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.

 

The conspiracy of the historical Jesus

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Very interesting, looks like great research/sources and sound analysis. I guess I'd always assumed there were some sort of Roman records noting the execution of Jesus.

I may have been vaguely aware of the letter from Pilate to Tiberius, but did not realize it had been discounted out-of-hand as suspect.

The wikipedia entry on Pontius Pilate states "There is a pseudepigrapha letter reporting on the crucifixion, purporting to have been sent by Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Claudius, embodied in the pseudepigrapha known as the Acts of Peter and Paul, of which the Catholic Encyclopedia states, 'This composition is clearly apocryphal though unexpectedly brief and restrained.' There is no internal relation between this feigned letter and the 4th-century Acts of Pilate (Acta Pilati)."
en.wikipedia.org...

However, another website states that the original letter is in Rome, and that an authenticated copy resides in the Library of Congress in the US.
www.ensignmessage.com...




posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gabriel_
...
For example, it can be established quite firmly as a historical fact that a man named Jesus was crucified in the early first century.
...


Rubbish.
Completely and utterly false.

I stopped reading right there. - don't bother posting any more of this, Gabriel.


K.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Gabriel_
reply to post by saint4God
 


Sure This was long winded I agree as I am not yet sure how to post links and all, but your response with all due respect brings no contribution either except a feeble attempt to bypass the points raised in conjunction to the OP.


And how was your post any better?

You quoted some guy at length,
failed to address any of the points I posted,
and added nothing of your own.

What's the point?

If you want to take part in this discussion - please do so.


K.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by cagliostro
Very interesting, looks like great research/sources and sound analysis. I guess I'd always assumed there were some sort of Roman records noting the execution of Jesus.


Yah, many people do that.
Turns out there is NO records at all.
And NO contempoary evidence of any kind.


Originally posted by cagliostro
I may have been vaguely aware of the letter from Pilate to Tiberius, but did not realize it had been discounted out-of-hand as suspect.


Discounted out of hand?
How silly.
In fact it's been conclusisively shown to ne forged.



Originally posted by cagliostro
However, another website states that the original letter is in Rome, and that an authenticated copy resides in the Library of Congress in the US.
www.ensignmessage.com...


Great Scott !
Are you actually trying to claim it is REAL?
Just because you found a web-site that says so?
Incredible.

I can find web-sites that say faeries are real, and aliens - or anything else you name.


K.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Great Scott !
Are you actually trying to claim it is REAL?
Just because you found a web-site that says so?
Incredible.

I can find web-sites that say faeries are real, and aliens - or anything else you name.


K.


No, I wasn't supplying this website as refutation of your argument. I was pointing it out in the hopes that you'd comment about its claim that the "original letter" is in Rome, and that there's some copy in the LoC. I presume both are false? Or are they there, but just blatant forgeries?



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gabriel_
Sure This was long winded I agree as I am not yet sure how to post links and all, but your response with all due respect brings no contribution either except a feeble attempt to bypass the points raised in conjunction to the OP.


You'd asked for an opinion and I had given one. Were you asking only for opinions you agree with? Some people are grateful for critiques.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by saint4God]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
And how was your post any better?

You quoted some guy at length,
failed to address any of the points I posted,
and added nothing of your own.


My quoted post was addressing your quoted post. It seems this is the way you wanted to communicate. My additions were prior to this post and still go unaddressed.


Originally posted by Kapyong
If you want to take part in this discussion - please do so.


Thanks, I have and will.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Hi Gabriel--

Your tiresome extracts from Joel Williams could have been shortened by more than 2/3rds – that is, if you wanted to include anything worth reading – it certainly did not say anything meaningful to this discussion (or even accurate) about the current 21st century ‘scholarly beliefs’ ref: the historical underpinnings in the 4 canonical gospels (& Greek ‘Thomas’) ref: the life of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk. Iesous) BCE 12 to 36 CE.

Williams’ propagandistic (‘Christian Apologist’) methodology is clearlyexposed for all to see if you look a few paragraphs into his messy little diatribe:

“Unbelievers accept these denials of the Divinity of Our Lord assuming there are valid…and because of this situation in our Society at present, it is hoped that this Pamphlet will bring some clarity to the issues AND ENCOURAGE FAITH IN CHRIST FOR THE READER.”

So much for any scholarly attitude coming from this Williams person. Why would you take all that space to quote from such jejeune & un-scholarly sources?

