It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

jesus did exist, face it!

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by I am Legend
just wondering..................how exactly can a book that was written by the inspired hand of god be fallible?


Very easily.

Because only MEN CLAIM it is from the inspired hand of God.



Originally posted by I am Legend
i have heard the "well.............men wrote it" excuse 1000 times, but it doesnt wash. men wrote many many books through time, none of which claim to be inspired writing.


Rubbish.
Many other religious books claim exactly that.
You have clearly never studied this subject at all.


Iasion




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion



Just a quesiton, but what exactly do you think you're winning by doing this?

Are you part of tha Atheist Brigade here to bring us all to enlightenment?


[edit on 26-8-2007 by metro]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by janasstar

source from external source: online wikipaedia
Jesus as a historical person
Main articles: Historical Jesus and Quest for the Historical Jesus
The Historical Jesus is a reconstruction of Jesus using modern historical methods. Most historians consider the accounts of Jesus' life to be historically useful.



I have read Wiki and many books in this area.
I am well aware of the claims about Jesus.

The fact that MOST people BELIEVE Jesus was historical means nothing - most people used to believe the world was the fixed center of the universe - so what?

How many historians who argue for Jesus being historical are Christians? Nearly all of them.

Janasstar, you ignored my question -
do you believe the stories Muslims tell about Mohamed?
do you believe the stories Theosophists tell about H.P.B.?
do you believe the stories Hindus tell about Krishna?
Or do you only believe one set of stories?


Anyway -
I have carefully checked the evidence for myself,
and I have read the books arguing Jesus is myth.

Have you, Janasstar?

It appears not.
It seems you simply searched for sites etc. that supported your beliefs.

Anyone who wishes to argue the historicity of Jesus will need to research the argument for non-historicity first - start here :
www.jesuspuzzle.com...

Then,
one should check the alleged evidence for Jesus - I did exactly that, and I listed the evidence above.

But you ignored it completely.
Same as you ignored my questions above.

Tell me janasstar -

Do you believe all the saints rose from the grave and walked the streets of Jerusalem?

When was Jesus born? what year?
How do you explain the contradiction ?


Iasion



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by janasstar
Well let's see here, I don't think the authors of the Gospels were alive during the flood, or the 'snake talking, or the earth stopping rotating. But, do I believe it? Yes, I do. I am not the only one. Even non-christians are aware that a great flood happened upon the face of the earth. Scientists and archaeologists alike are pretty convinced.


Scientists are universally certain the flood did NOT happen.
It is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did not happen.


Originally posted by janasstar
Do I believe that the earth stopped rotating? Yes, and now, so does certain scientists.


Scientists are universally certain this NOT happen.
It is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did not happen.


Originally posted by janasstar
Please read the following:


I HAVE read it.
It is a well-known faery-tale that no real scientists believes.

Here is what NASA REALLY says about that faery-tale :


We, too, have heard an "urban legend" about scientists at NASA GSFC finding the "missing day" in computer calculations of the motions of the planets. The legend has been around for longer than NASA itself, but turned into a NASA "event" sometime in the 60's. The story goes that some scientists were doing orbital mechanics calculations to determine the positions of the planets in the future, for use in determining the trajectories of future satellite missions. They realized they were off by a day. A biblical scholar in the lot remembered the passage from Joshua and all was set right. But these events, in fact, never occurred. It is easy to understand why:

The "GSFC finds missing day" urban legend doesn't make sense for the following reason. If we want to know where the planets will be in the future, we use accurate knowledge of their initial positions and orbital speeds (which would be where they are located now), and solve for their positions for some time in the future. We solve a very well determined set of equations that describe their motions. The major dynamical component of any planet's orbital motion is determined by solving an equation (force is equal to the mass times the acceleration) which is the perhaps the most fundamental in classical physics. The validity and predictive power of this equation are well documented and can be seen every day: a recent example is the lunar eclipse that was visible to much of the world last Sunday. This calculation would not cover any time before the present, so some missing day many centuries ago, if it had occurred, could not be uncovered with this method.

In general, trying to prove events that are said to have occurred in the Bible, using scientific principles, doesn't work. Most scientists draw a clear distinction between things that are taken on faith, and those that are testable and therefore falsifiable. Science deals with the later, and religion with the former.


That's from the ACTUAL NASA web site :
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Janasstar - you repeated an urban legend, KNOWN to be false, without even checking the facts.

Clearly, you are infected with Morton's Demon.

Bye.


Iasion



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by janasstar
Do I believe that the earth stopped rotating? Yes, and now, so does certain scientists. Please read the following:

NASA & THE BIBLE


Thought this was pretty amazing and interesting!!

For all the scientists out there, and for all the students who have a hard time convincing these people regarding the truth of the Bible, here's something that shows God's awesome creation, and that He is still in control.

Did you know that the space program is busy proving that what has been called "myth" in the Bible is true?

Mr. Harold Hill, President of the Curtis Engine Company in Baltimore, Maryland, and a consultant in the space program, relates the following development.


This story is FICTION.

It's history is well known.

Anyone can read up on this FICTIONAL story, 2 minutes Googling will confirm it is false.

Of course, janasstar never checks any facts.

Here are few links I found in a minute or two showing clearly that Janasstar's story is FALSE :

www.truthorfiction.com...

www.about-him.com...

Even AIG says it's false :
www.answersingenesis.org...

Believers like Janasstar will believe anything that supports their beliefs - no matter that it's FICTION.

Janasstar will believe fiction if it agrees with her beliefs, without ever checking the facts.


Iasion



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
Time itself changed. BC / AD. He is real.


What nonsense.
Time did not change at all.

Six CENTURIES after Jesus, someone started using the AD system.
So what?
We have many calendars in use today - so what?


We name our weeks after Gods - e.g. Thursday = Thor's Day.
Therefore, Thor is real !

We name our months after Gods - e.g. June = Juno
Therefore, Juno is real !



Iasion



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I would really like to see ANY reputable evidence showing the bible is an historical document.


First,
you better define what you mean by "historical document".

Because this term has two different meanings -
1. an ancient document
2. a document which describes history.

Janasstar claimed the Bible is a "historical document" - implying it tells accurate history, when it does not.

Sure,
it is a document from ancient history - like :
* The Golden Ass of Apuleis
* The Illiad

Does that mean those books are true?
Of course not.

Neither is the Bible true just because it is an ancient document from history.


Iasion



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by lenisey
So what?????
This man called Jesus somehow still has got the attention of the entire
world over 2000 years after his death


Wrong.
It has the attention of SOME of the world.
Or do you thinkg Christianity is the ONLY religion that exists?

But oddly -
when Jesus lived - NO-ONE notived him at all :
qdj.50megs.com...



Originally posted by lenisey
We all have heard his whole life story, his words and beliefs,
we have religions built around him, and people fighting & killing in his name


Same as Mohamed, or many others.
So what?


Iasion



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
The Bible is historical. It tells of the beginning of this age, hints at the one before it and tells us about how one man and his family influenced the world. It was divinely inspiried by God and the original manuscripts have that Word locked in. It cannot be altered. Translations, done by man, have allowed mistakes, some purposeful and some not, to become part of what we read today.


The Illiad is historical. It tells of the beginning of this age, hints at the one before it and tells us about how one man and his family influenced the world. It was divinely inspiried by Zeus and the original manuscripts have that Word locked in. It cannot be altered. Translations, done by man, have allowed mistakes, some purposeful and some not, to become part of what we read today.



Originally posted by whirlwind
If you study only from a King James version you can see what those words mean in their original language with the aid of a Strong's Concordance, (assuming you don't speak Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and have access to the manuscripts). If not, you must take man's word for it and Jesus warns us against that. Revisions are very dangerous and can completly change the original intent. It is fine to study them but it's probably wiser to have a solid foundation of scriptural understanding first.


The KJV?
Probably the single WORST translation ever made - in terms of accuracy to the ancient manuscripts. Since the KJV many changes have been made.



Originally posted by whirlwind
As you say, it is accumulated from a variety of hands and times but that makes it all the more amazing in that the story, the teaching, the prophecy remains true throughout. God's thumbprint is shown in places, one of which is Psalms 22. In it David, 1,000 years before the birth of Christ, wrote of His crucifixion.


The book is riddled with errors and contradictions and horrible savagery. The prophecies are fantasy - the NT was written when the OT was known, so they used the OT episodes to CREATE the NT stories of Jesus.

The prophecies are no more miraculous than Gandalf fulfilling in LOTR what he announced in The Hobbit.

Gandalf prophesied that Sauron would be defeated in The Hobbit.

And lo -
Sauron WAS defeated in LOTR !

Hallelujah !
Gandalf is Lord !



Iasion



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
The author Tony Bushby proclaims an interesting variation in the Jesus story.

His Jesus was a Essene Rabbi and had a twin brother Judas, who was a political zealot. The Jesus story we know in the new testament is a combination of the lives of these twins.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by jfj123
I would really like to see ANY reputable evidence showing the bible is an historical document.


First,
you better define what you mean by "historical document".

Because this term has two different meanings -
1. an ancient document
2. a document which describes history.

Janasstar claimed the Bible is a "historical document" - implying it tells accurate history, when it does not.

Sure,
it is a document from ancient history - like :
* The Golden Ass of Apuleis
* The Illiad

Does that mean those books are true?
Of course not.

Neither is the Bible true just because it is an ancient document from history.


Iasion


Gee! I am so sorry! I am so glad that this has been brought to my attention. All this time I really thought those horrible Caesar people really existed, because the bible said they did. Guess I'll throw that thing away.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by metro
Just a quesiton, but what exactly do you think you're winning by doing this?


Winning?
This is a discussion board where people discuss and debate.
I am here discussing and debating.


Originally posted by metro
Are you part of tha Atheist Brigade here to bring us all to enlightenment?


So,
anyone who disagrees with you is an "atheist" ?

You are wrong.
I am not an atheist.


Anyway -
who aren't you discussing the historical evidence for Jesus?

Surely that's the subject here?

It's been pages now since anyone mentioned any historical evidence - I posted a detailed list of analysis of this alleged "evidence" and no-one even mentioned it once!

Let's have a look at the alleged "evidence" for Jesus again -



JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.
* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


...



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
...

QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



In short,
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.




Iasion



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by janasstar
Gee! I am so sorry! I am so glad that this has been brought to my attention. All this time I really thought those horrible Caesar people really existed, because the bible said they did. Guess I'll throw that thing away.


Why can't you deal with the issues?
Instead of these silly arguments.

Do you REALLY believe that Caesar is considered real BECAUSE he is mentioned in the Bible?

What silly nonsense.

We have MOUNTAINS of hard historical evidence for Caesar, even from his OWN TIME - coins, statues, writings, archeological remains.

For Jesus - NOTHING.


Or do you believe that any book that mentions a real person is true?
So then, James Bond is real?


All old books must be scrutinised and checked - we do NOT just believe ANY old book - we check them, compare, examine etc.

The NT is religious litrerature - like the Illiad, the Golden Ass etc. - it is not history.

That is why it is found under RELIGION in a library - NOT under History.


Iasion



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Iasion
 


You can spout that till the cows come home, but you'll never convince a person who has experienced Jesus, that He didn't or does not exist.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Janasstar stated that Nasa scientists found a "missing day". This is a baseless urban legend dating as far back as the 1890s. Meaning simply, it is wrong.

source: www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Iasion
 


you forgot his own writings, caesar had those...
for the person supposed to be god, jesus really didn't write...
is god illiterate?



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
The issue is not whether Jesus or any other Biblical figure ever existed, it is how they existed. Even if Jesus was a fictitious character made up by the authors of the Gospels, significant portions of his character had to be based on real people that were living and teaching at the same time and place as Jesus.


Rubbish.
The Gospels stories are based on the Tanakh and pagan literature.


Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Let us use Homer Simpson from the Simpsons as an example. We all agree Homer Simpson is not a real person. This does not mean that Homer Simpson does not exist at all. In fact, there are thousands of Homer Simpsons out there who eat donuts, drink beer, are fat, and balding. The real Homer Simpsons of the world served as a basis for the fictional character.


Right.

So you are saying that Jesus is JUST AS REAL as Homer Simpson.



Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Similarly, even if Jesus is a fictional character, we cannot discount him as completely the figment of the gospel authors' imaginations. Just as Simpsons writers base Homer's character largely on real people, the gospel writers too based Jesus on a real person or real people.


What?
Are you saying ALL fictional caharacters are real?

So,
Jesus is just as real as Luke Skywalker?


Iasion


[edit on 26-8-2007 by Iasion]

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Iasion]


I am saying is that all fictional characters reflect everyday realities that existed in the lives of the characters' creators. While the gospels may have been inspired by earlier texts, the gospels do reflect realities that existed in the day to day lives of their authors. For example, the gospels mention technology, institutions, people and places that existed at or around the time and place the gospels were written. More importantly, the attitudes of the gospels characters reflect the attitudes of people that existed at the time and place the gospels were written. Real people's attitudes towards religious and governmental institutions, teenage pregnancy, and other social issues of the day are recorded in the gospels.

You bring up Luke Skywalker to try and cut me down, but Luke Skywalker actually illustrates my point beautifully. Star Wars actually reveals a lot about our contemporary society. While we do not live in a world with light sabers, space ships, and laser blasters, the attitudes and personalities of the Star Wars characters reflect our own attitudes and personalities.

Princess Leah's character is highly revealing of how our society is struggling with feminism and patriarchy. Luke Skywalker's struggle with Darth Vader is case study in Freudian ideas in film. Han Solo's character reveals our attitudes and beliefs towards crime. Han Solo's actions in the world of Star Wars and in our society (smuggling) constitute crimes, but they are not so severe as to make Han Solo unsympathetic or not worthy of being readily forgiven. If you look hard enough into Star Wars, you can see how Star Wars is more a product of contemporary America than the society of some distant planet because it was made by someone in contemporary America and not some distant planet.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by janasstar
reply to post by janasstar
 

Most people commonly know that the bible itself is an historical document.


The Bible is NOT a historical document... it is an accumulation of writings from a variety of hands and times, some mutually exclusive or contradictory with many different revisions.

If you have any doubts look at the many different versions of the books of the Bible in the Dead Sea scrolls collection.


The Bible is a terribly sloppy piece of journalism. This is not to say that at least some portions of the Bible have kernels of historical accuracy.

Imagine you are a newspaper editor. One of your reporters comes running to you and hands a story with a headline saying " David slays Goliath." The story describes how a young man named David slays a 15 foot tall man named Goliath with a stone between the eyes. The Bible's editors, being terribly sloppy journalists, allowed the story right into the Bible without any changes.

A good editor would pull the writer of the story and critically examine it. He would ask questions like: Who exactly is this David? Who exactly is the Goliath? Was Goliath really 15 feet tall or was he just really tall? Did they really fight at all? Did David really slay Goliath with a stone between the eyes? What do the Phillistine's have to say about all this? What is the Phillistine's side of the story? We may never know the real answers to these questions or what the news story really should have read. Perhaps the story should have really read "David slays a 6 foot 9 inch man" or "David and his friends were involved in skirmish with Phillistines."

Nevertheless, to say the stories happened exactly as described in the Bible may be absurd. The Bible is a sloppy fact checker and it does not get the other side of the story. This is not to say that there is some story, and it is the role of a historian who studies the Bible to find out what the real story is.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Here is my bit towards the thread . I purchased a dvd called talk 5 The Origins Of Religion , a lecture given by a David Boyle copyright 2000 .In it he states that Constantine created the man known as jesus christ based on the life of a freedom fighter called joshua joseph immanuel and says that constantine gathered all the bibles in existence burned them rewrote it and redistrubed them .This act was apparently done to align religion with his power structure so as to guarrantee control over the masses.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join