James, Jesus' brother
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 08:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:So the why call him Jesus?

Cause I’m an English speaker and Yeshua is too foreign sounding for me. In my mother’s language it is pronounced Yeshua, but more like Yeshu.
Is Jesus an English name? How many people today do you know who are called Jesus?
Yeshua and Jesus are both very uncommon names. If churches used the name Yeshua it would be as normal and common to you today as the word Jesus. Surely if they guy you praise, if his actual name was Yeshua, why do you call him Jesus? In the name of "Jesus" etc. Who the hell is Jesus?


(22-05-2015 08:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  These materials were not written 100+ years later, the early Gospels Mark, was likely composed somewhere between 30-40 years after his death, ...
If someone made a 5 minute speech and I didn't record it and didn't write it down during the speech the amount of mistakes I would make in recalling the speech just 10 minutes later would be huge. I don't I would get one single sentence entirely correct. A day later my recall would be much worse. A month later I'd probably only be able to remember one or two sentences assuming something significant to me was spoken. One year later, shesh, I really doubt I would recall words, perhaps the gist of it but then again highly likely i'd get the gist wrong. Now 30-40 years later, that's some special recall there.
But what is worse. No eye witness accounts were written down. So this "oral tradition" is a game of Chinese whispers which has gone on for 30-40 years.
Completely unreliable. To my understanding, the original message is completely lost.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 01:23 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 07:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:e. Is there a birth certificate?
f. Is there an official document of citizenship or residency?

Is there childhood videos of Abe Lincoln?

No, It’s not there should of been these things for folks living in that area at the time.
I understand your objection.
But I am merely highlighting that because certain measures weren't in place, we cannot rely upon knowledge without seriously lowering our expectations of evidence. In doing so, we can't be sure of our findings. There is much doubt.

(22-05-2015 07:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  When historians agree that Jesus likely was a faith healer, it doesn’t mean that they believe he miraculously healed people, anymore so than us acknowledging that Benny Hinn is a faith healer, means that we buy into his charlatanry.
Benny Hinn isn't a faith healer, he pretends to be one, but he isn't one.
How come you belief that Jesus was a faith healer and yet Benny Hinn is a charlatan? We have much more evidence and eye witness accounts in support of Benny Hinn's faith healing events.

(22-05-2015 07:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Note: A remarkable event such as this requires an exceptional level of detailed supporting evidence.

So you say, but not in any way true, other than for you.
So do you consider that remarkable events e.g. miracles, don't need exceptional level of evidence in all cases or do you deem that this is only true when those remarkable events are consistent with your own religious beliefs?

i.e. Do we need exceptional evidence in support of Voodoo beliefs and their claims for raising the dead?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
22-05-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 10:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 10:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They made up the whole thing. From nothing. Long enough later that they seem to have gotten away with it. You don't know for sure anyone really did ask about a stolen body.

So the writer of Matthew made up the "accusations"? That there likely was no such accusations being made?

If so, why would he want to tell his readers and community, that these accusations were flying around?

Because the "body was missing". Anyone would have asked if it had been moved.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 04:14 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2015 05:24 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 07:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 05:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  1. Identity
a. Was he born with the name "Jesus"?
Most likely
How do we know he was a Galilean Jew?

Because there’s no indication that he was any other jew. Nor any particular reason to doubt this attribute of him. It’s not as if being Galilean was a requirement for a messiah, or served any real theological purpose. So the likelihood of the writers making this aspect up, is fairly slim.


Quote:e. Is there a birth certificate?
f. Is there an official document of citizenship or residency?

Is there childhood videos of Abe Lincoln?

No, It’s not there should of been these things for folks living in that area at the time.

Quote:Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
2. How do we know that he was baptised by John the Baptist?
a. Was documentation kept regarding all people baptised by John?
b. How do we verify the identity of people baptised by John, did John view their identity papers? Was this identification reference documented along with records of all those baptised?


Most likely. It’s mentioned in all the Gospels. It’s not as if we have an account of him being baptized by anyone else. In fact John Baptist was an individual that Josephus even mentioned.

Quote:3. How do we know that he had a "ministry" in Galilee?

The Gospel accounts, the messages found in them, whose ideas, concepts, and beliefs are repeated in them. So there was a ministry belonging to somebody, which is sourced to only one person, and that is Jesus.

Quote:c. Are there any documented accounts of what was preached by eye witnesses?
d. Have eye witness accounts been verified against each other in order to assess the accuracy of the accounts?

Very few people could read let alone write at that time, so much of what's known about Jesus was conveyed through oral tradition, that ended being embodied in the various gospel accounts. So historians would typically comb through these texts, noting particular congruencies, and oddities, whether one event, or saying, or teaching, is one-off, or not. Not every aspect is deemed as historical, some aspects are deemed as part of the faith traditions, rather than historically accurate. If one part is not recognized as historical, it’s recognized as something else.

Quote:4. How do we know that some people thought he healed (material illness) through his faith?

Because he’s attested to in these accounts as being a faith healer, and faith healer were a dime a dozen at the time.

Quote:What evidence is there that anyone ever been healed of material illness by faith?
Note: A remarkable event such as this requires an exceptional level of detailed supporting evidence.

When historians agree that Jesus likely was a faith healer, it doesn’t mean that they believe he miraculously healed people, anymore so than us acknowledging that Benny Hinn is a faith healer, means that we buy into his charlatanry. So noting that Jesus was a faith healer, is not claiming that he miraculously healed anybody.


Quote:a. Who were his apostles and how do we know they existed?

Uhm, they are mentioned in the gospels, Paul writes of his encounters with them also.

Quote:Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple. Is there any evidence that Jesus, the same person as all the other above alleged events, made this journey and caused this disturbance?

