forgery no. 29 in the bible - Jesus' Genealogies

Posted in the Christian Forum

Comments
1 - 18 of 18 Comments Last updated Jan 28, 2014
abcd

Dhaka, Bangladesh

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 21, 2008
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Of all the glaring absurdities, obvious fabrications and irresolvable contradictions plaguing the New Testament gospels the genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38) outdo them all. The authors of Mark and John wisely chose to ignored this subject. Having said that, I point out that the purpose of the genealogies, to establish a direct family linkage from Jesus to King David, is an important one since Jewish prophetic writings makes it clear that the Messiah must be a direct descendant of King David (2 Samuel 7:16, Psalms 89:3-4 and 132:11-12,) although this requirement is brought into serious question by Jesus himself (Mark 12:35-37.)4a That, along with the Old Testament prophecy in Micah 5:2, is the reason the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke has Jesus born in Bethlehem, the city of David. In his epistle to the Romans (1:3) Paul tells us without proof that Jesus was in fact a descendant of King David. Because they were determined to fit Jesus into the Jewish messianic scriptural mold, the writers of Matthew and Luke separately concocted detailed genealogies each giving Jesus an elaborate, but phony, family tree directly linking him not only to King David but far beyond. The writer of Matthew starts with Abraham, the first of the Jewish patriarchs, and works forward through David to Joseph thence to Jesus while the writer of Luke outdoes him by going backward all the way to God.

Eddy4b tells us that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are believed to have been compiled in late first century Antioch, which at that time had a large population of extremely wealthy Jews to whom the matter of family ties were very important. The genealogies were included as a means of appealing to this particular population in an effort to convert them to Christianity which was at that time a Jewish sect. Because their writers neglected to include a birth narrative, the Gospels of Mark and John, managed to circumvent the genealogy problem. In addition, John was obviously written for a gentile audience where the trappings of a genealogy and a Jewish messianic birth were not that important.

There are, however, big problems with these genealogies raising a number of legitimate questions. As pointed out by Arnheim4c, there is a huge difference between the two genealogies, especially in the number of generations separating Jesus from King David. Matthew specifically tells us that there were twenty-eight generations, fourteen from David to the Babylonian Exile and another fourteen from the Exile to the birth of Jesus. The writer of Luke gives no figures, but a count of the number of names he mentions as Jesus' ancestors yields a total of no fewer than forty-one generations for the same period represented by Matthew's twenty-eight. For the thousand-odd-year period Luke's forty one generations average out at just over twenty-four years apiece. Matthew's fourteen generations from David to the Exile average out to about twenty-eight and a half years each, but his last fourteen generations have a mean span of a whopping forty-one and a half years thereby rendering it totally unacceptable.
abcd

Dhaka, Bangladesh

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 21, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

When the genealogies are compared, one can easily see that the lists are almost identical up to David. However, from David onward there is little similarity. For example, the writer of Matthew tells us (1:16) that Jacob is Joseph’s father where as in Luke 3:23 we are told that Heli is Joseph’s father. The major reason for the contradictory names given after David is that the account in Luke traces the genealogy through David's son, Nathan, while the one in Matthew traces it through Solomon. This would easily account for the wide divergence in names following David but raises a couple of crucial questions:(1) How could two sons of David father two completely different genealogies which merge together with the last two individuals, Joseph and Jesus? And (2) how could Jesus, or for that matter anyone else, have two contradictory genealogies4d?

The writers of Matthew and Luke are determined to bring Jesus' genealogy into line with Old Testament prophecy at the expense of rational credibility. In so doing they rely at length on the use of the mystical number seven or its multiples in order to invest Jesus' alleged ancestry with a false aura of divine destiny.

Only one conclusion can be drawn from the discrepancies between these two so-called genealogies of Jesus. Because they were both writing fiction, the authors of Matthew and Luke simply invented a lineage linking him with King David thereby fulfilling the requirement of Old Testament prophecy. What they apparently failed to understand, however, is that by establishing Jesus blood tie to King David through Joseph they undermined the claim of a virgin birth4e, establishing Jesus as the true son of God . The twin claims that Jesus was born of a virgin and also descended directly from king David, both of which represent basic Christian doctrine, are by their very nature mutually exclusive.