To clarify more accurately what more than 50,000 modern ‘serious’ biblical NT scholars REALLY think worldwide about the ‘historicity’ of the 4 canonical Greek Gospels in the ‘New Testament’, here is a list of ’8-initial givens’ that 95% of modern ‘serious’ NT textual scholars share:

(The other 5% who call themselves ‘scholars’ – mainly in America, and often in the ‘southern states’ are nothing more than Christian Apologist Fringe Preachers like Mr Williams who have no respect for facts of history, nor of academic disciplines over the past 150 years or so, and most are illiterate in Koine Greek, unpointed paleo-Hebrew & Aramaic.)
What SERIOUS MODERN SCHOLARS BELIEVE ABOUT R. YEHOSHUA BAR YOSEF the GALILEAN NAZIR (‘Iesous’) & the ways he is presented in the 4 canonical gospels &tc.

l. The 4 canonical Greek Gospels were hand written propaganda tracts that circulated ANONYMOUSLY for at least 100 years after they were written in Greek – the earliest fragments are UNTITLED: they were NOT written by eye-witnesses to the events they describe (they borrow from each other and eye witnesses do not borrow from non eye-witnesses) nor are the Canonical Greek Gospels written in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE of the earliest 1st century Nazorean Messianists whose native tongue was Galilean Aramaic & their geographical details show they are not familiar with Palestine in the 1st century CE.

They are not positivistic HISTORY but more like PIOUS PROPAGANDA Stories with a clear AGENDA – & served a purpose i.e. ‘to be read in the churches’ i.e. during worship services.

(see ‘John’ chapter 20:31)

THESE THINGS WERE WRITTEN SO THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE THAT IESOUS IS THE CHRISTOS AND BY BELIEVING YOU MIGHT HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME’ and therefore are NOT pure positivistic ‘Historical Accounts’ of the life and times of ‘Iesous’

2. The Greek Gospels are a WRITTEN & heavily EDITED TRANSLATION which appeared AFTER the ROMAN DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, and represent politically cleaned up GREEK editions of Chrsitian beliefs about Iesous which was ADAPTED (radically changed) from an earlier (‘more primitive’ / ‘more Zionist’) ORAL stream of tradition that died out during the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome (66CE to 70CE) at which time the earliest disciples were killed off.

3. The Literary Form the Gospels take are based on the PERICOPES found in the Elisha’ narratives of II Kings chapter 3-9 --a collection of northern Galilean miracle stories worked up from smaller units (‘pericopes’) each with a BEGINNING (set up), MIDDLE (story line embellishment) and END (climax, often a miracle) – and in the case of the 4th Canonical Greek Gospel (‘according to John’ whoever he was) were worked into 7 ‘signs’ of the Messiah who out-did Elisha (floating axe head turns into walking on water; raising of the Shunamite Widow’s son from the dead by mouth to mouth resuscitation turns into the Lazarus episode where raising is effected by a command only etc.)

4. The Greek gospels contain some historical facts --but they are buried in with pious legends - making use of rabbinnic Hagaddic Midrash based on ‘sacred Hebrew & Aramaic Messianic Prophecy proof-texts’ (i.e. the taking an Aramaic or Hebrew scripture & making up a didactic story upon it ‘as if it really happened’ e.g. the 1st gospel’s ridiculous Entry into Jerusalem ON TWO ANIMALS based on a mistranslation of Zechariah 9:9.

5.The earliest strands of the Kerygma (‘preaching’) of the earliest Aramaic speaking (Torah-abiding) disciples of ‘Iesous’ was VASTLY DIFFERENT from the later Greek (‘gentile friendly, Torah hating’) preaching of Saul of Tarsus, a man who NEVER MET IESOUS in his lifetime, and who moreover fought with those who did (see Galatians chapter 2 for a taste of his hatred of 'James' and 'John' = 'those so-called Pillars over there... !'
preached his own warped gospel of non Torah non Circumcision 'Salvation' to Diaspora Jews who likewise never followed the Rabbi himself.

These sacred texts often DO NOT MATCH the OLD TESTAMENT texts read by Jews and Protestants today (e.g. the Masoretic Text), but are either direct quotations from the Greek Septaginta (LXX) or a Greek translation of an Aramaic Targum (as in many of the 1st Gospels ‘scriptural’ citations) –

NB: the original followers of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (‘Ieosus’) were illiterate Galilean fisherman (‘from the north’) who spoke Aramaic, not greek, who believed they were living ‘in the last days’ amidst a brutal Roman occupation – & who sought to place R. Yehoshua, their Daviddic leader, on the throne of a Roman-free Judaea in accordance with their own interpretation of End Times Prophecies (which often overlapped with the Dead Sea Scroll Covenanters at Seccacah (Qumran).