Is there any evidence that it was another person? If only one particular person was attributed to this event, we have very little reason to doubt that they were one and the same.

Quote:a. Is there any official travel documentation?
b. Is there any accounts by eye witnesses?
c. Is there any legal documentation regarding the disturbance? Including location, date, identification or the perpetrator, identification of the witnesses?

Why not just ask if their was any camera footage? How many eye witness accounts do you think we have of anyone at the time? Even for one of the most important Historical figures at the time, Pilate, we don’t have any eye witness account for. Eye witness accounts are a rare commodity, and almost never exist.

Quote:7. Is there any evidence that Jesus, the same person as all the other above alleged events, was executed?
a. Is there any official documentation regarding Roman executions?

There’s a variety of writings supporting Jesus execution, from the gospels, to Paul, to Josephus, and Tacitus.

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” -Tacitus

There seems to be no particular reason to believe it was another person. Even Tacitus indicates the Christus crucified by Pilate, was the Christus of Christians.

Quote:Note: Why is there confusion regarding the organisation that Jesus belonged to? Mark suggests it was the Nazarenes initiated by John the Baptist. Catholics claim that Peter took over leadership rather than James.

Well Mark labels all Jewish christians as Nazarenes, though we know that their were various groups which were not all one and the same, like the Essenes. In fact there is no indication that John the Baptist of James were even a part of the nazarenes, other the the fact that they were Jewish, lol. There’s no early writings indicating that these individuals were part of the Nazarenes.

I never recalled saying anything about how organized christianity arose, or the catholics view on succession either, so I'll just ignore those questions.

Quote:who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus
9. Is there evidence that members of the organisation, whom studied under Jesus, proclaimed that Jesus resurrected?

Did they claim something else happened after he died?

Resurrection was attributed as early as we can trace the early christian beliefs. The NT writings, Mark and Paul. And pretty much every single christian sect orthodox, or even ones deemed as heretical acknowledged the resurrection. In the Gospels of Matthew, the writers notes of accusations going around at the time, that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. An account that is hard to make sense of unless, those rumors where abundant, and troublesome enough for Matthew to mention.

Is there any evidence to assume those that studied under Jesus believed something other than he was resurrected? And the answer is no. In fact there is no evidence that any christians sect or movement at the time, didn’t believe in the resurrection in one shape or form.

Quote: Is it possible for a person to die by asphyxiation or bleeding out and then come back to life 3 days later?

For you? Of course not. It’s impossible. As a methodological naturalist, perhaps we should agree with those folks highlighted in Matthew, that the disciples stole his body, and that they lied to everybody claiming he resurrected.

Quote:Note: A remarkable event such as this requires an exceptional level of detailed supporting evidence.

So you say, but not in any way true, other than for you.

Quote:Is there evidence that Jesus' organisation developed into Christianity?

Yes, like the two 2 billion Christians living today.

Quote:Mark's suggestion is that the Saul was in opposition/competition with the Nazarenes and subsequently won the battle, Saul's organisation became Christianity, the Nazarene's organisation died out without any succession link to Saul’s.

The only opposition between Paul and and James, and some of the other disciples (who were not nazarenes), was their views on the role of the Jewish ritual law, no other dispute or theological disagreement existed between them. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that there was any disagreement beyond this one point. There is no evidence of two competing Christianities between them, other than one that favored maintaining the ritual practices, and one that didn’t see it as a mandatory requirement for membership in the Christian community.

There are still Jewish Christians today, Messianic Jews, some where around 350,000. But it appeals more so to jews than gentiles. And the Gentiles are the bigger audience.

**I did skip over some of your questions, because many of them seemed redundant.

"Well Mark labels all Jewish christians as Nazarenes, though we know that their were various groups which were not all one and the same, like the Essenes. In fact there is no indication that John the Baptist of James were even a part of the nazarenes, other the the fact that they were Jewish, lol. There’s no early writings indicating that these individuals were part of the Nazarenes."

NO NO NO.

You don't understand my ideas, and you have only a limited knowledge of the real history. The Nazarenes were almost certainly an Essenian sect ie they were Essenes. John the Baptist, Yeshua and James were Nazarenes. Do some more reading. I have provided interesting links for you. The topic is a little confusing, because some of the Church fathers deliberately try to confuse things by claiming that the Nazarenes were Jewish Christians, yet if you read for long enough about them it becomes very obvious that they were fundamentalist Jews...an idea that is intrinsically sensible as well.


The Nazarenes

Yeshua was a Nazarene, as stated in the Bible: Acts referred to

“Jesus Christ the Nazarene” (Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9, NJB.)

Most Christians assume the term “Nazarene” referred to the fact that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth. This was, after all, what Matthew claimed, (Matt. 2:23) but Nazareth the place was probably not the real origin of the term. On (almost) every occasion that Jesus was referred to as being “of Nazareth,” the real meaning is “the Nazarene.” Nazareth the village probably did not exist in Yeshua’s time. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY ).

The Bible made it clear that the term “Nazarene” referred to a sect, not a place, when in the book of Acts, Paul is accused of being a Nazarene.

“The plain truth is that we find this man a perfect pest; he stirs up trouble among Jews the world over, and is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” (Acts 24:5, NJB.)

An important religious sect would not have been named after an obscure Galilean village. Calling him Jesus “of Nazareth” was a ploy to distract from his sectarian affiliations.

Hugh Schonfield, who devoted his life to studying Judaism and Yeshua, claims Nazarenism was an ancient version of Judaism. He thought that the original founder of the Nazarene sect might have been a Jewish-Arabian prophet named Essa in approximately 400 BCE. So, if Schonfield was right, the Nazarenes were already well established in Jesus’ time.