Christian apologists, however, were not to take such a convincing argument lying down. So determined were they to find some means by which to counter such a devastating disclosure that they resorted, obviously out of sheer desperation, to the claim that the two genealogies were, in reality, not meant to be the same. Matthew's genealogy, they maintained, is that of Joseph while Luke's is that of Mary4f. Unfortunately for them, Luke's genealogy never mentions Mary. In fact, Luke’s author makes it quite clear that this is Joseph's lineage (3:23) and no one else’s. Joseph's name is mentioned in Luke's genealogy and Luke 1:21 and 2:4 show he was from the house of David. So one can reasonably conclude that it is his lineage, not that of Mary. The point is, in fact, moot because as a woman Mary could never have been qualified to be heir to the throne of David, so she couldn't pass on what she could never possess, even if she was of Davidic descent which she obviously was not.
In Numbers 1:18 it states that family pedigrees are declared by the house of their fathers. In the Hebrew culture genealogies were traced through males only. But, this creates an even bigger problem for Bible believers. According to the claim of the virgin birth, Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. Mary was made pregnant with Jesus by none other than the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20, Luke1:35). So, the Bible believer finds himself or herself squarely on the horns of a baffling dilemma. If Jesus is not the biological offspring of Joseph, he has no link to David and is thus disqualified as the long awaited Jewish messiah. But, if Joseph is Jesus’ true biological father, the claim of Davidic ancestry is established but that of the virgin birth is shown to be an out-and-out scam.

“Jesus forgives..... ”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 21, 2008
 

Judged:

1

You have to dig their grave and do some DNA tests to confirm you argument. I am sure, you won't be able to describe your own family tree in such details.
abcd 2 Divine Alien

Bangladesh

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 30, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

2 make thinks easy i have separated the genealogy of mathew n luke.It is as below.

Genealogy Matthew Genealogy Luke
Adam, the son of God
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
Cainan
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
Abraham Abraham
Isaac Isaac
Jacob Jacob
Judah Judah
Perez Perez
Hezron Hezron
Ram Ram
Amminadab Amminadab
Nahshon Nahshon
Salmon Salmon
Boaz Boaz
Obed Obed
Jesse Jesse
David David
Solomon----------Nathan [not same]
Rehoboam----------Mattatha[not same]
Abijah----------Menna [not same]
Asa----------Melea [not same]
Jehoshaphat----------Eliakim [not same]
Jehoram----------Jonam [not same]
Uzziah----------Joseph [not same]
Jotham----------Judah [not same]
Ahaz----------Simeon [not same]
Hezekiah----------Levi [not same]
Manasseh----------Matthat [not same]
Amos----------Jorim [not same]
Josiah----------Eliezer [not same]
Jechoniah----------Joshua [not same]
Shealtiel----------Er [not same]
Zerubbabel----------Elmadam [not same]
Abiud----------Cosam [not same]
Eliakim----------Addi [not same]
Azor----------Melki [not same]
Zadok----------Neri [not same]
Akim----------Shealtiel [not same]
Eliud----------Zerubbabel[not same]
Eleazar----------Rhesa [not same]
Matthan----------Joanan [not same]
Jacob----------Joda [not same]
Joseph----------Joseph [not same]
Jesus----------Semein [not same]
? Mattathias
? Maath
? Naggai
? Esli
? Nahum
? Amos
? Mattathias
? Joseph
? Jannai
? Melki
? Levi
? Matthat
? Heli
? Joseph
? Jesus

lol i guess holy spirit was forgot 2 inspire the writer of luke n mathew about who actually r the real ancestor of jesus or i guess holy spirit himself was actually confused or forgot abt the genealogy.

but most interestingly in both cases adam was described as the son of god not the jesus.

n joseph is described as jesus's biological son :P.

i guess holy spirit forgot that he concieved mary n then jesus was born :P.

