper person.

Well, you're wrong on both counts.

I pretty much feel you know nothing about gay lifestyle or the mindset of a gay person, unless you are in fact gay yourself and are really messed up about it. Which could actually explain alot.

Okay, now you're taking cues from Rue. That's pretty pathetic.

I think you are proving me right here. I said that gay lifestyles are more accepted so more gay people who in the past would have kept their lifestyle and true feelings a secret are coming out.

I highly doubt it.

Think about a lifetime of living in secret and not engaging in the sexual satisfaction you desire.

Nope. It's their choice that they continue to be homosexuals; if they suffer, it's something they've brought upon themselves.

I think your idea of sin is outdated and out of touch, but your belief system is over 1500 years old. It is not 2000 however, because there is no way for any of us to know what Jesus really said considering we have no direct quotes and the earliest gospel was written well after Christs death. And some weren't written until 140 AD. How are we really to know what Jesus really said or thought about gays when so many others own judgements and moralities would have gotten in the way?

Well, no it's not out dated; it's just as relevant now as it was 2000, or even 5000, years ago.

As for the dating of the Gospels, other books in the NT, it's quite certain that they were written within the lifetime of the people who witnessed the events first hand. Sorry, but the Bible is the most reliable ancient text in existence; it's devinely sanction, so nothing in it can be fabricated.

You big tough guy...You going to hack my internetz? oh wait..I know, Let's tell each other we'll meet so we can fight...Ok? That would be great. Now you aren't just acting like a moron....

Oh, don't get me wrong; I was just bringing it to your attention for your sake. I'm not picking a fight or anything. I have better things to do with my time. Although, I would win, so I don't really need to make an issue about it in the first place.

[jefferiah]

Either Jesus was a gay man or he did in fact have a wife and children that are either not documented or have been erased out to try to create a more cohesive argument for his messianic status.

So if a guy does not have a girlfriend or children he is then gay? Interesting. Too bad it's bullshit.

[g_bambino]

As for the dating of the Gospels, other books in the NT, it's quite certain that they were written within the lifetime of the people who witnessed the events first hand. Sorry, but the Bible is the most reliable ancient text in existence; it's devinely sanction, so nothing in it can be fabricated.

Oh, I just about spat my drink all over the keyboard reading that one! What a joke!

[jawapunk]

Umm actually the New Testament was not written within the lifetimes of the apostles. That is why so many people have come to doubt. Not only that over the centuries because of canonization and various translations from one language to another the Bible has changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Authorship

It would be impossible for the gospels to have been written by their original apostles in many cases because some were not put to paper until well over a hundred years after Jesus's death. This means that many of the texts were handed down orally which always results in error. Think of the game Chinese whispers which you may have played as a child where you say one sentence to a child and they whisper it in a line from one child to the next until the last child says what he/she thinks was the original statement. The statement is invariably skewed to some degree if not entirely. Now this takes ten minutes, lets take texts that are thousands of statements long and expand the time frame to decades upon decades, even over a century. The error would be enormous.

Also, once again you simply refute things I state. I have allowed that you have your OPINION and I have mine. For these kinds of statements where there can be no factual backup, there can never be a wrong answer. You can't simply state I am wrong. However if it is possible to PROVE me wrong with factual backup, sites, citations, sources etc. then by all means utilize these and prove once and for all the universal immorality of homosexuality, as well as the many other contentions you have made. Otherwise you will have to admit these are simply your opinions or beliefs and therefore are not universal.

As for my belief that Jesus was a gay man. It is not simply that he was single and had no children etc. Thinking of the timeframe and his occupation/wealth/social status, he would have been aberrant not to have taken a wife. As stated, he was of sound mind, good health, occupied in a trade that could afford him a family and it was part of their culture to marry and procreate. You can't project modern societal standards upon the past. Being single wasn't what it is today. It would be abnormal to go through life without amarriage and producing children, many children. And as Jesus was in his thirties(?) I believe when he was crucified, he would have been middle aged. Perhaps he had a wife and children prior to this or had a wife who died. I don't know, but my contention is that either he was a gay man or was married. I do think that his image within the Bible and what church dogma has created over the centuries paints a very different portrait ofa real man and that he is made to look more pure/saintly and messianic that he probably was when breathing.