6. Despite the ‘politically safe’ editing of the originally Zionist (anti Gentile) ORAL material from the earliest ‘disciples’ found in the Greek gospels, certain passages still were preserved which reveal the earliest Zionist streams (‘the Son of Man (Bar Enasha – see Dan 7:13) was SENT ONLY to the ELECT of the LOST SHEEP of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL, as we see in the 1st gospel in chapter 15 when Iesous is addressing a SyroPhoenician Gentile

(‘& anyway, SINCE WHEN IS IT RIGHT TO TAKE THE BREAD OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF CHILDREN AND THROW IT TO THE DOGS UNDER THE TABLE?’):

These 'uncomfortable' passages (like the Crucifixion for Armed Sedition against Rome (Luke 22:37-49),

or the Baptism of ‘Iesous’ by ‘John the Baptist’ for the remission ‘of sins’ etc.) or phrases such as :

'Do you think for one moment the Bar Enasha (son of man) was sent to bring Peace upon the land [of Yisro'el]? By no means ! The Bar Enasha was sent NOT to bring Peace, but a Sword ! Not Harmony, but Division...to set man against his son, and mother against her daughter...so that a man's enemies be they of his own house !!'

These are regarded as ‘more likely to be more historical’ on the grounds of the CRITERION OF EMBRARRASMENT – i.e. that later Christians would not be likely to make up embarrassing stories about their Lord – they would be more likely to hide them under the rug when found.

7. The Gospel hand copied texts morphed in contents over time and in various places by amateur scribes (for the 1st 200 years or so) who did not have a set ‘authorised’ text to work with, but embellished as they copied what lay in front of them (no photocopiers or printers in those days – nor any centralized control over the copies for the 1st 200 years of their history) that is why there are 5446 Greek MSS of the New Testament (hand copied) no two of which are alike.

8. The Greek canonical Gospel Texts that were voted into the New Testament centuries later were decided upon by VOTE by Bishops living long after they were written - by persons who had no first hand knowledge of the historical times and places of the authors.

You want 8 more? If so...I got'em !!!



[edit on 4-5-2010 by Sigismundus]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Hi again, Gabriel--

Just in case you were hungry for more, here are 14-more ‘Presuppositions of Modern Textual NT scholarship ‘- as they pertain to the Greek canonical gospel material and as they pertain to re-constructing the life of Iesous

(as C.K. Barrett used to tell us, 'Reconstructing the Life of Iesous from the gospels, is like trying to Reconstruct the Pig from Sausages !!'

So here goes...I mean, since you seem to like ‘Continuations’ !!!

9. The earliest written canoncal Greek gospel is Mark’s – the others quote long stretches from his baby greek and clean up his grammatical howlers as they go.

10. The very earliest written format for the gospel material seems to have been Sayings Gospels, like the Greek (not the later mangled Coptic copy !) Gospel of Thomas, the Greek version of which is very primitive & which seems to pre-date the later canonical Greek narrative gospels (in the canon).

The basic format of a Sayings Gospel is : These are the words that Iesous spoke to xxxx and Iesous said…. xxxxx

And were often numbered for handy teaching-preaching purposes –

The other earliest format included shorter and longer midrashic collections of fulfillment prophecies that were thought to need to be fulfilled by the Messiah 'when he came'. These were each in turn applied to Iesous 'as proof texts' in the gospels.

100 years earlier than the lifetie of Iesous, we see some of these lists of Messianic fulfillment verses in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls –

i.e. that which the Messiah must fufill (‘when he comes’);

The Greek canonical gospels seem to incorporate both Midrashic Fulfilment (‘this was done in order to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet so and so…’) and a collection of Logia (‘sayings’).

11. The Older ‘more primitive’ sayings that had been attributed to Iesous in the earliest oral stream in Aramaic have lost something of their original meaning and ‘bite’ in the process of translation into ‘written’ Greek.
Some of the original sayings were ‘deliberately softened’ so as not to sound anti gentile (or anti Roman) or even ‘hateful’

e.g. ‘he who would strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other’

which in the mangled Greek means something different than the same phrase expressed in Aramaic

‘if any Gentile would try and slap you on your right cheek, be Defiant ! Turn your face so that they cannot slap you with the back of their hands !’) in other words, remember who you are, the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, don’t let that filthy rotten gentile dog slap you like a captive slave !

Much of the Greek in the gospel material (e.g. ‘Mark’) is faulty Greek translations from Aramaic, changing the meaning of the saying.
E.g. ‘It is easier for a camel (Kamlu) to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom’ show evidence of faulty translation from the Aramaic (‘it would be easier for a Ship’s Rope (gamlu) to pass through the eye of a silkweaver’s needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven’)

12. One can ONLY understand how the sayings differ from each other in the canonical Greek gospels by HORIZONTAL READING

i.e. placing the Greek texts SIDE BY SIDE (i.e. saying by saying) for 'close' comparison:

By doing so reveals the prejudices of each of the canoncal gospel writers – many of whom leave out the embarrassing phrases e.g. when taking over an embarassing phrase in 'Mark’s' gospel (e.g. when iesous shows anger or when he cannot heal someone (Mark's embarassing 'and he was NOT ABLE to heal anyone there due to their unbelief in him...' turned into Matthew's "and he DID NO MIGHTY WORK THERE because of their unbelief...).

Only by lining up EACH PASSAGE SIDE BY SIDE (up close and personal !) can anyone actually see all the nuances of the changes that the writers were up to when they re-edited their own material for their own agendas.

13. The Greek handed copied (and hand-mangled) Gospel Texts that were later voted into the New Testament were selected from among a much larger number of ‘gospels’ most of which are to-day lost, only some of which could to-day be labeled as 'Gnostic'.

14 Two of the 4 canonical Greek gospels (‘according to Matthew’ and ‘according to Luke’ whoever they were) share certain ‘sayings’ (approximately 200 of them) placed into the mouth of a Greek Speaking Iesous that the other Gospels do not contain: these sayings are often short Greek aphorisms and are called Quelle (or Q for short) meaning ‘source’

15 The 1st THREE gospels share a common literary thread and outline: they are called SYNOPTIC Gospels because they can be read side by side – though they are not exact. They stand IN OPPOSITION to the 4th canonical Greek gospel which shares very little in common except for the Passion (crucifixion) narratives – which probably were similar since they grew out of an earlier liturgical format.

16. Each of the 3 Synoptic Greek Gospels have their own peculiar ‘sayings & stories’ which is called Sondergut Material (i.e. material that is ONLY found in ONE gospel and NOT found in the others). The Sondergut material found in the 1st Greek gospel is called M (for ‘Matthean’), the Sondergut material found in the 2nd gospel is called Mk, that in the 3rd is called L (for ‘Lukan’).

Examination of the Sondergut material in the Synoptics betrays the PREJUDICES and methodology (and 'christology') of each writer.


17. The 3rd Greek canonical Gospel (‘according to Luke’ whoever he was) copies large blocks of material from the 2nd gospel (‘according to Mark’) but omits (Mark 6:45 to 8:26) a very large chunk of material– comprising exactly 8 sides of Greek text, equivalent to a double-leaf in an early codex used by Christians –

This Great Ommission of Markan material (which would have jibed well with what the 3rd gospel said elsewhere) is believed to be the result of the writer (whoever he was) possessing a damaged copy of the 2nd gospel with the double-leaf having fallen out of his copy.

18. The 4 canonical Greek Gospels reveal a certain Liturgical quality especially in the passion narrative (crucifixion portions) since the gospels were ‘read in the churches’ i.e. actively used in Christian Worship Services

(e.g. early copies of the 2nd Gospel ‘according to Mark’ whoever he was show 52 separate divisions in the book , one passage for every week – culminating at Passover/Easter – and often certain portions fall into groups of 3 hours reflecting an early church services during Passion Week

e.g. ‘and it was the 3rd hour and they are crucifying him..and it was the 6th hour and lo, darkness fell upon the land…and it was the 9th hour and lo, Iesous is screaming with a loud voice…etc. 3 hour sections)

19. These northern Galilean messianists did NOT share the same Weltanschauung (world view) as the sons of Zadok (i.e. the Zaddukkim, the non Daviddic Hashmonian priests who ran the Temple at Jerusalem and who assumed rthe role of KING since 104 BCE with John Hyrcanus) and revered ‘extra books’ other than the Torah and believed like the Dead Sea Scroll Zadokites, in Angels and in the Resurrection of the righteous dead ‘in the last Days’ and revered the prophets as ‘inspired books’ a view the Zadukkim did not share).

20. The earliest Kerygma of the earliest Nazorean Churches in Palestine was proclaimed in Galilean Aramaic (not GREEK) and was formed by the original surviving disciples of R. Yewhoshua bar Yosef who joined forces after their Rabbi’s execution for armed sedition against Rome with the Torah-kashrut-abiding brother of Iesous

i.e.’James the Just’ (Yakkov, bar Yosef, HaTsaddiq) which was primarily a Doctrine of Martyriology of the Messiah whose group (the Ebionim aka ‘the poor ones’) were killed during the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome when Israel and Jersualem was ground to powder killing off ¾ of the native population –

You want more? If so, I have lots !!