is there any answer frm the christians abt this :P.
Stedfast

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 30, 2008
 
abcd 2 Divine Alien wrote:
2 make thinks easy i have separated the genealogy of mathew n luke.It is as below.
Genealogy Matthew Genealogy Luke
Adam, the son of God
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
Cainan
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
Abraham Abraham
Isaac Isaac
Jacob Jacob
Judah Judah
Perez Perez
Hezron Hezron
Ram Ram
Amminadab Amminadab
Nahshon Nahshon
Salmon Salmon
Boaz Boaz
Obed Obed
Jesse Jesse
David David
Solomon----------Nathan [not same]
Rehoboam----------Mattatha[not same]
Abijah----------Menna [not same]
Asa----------Melea [not same]
Jehoshaphat----------Eliakim [not same]
Jehoram----------Jonam [not same]
Uzziah----------Joseph [not same]
Jotham----------Judah [not same]
Ahaz----------Simeon [not same]
Hezekiah----------Levi [not same]
Manasseh----------Matthat [not same]
Amos----------Jorim [not same]
Josiah----------Eliezer [not same]
Jechoniah----------Joshua [not same]
Shealtiel----------Er [not same]
Zerubbabel----------Elmadam [not same]
Abiud----------Cosam [not same]
Eliakim----------Addi [not same]
Azor----------Melki [not same]
Zadok----------Neri [not same]
Akim----------Shealtiel [not same]
Eliud----------Zerubbabel[not same]
Eleazar----------Rhesa [not same]
Matthan----------Joanan [not same]
Jacob----------Joda [not same]
Joseph----------Joseph [not same]
Jesus----------Semein [not same]
? Mattathias
? Maath
? Naggai
? Esli
? Nahum
? Amos
? Mattathias
? Joseph
? Jannai
? Melki
? Levi
? Matthat
? Heli
? Joseph
? Jesus
lol i guess holy spirit was forgot 2 inspire the writer of luke n mathew about who actually r the real ancestor of jesus or i guess holy spirit himself was actually confused or forgot abt the genealogy.
but most interestingly in both cases adam was described as the son of god not the jesus.
n joseph is described as jesus's biological son :P.
i guess holy spirit forgot that he concieved mary n then jesus was born :P.
is there any answer frm the christians abt this :P.
Yes. However, I do not believe you will listen to it (even your copy/pasting texts above show some of the explanations which the authors of your articles obviously do not believe). You are filling the forum with threads that are very similar, abcd. Are you trying to make a point or have a discussion? If you are really interested in some excellent discussion on ancient texts, check out the dialogue in the "Was Jesus a real person" thread. The websites sited would lead you to the Christian counter-argument to what you are posting. Frankly, I don't want to take the time to copy/paste it for you.
abcd 2 Stedfast

Bangladesh

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 30, 2008
 
Stedfast wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. However, I do not believe you will listen to it (even your copy/pasting texts above show some of the explanations which the authors of your articles obviously do not believe). You are filling the forum with threads that are very similar, abcd. Are you trying to make a point or have a discussion? If you are really interested in some excellent discussion on ancient texts, check out the dialogue in the "Was Jesus a real person" thread. The websites sited would lead you to the Christian counter-argument to what you are posting. Frankly, I don't want to take the time to copy/paste it for you.
wat ever my post is can u deny that gospel of mathew n luke gave totally 2 different genealogy.

how come gospel writers make such a great mistake.

was holy spirit abandoned them !!!

here u also skipped 2 important question.

here adam is described as son of god not jesus.

n jesus is described as biological son of jesus.
Stedfast

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 30, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

abcd 2 Stedfast wrote:
<quoted text>
wat ever my post is can u deny that gospel of mathew n luke gave totally 2 different genealogy.
how come gospel writers make such a great mistake.
was holy spirit abandoned them !!!
here u also skipped 2 important question.
here adam is described as son of god not jesus.
n jesus is described as biological son of jesus.
OK, I'm going to try this again. The genealogies are different but the Christian apologists explain why - have you read their explanations? It's OK if you don't agree with them, that is up to you. But in order to discuss them you'd have to read them.

The term "son of God" referenced to Adam means born of God - his first creation.

I don't understand your question re Jesus being the biological son of Jesus, unless you are talking about the trinity?

“TZADDI”

Since: Jun 08

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 1, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

abcd 2 Stedfast wrote:
<quoted text>
wat ever my post is can u deny that gospel of mathew n luke gave totally 2 different genealogy.
how come gospel writers make such a great mistake.
was holy spirit abandoned them !!!
here u also skipped 2 important question.
here adam is described as son of god not jesus.
n jesus is described as biological son of jesus.
abcd, is just about as blind as a radarless bat. In fact, your inability to understand Scripture doesn't have you honestly wanting to know the answers. It is easy to see that your true intention is to ridicule and degrade that which you deem to be false. You are a very sad and transparent individual. Here, lets see you fumble over this: One line is the Royal Line (Solomon) which concerns Joseph. The other line is the Legal Line (Nathan) which concerns Mary. Let's see, Both genealogies point to one person(Jesus) and a child has two lines(Paternal and Maternal) and both lines happen to go back through King David. I love it when dialectic reasoning works so well!
Grim Reaper

Tokyo, Japan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 9, 2008
 
JESUS IS wrote:
OH NO, NOT THIS LAME ACCUSATION...AGAIN!!!!!!!
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke.
Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior). Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity. It is generally accepted (but not unanimously) that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. JOSEPH WAS THE LEGAL ADOPTIVE FATHER OF JESUS.
(The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.) Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus".
Do you smoke kangaroo shit??
Grim Reaper

Tokyo, Japan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 10, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

JESUS IS wrote:
No Slit eyes!!!!!
Have you ever tried to get into the pouch of a kangaroo? Does Mel Gibson smoke kangaroo shit?