Many eminent scholars have linked the Nazarenes with the Essene sect at Qumran. One might consider the Nazarene sect a strongly developed messianic form of “Essenism.” ( http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/TrimmNazars.htm ).

John the Baptist, Yeshua’s family, disciples and followers were all Nazarenes. The “pillars” Paul refers to (James, Peter, and John) in his second letter to the Galatians, were the leaders and key figures of this group after Yeshua’s death. They were Jews, not Christians. They practiced circumcision, believed in baptism, and were strict about the Sabbath. They were vegetarians who did not approve of the slaughter of animals, either for food or sacrifice. They developed their own “Halacha,” which was their interpretation of the Torah. The Nazarenes were true believers in the power and glory of Israel, saw themselves as God’s chosen people, and were vehemently opposed to the Romans. They were zealots, willing to take on the Romans, which was why the Roman world considered a Nazarene “a pest” who “stirs up trouble among Jews the world over.”

The Nazarenes considered the temple was the house of God, but were opposed to the Sadducees who they regarded as Roman collaborators. They had a broad base of support among Jews throughout Judea and much of the Roman Empire. Many ordinary Jews and Pharisees would have considered the Nazarenes brothers in the struggle against Rome.

Yeshua became the Nazarene chief after John the Baptist’s death, and he remained in charge for (probably) a few years. Leadership was inherited from blood relations, which explains it passing from John the Baptist to Yeshua, and after Yeshua’s death, on to James, his brother.

James and the other Nazarenes did not think Yeshua was the Son of God, or that Yeshua needed to die to save anyone from their sins. ( http://www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/nazarenes.htm ). The Nazarenes believed Yeshua was a (human) prophet who they hoped could be Israel’s messiah.

We read very little about this group in the pages of history because mainly Gentiles wrote that history, and the early Christians ignored the Nazarenes, or wrote them off as heretics, or tried to claim that some of the Nazarenes believed in the divinity of Christ.

The modern reader is best served by having an interest in Yeshua’s and the Nazarene’s story.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
22-05-2015, 04:46 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2015 04:56 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 07:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 05:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  1. Identity
a. Was he born with the name "Jesus"?
Most likely
How do we know he was a Galilean Jew?

Because there’s no indication that he was any other jew. Nor any particular reason to doubt this attribute of him. It’s not as if being Galilean was a requirement for a messiah, or served any real theological purpose. So the likelihood of the writers making this aspect up, is fairly slim.


Quote:e. Is there a birth certificate?
f. Is there an official document of citizenship or residency?

Is there childhood videos of Abe Lincoln?

No, It’s not there should of been these things for folks living in that area at the time.

Quote:Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
2. How do we know that he was baptised by John the Baptist?
a. Was documentation kept regarding all people baptised by John?
b. How do we verify the identity of people baptised by John, did John view their identity papers? Was this identification reference documented along with records of all those baptised?


Most likely. It’s mentioned in all the Gospels. It’s not as if we have an account of him being baptized by anyone else. In fact John Baptist was an individual that Josephus even mentioned.

Quote:3. How do we know that he had a "ministry" in Galilee?

The Gospel accounts, the messages found in them, whose ideas, concepts, and beliefs are repeated in them. So there was a ministry belonging to somebody, which is sourced to only one person, and that is Jesus.

Quote:c. Are there any documented accounts of what was preached by eye witnesses?
d. Have eye witness accounts been verified against each other in order to assess the accuracy of the accounts?

Very few people could read let alone write at that time, so much of what's known about Jesus was conveyed through oral tradition, that ended being embodied in the various gospel accounts. So historians would typically comb through these texts, noting particular congruencies, and oddities, whether one event, or saying, or teaching, is one-off, or not. Not every aspect is deemed as historical, some aspects are deemed as part of the faith traditions, rather than historically accurate. If one part is not recognized as historical, it’s recognized as something else.

Quote:4. How do we know that some people thought he healed (material illness) through his faith?

Because he’s attested to in these accounts as being a faith healer, and faith healer were a dime a dozen at the time.

Quote:What evidence is there that anyone ever been healed of material illness by faith?
Note: A remarkable event such as this requires an exceptional level of detailed supporting evidence.

When historians agree that Jesus likely was a faith healer, it doesn’t mean that they believe he miraculously healed people, anymore so than us acknowledging that Benny Hinn is a faith healer, means that we buy into his charlatanry. So noting that Jesus was a faith healer, is not claiming that he miraculously healed anybody.


Quote:a. Who were his apostles and how do we know they existed?

Uhm, they are mentioned in the gospels, Paul writes of his encounters with them also.

Quote:Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple. Is there any evidence that Jesus, the same person as all the other above alleged events, made this journey and caused this disturbance?

Is there any evidence that it was another person? If only one particular person was attributed to this event, we have very little reason to doubt that they were one and the same.

Quote:a. Is there any official travel documentation?
b. Is there any accounts by eye witnesses?
c. Is there any legal documentation regarding the disturbance? Including location, date, identification or the perpetrator, identification of the witnesses?

Why not just ask if their was any camera footage? How many eye witness accounts do you think we have of anyone at the time? Even for one of the most important Historical figures at the time, Pilate, we don’t have any eye witness account for. Eye witness accounts are a rare commodity, and almost never exist.

Quote:7. Is there any evidence that Jesus, the same person as all the other above alleged events, was executed?
a. Is there any official documentation regarding Roman executions?

There’s a variety of writings supporting Jesus execution, from the gospels, to Paul, to Josephus, and Tacitus.

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” -Tacitus

There seems to be no particular reason to believe it was another person. Even Tacitus indicates the Christus crucified by Pilate, was the Christus of Christians.

