Why are you looking forward to heaven?
Cisco Kid

Sonora, CA

#151 Mar 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I like your picture of yourself. Its suits you well.
Your picture is a good representation of YOURself.
Nothing like grey,....... eh?
nc resident

Charlotte, NC

#152 Mar 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
They do share some common material. That is to be expected since they are writing about the same individual. No different than other historical bios that are written by different authors on the same person.
John certainly does share a lot in common with the other 3. You should read them.
in the back of my bible there is a chart harmony of the Gospels. It shows where they cross reference. John is unique, his relationship with Jesus more personal, a confidant. Each witness adds to the fullness of the gospels.

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe/God

#153 Mar 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What have you been brainwashed with?
At one time I was partially brainwashed with Christianity. However unlike YOU, I was able to see thru the lies and had the strength to overcome the brainwashing. I am now on a far greater spiritual path than you will never be on.

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe/God

#155 Mar 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
And Reality is what?
The real world around you, not that insane crap in an ancient book of mythology that you read and worship as your delusional version of "reality".

“Life Force One”

Since: Jul 07

The Spiritual Universe/God

#156 Mar 23, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, Our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve, To thee do we send up our sighs, Mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, And after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus
.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Nettie! Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Amen.
Woo Hoo!!!

Nettie has hit the big time, she has her very own groupie!!!

So ok, a drug and boozed soaked one, but it's a start!
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#157 Mar 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
In regards to sources for Christ outside the NT we have:
"Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.
I do not doubt the existence of a Jewish teacher named Yeshua who lived and was crucified in the first part of the first century. He wouldn’t have been the first to fit those events. I doubt that he rose from the dead. None of the “sources” you cite corroborate the resurrection.
Jeff wrote:
In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger), one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus).
None of the sources you cite could have been eyewitnesses (independent sources)to even the existence of Jesus. they were all born after he was dead.
Jeff wrote:
I would like to take these in probable historical order.
•(First, a methodological note about the issue of 'independent sources')
• Thallus (c. 50-75ad)[4/2/96]
If Thallus was born in 50AD he could not have been an eyewitness (independent source) for any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. We have none of the writings of Thallus. Everything we know about Thallus comes from the works of 2nd century Christian writers. There is no suggestion that Thallus wrote of a resurrection.
Jeff wrote:
• Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)
Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100) could not have been an eye witness (independent source) to any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. Josephus made no reference of a resurrection.
Jeff wrote:
• Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)
Pliny the Younger (61 AD – ca. 112 AD) could not have been an eye witness (independent source) to any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. He made no reference to a resurrection.

