The greek and hebrew texts may very well have had errors concerning trivial details (from 700 to 7000 troops or something like this) however this does not show contradiction since the essence of the message has remained the same. You can easily tell when there is a writing which is going against this message (i.e. out of context) and when it is not (such as the gnostic gospels). This is exactly what the canon set straight however the original writings have remained consistent...

You are speaking of dogma, not Christian stance. Unfortunately it is common that dogma will contradict or cloud what the true Christian meaning is. The "Christian Community" however exists because that is defined as those who believe in Christ Jesus, irregardless of dogma.

I'm not exactly sure what you got that from but in Hebrew, the word referring to spirit is "ruwach" (Strong's 07307). It's definition in using Hebrew Lexicon is "spirit"; it makes no reference to "force".

I'm surprised you are not familiar with this. Forgive me if I'm brief but I am shooting with what I have off the top of my head (I've got a lot of extensive notes on both Mormon and JW).

According to the Book of Mormon, the belief that when you die you follow the path of Jesus and become a God unto your own place in heavens (not the heaven, but some kind of realm). There is more to it but I just can't remember it right now...

There is a difference which you skimmed over I'm sure - Moses was approached by God himself, no angel and in the case of Mary, she was approached by an angel who identified himself as a messenger from God. It is attributed that it was an angel of the Lord because the angel identified himself as such. In the case of Moroni, at no time did this spirit attribute himself to God. While the name of Jesus was used, as Moroni claims he saw Jesus "face to face", the problem here is that would mean that Jesus had returned to Earth when he had already previously said (from the Gospels) he would not do until the end of time. This would be in direct contradiction to those texts and hence could NOT have been Jesus. At that point the remainder of what was spoken concerning the golden plates would be seen as Moroni as well as Smith were mislead by an evil spirit.

You cannot easily tell. Many christian detractors of homosexuality flip straight to the book of Leviticus to back up their position, yet ignore nearly every other admonition in that book.  The bible has been used to both justify and abolish slavery, or to curtail and advance women's rights among other duplicities.  Routinely, one takes from the bible what one wants to take.

The functioning versions of christianity today result from the subjective decision in the 4th century to discard gospels such as Thomas and Peter, as well as the Arius' teachings.  Hardly a study in consistency.

What a particular denomination professes to be "true Christian meaning" is as much a part of its dogma as anything else. 

 As mentioned before, your stated criterion of "belief in jesus christ" applies to jw's and mormons.  They believe in jesus, so by this simple standard of yours, they are christian.  Yet in your most recent post, you disqualified them due to differences of dogma.  Yet when challenged on the irreconcilable dogmatic differences within the "christian community", you respond by saying dogma is irrelevant, and we're back to "belief in jesus" as the definitive standard.  Your argument has come full circle. 

You flatter me.  I am somewhat familiar with this, but I wish to see your logic in operation as you distinguish between "really wild" mormonism and "normal" christianity.

That is indeed "really wild".  It is patently ridiculous.  However, I do not see how it is any more ridiculous than the standard christian beliefs of a god who became a man, died and rose from the dead, so as to save us from the punishment that he himself prescribed for us. 

It would appear at this point that your argument for mormonism's falsehood is that the angel did not explicitly identify himself as a messenger of god.  I beg your pardon, but this seems like nothing more than a game of "Simon Says".

If I'm not mistaken, mormons use the same bible you do.  Needless to say, they have managed to find a way to make the joseph smith story and the book of mormon fit with the bible, which is satisfactory in their own minds.  As there is no overarching authority (nor ever has been) to determine what christianity is and what the proper reading of the bible is, anyone is free to form their own version of the story.  Mormonism just represents another offshoot (albeit more drastic) of the same nebulous jesus story, alongside all the other thousands of variations.

Man, listen, you don't know much about me.  I guess I made the mistake of sharing too much personal info.  Don't worry, I'm sure I'll figure it out just fine.  Now enough about my life. 

wiki entry for Restoration Movement

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

just for grins 

As to why it took 400 years to make one canon it comes from the necessity thanks to incorrect word of mouth traditions and falsehoods.  The original manuscripts I'd dare to say are largely unchanged from their origins and what changes were done almost entirely happened when it went from Greek to Latin, still leaving Greek as the true source.

The alternate gospels authenticity was never clear to begin with.  They were removed based on one of the principles of what the canon defined as being "authentic" - contradiction.  For example, in the Gospel of Judas, it is said Jesus pulled Judas aside and told him he was the greatest disciple because of what he would have to do.  In the other gospels, Jesus told them all there is not a greatest and not one should put himself before the other.  There are other issues with the gnostic texts as well (such as the period in which they were written) that lead to their removal.