Quote:Note: Why is there confusion regarding the organisation that Jesus belonged to? Mark suggests it was the Nazarenes initiated by John the Baptist. Catholics claim that Peter took over leadership rather than James.

Well Mark labels all Jewish christians as Nazarenes, though we know that their were various groups which were not all one and the same, like the Essenes. In fact there is no indication that John the Baptist of James were even a part of the nazarenes, other the the fact that they were Jewish, lol. There’s no early writings indicating that these individuals were part of the Nazarenes.

I never recalled saying anything about how organized christianity arose, or the catholics view on succession either, so I'll just ignore those questions.

Quote:who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus
9. Is there evidence that members of the organisation, whom studied under Jesus, proclaimed that Jesus resurrected?

Did they claim something else happened after he died?

Resurrection was attributed as early as we can trace the early christian beliefs. The NT writings, Mark and Paul. And pretty much every single christian sect orthodox, or even ones deemed as heretical acknowledged the resurrection. In the Gospels of Matthew, the writers notes of accusations going around at the time, that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. An account that is hard to make sense of unless, those rumors where abundant, and troublesome enough for Matthew to mention.

Is there any evidence to assume those that studied under Jesus believed something other than he was resurrected? And the answer is no. In fact there is no evidence that any christians sect or movement at the time, didn’t believe in the resurrection in one shape or form.

Quote: Is it possible for a person to die by asphyxiation or bleeding out and then come back to life 3 days later?

For you? Of course not. It’s impossible. As a methodological naturalist, perhaps we should agree with those folks highlighted in Matthew, that the disciples stole his body, and that they lied to everybody claiming he resurrected.

Quote:Note: A remarkable event such as this requires an exceptional level of detailed supporting evidence.

So you say, but not in any way true, other than for you.

Quote:Is there evidence that Jesus' organisation developed into Christianity?

Yes, like the two 2 billion Christians living today.

Quote:Mark's suggestion is that the Saul was in opposition/competition with the Nazarenes and subsequently won the battle, Saul's organisation became Christianity, the Nazarene's organisation died out without any succession link to Saul’s.

The only opposition between Paul and and James, and some of the other disciples (who were not nazarenes), was their views on the role of the Jewish ritual law, no other dispute or theological disagreement existed between them. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that there was any disagreement beyond this one point. There is no evidence of two competing Christianities between them, other than one that favored maintaining the ritual practices, and one that didn’t see it as a mandatory requirement for membership in the Christian community.

There are still Jewish Christians today, Messianic Jews, some where around 350,000. But it appeals more so to jews than gentiles. And the Gentiles are the bigger audience.

**I did skip over some of your questions, because many of them seemed redundant.

"In fact there is no indication that John the Baptist of James were even a part of the nazarenes, other the the fact that they were Jewish, lol."

Wrong again!

Brothers in Arms...John and Yeshua

According to James Tabor, in The Jesus Dynasty, John the Baptist started a Messianic movement well before Yeshua became a public figure. John was probably a charismatic Essene teacher, a man who created excitement. The people considered him a prophet; someone qualified to tell them what their God expected of them. John had the credentials to be a legitimate priest, as he was said to be a descendant of Aaron (see Luke 1; 5.) John may have refused to respect the temple hierarchy in Jerusalem, as there is no evidence he ever associated with them. Instead, John went into the wilderness to proclaim to the people that the coming of the Messiah was close at hand, which meant only one thing to poor Jews: a war was on the horizon. John baptized believers and told his brethren to repent and get ready for the beginning of a new world order in which they would not be poor and oppressed. His message may have been well received, as the Bible boasts that he attracted many followers. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpWNL1vyQz0 ).

The site on the River Jordan where John baptized people is only three miles from Qumran, the home of a large Essene community. This is the same community that may have hidden the Dead Sea Scrolls a few decades later. No one knows if John the Baptist associated with the Qumran community, but it is probable, given the close proximity of their activities.

The Gospels claim that John and Jesus held each other in high regard, and that they were cousins. John had already preached for a number of years, and already had a contingent of followers, before Yeshua became a public figure.

The Gospel writers could not imply that Yeshua played a subordinate role to John, so each strove to make Jesus seem more senior than John. Yet the Gospel writers could not conceal the fact that John baptized Jesus the novitiate. In reality John was the more established and authoritative instructor, and Yeshua was his protégé.

Yeshua’s stature grew as time went by. The two of them might have planned that once they had established political power in Palestine, John, the heir of Aaron, was to be the new high priest and Yeshua, the descendent of David, the new King of Israel.

It seems likely the two cousins parted ways to double the capacity of their campaign, which probably involved telling carefully selected, disgruntled groups of Jews about their plan to wage a war. The two young men probably used religion to excite and galvanize large numbers of poor patriotic Jews. Baptizing people with water was a symbolic re-enactment of the ancient Jews’ (fictitious) crossing of the Red Sea to freedom. The two friends may have been offering peasant Jews a new freedom, a freedom from Rome.

By the end of 27 CE, the Messianic movement started by John may have only recognized two types of Jews in Palestine, those who had responded by being baptized, and those who had not. The dichotomy was between baptized militant and non-baptized non-militant Jews. If this was so, this was no small-scale backyard scheme; it was a serious shift in the people’s attitude towards war with the Romans.

Herod Antipas, the Romans’ puppet king, must have been watching John like a hawk. Any Galilean prophet preaching to the public was presumed to be a zealot. Herod had John arrested and killed. This is how Josephus, a secular historian, described John’s murder:

“...what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exer- cise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one another, and piety toward God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteous- ness. Now, when many others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.” (Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119.) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus ).