“I could discover nothing more [about Christianity] than depraved and excessive superstition." - Pliny the Younger
Jeff wrote:
• Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)
Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) could not have been an eye witness (independent source) to any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. He made no mention of a resurrection. He referred to Christianity as “a most mischievous superstition”.
Jeff wrote:
• Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
Suetonius (c. 69AD – after 122AD) could not have been an eye witness (independent source) to any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. He made no mention of a resurrection. He referred to Christianity as “a new and mischievous superstition”.
Jeff wrote:
• Galen (various writings, c.150)
Galen (AD 129–c.&#8201;200/c.&#8 201;216) could not have been an eye witness (independent source) to any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. He made no mention of a resurrection.
Jeff wrote:
• Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
Celsus was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity. Celsus wrote that Jesus's father was a Roman soldier named Panthera.
Jeff wrote:
• Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
There exists one letter written by him sometime after 73 AD referring to the execution of "the wise king of the Jews". It made no mention of Jesus by name or a resurrection.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#158 Mar 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
• Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)". The Christian ThinkTank.
There are no references to the resurrection of Jesus in the Talmud.
Jeff wrote:
<As for Alexander being a "son of god", no. As great as Alexander was as a military leader he was no god in the sense of God i.e. as creator. It is said of Christ that He created all things and was God incarnate. He proved this by His life and miracles.
Then you only accept the things written in ancient documents that agree with your beliefs. That's convenient.
Jeff wrote:
Four Christians writing in different locations and times makes them independent. 2 of them were eyewitnesses to Christ. One was written through another apostle (Mark for Peter). Luke wrote his gospel after examining the eyewitnesses carefully. These records are superior to anything other ancient historical figure.
Four anonymous Christians may be considered “independent sources” in your mind but not to any reputable historian.
“The criterion of multiple attestation cannot be used for sources that are not independent. For example, a saying that occurs in all three Synoptic Gospels may only represent one source. Both the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark in their writings; therefore, triple-tradition material represents only a single source, Mark.- Bart D. Ehrman , PhD, American New Testament scholar, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Jeff wrote:
No secular historian of the time refutes or shows the gospels to be in error.
There were no secular (non-Christian) historians that were contemporary with Jesus that made any mention of him. Philo of Alexandrea (c. 20BCE – 50CE), was a prolific Jewish historian who lived at the same time Jesus did and never mentioned him.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#159 Mar 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I like your picture of yourself. Its suits you well.
I've come a long way, Seth, and you haven't budged a smidge.
Last year it was a crucified Easter Bunny but this year I'll probably just go with and Easter Egg.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#160 Mar 24, 2013
Seentheotherside wrote:
<quoted text>
At one time I was partially brainwashed with Christianity. However unlike YOU, I was able to see thru the lies and had the strength to overcome the brainwashing. I am now on a far greater spiritual path than you will never be on.
This spiritual path that you are on: how do you know its the true one?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#161 Mar 24, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not doubt the existence of a Jewish teacher named Yeshua who lived and was crucified in the first part of the first century. He wouldn’t have been the first to fit those events. I doubt that he rose from the dead. None of the “sources” you cite corroborate the resurrection.
<quoted text>
None of the sources you cite could have been eyewitnesses (independent sources)to even the existence of Jesus. they were all born after he was dead.
<quoted text>
If Thallus was born in 50AD he could not have been an eyewitness (independent source) for any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. We have none of the writings of Thallus. Everything we know about Thallus comes from the works of 2nd century Christian writers. There is no suggestion that Thallus wrote of a resurrection.
<quoted text>
Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100) could not have been an eye witness (independent source) to any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. Josephus made no reference of a resurrection.
<quoted text>
Pliny the Younger (61 AD – ca. 112 AD) could not have been an eye witness (independent source) to any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. He made no reference to a resurrection.
“I could discover nothing more [about Christianity] than depraved and excessive superstition." - Pliny the Younger
<quoted text>
Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) could not have been an eye witness (independent source) to any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. He made no mention of a resurrection. He referred to Christianity as “a most mischievous superstition”.
<quoted text>
Suetonius (c. 69AD – after 122AD) could not have been an eye witness (independent source) to any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. He made no mention of a resurrection. He referred to Christianity as “a new and mischievous superstition”.
<quoted text>
Galen (AD 129–c.&#8201;200/c.&#8 201;216) could not have been an eye witness (independent source) to any event relating to the life of Jesus. Jesus was dead before he was born. He made no mention of a resurrection.
<quoted text>
Celsus was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity. Celsus wrote that Jesus's father was a Roman soldier named Panthera.
<quoted text>
There exists one letter written by him sometime after 73 AD referring to the execution of "the wise king of the Jews". It made no mention of Jesus by name or a resurrection.
If the gospel accounts are not to be trusted sources for Christ you are going to have to demonstrate that with facts. All 4 of them mention the resurrection in detail. 2 of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. One was dictated by an eyewitness and the other one who thoroughly investigated to determine the exact truth. Show me anyone in ancient history that has this kind of support:
1) Written by eyewitnesses
2) Written while the eyewitnesses were alive

Who in ancient have multiple accounts of their lives like the gospels. Alexander the Great doesn’t. Can you think of anyone else in ancient history?