[jefferiah]

It would be impossible for the gospels to have been written by their original apostles in many cases because some were not put to paper until well over a hundred years after Jesus's death.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It is like saying that because I have a copy of the Illiad from 1952 that it was impossible for Homer to have written it.

Edited November 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

As for my belief that Jesus was a gay man. It is not simply that he was single and had no children etc. Thinking of the timeframe and his occupation/wealth/social status, he would have been aberrant not to have taken a wife.

Equally ridiculous. Celibacy has been common among spiritual men since before the time of Christ. Not that sex is bad, but for someone who has a life mission or a particular focus the married life can be a hinderance. That's why Sydney Carton is the hero. He has no ties. Peter had a wife, but it could not have been easy to be an apostle wandering around while having a wife at home. How do you explain to most wives that you are going out into the desert to fast? If you have a wife and place more importance upon spiritual matters she will soon leave you.

[cybercoma]

I though the only unforgivable was the imperious curse?

Stop trying to get this thread back on topic. It is hopelessly lost.

[M.Dancer]

Oh, I just about spat my drink all over the keyboard reading that one! What a joke!

Not sure which made you laugh.....but the dates of the bew testament are within a life time and the reliability of ancient texts is so so..so the claim that the OT is the most reliable isn't such a nose puller.....sure it's filled with anachronisms.....but when it mentions foreigm relations and the events around them it is pretty good.

[M.Dancer]

Umm actually the New Testament was not written within the lifetimes of the apostles. That is why so many people have come to doubt. Not only that over the centuries because of canonization and various translations from one language to another the Bible has changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Authorship

It would be impossible for the gospels to have been written by their original apostles in many cases because some were not put to paper until well over a hundred years after Jesus's death.

Say again?

For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65 and no later than 75. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing.

[Rue]

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It is like saying that because I have a copy of the Illiad from 1952 that it was impossible for Homer to have written it.

Instead of playing the passive aggressive and simply dismissing what people have to say, exercise a bit of discussion and explain yourself. The above response suggests since something might be possible you can make assumptions it happened. Given that line of reasoning just who do you think might be said to be unreasonable? Before you engage in a Keng and hurl an accusation of ridiculous look at your own words.

Now tell us, how do you think it is possible the New Testament was not edited and is first hand eye witness testimony written by the actual authors.

Tell us how you arrived at the conclusion and dismiss all the archeological and historic evidence and a lot of it from very religious Christians that states otherwise?

Do tell us Mr. Everyone Is Ridiculous But You. I do so much want to be enlightened.

[GostHacked]

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It is like saying that because I have a copy of the Illiad from 1952 that it was impossible for Homer to have written it.

Purple Monkey Dishwasher.

Keng

How about neither, and to spare you the trouble and time in speculating, no other form of mortal union. Christ was sent for one purpose, and one purpose only.

He died for all our sins. Even the gay ones. Looks like Jesus saves, all of us no matter what happens in our lives. He simply died for our sins of past present and future.

Jawapunk said

People don't make a conscious choice one day to become gay.

Keng said

Who said it just happens "one day"?

By this are you admitting it is something that happens naturaly? If you are gay, you are gay. Just like if you are Christian, you are a Christian. A jew is a jew, a catholic is a catholic. A gay, is just gay, natualy gay. God made him that way, and it was not a choice for one to be gay.

If there are gays, it is because God permits it. Therefore totaly contradicting anything you say against gays. If god was true and just and everything the bible says he is, then god allowed all this to happen. His choice.

The reason why people are gay?

God made it that way.

Jesus died for God's mistakes which he transgresses to the rest of us in the form of sinning.