Herod, the pro Roman puppet king, was wary of a coup commanded by John, so had him killed. The Gospel authors deliberately did not detail the real reason for John’s threat to Herod, because that reason did not fit with their invented image of John and Jesus as pacifist evangelists.

As a side issue, Josephus also points out that John had criticized Herod for marrying his brother’s wife, which would not have endeared John to Herod, and may have partly been responsible for Herod’s treatment of John.

John’s death in early 28 CE must have been a serious setback for the Nazarene’s struggle against Rome.

Yeshua Takes Over the Leadership

At age thirty, Essene men traditionally took on a leadership role. All eyes would have turned to Yeshua, the consummate candidate. Yeshua stepped up to the mark and took over as leader of the Nazarenes. He may have inherited four of John’s disciples, namely Simon Peter, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael, (John 1:35–42) and they became part of an inner council of twelve.

Yeshua had to prove he was a charismatic and capable Nazarene leader, or risk losing the impetus they had already created. Yeshua knew that the prophets had predicted a messiah. Jeremiah had written:

“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our righteousness” (Jer. 23:5–6, KJV)

and there were similar predictions in Isaiah 9:7, Micah 5:4, and Amos 9:11. It may be that Yeshua thought that God had made clear what was expected of him in Scripture.

Today’s politicians tour their electorate before an election to meet the people, increase their profile, sell their message, and gauge support. It is probable Yeshua toured the countryside for the same reasons. It is also likely that his message was that he wanted to start a war in Jerusalem. This war would be best started around Passover time, when large crowds were gathered in Jerusalem.

The following passages from Luke portray Jesus as the social revolutionary he was.

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18–19, KJV) and

“Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh” (Luke 6:20–21, KJV) and

“But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep” (Luke 6:24–25, KJV.)

The meaning is clear - Jesus made a number of promises - the kingdom of God was about to be established, a glorious Israel was just around the corner, and the social order was about to be dramatically changed. This could realistically mean only one thing in first century Israel; Jesus was promising that Roman rule was about to end.

Matthew reports Jesus as saying,

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force” (Matt. 11:12, KJV.)

These are not the words of a pacifist preacher, but of a bellicose insurgent.

These rally calls were not what everyone wanted to hear. Some of his fellow Jews

“...rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way” (Luke 4:29–30, KJV.)

Why such an angry reaction? Yeshua called for the overthrow of the social structure, and that did not suit everyone. There were some powerful people making more than a good living just the way things were. Some of the people would have been petrified at the prospect of a war with Rome.

Dreaming about his mission as Messiah might have inspired Yeshua, yet he would have been wary. Yeshua knew there had been many hopeful heroes before him who had failed, and most of them had been killed. He knew there was a new Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate, who was brutal towards anyone challenging Roman rule. He must have been well aware that a gruesome death could be his ultimate fate too.

Yeshua probably knew Herod Antipas was after him, as suggested in the Bible. Luke wrote;

“Just at this time some Pharisees came up. Go away they said, leave this place, because Herod means to kill you” (Luke 13:31, NJB.)

If Jesus had been a harmless religious enthusiast roaming the countryside preaching to the people about God and life, Herod would have had no reason to seek him out. Some Pharisees obviously admired Yeshua and hoped to save him from a Roman crucifixion. Jesus heeded the warning by crossing the Sea of Galilee to put himself beyond Herod’s reach. (See Matthew 14:13.)

The Synoptic Gospels named Jesus’ twelve disciples. There are some discrepancies in the names between the Gospels, but Jesus’ three brothers (James, Jude, and Simon) are deliberately mentioned last in the list in all three Gospels, along with Judas the traitor, probably so as to minimize their importance. Yet, considering the importance of family in ancient Israel, it is far more likely his three brothers were, in fact, his dearest disciples.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 05:12 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 01:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
Quote:But I am merely highlighting that because certain measures weren't in place, we cannot rely upon knowledge without seriously lowering our expectations of evidence. In doing so, we can't be sure of our findings.

Do you think that while we might require video evidence of certain events and happenings today, that it not requiring video evidence of something that happened in the 1800s is lowering our expectations of evidence?

Historians don’t lower their expectations for the Gospels, and Christian writings, it’s the same expectations they have for everything and everyone throughout that period. If certain scenarios today might be doubtful without video evidence, it’s only because we expect there to be video evidence. If we didn't expect this, they wouldn't be a part of our expectations.

[quote]Benny Hinn isn't a faith healer, he pretends to be one, but he isn't one.

No, he’s a faith healer. That perhaps his main attribute that separates him from other evangelist.

Quote:How come you belief that Jesus was a faith healer and yet Benny Hinn is a charlatan?

Benny Hinn and Jesus was a faith healer, regardless if they were charlatans or not, or if their cures were merely what we would call quackery, or psychosomatic.

Quote:So do you consider that remarkable events e.g. miracles, don't need exceptional level of evidence in all cases or do you deem that this is only true when those remarkable events are consistent with your own religious beliefs?

For a guy who doesn’t believe in morality, doesn’t know what Good, I’m surprised you feel comfortable using the term “exceptional”, which is purely subjective. If a creationist were to say that evolution requires an exceptional level of evidence, and than claim that what we have is not an exceptional level, they wouldn’t be wrong (or right). My interest is not in the amount of evidence, but the consistency of one explanation over the other to account for what’s available. A historian is looking for the most likely explanation. If you don’t believe in the supernatural, or presuppose methodological naturalism, as I’ve been doing here, than we’re merely looking for the most likely naturalistic explanation.

Quote:If someone made a 5 minute speech and I didn't record it and didn't write it down during the speech the amount of mistakes I would make in recalling the speech just 10 minutes later would be huge. I don't I would get one single sentence entirely correct.