If the sources I cited cannot used as evidence for Christ then no ancient source can be accepted either. Let’s start with the bios of Alexander. These are not eyewitness accounts. Written almost 400 years after his death makes them useless. We can apply this to any bio on Lincoln today. They are useless also since they are not eyewitness accounts and rely on other works.

Give me some counter facts (not assertions) that the resurrection did not happen.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#162 Mar 24, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no references to the resurrection of Jesus in the Talmud.
<quoted text>
Then you only accept the things written in ancient documents that agree with your beliefs. That's convenient.
<quoted text>
Four anonymous Christians may be considered “independent sources” in your mind but not to any reputable historian.
“The criterion of multiple attestation cannot be used for sources that are not independent. For example, a saying that occurs in all three Synoptic Gospels may only represent one source. Both the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark in their writings; therefore, triple-tradition material represents only a single source, Mark.- Bart D. Ehrman , PhD, American New Testament scholar, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
<quoted text>
There were no secular (non-Christian) historians that were contemporary with Jesus that made any mention of him. Philo of Alexandrea (c. 20BCE – 50CE), was a prolific Jewish historian who lived at the same time Jesus did and never mentioned him.
Just because the resurrection is not mentioned in the Talmud does not mean they were not aware of it. In fact they ancient Jews were aware of it because the resurrection is the central truth claim of Christianity.

Bart is wrong. Just like 4 different reports on 911 written in different locations at different times makes them independent. Secular reporters on this event would use some shared material of the event such as interviewing the same eyewitnesses to it at different times to corroborate the facts of 911. No one in their right mind would claim these reports were not independent. So it is with the gospels.


It is not necessarily true to say—“There were no secular (non-Christian) historians that were contemporary with Jesus that made any mention of him.” There could have been given that the survival of documents over 2000 years is not that great.

Why would Philo of Alexandrea need to mention Jesus? How often was he in the vicinity to see and hear Christ? Do you know?

BTW- the gospels authors are not anonymous. They may be in your mind but not in the mind of a good historian or the early church.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#163 Mar 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If the gospel accounts are not to be trusted sources for Christ you are going to have to demonstrate that with facts. All 4 of them mention the resurrection in detail. 2 of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. One was dictated by an eyewitness and the other one who thoroughly investigated to determine the exact truth. Show me anyone in ancient history that has this kind of support:
1) Written by eyewitnesses
2) Written while the eyewitnesses were alive
Fact – The oldest known copy of the New Testament dates to the fourth century (300 years after the events described) and the oldest known fragment dates to 150 CE (100 years after the events).

Fact – None of the gospels were signed.

Fact – There is no evidence that any of the gospels existed before the middle second century (100 years after Jesus died). There is no mention of any of them in any of the writings of any early second century Christians (Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp).

Fact – The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus, who wrote in the latter half of the second century.

Fact – According to the vast majority of Bible scholars, Mark was the first gospel written. Then hoever wrote Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, as well as an unknown gospel called “Q”.
Jeff wrote:
Who in ancient have multiple accounts of their lives like the gospels. Alexander the Great doesn’t. Can you think of anyone else in ancient history?
If the sources I cited cannot used as evidence for Christ then no ancient source can be accepted either. Let’s start with the bios of Alexander. These are not eyewitness accounts. Written almost 400 years after his death makes them useless.
Accounts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments. Contemporaries of Alexander who wrote accounts of his life include his campaign historian Callisthenes; his generals Ptolemy and Nearchus, Aristobulus and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.