If you are asking if it's a specific person that said no, to that I have no answer because as far as I know, there never was one.  The reasons however that show why they are not considered are above. 

Actually, no.  Denominations form because of dogmatic practices that superseded the teachings of the bible. The difference from Christian denominations and that of JW/Mormon is to what regard Jesus is held and in ALL Christian views, there is a trinity, Jesus is the son of God by virgin birth, and Jesus gave us salvation.

sugar, if you're going to copy and paste, you should at least provide the link to the original article, or at least cite it. After finding and reading the article myself, I have another critique - you ought not to selectively copy and paste paragraphs which support your view, at least not when other points made in the article run counter to it (my emphasis added):

"The scrolls shake us up a bit because they show that there were about three different versions of the Bible around in that time period," presenting a challenge to the concept of the immutable word of God, said Peter Flint, another expert on the scrolls at Trinity Western.

 

Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some 670 of the nearly 900, are "non-biblical" documents that include commentary on the biblical texts and rules for living, providing a rich picture of Jewish thought and life at the time of Jesus Christ...Scholars say it is clear that many of these "non-biblical" scrolls were regarded by those who held them 2,000 years ago as sacred texts, as scripture -- as part of the "Bible" of their day.

As more and more scrolls were discovered, the questions piled up like windblown sand: Who were the authors? Why were some of their documents incorporated into the modern Bible and some left out? And why, if some of these sacred texts were written during the time of Jesus, is there no mention of the birth of Christianity?

[The article does go to present the arguments of some scholars that the scrolls do acknowledge christianity -- but emphasizes that they lie in the minority]

So sugar, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that there was never any fixed canon. The existence of the scrolls incidentally cast further doubt on jesus' historicity -- as some date to the exact time and region in which jesus was presumed to have lived, one ought to expect some exact reference to him. Yet there is no mention of jesus.

As far as the accuracy of translation, which was the point of your post: The DSS represent earlier versions than what was previously known, they are still only copies do not represent the original manuscripts -- they only date to around the first century, hundreds of years after the originals were written. It has been shon that when texts are transmitted by handwritten copies, errors always find their way in -- both intentionally and not. The Talmud itself acknowledges the errors arising in copied texts - mentioning deliberate scribal alterations of Old Testament texts. Furthermore, there are no New Testament texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so they do not get a free pass on accuracy -- or at least your definition of it. The numerous errors in the King James versions show that even the printing press did not introduce a new standard of biblical accuracy. Our old friend Joseph Smith claimed that the versions of the bible in use at the time were erroneous. So as far as mormons are concerned, "mainstream" christians are reading the wrong version of the bible.

So sugar, at best the DSS allow for greater (but not complete) accuracy in modern biblical scholarship, but do nothing to suggest that there was at any time a pure and uncorrupted version of anything; it does not change the fact that for the 2 millennia prior to their discovery, christianity has meandered and morphed with faulty translations in tow. Never have we held in our hands the word straight from god.

Sugar, it's not only common courtesy, but part of Intellectual Property to cite or link articles from which you copy information.  People shouldn't have to Google to find that you are copying your information.

You want the techie answer or the answer based upon God?

The techie answer would be selective learning.  Just as we have denominations that preach showing of faith by handling snakes many others form from "we'll follow this part but not that so we can say we are different."

The God based answer is almost the same but where the source comes from.  Just as Satan fooled Eve into thinking God said something that he really didn't and how he tried to fool Jesus into using scripture out of context, Satan can easily lead other astray. 

I'm sure that can be twisted just enough to say men wrote the bible as well.  If God has his influence then we believe the actions being done are the right way to follow. 

We can go back and forth on this topic even though I've already given you proof on exactly how they differ.  Every generation thinks they know when Jesus will return but only God knows this, as written in the gospels.  This is one reason I don't use Revelation often as a means for scripture because even if those views come true, they are far to symbolic to understand or reveal any timetable.  Defining "christian views" is simple because it revolves around the example of one person.  The additional letters in the NT do not make new scripture, only re-enforce what Jesus already taught.  It is the difference from that where JW's and Mormon's differ as they do create new scripture and pervert the existing into meaning something other than what was intended which is why they are not considered "Christian".  All the others (Christian denoms) do worship the same Jesus.

atta way jc...keep taking me out of context and call it a contradiction.