Yet, how many song lyrics can I recite verbatim? A lot actually, and that even without deliberately trying to memorize them. We have kids who memorize the entire Quran.

In fact I can recite much of the passages, sayings, and parables in the gospel, pretty accurately, even though I’ve never deliberately tried to memorize them. Like songs, much of the sayings, and parables has a rhythm cadence to it, that makes them fairly easy to remember.

Not to mention we are talking about a period whose reliance was primarily through the oral tradition, whose religious followers, and communities are actively trying to memorize these sayings and teachings.

Time and place, the order in which Jesus may have said one thing, or another thing, are not consistent in the gospels, like the sermon mount in Matthew and Luke. In fact in some case passage in one chapter, like the parables of the talents, in Matthew and Luke), they have very different meanings, particularly in relationship to the ruler figure in these Passages. Where Matthew has God in mind, Luke makes a historical reference to Herod Antioch, rather than God. But the meaning is primarily evident by the subsequent passages, Luke and Matthew choose to use, to give the story a different context, or take. The the two meanings would be consistent either way with the overall message of the Gospels. And we might not know which one Jesus had in mind when he said it. But that body of the narrative, used in both is likely one he said.

I also noted that the though the Gospels were written 30 or so years after Jesus death, that they relied on multiple sources before them, not just the oral tradition: “Q,M,L, a signs course, two discourse sources, and aramaic text. Luke even acknowledges that there were many of them, which he used in his composition. We may not have these sources any longer, but their existence can be inferred from the composition of the text itself, like puns, and jokes that can only be understood if the original Armaic is read back into it.”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 06:12 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 05:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 01:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
Quote:But I am merely highlighting that because certain measures weren't in place, we cannot rely upon knowledge without seriously lowering our expectations of evidence. In doing so, we can't be sure of our findings.

Do you think that while we might require video evidence of certain events and happenings today, that it not requiring video evidence of something that happened in the 1800s is lowering our expectations of evidence?

Historians don’t lower their expectations for the Gospels, and Christian writings, it’s the same expectations they have for everything and everyone throughout that period. If certain scenarios today might be doubtful without video evidence, it’s only because we expect there to be video evidence. If we didn't expect this, they wouldn't be a part of our expectations.

[quote]Benny Hinn isn't a faith healer, he pretends to be one, but he isn't one.

No, he’s a faith healer. That perhaps his main attribute that separates him from other evangelist.

Quote:How come you belief that Jesus was a faith healer and yet Benny Hinn is a charlatan?

Benny Hinn and Jesus was a faith healer, regardless if they were charlatans or not, or if their cures were merely what we would call quackery, or psychosomatic.

Quote:So do you consider that remarkable events e.g. miracles, don't need exceptional level of evidence in all cases or do you deem that this is only true when those remarkable events are consistent with your own religious beliefs?

For a guy who doesn’t believe in morality, doesn’t know what Good, I’m surprised you feel comfortable using the term “exceptional”, which is purely subjective. If a creationist were to say that evolution requires an exceptional level of evidence, and than claim that what we have is not an exceptional level, they wouldn’t be wrong (or right). My interest is not in the amount of evidence, but the consistency of one explanation over the other to account for what’s available. A historian is looking for the most likely explanation. If you don’t believe in the supernatural, or presuppose methodological naturalism, as I’ve been doing here, than we’re merely looking for the most likely naturalistic explanation.

Quote:If someone made a 5 minute speech and I didn't record it and didn't write it down during the speech the amount of mistakes I would make in recalling the speech just 10 minutes later would be huge. I don't I would get one single sentence entirely correct.

Yet, how many song lyrics can I recite verbatim? A lot actually, and that even without deliberately trying to memorize them. We have kids who memorize the entire Quran.

In fact I can recite much of the passages, sayings, and parables in the gospel, pretty accurately, even though I’ve never deliberately tried to memorize them. Like songs, much of the sayings, and parables has a rhythm cadence to it, that makes them fairly easy to remember.

Not to mention we are talking about a period whose reliance was primarily through the oral tradition, whose religious followers, and communities are actively trying to memorize these sayings and teachings.

Time and place, the order in which Jesus may have said one thing, or another thing, are not consistent in the gospels, like the sermon mount in Matthew and Luke. In fact in some case passage in one chapter, like the parables of the talents, in Matthew and Luke), they have very different meanings, particularly in relationship to the ruler figure in these Passages. Where Matthew has God in mind, Luke makes a historical reference to Herod Antioch, rather than God. But the meaning is primarily evident by the subsequent passages, Luke and Matthew choose to use, to give the story a different context, or take. The the two meanings would be consistent either way with the overall message of the Gospels. And we might not know which one Jesus had in mind when he said it. But that body of the narrative, used in both is likely one he said.

I also noted that the though the Gospels were written 30 or so years after Jesus death, that they relied on multiple sources before them, not just the oral tradition: “Q,M,L, a signs course, two discourse sources, and aramaic text. Luke even acknowledges that there were many of them, which he used in his composition. We may not have these sources any longer, but their existence can be inferred from the composition of the text itself, like puns, and jokes that can only be understood if the original Armaic is read back into it.”

"Yet, how many song lyrics can I recite verbatim?"

Please quote for me, verbatim, the words of a conversation you had yesterday. Please make it 10 pages long, which is the length of some of the quotes Jesus allegedly spoke. Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 06:13 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 05:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 01:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
Quote:But I am merely highlighting that because certain measures weren't in place, we cannot rely upon knowledge without seriously lowering our expectations of evidence. In doing so, we can't be sure of our findings.

