Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why would the apostiles have lied?
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 177 (19514)
10-10-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by compmage
10-10-2002 9:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by compmage:
You don't have to lie to be wrong. They could trully have believed what they said. However, their belief in no way makes their statements true.

Especially if they didn't know they were lied to in the first place. Many are all to willing to believe in something which makes them more than they truly are. They can't bear the truth of their reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 9:29 AM compmage has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 47 of 177 (19521)
10-10-2002 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by compmage
10-10-2002 8:49 AM


Hanno writes:

There are non-religious sources indicating that Jesus had a following which survived His death.
There are very few. Josephus (2), Tacitus (1), Suetonius (1), Thallus (1). They are so few we could quote them all in full in a short post. Revisit this link that John posted earlier:
Scott Oser Hojfaq » Internet Infidels
And these sources indicate very little about Jesus. At best they confirm that a man named Jesus began a religious movement known as Christians, that he was credited with great works and miracles, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate. None provide any confirmation, not even any mention, of Jesus's miraculous conception, his birth, the three wise men, his ministry, the apostles, the journey to Jerusalem, the last supper, the betrayal, the crucifixion, the entombment, the rising on the 3rd day, or the appearance of the risen Jesus to the apostles and to hundreds in Jerusalem. None of this is mentioned in any sources. Nor is there any archaeological support for any of these events. All the information for these events comes from a single source: the Bible.

That means that many first generation Christians that actually spoke to the apostles were still around. Do you really think they wouldn't have noticed that these accounts are not falsified? Rememder, there were thousands of christians already by that time. If some of the first generation Cristians would've wanted to falsify history, surely others would've noticed?
The Christianity that comes down us today is Paul's Christianity, not the apostle's Christianity. Paul disagreed violently with the Jerusalem church represented by Peter and James. Paul was responsible for the conversions to what eventually became the Christianity we know today. Whatever became of the Jerusalem church is not known, and certainly it didn't survive the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman's in 70 AD. The gospels were written by religious communities who were followers of Paul, not of the Jerusalem church. And the gospels were all written after Paul's epistles, explaining why they never mention the gospels, and also why Paul's letters reflect almost no knowledge of Jesus's life beyond a few details like the crucifixion and resurrection.

This arguement just doesn't add up for me. There is no evidence available that the apostolic letters weren't written by the someone else.
This is the same confusion that was already explained in Message 20. No one is claiming that Paul didn't write the Pauline epistles. We're only saying that none of the writings of the 12, if indeed they composed any, appear in the Bible.

Besides, that Christianity spread like wild fire, is a historical fact. Someone must have taken the burden to spread it. Is their names really relivant?
This looks like bad grammar, but "is" is actually the correct verb, because it wasn't a "them" who spread the gospel but a "him". As described above, Paul spread the Word of what developed into modern Christianity.

I delt with this before, but I'll do it again. If they had lied to garther suport for their religion, it would mean that they didn't really believe that it's Gods religion, and that it's the Holy Spirit that plants faith into ones hart. That would mean that their entire story is a lie.
The account in the gospels of the apostles spreading the Word, indeed even the apostles themselves, is likely all fiction, a mythology created by early Christian groups to satisfy their curiosity about what their early church and its founder were really like, and about the events surrounding the early ministry. The apostles weren't lying because the events in the gospels are fictional, or perhaps even the apostles themselves were fictional.
That being said, fear of persecution and death has rarely deterred the religiously devout or fanatical. You only have to look back a year to see evidence of to what deeds religious devotion can drive men.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 8:49 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 12:57 PM Percy has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 48 of 177 (19526)
10-10-2002 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by compmage
10-10-2002 9:29 AM


Wrong. The apostles were merely telling people what they saw and what they heard. They were not teaching people on hear say, or interesting philosofies, they gave eye witness accounts. In this case, it is impossible "to tell lies and not be aware of it".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 9:29 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 1:27 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 85 by compmage, posted 10-11-2002 3:01 AM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 49 of 177 (19527)
10-10-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nos482
10-10-2002 10:33 AM


At least I have the bible. You base your believes purely on assumptions. Besides. The Apostiles words are creadible because.... you know what? I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
Koresh's Christian cult at Waco did not do any mirricles to back up his claims.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Paul tortured? Power can be a strong motivation. Plus, torture doesn't really work, after a certain point you will say whatever you think the torturer will want to hear. You would confess to shooting JFK, anything to stop it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
He was. Read the book of Acts. And besides. You just proofed my point.
Non of the apostles gave it to their oppressors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 10:33 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 1:32 PM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 50 of 177 (19530)
10-10-2002 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
10-10-2002 11:35 AM


******************************************************************
There are very few. Josephus (2), Tacitus (1), Suetonius (1), Thallus (1). They are so few we could quote them all in full in a short post. Revisit this link that John posted earlier:
Scott Oser Hojfaq » Internet Infidels
And these sources indicate very little about Jesus. At best they confirm that a man named Jesus began a religious movement known as Christians, that he was credited with great works and miracles, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate. None provide any confirmation, not even any mention, of Jesus's miraculous conception, his birth, the three wise men, his ministry, the apostles, the journey to Jerusalem, the last supper, the betrayal, the crucifixion, the entombment, the rising on the 3rd day, or the appearance of the risen Jesus to the apostles and to hundreds in Jerusalem. None of this is mentioned in any sources. Nor is there any archaeological support for any of these events. All the information for these events comes from a single source: the Bible.
********************************************************************
Those sources only confirm the existance of Jesus. And since most of them are hostile towards Christianity, so you wouldn't expect them to expand to the story. I have already provided the reason why the apostles words can be trusted.
*******************************************************************
The Christianity that comes down us today is Paul's Christianity, not the apostle's Christianity. Paul disagreed violently with the Jerusalem church represented by Peter and James. Paul was responsible for the conversions to what eventually became the Christianity we know today. Whatever became of the Jerusalem church is not known, and certainly it didn't survive the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman's in 70 AD. The gospels were written by religious communities who were followers of Paul, not of the Jerusalem church. And the gospels were all written after Paul's epistles, explaining why they never mention the gospels, and also why Paul's letters reflect almost no knowledge of Jesus's life beyond a few details like the crucifixion and resurrection.
**************************************************************
I'm not quite sure where, I believe in one of the letters to the Corinthiens. Paul states that before he went out on his missionary journeys, He told the other apostles what he believed, to make sure he got it right. Also, He did not "violently disagree" with Peter and James. The story is that Peter and James did not want to be seen associating with non-jewish believers, and Paul corrected them. There is 3 letters of John, 1 of Jacobus, 1 of Peter, and in the book of acts, you hear from other apostles as well. The church of Jerusalem was schattered before 76AD, and the people of that church told the story of Jesus Christ where ever they went.
*****************************************************************
The account in the gospels of the apostles spreading the Word, indeed even the apostles themselves, is likely all fiction, a mythology created by early Christian groups to satisfy their curiosity about what their early church and its founder were really like, and about the events surrounding the early ministry. The apostles weren't lying because the events in the gospels are fictional, or perhaps even the apostles themselves were fictional.
******************************************************************
Once again, very convinient. The earliest copies of the new testament are found within the livespan of 1st and 2nd generation Christians. They KNEW how they were converted, they did not have to think up stories.Besides if Paul didn't convert them, someone else had to. And if the DID make up stories about him, they would make him say that which they believe, and what they believe was told to them by whoever converted him. This arguement of the non existance of the apostles doesn't really achieve anything.
*******************************************************************
That being said, fear of persecution and death has rarely deterred the religiously devout or fanatical. You only have to look back a year to see evidence of to what deeds religious devotion can drive men.
******************************************************************
Fair enough. But they believe only that what was passed on to them. They believe blindly without any proof. The apostles was eye witnesses, and for goodness sake, how many times do I have to repeat this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 11:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 1:35 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 55 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 1:36 PM compmage has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 177 (19532)
10-10-2002 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by compmage
10-10-2002 3:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
You don't believe because you don't WANT to believe.
Hanno, you don't know what I want and do not want.
quote:
You argue in circles.
That is a hell of an accusation. Care to support it?
{quoteIT IS EASY TO MAKE UP RELIGIOUS LIES WHEN YOUR WEALTH, AND EVEN YOUR LIFE IS NOT AT RISK!!!!! SO MUCH EASIER IF YOU ACTUALLY STAND TO GAIN FROM IT!!!!][/quote]
Screaming only makes you seem desparate.
Besides, I don't think anyone here is arguing that the apostles were outright lying. They likely believed what they said, but that does not mean that what they said was true.
quote:
So kindly stop comparing the apostles to other examples were no persecution took place!
Have I done this? If so, be specific.
Persecution is actually a very good way to encourage the generation of myth. Stress is very good for religion.
{quoteAnd you say, the hell with what they wanted to gain. They lied! That is not a very convincing reply.][/quote]
I said this? Really? Can you be specific? Or is that too much to ack of you in you righteous zeal?
quote:
There were many misconceptions on what Christianity was about in the beginning.
Oh? How do you know this?
quote:
But those were the views of outsiders that ardly ever spoke to a christian, and are invalid.
Hardly ever spoke to Christians? How do you know this?
Outside references are invalid? That is insane.
quote:
Or have we forgotten that many people in America, aspeccially after 9/11, think Islam is about Jehad and suicide bombings and terrorism andpeople shouting "Death to America, Death to Israel"? Those are the views of people outside the religion, and who has no idea what it s really about.
It doesn't matter. WHAT Tacitus thought about Christianity is irrelevant.
What is relevant is:
1) That Tacitus mentioned that the name of Christianity derives from the name of a person executed by Pontius pilot.
Score one for you.
2) That Tacitus does not mention 'Jesus' in connection with 'Christos'
Score one for me.
The word 'Christos' does not automatically mean 'Jesus' The word is a generic term for 'messiah' and there were many Jewish messiahs running around at the time. Try reading Marvin Harris' Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches This could be a reference to any one of them. Many, by the way, caused a great deal of trouble for the Romans eventually resulting in the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem. This is important because it is the trouble makers who would be of interest to the Romans, and not the peaceful christ of the NT.
3)The Annals were written 75 to a hundred year after the fact.
Score one for me.
This is not therefore an eye witness. It is not a contemporary account of events.
4) Tacitus isn't known for being accurate.
Score one for me.
This one should be self-evident.
quote:
There was first Jesus who thought the people, and then there was the following.
Is that also how the Osirian cults of Egypt started? Or Hinduism? Or any other religion? The God for which it is named taught the people and then, only then, was there a following?
And you forget... were Jesus to be proven to have existed beyond any shadow of a doubt, you have still made no statement concerning the truth of what he said.
quote:
You propose that the following just appeared out of no where, and then they dreamt up Jesus to justify their "following". That's absurt!
Did I propose this?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 3:16 AM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 1:37 PM John has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 177 (19533)
10-10-2002 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by compmage
10-10-2002 12:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Wrong. The apostles were merely telling people what they saw and what they heard. They were not teaching people on hear say, or interesting philosofies, they gave eye witness accounts. In this case, it is impossible "to tell lies and not be aware of it".
How do you know this to be true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 12:22 PM compmage has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 177 (19534)
10-10-2002 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by compmage
10-10-2002 12:30 PM


Originally posted by Hanno:
At least I have the bible. You base your believes purely on assumptions. Besides. The Apostiles words are creadible because.... you know what? I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
And how do you know the bible is telling the truth, because the bible says so? They are not even sure that the Apostles actually wrote the gospels attributed to them.
Koresh's Christian cult at Waco did not do any mirricles to back up his claims.
Why would he need to perform any mircles? he had the word of god to back him up. Isn't that all you need?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 12:30 PM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 1:41 PM nos482 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 54 of 177 (19536)
10-10-2002 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by compmage
10-10-2002 12:57 PM


Hanno writes:

Those sources only confirm the existance of Jesus. And since most of them are hostile towards Christianity, so you wouldn't expect them to expand to the story. I have already provided the reason why the apostles words can be trusted.
Have you forgotten your original claim? You were chastising everyone for being unaware of all the extra-Biblical sources verifying the Biblical accounts of Jesus. Turns out such sources are very few and are very sparse on information. All the information about Jesus is non-contemporaneous, being written long after his death. Your claim of extra-Biblical historical support is untrue.
The Bible stands alone as the only source of almost all information about Jesus and his ministry. It was written long after Jesus died, and the only author of whose identity we're certain persecuted Jesus during his lifetime.

Also, He did not "violently disagree" with Peter and James. The story is that Peter and James did not want to be seen associating with non-jewish believers, and Paul corrected them.
Corrected, yes. Convinced, no. Paul and the Jerusalem church agreed to go their separate ways, and there was a schism that never healed.

There is 3 letters of John, 1 of Jacobus, 1 of Peter, and in the book of acts, you hear from other apostles as well.
The letters of John are not by John the apostle.

Once again, very convinient. The earliest copies of the new testament are found within the livespan of 1st and 2nd generation Christians. They KNEW how they were converted, they did not have to think up stories.Besides if Paul didn't convert them, someone else had to. And if the DID make up stories about him, they would make him say that which they believe, and what they believe was told to them by whoever converted him. This arguement of the non existance of the apostles doesn't really achieve anything.
The fact remains that outside the Bible there is no evidence of the apostle's existence, nor even of Jesus. The extra Biblical references at best talk only of a tribe of Christians whose movement was founded by a great religious leader and worker of miracles named Jesus who was crucified and resurrected. These are second-hand accounts of the groups beliefs, not historical documentation. At worst the Josephus reference is a later Christian insertion.

Fair enough. But they believe only that what was passed on to them. They believe blindly without any proof. The apostles was eye witnesses, and for goodness sake, how many times do I have to repeat this.
You are just like them, believing blindly without any proof. You accept the Bible on faith as they accept the Quran on faith. The Bible alone tells you there were apostles, so you not only believe there were apostles, but you argue strongly and repeatedly for their existence.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Jesus is not mentioned in any contemporaneous accounts of the period, as opposed to John the Baptist. That details of Jesus's life and ministry increased rather diminished with time is typical of mythology. There is no way of knowing for sure, but it is possible that Jesus and the apostles are fiction, though I don't believe this myself. However, I do believe that the gospel accounts are largely fiction. If you visit a synopsis you can see the contradictions side-by-side.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 12:57 PM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 55 of 177 (19537)
10-10-2002 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by compmage
10-10-2002 12:57 PM


Let's talk strait here. The only evidence that can convince you on this matter, is if Jesus Christ return from heaven. Unfortunatly, this will be too late for you. You cannot be convinced to believe in God, because you do not want to believe in God. You want to believe that science is the only force at work in the universe, so you will be able to understand it. Your mind is not open for the possibility that our five sences and the power of our mind cannot detect everything that exists. I have valid reasons to believe in the existance and sincerity of the apostles. I had hoped that it would at least make you think, but instead, you constantly put forward self asured, non substanciated claims that the apostles either did not exist, or were lying. No one could give any proof that indicated that Christianity started in a different way. Not even a non-Christian documentation that indicated a different start. And those claiming that they've lied, just couldn't give me a single convincing motive why they would knowingly give up their live for something they knew wasn't true. Then there were those saying that they did not know they were lying, but they were eye witnesses. You either saw it, or you didn't. There is no maybe.
Remeber. Of all the religions in that time, none were more resistant to change than the jews. They would not have converted, had they not seen and heard Jesus for themselves. After the priests interigated the apostles, one said: There were many leaders in the past that were called the Messiah. But their leader was killed, and the followers chased off, and nothing came of it. If this Jesus are the work of man, this cult will dissapear. But if it is the work of God, it will prevail. It prevailed.
This debate will go on for ever. You will tell me they lied or did not exist, and I will ask you in vian for proof. And you will just awnser me with what you've said before. I asked for motives, non were given. I ask for an explaination of how christianity came about, non substasiated speculations were given.
For this reason, I'm ending my participation in this debate, because it is going nowhere, and is a waste of time. Atheism is just as much a religion that any other. Only difference is there is no God in it, but then again, there is not God in hinduism (Whose gods more resemble forces than living conscious beings) or Budism.
Well, it's been fun. I must say this particular debate wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. You won't hear from me again soon, but this website has a way of making you return to say something you haven't thought of before. So, chances are, you'll hear from me again.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 12:57 PM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 1:42 PM compmage has replied
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 1:51 PM compmage has replied
 Message 63 by John, posted 10-10-2002 1:53 PM compmage has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 177 (19538)
10-10-2002 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by John
10-10-2002 1:26 PM


The word 'Christos' does not automatically mean 'Jesus' The word is a generic term for 'messiah' and there were many Jewish messiahs running around at the time. Try reading Marvin Harris' Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches This could be a reference to any one of them. Many, by the way, caused a great deal of trouble for the Romans eventually resulting in the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem. This is important because it is the trouble makers who would be of interest to the Romans, and not the peaceful christ of the NT.
That is right. What most Christians don't seem to realize is that Christ is not a name, it is a title and could apply to many.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by John, posted 10-10-2002 1:26 PM John has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 177 (19539)
10-10-2002 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by nos482
10-10-2002 1:32 PM


nos482 writes to Hanno:

And how do you know the bible is telling the truth, because the bible says so? They are not even sure that the Apostles actually wrote the gospels attributed to them.
No gospel was written by an apostle. When they first appeared the gospels had no authors' names associated with them, this came later. Matthew and John are the names of actual apostles, while Mark and Luke are not. Christian tradition holds that Mark's account came by way of Peter, whom he met in prison in Rome. Luke was supposedly a physician.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 1:32 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 1:45 PM Percy has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 177 (19540)
10-10-2002 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by compmage
10-10-2002 1:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Let's talk strait here. The only evidence that can convince you on this matter, is if Jesus Christ return from heaven. Unfortunatly, this will be too late for you. You cannot be convinced to believe in God, because you do not want to believe in God. You want to believe that science is the only force at work in the universe, so you will be able to understand it. Your mind is not open for the possibility that our five sences and the power of our mind cannot detect everything that exists. I have valid reasons to believe in the existance and sincerity of the apostles. I had hoped that it would at least make you think, but instead, you constantly put forward self asured, non substanciated claims that the apostles either did not exist, or were lying. No one could give any proof that indicated that Christianity started in a different way. Not even a non-Christian documentation that indicated a different start. And those claiming that they've lied, just couldn't give me a single convincing motive why they would knowingly give up their live for something they knew wasn't true. Then there were those saying that they did not know they were lying, but they were eye witnesses. You either saw it, or you didn't. There is no maybe.
Remeber. Of all the religions in that time, none were more resistant to change than the jews. They would not have converted, had they not seen and heard Jesus for themselves. After the priests interigated the apostles, one said: There were many leaders in the past that were called the Messiah. But their leader was killed, and the followers chased off, and nothing came of it. If this Jesus are the work of man, this cult will dissapear. But if it is the work of God, it will prevail. It prevailed.
This debate will go on for ever. You will tell me they lied or did not exist, and I will ask you in vian for proof. And you will just awnser me with what you've said before. I asked for motives, non were given. I ask for an explaination of how christianity came about, non substasiated speculations were given.
For this reason, I'm ending my participation in this debate, because it is going nowhere, and is a waste of time. Atheism is just as much a religion that any other. Only difference is there is no God in it, but then again, there is not God in hinduism (Whose gods more resemble forces than living conscious beings) or Budism.
Well, it's been fun. I must say this particular debate wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. You won't hear from me again soon, but this website has a way of making you return to say something you haven't thought of before. So, chances are, you'll hear from me again.
Cheers.

Now, here it is, the old "It's too late for you..." and declaring victory over us poor sinners nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 1:36 PM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 1:47 PM nos482 has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 177 (19542)
10-10-2002 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
10-10-2002 1:41 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
No gospel was written by an apostle. When they first appeared the gospels had no authors' names associated with them, this came later. Matthew and John are the names of actual apostles, while Mark and Luke are not. Christian tradition holds that Mark's account came by way of Peter, whom he met in prison in Rome. Luke was supposedly a physician.
--Percy
Like I said about being attributed to them.
Well, it looks like Hanno has turned into a Post and Run Christian. I wonder if he is going to brag to his friends how he "defeated" us poor misguided sinners with his "logic"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 1:41 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by compmage, posted 10-10-2002 1:51 PM nos482 has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 60 of 177 (19543)
10-10-2002 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by nos482
10-10-2002 1:42 PM


That was not my intension. I was mearly pointing out that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficiant for you. By the way. All people, including all Christians are sinners. Did you not know that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 1:42 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 5:15 PM compmage has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024