OK bible study time it seems...

1. The NT is the OT fulfilled.  That means that the law is complete, especially the points of sacrifice, as Jesus became all of those.

2. Revelation is scripture that is not ignored but not usually used in the context of explaining what Christianity is.  It is prophesy...future tense.  This is why it's rare to use Revelation to explain scripture.

Make more sense now? 

And this is a good thing? Is a denomination's claim to being christian invalidated by such cherry picking?

Once again, begging the question. In each denomination, its adherents believe that they have the "real" version, and all others are a little off, or way off -- or not christian at all. Without an objective standard (sound familiar?), how do we determine which denominations are being lead astray by satan (and to what degree), and which denomination is on the straightest path (the one least fooled by satan)?

No twisting required. The bible was in fact written by men.

Um, begging the question. Again. Each denomination believes it is getting the best reception of god's influence. How do we measure for god's positive influence vs. satan' negative influence? If we could in fact measure for this, wouldn't we be able to establish which is the truest version of christianity, and dismiss all the others as obvious heresies?

So the very same jesus "influences" the episcopalians to vote in female and homosexual pastors, then "influences" the presybterians to vote down gender neutral language for the trinity, then goes to Rome to advise the pope on catholic doctrine (no democratic vote required)?

With a jesus like this, who needs satan to sow confusion?

LOL if Jesus is what Christanity is about, can't you put 2 and 2 together to figure that Jesus is no excuse?  

I don't know about whom else you've met but I'm not here to force anything on you.  I'm explaining Christanity because that is the subject of this thread.  It's actually OK that you don't understand it though because I've made my point...I suppose it's easier for you to simply dismiss it.

No single person on this planet right now living is perfect and to claim that Christians need to be perfect in order to be believable is just stupid. You know as well as every person on this forum that is not possible nor will it ever be.

Your lack of understanding of Romans is obvious. Paul tells you, in Romans 1:1 whom he serves. He corrects Corinth in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 that it is not him anyone should follow because his words and inspiration come from Jesus. And you accuse me of "Cafeteria Christianity" when you, who does not believe in the words written, are calling them contradictions when, once again, you use them in the context that you want instead of what they are actually written in. If you want to ask questions about what Christianity is, which happens to be the title of this thread, I'll answer them.

To your point...you say you can use Romans 4 and 5 to "contradict" Romans 6 yet you do not understand the purpose of each of those chapters. Romans 4 is directed to all in Rome, Jew and Gentile, to make the point that there was no law at the time of Abraham yet he was considered righteous. He explains starting at verse 13 (which you conveniently left out) how the promise that God made was given to Abraham - because of his faith not because of law. Paul uses 14-15 as a "devils advocate" statement in saying if it was only about law then faith would count for nothing.

Romans 5 adds to his point of faith and relates it all back to Jesus and how that gives us exactly what Jesus' words speak - life eternal thanks to Jesus' sacrifice. The verses you use justify your second rebuttal are about how only from laws can we realize what sin is and knowing what sin is helps you achieve righteousness in following the example of Jesus. God used the laws to have his chosen people rise up to his glory but when we could do no such thing, God's mercy sent us Jesus to fulfill/complete the laws so we who are imperfect only need follow one example....

My only hope is you would start asking questions instead of beginning with an assumption that is a lie. Paul's words are nothing more than Jesus' words all over again but with a lot more detail because he was the apostle to the Gentiles which means his job was to convey who Jesus was to those who did not believe to start with. His mission was far more difficult than that of Peter or the others and his words are not to justify himself but rather to give credit to Jesus.

You accuse me of "cafeteria Christianity" and you bring me those? Let me say first you bring forth sources from non-Christians who are blinded to the truth by God. Their writings make sense to n one except those willing to believe anything but the word from God.

Your first source is basing the argument incorrectly from the beginning. Paul is addressing God as the creator and Jesus as a man on Earth. It does not implicitly separate the two as separate deities but rather just two states (God as father, Jesus as son while man on earth); the writer is reaching by twisting the verses to spotlight the fact that Paul wrote both. He is trying to disprove the trinity illogically.

Your second source, trying to prove that salvation must be obtained by deeds, well I can only call him way off base since most of his arguments don't make sense. He's doing quite a lot of miscontexual (that a word?) referencing in trying to say "OK this will give you heaven, no wait this will, no wait let's try a third way, OK this one for sure...maybe."