However you admitted in a previous post that you don’t believe everything written about Alexander. It’s very difficult to be absolutely certain about things that happened 2,000 years ago.
Jeff wrote:
We can apply this to any bio on Lincoln today. They are useless also since they are not eyewitness accounts and rely on other works.
That’s absurd! We have numerous eyewitness accounts of the events of the life of Abraham Lincoln. We even have documents written in his own handwriting.
Jeff wrote:
Give me some counter facts (not assertions) that the resurrection did not happen.
Right after you give me some “counter facts (not assertions)” that Mohammed did not receive the Quran from the angel Gabriel.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#164 Mar 24, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact – The oldest known copy of the New Testament dates to the fourth century (300 years after the events described) and the oldest known fragment dates to 150 CE (100 years after the events).
Fact – None of the gospels were signed.
Fact – There is no evidence that any of the gospels existed before the middle second century (100 years after Jesus died). There is no mention of any of them in any of the writings of any early second century Christians (Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp).
Fact – The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus, who wrote in the latter half of the second century.
Fact – According to the vast majority of Bible scholars, Mark was the first gospel written. Then hoever wrote Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, as well as an unknown gospel called “Q”.
<quoted text>
Accounts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments. Contemporaries of Alexander who wrote accounts of his life include his campaign historian Callisthenes; his generals Ptolemy and Nearchus, Aristobulus and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.
However you admitted in a previous post that you don’t believe everything written about Alexander. It’s very difficult to be absolutely certain about things that happened 2,000 years ago.
<quoted text>
That’s absurd! We have numerous eyewitness accounts of the events of the life of Abraham Lincoln. We even have documents written in his own handwriting.
<quoted text>
Right after you give me some “counter facts (not assertions)” that Mohammed did not receive the Quran from the angel Gabriel.
Here some evidence of why we know who wrote the gospels:
About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (lived in the 2nd century)(as quoted by Eusebius) Quoting John the Elder wrote:
`And this the Presbyter used to say [this is in the plural implying John the Elder would employ this argument multiple times in defense of Mark's Gospel]: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the cheias,[a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lord's sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them". This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew`s this was said: "For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able"`[5][author incomplete]. This last part is translated into English as every one interpreted them as he was able by Dr. Arthur C. McGiffert and Dr. Ernest C. Richardson."

The earliest fragment of a gospel dates to about 110 AD. Its a small section from the gospel John.

Fact: the names that are on the 4 gospels have always been associated with those names. There is good reason to believe all the gospels were written before 70 AD because this was the year the temple was destroyed and its not mentioned in any gospel. This is significant because the temple was the most important building in the 1st century. Not to mention it (Jesus predicted its destruction) is an indication the gospels were written before 70.

Where are the counter facts to the resurrection? We can look at Mohammed. Right now we need to focus on the resurrection. Did in anyone in the 1st century prove it did not happen?
mztza

Mesa, AZ

#165 Mar 24, 2013
it's plain and simple
a place without sin
would be paradise
where love and kindness exists to the max
happiness is
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#166 Mar 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because the resurrection is not mentioned in the Talmud does not mean they were not aware of it. In fact they ancient Jews were aware of it because the resurrection is the central truth claim of Christianity.
Now you’re a mind reader. You know what the writers of the Talmud knew but didn’t write.
Jeff wrote:
Bart is wrong. Just like 4 different reports on 911 written in different locations at different times makes them independent. Secular reporters on this event would use some shared material of the event such as interviewing the same eyewitnesses to it at different times to corroborate the facts of 911. No one in their right mind would claim these reports were not independent. So it is with the gospels.
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I think he has probably studied the subject in more depth than you.