Shcplaadauuu!! (just some term my cousin uses)

Also check out a kick ass track called "I heart fags" by MC Frontalot.

http://frontalot.com/index.php/?page=lyrics&lyricid=16

Edited November 19, 2007 by GostHacked

[Rue]

Given Keng's statement that all of civilization need to be taught how to be moral and normal and of course given his role as one who claims to teach what is moral and normal for us all I said to msyelf, have there been other saviours and then at least 30 examples of saviours claiming to have descended from heaven and taken the form of men come to mind;

Chrishna of Hindostan

Budha Sakia of India

Salivahana of Bermuda

Zulis and Orus of Egypt

Odin of the Scandinavians Vikings)

Crite of Chaldea

Baal and Taut of Phoenecia

Indra of Tibet

Bali of Afganistan

Jao of Nepal

Wittoba of the Bilingonese

Thammuz of Syria

Atys of Phrygia

Xamolxis of Thrace

Adad of Assyria

Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam

Alcides of Thebes

Mikado of the Sintoos

Beddru of Japan

Hesus or Eros and Bremrillah of the Druids

Thor of the Gauls

Cadmus and Adonis of Greece

Hil and Feta of the Mandaites

Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico

the Universal Monarch of the Sibyls

Ischy of the island of Formosa

Divine teacher of Plato

the Holy One of Xaca

Fohi and Tien of China

Ixion and Quirinus of Rome

Prometheus of Caucasus

Mohamud or Mahomet of Arabia

not to mention Jesus of Nazareth

AND NOW quite possibly

Keng of Canada.

Edited November 19, 2007 by Rue

[M.Dancer]

Given Keng's statement that all of civilization need to be taught how to be moral and normal and of course given his role as one who claims to teach what is moral and normal for us all I said to msyelf, have there been other saviours and then at least 30 examples of saviours claiming to have descended from heaven and taken the form of men come to mind;

Cadmus and Adonis of Greece

Divine teacher of Plato

Cadmus didn't descend from heaven, his birth was human.

Socrates was fabulous but not devine.

[jawapunk]

I have no idea why what I said seems ridiculous at all. I am not sure where Dancer gets his dates from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament#Gospels

The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various unknown authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140. Its 27 books were gradually collected into a single volume over a period of several centuries.

The New Testament is a collection of works, and as such was written by multiple authors. The traditional view--that is, the authors according to most early orthodox Christians--is that all the books were written by Apostles (e.g. Matthew and Paul) or disciples working under their direction (e.g. Mark[1] and Luke[2]). However, since the second century or perhaps even the second half of the first century, these traditional ascriptions have been rejected by some. In modern times, with the rise of rigorous historical inquiry and textual criticism, the authenticity of orthodox authorship beliefs have been rejected in large part. While the traditional authors have been listed above, the modern critical view is discussed herein.

So where did the other dates come from? Anyways at 45 A.D. as the first date of any books written, this is over 12 years approximately from the death of Christ, still a ridiculous length of time for oral transcription of such a lengthy text. 140 AD is over a century. The error in so called first hand accounts etc would be enormous. Also, following Christs death, he was used as a political tool by many of his followers and I would also suggest that his biography as it were, in many ways was fabricated to spread the word and gain more following.

Again, I see nothing ridiculous in this. The bible is a book. Stating that it is divine making it infallible is totally ridiculous. It is completely open to scholarly debate just as any other man-made text is, and there are countless texts and researches done on it. To simply state that everything is true within its pages and there can be no question, even though there have been contradictions and historical errors brought to light by historians and scholars is basically pulling the blinders down over the eyes.

As far as the analogy to Homer's Iliad. Your logic is faulty, I am not talking about COPIES. I am talking about the original time these gospels and books were written. The range of dates is from 45 AD to 140 AD. Then over CENTURIES the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches argued over what books and gospels fit into their views. This was the process of canonization and these "meetings" called synods. Look them up before you spout crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod

Within these they argued about texts, the divinity of Christ, Mary and the apostles,the relationship of the trinity and a plethora of other topics. This is where our modern Christianity comes from and what you ascribe to today is based on centuries of debate and revision.