Do you think that while we might require video evidence of certain events and happenings today, that it not requiring video evidence of something that happened in the 1800s is lowering our expectations of evidence?

Historians don’t lower their expectations for the Gospels, and Christian writings, it’s the same expectations they have for everything and everyone throughout that period. If certain scenarios today might be doubtful without video evidence, it’s only because we expect there to be video evidence. If we didn't expect this, they wouldn't be a part of our expectations.

[quote]Benny Hinn isn't a faith healer, he pretends to be one, but he isn't one.

No, he’s a faith healer. That perhaps his main attribute that separates him from other evangelist.

Quote:How come you belief that Jesus was a faith healer and yet Benny Hinn is a charlatan?

Benny Hinn and Jesus was a faith healer, regardless if they were charlatans or not, or if their cures were merely what we would call quackery, or psychosomatic.

Quote:So do you consider that remarkable events e.g. miracles, don't need exceptional level of evidence in all cases or do you deem that this is only true when those remarkable events are consistent with your own religious beliefs?

For a guy who doesn’t believe in morality, doesn’t know what Good, I’m surprised you feel comfortable using the term “exceptional”, which is purely subjective. If a creationist were to say that evolution requires an exceptional level of evidence, and than claim that what we have is not an exceptional level, they wouldn’t be wrong (or right). My interest is not in the amount of evidence, but the consistency of one explanation over the other to account for what’s available. A historian is looking for the most likely explanation. If you don’t believe in the supernatural, or presuppose methodological naturalism, as I’ve been doing here, than we’re merely looking for the most likely naturalistic explanation.

Quote:If someone made a 5 minute speech and I didn't record it and didn't write it down during the speech the amount of mistakes I would make in recalling the speech just 10 minutes later would be huge. I don't I would get one single sentence entirely correct.

Yet, how many song lyrics can I recite verbatim? A lot actually, and that even without deliberately trying to memorize them. We have kids who memorize the entire Quran.

In fact I can recite much of the passages, sayings, and parables in the gospel, pretty accurately, even though I’ve never deliberately tried to memorize them. Like songs, much of the sayings, and parables has a rhythm cadence to it, that makes them fairly easy to remember.

Not to mention we are talking about a period whose reliance was primarily through the oral tradition, whose religious followers, and communities are actively trying to memorize these sayings and teachings.

Time and place, the order in which Jesus may have said one thing, or another thing, are not consistent in the gospels, like the sermon mount in Matthew and Luke. In fact in some case passage in one chapter, like the parables of the talents, in Matthew and Luke), they have very different meanings, particularly in relationship to the ruler figure in these Passages. Where Matthew has God in mind, Luke makes a historical reference to Herod Antioch, rather than God. But the meaning is primarily evident by the subsequent passages, Luke and Matthew choose to use, to give the story a different context, or take. The the two meanings would be consistent either way with the overall message of the Gospels. And we might not know which one Jesus had in mind when he said it. But that body of the narrative, used in both is likely one he said.

I also noted that the though the Gospels were written 30 or so years after Jesus death, that they relied on multiple sources before them, not just the oral tradition: “Q,M,L, a signs course, two discourse sources, and aramaic text. Luke even acknowledges that there were many of them, which he used in his composition. We may not have these sources any longer, but their existence can be inferred from the composition of the text itself, like puns, and jokes that can only be understood if the original Armaic is read back into it.”


False analogy. You've heard the gospel passages many many times.
They only heard/saw Jebus say something once.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-05-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 05:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 01:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
Quote:But I am merely highlighting that because certain measures weren't in place, we cannot rely upon knowledge without seriously lowering our expectations of evidence. In doing so, we can't be sure of our findings.

Do you think that while we might require video evidence of certain events and happenings today, that it not requiring video evidence of something that happened in the 1800s is lowering our expectations of evidence?

Historians don’t lower their expectations for the Gospels, and Christian writings, it’s the same expectations they have for everything and everyone throughout that period. If certain scenarios today might be doubtful without video evidence, it’s only because we expect there to be video evidence. If we didn't expect this, they wouldn't be a part of our expectations.

[quote]Benny Hinn isn't a faith healer, he pretends to be one, but he isn't one.

No, he’s a faith healer. That perhaps his main attribute that separates him from other evangelist.

Quote:How come you belief that Jesus was a faith healer and yet Benny Hinn is a charlatan?

Benny Hinn and Jesus was a faith healer, regardless if they were charlatans or not, or if their cures were merely what we would call quackery, or psychosomatic.

Quote:So do you consider that remarkable events e.g. miracles, don't need exceptional level of evidence in all cases or do you deem that this is only true when those remarkable events are consistent with your own religious beliefs?

For a guy who doesn’t believe in morality, doesn’t know what Good, I’m surprised you feel comfortable using the term “exceptional”, which is purely subjective. If a creationist were to say that evolution requires an exceptional level of evidence, and than claim that what we have is not an exceptional level, they wouldn’t be wrong (or right). My interest is not in the amount of evidence, but the consistency of one explanation over the other to account for what’s available. A historian is looking for the most likely explanation. If you don’t believe in the supernatural, or presuppose methodological naturalism, as I’ve been doing here, than we’re merely looking for the most likely naturalistic explanation.

Quote:If someone made a 5 minute speech and I didn't record it and didn't write it down during the speech the amount of mistakes I would make in recalling the speech just 10 minutes later would be huge. I don't I would get one single sentence entirely correct.

Yet, how many song lyrics can I recite verbatim? A lot actually, and that even without deliberately trying to memorize them. We have kids who memorize the entire Quran.