“Free Spirit like a little bird”

Since: Jun 08

Seoul, Korea

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 10, 2008
 
JESUS IS wrote:
No Slit eyes!!!!!
hI, FRIEND
hE IS A SUCH FOOL!!

“Free Spirit like a little bird”

Since: Jun 08

Seoul, Korea

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 10, 2008
 
JESUS IS wrote:
OH NO, NOT THIS LAME ACCUSATION...AGAIN!!!!!!!
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke.
Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior). Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity. It is generally accepted (but not unanimously) that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. JOSEPH WAS THE LEGAL ADOPTIVE FATHER OF JESUS.
(The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.) Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus".
hEY...U ARE QUITE KNOWLEDGEABLE!!!!
gOD BLESSES U,,FOR UR DIVINE MISSION!!!
Grim Reaper

Tokyo, Japan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 10, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Crazy Lady, wheres the 150 lbs picture?? You know, telling a LIE is a SIN. Did you go to the "HEAD DOCTOR", ImaDingaling?
TRUE or FALSE

Mission, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 27, 2014
 
forgery no. 29 in the bible - Jesus' Genealogies
Qan-kara

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jan 27, 2014
 
abcd wrote:
....
...Jewish prophetic writings.
..to fit Jesus into the Jewish messianic scriptural mold,...
...Jewish patriarchs...
...David to Joseph thence to Jesus
...wealthy Jews.
..a Jewish sect.
...and a Jewish messianic .
There us NO SUCH THING AS:
1. "je-WISH PROPHETIC WRITING.."
2. "je-WISH Messianic Scriptural mold..."
3. "je-WISH SECT..." or
4. "je-WISH MASSIANIC BIRTH..." as it relates to the TORAH
Like the "christians"whom you're critiquing you're also a victim of the conditioned thinking of this "je-WISH" thing. You've heard it so much you are repeating it by rote, ASSuming that its true.
Fact is the letter "J" is the newest letter in the English Alphabet
and was only invented in the 1600s In France. So there could not possibly be anyone called "Jew", "jesus" or "je-WISH."
They WISH THEY WERE. But they have stolen the identity of the true lsraelites today; the so-called Blacks, Hispanics and Native American lndians. And these are not called "jews" or "israelis" but they are in fact HEBREW Israel-ITES.
The Zionists who have stolen the land of Palistine ARE GENTILES and they DID NOT DESCEND FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH AS THEY CLAIM. Therefore tge Most High God (YAH) MUST destroy them for the real Children of lsrael to return to the land.The true owners of the land
Otherwise your posts ARE REEKING WITH ABSOLUTE TRUTHS AND UNDENIABLE FACTS. "christians" and "christianity" are so embeded with lies and false teachings they can never grasp what you are saying. AND THEY NEVER WILL!!!
Good job...no EXCELLENT job. Looking forward to reading more!!
Qan-kara

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jan 27, 2014
 
aesthetic wrote:
<quoted text>abcd, is just about as blind as a radarless bat. In fact, your inability to understand Scripture doesn't have you honestly wanting to know the answers. It is easy to see that your true intention is to ridicule and degrade that which you deem to be false. You are a very sad and transparent individual. Here, lets see you fumble over this: One line is the Royal Line (Solomon) which concerns Joseph. The other line is the Legal Line (Nathan) which concerns Mary. Let's see, Both genealogies point to one person(Jesus) and a child has two lines(Paternal and Maternal) and both lines happen to go back through King David. I love it when dialectic reasoning works so well!
The points abcd is making about "jesus" genealogy is as plain as ABC(D) and the so-called "christians" (an appellation as false as the genealogy itself) will fall over themselfves in denial to "prove" him wrong.
And each "christian" will have a different explanation (excuse) intersperse with the various name-calling to justify their pathetic
ignorance. When you look at the genealogy in Matthew and Luke the facts are as clear as the inconsistencies. But who is going to help the blind to see? Aren't these the same people who believe in a TRINITY GOD?
CHRISTMAS?
EASTER?
Three days and three nights from Friday evening to sunday morning?
The Most High Himself CAN DO NOTHING FOR THEM.
(Sigh!!!)
debunker