Matthew 11:27 No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

The gift of faith can only be granted by God to understand who Jesus is. No deeds will accomplish this. Knowing Jesus is the key to salvation but it does not mean a free ticket nor does it give you leeway to act the fool either. Jesus, just like Paul and Peter and James and John, all give further instructions on how to act like a Christian and what it gives you when you do. Because you've been given the faith does not mean you can't be moved to evil later because there is a saying, "The closer you get to God the closer you will get to Satan" meaning as you are drawn in by the grace of God Satan will step up the attacks, give you more reasons to doubt, and present you with falsehoods to make you think twice.

Your third reference..."he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever."

He starts off with a lie. There is no "Pauline Christanity" which I've already given you biblical references to (all you have to do is read the first few lines of all Paul's letters and you'll see where he gives credit to). The second statement, "no known wittings", why is he omitting the gospels?

His first stab at a contradiction, a timeline issue of what states in Acts to where he went after receiving the gift from the spirit of Jesus vs. what he stated in Galatians; he's speaking of two separate instances in which he traveled to Damascus, once when he was told how to get his vision back and the second time (hence the word returned in v17 meaning he had already been there) after what I would describe as meditation.

The one I found most interesting is putting Paul at odds with other disciples. He mentions Acts 21:21 as proof that James and Paul disagreed however he reads the verse out of context (again).

Acts 21:19-24 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. Here are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

If you read the fullness of when Paul arrived in Jerusalem you would understand that James is repeating A RUMOR about Paul, not him confronting Paul.

One additional note about the 3rd...anyone who has read the Letter to the Hebrews would understand it is not Paul's style of writing so where he got that it was traditionally attributed to Paul is suspect. Hebrews has always been attributed to Peter, which if you read that letter along with Peter's epistles you'd understand why.

Christianity is based upon the example of Jesus and defined by the apostles. Your sources twist what the bible states to try to make it seem otherwise...so which presuppositions do you speak of; the one's who's faith made known to them the truth or the one's who do it for Earthly glory?

And how am I supposed to take this? You come at me with a hostile attitude and you expect no reaction? If I sound condescending it is because of frustration....it is not personal and you shouldn't get so angry over it.

I've seen worse...and maybe I've become too trigger happy since I start deeming all the same... 

The death of Jesus is guesstimated to be sometime around 30-40 AD.  The Gospel of Mark, the oldest, is said to be written around 65-75 AD.  That puts it around 25-35 years...my point being that those who walked with Jesus would have certainly been alive.  You say no contemporary sources yet you forget the Jewish historian Josephus and a Roman historian who's name I forget.

Pauline Christianity does not exist; you and your source are making it up to prove a falsehood. 

Two points on this...

1. There is a point to be made about the time period in which these were written - our culture is not that of how people lived 2000 years ago.  Much of what is misunderstood is cultural based which means to the people of the time, it was VERY clear.  We have to do studies today to understand meaning and culture to get all dimensions of what the writers spoke of (but the message remains the same and relatively simple)
2. The gift of faith that God gives includes the ability to understand the texts and understand cultural points when studied.  Without this so called intelligent men who cannot understand what was not given to them will thump their chests with the answers all the while be wrong.  This reminds me of all these paleontologists who just announced how they got it wrong with the dinosaurs and now have to correct their displays - 20 years ago they didn't consider themselves wrong then but now they are?  What if they are wrong about God too?

 OK did you forget that there was no such thing as a printing press?  Everything then was done by hand so who is to say that it didn't take a decade to write at least and another to put together.  Something like these are not written in a day and without today's equipment how long would it take you to copy the gospel of mark considering you still have to work for a living, you are not going to be able to devote 100% of your time to just this, etc etc etc.  Put yourself in the society of 2000 years ago, no telephones, no internet, no automobiles, having to walk where you go, and when it's time to print, the writing materials, the ink, none of these things are exactly easy to come by especially as a Jew in Roman society.  You give far too much credit that it could have been done in say a year or so.

1. Not a contemporary of Jesus (born four years after Jesus allegedly died by the most generous interpretation)

So this means that someone earlier didn't document it or speak of it and Josephus couldn't have been an apprentice who later completed the work or the historian who was interviewing someone who was there?  Historians rarely live at the time of the event...

2. The statement calling Jesus the Christ is widely accepted as a forgery (or at least an interpolation added by someone other thatn Josephus as a later date).

Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Your resource stated the following (in reference to the paragraph listing Jesus and James):

This paragraph is generally accepted as authentic by scholars, although there is debate as to whether the words who was called Christ were in the original passage, or were a later interpolation.

That doesn't sound like a "widely accepted forgery" especially considering that debate didn't have a citation.

1. Again, not around when Jesus was "alive".

Check this link http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

 It appears that you gave me a link that shows it's 50/50 on Tacitus listing Jesus.  While probable is in question, POSSIBLE is there in accordance to observed science. (same argument given to evolution).

That falls under the assumption that there were no people recording the events that were happening as they did and those writings didn't make their way into what would become the gospels. By this time there were many many apprentices and their job was to record like crazy so the fact that we don't have any writings about these individuals does not mean they didn't exist (hell Luke and Mark are both considered to be apprentices to apostles). Historians typically go back to what was in existence and put it together to give a complete picture....right?

And yet it's unthinkable for you to consider the opposite.  As I've stated before, I know you will not accept these things as God has not given you the ability to understand them.  Even ignoring that fact, all the evidence presented has enough credibility to present the possibility that there was a Jesus, it's safer for you to deny it but yet you present no logical reason why.  In fact, you deny it so passionately you remind me of the Jews of the time who, even when they saw it with their own eyes, denied Jesus because of the threat to the institution to which you hold so dear...

1. If there were people living during the time christ allegedly walked the earth writing down what Jesus said and did as he was saying and doing it, you'd have a contemporary source or sources that you could cite and we wouldn't be continuing this discussion.

2. As an ex-christian, I did live on the possibility as you are doing now. But I also had a desire to seek evidence for Christianity because the joy that they had promised would be there wasn't (not saying I needed to be happy all the time but Scripture didn't say anything about my staying depressed and hopeless) I needed more than just a possibility to hang on to but couldn't find any.

As far as there being a historical Jesus - there were probably thousands. After all, Yeshua was a common name. Was there a Jesus that did all the stuff proclaimed in the Bible - there is no evidence for that. All that you and others have is a belief and a belief is not evidence.  

jcgadfly wrote:

1. If there were people living during the time christ allegedly walked the earth writing down what Jesus said and did as he was saying and doing it, you'd have a contemporary source or sources that you could cite and we wouldn't be continuing this discussion.

Same response I gave above...when the temple was destroyed, who knows what else went with it. But the sources we do have not to mention the fact that Christians themselves are past and present proof of Jesus, it continues.

-----

Why would the Jews keep anything about Jesus? He was a heretic and infidel to their faith, right? Wasn't that why they wanted Rome to execute him? Your response doesn't make sense according to the Bible you believe in.

For me, it's simply a shorter step to think that there is no evidence because the Jesus of the Bible didn't exist than to have to engage in the kind of mental gymnastics you're working at.

Also, your claim that christ is proven because christians exist is as unreliable as saying the FSM exists because there are people who call themselves pastafarians. 

-----

2. As an ex-christian, I did live on the possibility as you are doing now. But I also had a desire to seek evidence for Christianity because the joy that they had promised would be there wasn't (not saying I needed to be happy all the time but Scripture didn't say anything about my staying depressed and hopeless) I needed more than just a possibility to hang on to but couldn't find any.

The truth and joy comes from God, not from others. The proof I needed was actually hearing the word from God when I finally started to listen. I still slip but not like I used to and definitely not in the same manor. Please don't take this personally but I myself used to be miserable and depressed and I at times felt like I couldn't do anything about it. I discovered that the reason I felt this way was because I was doing what I wanted instead of what God's word was telling me I should do. I regret nothing of what I've done because it taught me lessons..understanding that sleeping around or getting drunk or using drugs was not the path to living a life that I wanted to be proud of and it took one hell of an event to snap me out of it. Being a Christian is not about going to church at some building or how much is 10% or even saying God bless you. Being a Christian is following the faith that God gives and the example he gave with Jesus, both of which are enforced by the texts in the bible. When that takes over in your heart you find it hard to even want to revert back to the other way that you used to live..

-----

-----

All that you and others have is a belief and a belief is not evidence.

But when you know where that belief came from because you received it just as clearly as if someone handed you a diploma on a stage, it's evidence enough for you to want to live that way with all you have even when you screw up...

-----

Thanks for that lovely emotional appeal. Doesn't make your belief more real or evidentiary.

If it was you it happened to, might be another story. 

Odd that you'd say that considering Paul's letters are in direct support of what was written...or did you miss the examples I sent you? 

Why would Roman records be in a Jewish temple?  That didn't make any sense... 

Let me correct you just a bit...

What I'm saying is God makes himself known to everyone and calls many.  But not all that are called are the one's chosen to do God's will.   That means that faith is given to many so belief is not a chosen deal.  Until that happens to you, if it does, it may seem like a choice but it's not.

Because those who have been given the gift understand exactly what it is I speak of and all behave the same.   But it is much more than that....I think I've explained in pretty good detail as to what happens when it hits you.

Noooo...I'm saying God reveals the truth to some and blinds others, just as in the example of Pharaoh from the bible.

I'm trying to cover all aspects for you so this has been on several levels.  I'm trying to show you where you can find proof, where you can find possibilities when you have no faith.  For those who are given the gift however, none of that is necessary because it's already been made clear.  It's difficult to clarify anything though if you insist on combining what I'll describe as "points of view".

Did you also forget that Paul was writting his letters about the same time as the gospels were being written?   What is more important...what Darwin said/wrote or what he did while he was alive (like did you know he was seasick?  Did you know he married his cousin?)  Should those events have been written about in subsequent letters about the theories that Darwin produced?

Same as I listed above.  They are worded differently but sent the exact same message.  If you read the comparisons you see the connection and realize they are both talking of the same subject.  In fact, you should be able to say they are saying the same thing.  For example, if I told you I rode my motorcycle vs. I cruised on my harley,  am I not saying the same thing?  If you tell me no because you are trying to be technical...then I guess you got me.

Yet you reject the roman historian who wrote about Jesus.  And even though the temple was destroyed, you reject the possibility that Josephus was also correct.  It just surprises me that you have selective as to which you decide is credible and which is not...

I don't find any confusion nor do those who have received the gift.  I really wish you could share in the same gift because only then you'd understand... 

You test.  Every spirit will either give credit to God or to themselves.  This one is very cut and dry...

Actually they aren't.  Everything I've written, everything I've described, comes right from the bible.  God gives the gift of faith and God can make some blind to the truth.  Each of these cases are those who are doing his will and it is very plain when he wants you to do his will or not.  To all however Satan can influence the direction taken. 

Ummm...Mark was written sometime before 70.

Interesting conclusion...

OK that's about the weakest thing you've said yet. The FACT that the messages delivered are repeated by the letters of Paul and you reduce them to "oblique similarity"....no one in history stated the message like Jesus did and no one since and you think Paul could have just thought up those on his own.

Yes of course they all do. But who are those who claim received the gift accrediting it to? Mormon?..a man. JW?...a group. Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Nazerene?...God. There is a difference and you have yet to acknowledge that.

Denominations, again, are the result of men thinking they know best on how to worship God. All denominations are wrong and the hope is that all Christians will remove these separations but they do not matter.

God does not compete against himself...how did you get that?

The most charitable exegesis still places the writing of Mark the time of the 1st Revolt, which began in 66.  This is if one reads the mention of the Temple Destruction as prophetic, rather than a record of the event -- which would place the writing in the year 70 or later.  The primary argument for a pre-70 writing is the Qumran fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls, but that conclusion is widely disputed by scholars.  Even if we allow a date of writing in 66:  This hardly implies "Paul was writting his letters about the same time as the gospels were being written",  unless you contend Paul wrote all of his letters in the last year of his life.

Care to elaborate? 

The FACT that the gospels were written after Paul's letters are better indication that the gospels are repeating Paul's words, rather than that jesus said his piece, Paul reworded it in his letters, then people finally decided to write down the original quotes.   

And yes, many of those thoughts attributed to jesus can be found in other writings (with different wording, of course).  Mouse has been courteous enough to provide some examples.  Any perceived continuity between the Epistles and the Gospels is hardly remarkable.

Do not baptists, catholics, methodists, lutherans and nazarenes all disagree with one another?  Of course they do, else the wouldn't go by all those different names.  Hence they cannot have all received the same gift.  Each denomination thinks it has the real gift.  Which one is telling the truth?

 I agree with you as far as "all denominations are wrong".  And if you noticed, these separations aren't getting removed; if anything, they're increasing.  The truth of the original beliefs is quite suspect if subscription to them does not preclude these resulting dogmatic separations.

"competing against himself" was a rhetorical reference to your claim that god blinds people on occasion to further his own goals.  Quite similar to the accusation made against jesus - that he dispelled demons because satan gave him the power to do so.  In any case, according to your scheme, our minds are not always our own:  sometimes god is embedding the truth, sometimes satan is deceiving us, and sometimes god is blinding us from the truth. 

Damn, this game is rigged.