In fact I can recite much of the passages, sayings, and parables in the gospel, pretty accurately, even though I’ve never deliberately tried to memorize them. Like songs, much of the sayings, and parables has a rhythm cadence to it, that makes them fairly easy to remember.

Not to mention we are talking about a period whose reliance was primarily through the oral tradition, whose religious followers, and communities are actively trying to memorize these sayings and teachings.

Time and place, the order in which Jesus may have said one thing, or another thing, are not consistent in the gospels, like the sermon mount in Matthew and Luke. In fact in some case passage in one chapter, like the parables of the talents, in Matthew and Luke), they have very different meanings, particularly in relationship to the ruler figure in these Passages. Where Matthew has God in mind, Luke makes a historical reference to Herod Antioch, rather than God. But the meaning is primarily evident by the subsequent passages, Luke and Matthew choose to use, to give the story a different context, or take. The the two meanings would be consistent either way with the overall message of the Gospels. And we might not know which one Jesus had in mind when he said it. But that body of the narrative, used in both is likely one he said.

I also noted that the though the Gospels were written 30 or so years after Jesus death, that they relied on multiple sources before them, not just the oral tradition: “Q,M,L, a signs course, two discourse sources, and aramaic text. Luke even acknowledges that there were many of them, which he used in his composition. We may not have these sources any longer, but their existence can be inferred from the composition of the text itself, like puns, and jokes that can only be understood if the original Armaic is read back into it.”

"the overall message of the Gospels."

What, according to you, would that be? Dodgy
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 06:38 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 05:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 01:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
Quote:But I am merely highlighting that because certain measures weren't in place, we cannot rely upon knowledge without seriously lowering our expectations of evidence. In doing so, we can't be sure of our findings.

Do you think that while we might require video evidence of certain events and happenings today, that it not requiring video evidence of something that happened in the 1800s is lowering our expectations of evidence?

Historians don’t lower their expectations for the Gospels, and Christian writings, it’s the same expectations they have for everything and everyone throughout that period. If certain scenarios today might be doubtful without video evidence, it’s only because we expect there to be video evidence. If we didn't expect this, they wouldn't be a part of our expectations.

[quote]Benny Hinn isn't a faith healer, he pretends to be one, but he isn't one.

No, he’s a faith healer. That perhaps his main attribute that separates him from other evangelist.

Quote:How come you belief that Jesus was a faith healer and yet Benny Hinn is a charlatan?

Benny Hinn and Jesus was a faith healer, regardless if they were charlatans or not, or if their cures were merely what we would call quackery, or psychosomatic.

Quote:So do you consider that remarkable events e.g. miracles, don't need exceptional level of evidence in all cases or do you deem that this is only true when those remarkable events are consistent with your own religious beliefs?

For a guy who doesn’t believe in morality, doesn’t know what Good, I’m surprised you feel comfortable using the term “exceptional”, which is purely subjective. If a creationist were to say that evolution requires an exceptional level of evidence, and than claim that what we have is not an exceptional level, they wouldn’t be wrong (or right). My interest is not in the amount of evidence, but the consistency of one explanation over the other to account for what’s available. A historian is looking for the most likely explanation. If you don’t believe in the supernatural, or presuppose methodological naturalism, as I’ve been doing here, than we’re merely looking for the most likely naturalistic explanation.

Quote:If someone made a 5 minute speech and I didn't record it and didn't write it down during the speech the amount of mistakes I would make in recalling the speech just 10 minutes later would be huge. I don't I would get one single sentence entirely correct.

Yet, how many song lyrics can I recite verbatim? A lot actually, and that even without deliberately trying to memorize them. We have kids who memorize the entire Quran.

In fact I can recite much of the passages, sayings, and parables in the gospel, pretty accurately, even though I’ve never deliberately tried to memorize them. Like songs, much of the sayings, and parables has a rhythm cadence to it, that makes them fairly easy to remember.

Not to mention we are talking about a period whose reliance was primarily through the oral tradition, whose religious followers, and communities are actively trying to memorize these sayings and teachings.

Time and place, the order in which Jesus may have said one thing, or another thing, are not consistent in the gospels, like the sermon mount in Matthew and Luke. In fact in some case passage in one chapter, like the parables of the talents, in Matthew and Luke), they have very different meanings, particularly in relationship to the ruler figure in these Passages. Where Matthew has God in mind, Luke makes a historical reference to Herod Antioch, rather than God. But the meaning is primarily evident by the subsequent passages, Luke and Matthew choose to use, to give the story a different context, or take. The the two meanings would be consistent either way with the overall message of the Gospels. And we might not know which one Jesus had in mind when he said it. But that body of the narrative, used in both is likely one he said.

I also noted that the though the Gospels were written 30 or so years after Jesus death, that they relied on multiple sources before them, not just the oral tradition: “Q,M,L, a signs course, two discourse sources, and aramaic text. Luke even acknowledges that there were many of them, which he used in his composition. We may not have these sources any longer, but their existence can be inferred from the composition of the text itself, like puns, and jokes that can only be understood if the original Armaic is read back into it.”

"I also noted that the though the Gospels were written 30 or so years after Jesus death, that they relied on multiple sources before them, not just the oral tradition:..."

Agreed.

Yet we can't even be sure there was an "oral tradition"... we're guessing.

Just like we can't be sure that there was even an historical Jesus.

So why dafuck do Christians (? like you) revere these writings? I say it is because you have been brainwashed since birth by power hungry priests and preachers.

What is more, these writings, in my opinion, have no intrinsic value ethically or philosophically. In fact, they are worse than bad.

We don't know who wrote them, they have no proven link to an historical character, we know they've been edited and interpolated by numerous authors, they contain poor quality philosophy, yet they are read out as the God inspired truth to gullible Christians.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: