Where is Jesus?

[everythingafter]

It's recognised by most scholars that the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was added later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_t...Authorship
This is a fairly major story, too, as it allegedly demonstrates Jesus' views on forgiveness.

Read an NIV Bible (KJV is a bad translation) It doesnt ommit the woman caught in adultery (That would inflame too many christians) but it says, 'The earliest manusrcipts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.'

So I dont see your point...

So the NIV a better translation because it's a wholly Protestant effort? It's widely known that the NIV is a softened version of the KJV and includes multiple instances of attempting to right apparent contradictions or soften certain passages, Matthew 13:32, for instance:

31Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
32Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. — KJV

versus

Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches." — NIV

with "your" being added to make it appear that Jesus didn't incorrectly say that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds.

A translation that attempts this sort of thing can't be trusted. As we see here, the NIV version of this verse is different than at least 16 (!) other translations. Apologist commentaries will probably say that the mustard seed Jesus was referring to was, indeed, the smallest that might have been grown at that time in first-century Palestine. But he said of all seeds, and why would an omniscient being confine his knowledge of the world within such a localized time and district.

[Minimalist]

This is one thing that has really puzzled me about the NT. Even if Herod could have given the order, it doesn't make a lot of sense since Herod was merely a figurehead propped up by the Roman government. He didn't have the authority to order Roman soldiers to do something like this, on this scale-- and based on a silly prophecy? Te Roman government would have laughed at him.

Being an allied king of the Roman Empire was not like being Hamid Karzai or whoeverthefuck is running Iraq. The Roman Senate made Herod King in 40 BC at a time when there was a Parthian army holding the city. Both Mark Antony and Octavian confirmed Herod's status as king. The technical details of the arrangement meant that Herod needed Roman approval for any international moves. He could not declare war on anyone without Roman approval for instance, and any state marriages had to conform to Roman policy - a marriage with the Parthian Royal House would have been a no-no. Otherwise, internally, he was pretty much free to do as he wished. There were no taxes imposed by Rome. Instead a yearly tribute was imposed by treaty. There were generally no Roman soldiers in Herod's kingdom ( although the Tenth Legion did spend some time at Caesarea while the port was being built - a strategic brainstorm that would not have been lost on the Romans. Four legions were based in Syria to deal with the Eastern Theater. Herod had his own military force ( "army" might be too grandiose a term ) which he was free to use to police his realm.

However, no other writer - even the other 3 phony gospels - makes mention of the "slaughter of the innocents" at all. In that most "Jewish" of gospels ( Matthew) this story seems to be a rip-off of the Moses tale where the pharaoh also goes around slaughtering Jewish children in the hopes of forestalling an eventual rival. This theme was common in ancient literature. For example the birth stories of Sargon or Romulus and Remus. I'm afraid this is just some bullshit that "Matthew" made up to make a point.

This seems to be true of the gospels in general.

[tackattack]

[Minimalist]

Whether or not a man named "Hercules" ( or Jesus ) existed is irrelevant. Hercules was the son of Zeus and a mortal woman and your boy was allegedly the son of god and a mortal woman. Get the connection?

In Josephus alone there are more than 20 Jesuses so we know the name is common. It is not the name that is venerated but the deeds.

If someone wrote down Hercules' "deeds" do you believe they happened just the same as you believe in jesus' magic tricks?