Mountain View, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 28, 2014
 
abcd wrote:
Of all the glaring absurdities, obvious fabrications and irresolvable contradictions plaguing the New Testament gospels the genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38) outdo them all. The authors of Mark and John wisely chose to ignored this subject. Having said that, I point out that the purpose of the genealogies, to establish a direct family linkage from Jesus to King David, is an important one since Jewish prophetic writings makes it clear that the Messiah must be a direct descendant of King David (2 Samuel 7:16, Psalms 89:3-4 and 132:11-12,) although this requirement is brought into serious question by Jesus himself (Mark 12:35-37.)4a That, along with the Old Testament prophecy in Micah 5:2, is the reason the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke has Jesus born in Bethlehem, the city of David. In his epistle to the Romans (1:3) Paul tells us without proof that Jesus was in fact a descendant of King David. Because they were determined to fit Jesus into the Jewish messianic scriptural mold, the writers of Matthew and Luke separately concocted detailed genealogies each giving Jesus an elaborate, but phony, family tree directly linking him not only to King David but far beyond. The writer of Matthew starts with Abraham, the first of the Jewish patriarchs, and works forward through David to Joseph thence to Jesus while the writer of Luke outdoes him by going backward all the way to God.
Eddy4b tells us that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are believed to have been compiled in late first century Antioch, which at that time had a large population of extremely wealthy Jews to whom the matter of family ties were very important. The genealogies were included as a means of appealing to this particular population in an effort to convert them to Christianity which was at that time a Jewish sect. Because their writers neglected to include a birth narrative, the Gospels of Mark and John, managed to circumvent the genealogy problem. In addition, John was obviously written for a gentile audience where the trappings of a genealogy and a Jewish messianic birth were not that important.
There are, however, big problems with these genealogies raising a number of legitimate questions. As pointed out by Arnheim4c, there is a huge difference between the two genealogies, especially in the number of generations separating Jesus from King David. Matthew specifically tells us that there were twenty-eight generations, fourteen from David to the Babylonian Exile and another fourteen from the Exile to the birth of Jesus. The writer of Luke gives no figures, but a count of the number of names he mentions as Jesus' ancestors yields a total of no fewer than forty-one generations for the same period represented by Matthew's twenty-eight. For the thousand-odd-year period Luke's forty one generations average out at just over twenty-four years apiece. Matthew's fourteen generations from David to the Exile average out to about twenty-eight and a half years each, but his last fourteen generations have a mean span of a whopping forty-one and a half years thereby rendering it totally unacceptable.
Mary was from the line of David: http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-m...

that pretty much makes her son Jesus from the line of David too

Little is known of her personal history. Her genealogy is given in Luke 3 (see below). She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David (Psalm 132:11; Luke 1:32)

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 28, 2014
 
debunker wrote:
<quoted text>Mary was from the line of David: http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-m...
that pretty much makes her son Jesus from the line of David too
Little is known of her personal history. Her genealogy is given in Luke 3 (see below). She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David (Psalm 132:11; Luke 1:32)
Genealogy is always traced thru the male so it doesn't even matter if Mary was in the lineage of David. Christians have a choice. Either Jesus was born of a virgin, or Joseph was his father making him in the line of David. Another problem is that Joseph was descended thru Jeconiah who was so wicked, he was precluded from having any of his descendants reign after him. Jeremiah 22:30. Either way you look at it, Jesus is not in the royal blood line and is not the Messiah.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

44 Users are viewing the Christian Forum right now

Search the Christian Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 18 min purplelady1040 10,448
Did Jesus pray like a Muslim? (May '09) 29 min stupid is not a disease 100
Should I throw bible? 30 min susanblange 17
BIBLE CONTRADICTION: Mark 4:11-12, 2 Peter 3:9 33 min stupid is not a disease 22
God is just 35 min stupid is not a disease 53
A Message from Nettie 37 min stupid is not a disease 802
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 40 min stupid is not a disease 1,327
If Jesus said few would find the "road that lea... 5 hr stupid is not a disease 311
WHAT GOD SAID to ME TODAY 8 hr stupid is not a disease 231
•••
•••