If four Nazi’s wrote narratives about the great accomplishments of Hitler would you consider those independent sources?
Jeff wrote:
It is not necessarily true to say—“There were no secular (non-Christian) historians that were contemporary with Jesus that made any mention of him.” There could have been given that the survival of documents over 2000 years is not that great.
True there are no “existing” non-Christian contemporary accounts or mentions of Jesus. There could also have been documents that contradicted the the stories of the gospels that did not survive. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
Jeff wrote:
Why would Philo of Alexandrea need to mention Jesus?
Philo was a Jewish historian and Jesus, according to the Bible, was a prominent and prolific Jewish teacher that attracted large crowds of people. One would think that would a subject a Jewish historian would want to write about.
Jeff wrote:
How often was he in the vicinity to see and hear Christ? Do you know?
Jews during that period of time were required to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (the temple) three times a year Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Pentecost), and Sukkot (Tabernacles). You would think he would have at least heard about a new Jewish teacher on one of his trips to Jerusalem, if not run into Jesus himself or one of his followers. It would suggest that the phenomenon of Jesus was not that big a deal.
Jeff wrote:
BTW- the gospels authors are not anonymous. They may be in your mind but not in the mind of a good historian or the early church.
I beg to differ!

There is general agreement among Bible scholars of all denominations that the gospels were unsigned.

“Strictly speaking, each gospel (and Acts) is anonymous.”- Stephen L. Harris .Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University, MA and PhD degrees from Cornell University, member of the American Academy of Religion

“The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.”- New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

"They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever" - Rev. Dr. Hooykaas,(Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24)

There many scholars more knowledgeable than me about Bible history who have determined that the gospels were unsigned.
llllllllllllllll lllll

Curitiba, Brazil

#167 Mar 24, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
/
Go find somewhere else.

To post your bullshit.

If you post on here anymore I will cause evil to come upon you and your family by the way of the spirit.

John from Texas

“It's all in your head”

Since: Dec 12

Buda, TX

#168 Mar 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
And Reality is what?
Oh Jeese!. Reality is what is real.
llllllllllllllll ll

Januária, Brazil

#169 Mar 24, 2013
John from Texas wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Jeese!. Reality is what is real.
If you post on here anymore I will cause evil to come upon you and your family by the way of the spirit.
llllllllllllllll ll

Januária, Brazil

#170 Mar 24, 2013
I would highly recommend.

That you need my advice to you and save yourself from a lot of grief and sorrow.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#171 Mar 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Here some evidence of why we know who wrote the gospels:
About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (lived in the 2nd century)(as quoted by Eusebius) Quoting John the Elder wrote:
`And this the Presbyter used to say [this is in the plural implying John the Elder would employ this argument multiple times in defense of Mark's Gospel]: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the cheias,[a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lord's sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them". This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew`s this was said: "For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able"`[5][author incomplete]. This last part is translated into English as every one interpreted them as he was able by Dr. Arthur C. McGiffert and Dr. Ernest C. Richardson."
The earliest fragment of a gospel dates to about 110 AD. Its a small section from the gospel John.
"For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." - Papias, bishop of Hierapolis as quoted by Eusabius

Eusebius called Papias “a man of small mental capacity who mistook the figurative language of apostolic traditions'.”- Historia Ecclesiastica 3.39.13.
Jeff wrote:
Fact: the names that are on the 4 gospels have always been associated with those names. There is good reason to believe all the gospels were written before 70 AD because this was the year the temple was destroyed and its not mentioned in any gospel. This is significant because the temple was the most important building in the 1st century. Not to mention it (Jesus predicted its destruction) is an indication the gospels were written before 70.[/QUOTE}
In your mind and few others but not in the mind of most of those who have studied the subject.
[QUOTE who="Jeff"]Where are the counter facts to the resurrection? We can look at Mohammed. Right now we need to focus on the resurrection. Did in anyone in the 1st century prove it did not happen?
Has any Christian ever proved that Mohammed didn’t have a revelation from the angel Gabriel? Your question is absurd. Think about it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 17 min truth 1,696
Why did Christ come to Earth? (Oct '16) 37 min truth 1,030
The truth is difficult, I understand. 1 hr Scientist 66
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 1 hr Scientist 2,468
the pauline paradox 2 hr Barmsweb 106
Faith during hard times 10 hr Scientist 114
What religion was Enoch, Noah, and Abraham? (Oct '12) 10 hr Frindly 1,686
More from around the web