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Hi to all those that have replied.

I firstly do sincerely apologies for the long reply. As a newby I am still not afay with the linking procedures and if any of you would advise me how to insert links it would be much appreciated and would be a great help.

My mere reasoning was that IMO people and scholars seem to deem the Bible and its contents as unfounded and hence not credible for various reasons. I again believe that as it has been pointed out Jesus's authenticities cannot be proven but in so saying He (IMO) can also not be proven not to have existed.

You may attack me on the basis of incorrect posting procedure for which i have apologied but please dont let that take away from my true intention of sharing my humble opinion



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
No worries on the long posts Gabriel, it seems to be popular here despite the fact that wordiness is an inhibitor rather than a benefactor. For linking, when you're in your dialogue box, click the earth button, then type in the phrase to identify the link, then okay, then copy-paste the address, finally hit okay. I think we all would do well linking on this thread rather than mega-posting, somehow thinking it makes us seem more intelligible than using our own thoughts is rather farreaching. My affinity for dialogue is my style and will only post a wall of text to illustrate the point. Many of us can and will read linked sources and I find it more credible than the initial appearance of the words to be from the poster. As for me, I'm not looking to write more until at least some of the previous points are addressed. In a few cases I heard a "Pish all!", however I don't understand how this can be a valid discussion response. All the best and God bless.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by saint4God]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


Thank you for the info.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Well obviously nobody here can change the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence of a historical Jesus, NONE!! But yet there IS hundreds of similarities between Jesus and all the other older "gods" that were simply just the personification of astrology.


I laugh every time someone still uses the Josephus account as evidence of Jesus. Come on, thats a KNOWN forgery that needs NO debate!


Bottom line is that no Christians here can make ANY convincing arguments on their behalf to DEFEND their messiah and savior!!


WOW!!


Epic fail for your God!!


Jesus is a bunch of baloney


[edit on 26-6-2010 by Baloney]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Baloney
 


wrong- I heard an AUDIBLE voice one night as I began to open a Gideon NT as if sitting beside me on the left that said -my name, I am Jesus I died for your sins believe in Me and you will never perish

I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God-John5.25

Christ has indeed been raised from the dead-1Cor15.20



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by No King but Jesus
 


How do you know that the voice wasnt just the tooth fairy messing with you?

How do you know it wasnt Satan...oh wait Satan is FAKE also, like Jesus.

So then it was the tooth fairy my friend, sorry.

Or somebody messing with your head, or possibly recreational drugs...



[edit on 26-6-2010 by Baloney]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Baloney
 


re-read John5.25 but beyond that when I was @13 I saw a mighty looking angel bright like lightning solid white even the eyes (he turned and looked directly at me) land on my neighbors roof

His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.-Matt28.3

God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.-Acts3.15

heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?'
8" 'Who are you, Lord?' I asked. " 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied-Acts22

Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."-Rev19.10

no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.-1Cor12.3



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
You do know that the bible also contains a lot of contradictions and absurdities right? It also reeks of being written by violent ancient man instead of any type of divine god. It also is really a rehash of older myths that all originated from astrology.

Sorry, but you been DUPED, bad!!


So in other words, that book is as real to me as the Harry Potter books my friend.

Bible =



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Baloney
 


I did'nt believe after reading I heard an AUDIBLE voice -the scriptures just confirm

" 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?-Jer8.8

These are the Scriptures that testify about me-John5.39

observing the law, or by believing what you heard?-Gal3.2

You have never heard his voice nor seen his form-John5.37

Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.-1John2.22

But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.-Matt12.36

For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."-Acts17.31

those who hope in me will not be disappointed."-Is49.23



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


I was not reading about Jesus but I was recently reading about Jesse. I found it odd that later in my reading that it stated that Jesus was of the tree of Jesse.

However, after looking at the tree of Jesse, starting from Jesus, Joseph was the direct link to the tree of Jesse. Since Joseph was not Jesus’ father, then how could Jesus be from the tree of Jesse and the descendant of King David?

Even more intriguing was that in a book of hundreds of begets and begots, there was no lineage for Mary, Jesus’ mother.

I think the problem that some people like myself have with the Bible is that we do not believe that it is complete. I believe it is a poorly edited version of a story that is not to be honestly told.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn
 


reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn
 


If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?"-Matt22.45

He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets.-Matt12.19

polished to flash like lightning! " 'Shall we rejoice in the scepter of my son Judah ? The sword despises every such stick.-Eze21.10

it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.-Rom9.8



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join