Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 241 of 262 (448228)
01-12-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by jaywill
01-12-2008 3:46 PM


time for a change
Perhaps it's time for a change in the subtitle? This 'bottom line' has spanned 36 posts, and seems something of a misnomer. 60 posts to go.
Note this isn't specifically directed at you, jaywill

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by jaywill, posted 01-12-2008 3:46 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 242 of 262 (448370)
01-13-2008 7:33 AM


"Today this prophecy has been fulfilled..."
The following is a clear example of Jesus fulfilling prophecy on the spot before many witnesses even as they looked on and heard Him.
And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up, and according to His custom He entered on the Sabbath day into the synagogue and stood up to read.
And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to announce the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and receovery of sight to the blind, to send away in release those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, [the year of jubilee]."
And when He rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant, He sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.
(Luke 4:16-21 RcV)
Jesus began His ministry in Galilee by reading Isaiah 61:1-2 and teaching that at that moment He was the fulfillment of Isaiah's prohecy.
This was "real time" prophecy fulfillment combining the reading of the prophecy with the fulfillment of it at the same time.
PS.
In the previous section there was an instance in which I did not understand properly what PaulK was writing. I erased that response upon learning this.
I admit that in that case it is correct that my response was not about what was written at all.
Now, leaving the matter of the raised "temple" of the body of Jesus I submit this example in Luke 4:16-21 as fulfilled prophecy on the spot by Jesus.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 243 of 262 (448443)
01-13-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by jaywill
01-12-2008 12:20 PM


The problem of human memory - and enforced doctrine
quote:
Perhaps when PaulK reads what historians write about which occured over 20 years ago he says "That's impossible to remember something that happened that long ago." It is now 2008. Some historians are writing about the 1950s. Are we to dismiss all their writings as impossible because people can't remember that long ago?
My point of course is that it is impossible to rely on the details - like what, exactly someone said - after that much time. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Adding in the weaknesses of human memory only makes things worse.
Ronald Reagan "remembered" things that hadn't happened - in 1980.
Example
...this story was an almost exact duplicate of a scene in the 1944 film "A Wing and a Prayer." Reagan had apparently retained the facts but forgotten their source
Or Example
Ronald Reagan sometimes told about being among the troops who liberated the Nazi death camps at the end of World War II, when in fact he was in Hollywood watching documentary film footage of their liberation as a member of the First Motion Picture Unit of the U.S. Army.
As for the development of legends let us not forget:
Joseph Smith convinced his followers that he had - by divine inspiration translated the Book of Mormon from "Golden Tablets" he had found. He even convinced some of his followers to sign a statement that they had seen the tablets.
L Ron Hubbard convinced His followers that he had healed himself from crippling injuries. Investigation of the records show that he had never suffered the injuries in the first place.
For legends. we have Elvis being alive, the conspiracy theories around the assassination of JFK, 9/11 and the death of Princess Diana. The Roswell incident. Numerous urban legends (many of which are told as if they are recent events, even if the original story is quite old). On example, that I have seen presented as fact (despite being virtually impossible !) is the story of NASA discovering Joshua's "missing day", thus confirming the Bible. Are modern Christians really that much more gullible than their ancient counterparts ?
All these examples have spread and been believed by some in less than two - or even one - generation. The examples of Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard are especially relevant given the emphasis on "correct doctrine" that you yourself have documented. Within a small religion it IS possible to rewrite history, and in a short period off time, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by jaywill, posted 01-12-2008 12:20 PM jaywill has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 244 of 262 (448447)
01-13-2008 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by jaywill
01-12-2008 3:46 PM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
Lets raise some points you have managed to miss.
Mark wasn't a disciple and neither was Luke, and it's very unlikely that the author of Matthew was and we don't know about the author of John. Therefore you can't say that Mark or Luke do themselves down in the Gospels, and even your example form John is questionable.
The aim is to play Jesus up - that is more important than the disciples.
It is possible that the Gospels reflect disputes between Paul's Gentile church and the Jewish Ebionite Church of the other disciples. Doing down the disciples would be of advantage to the gentiles.
The criticisms of Jesus may reflect contemporary claims - and can be expected to be rejected by the reader anyway. Remember they are presented as attacks on Jesus - not as something likely to be true.
The author of John is the only one to identify Jesus as God. Maybe he is being dishonest - or wrong - when he presents Jesus as making such claims.
While we can assume that the "difficult" teachings were genuinely believed by the authors, or at least their communities, we can't from that conclude that they came from Jesus.
Let it be noted that Matthew 5:3 is less hard than the equivalent in Mark (10:11).
(And most Protestant churches seem to allow marrying divorced women. I guess that most Protestants don't think much of THAT teaching.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by jaywill, posted 01-12-2008 3:46 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jaywill, posted 01-13-2008 6:33 PM PaulK has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 245 of 262 (448470)
01-13-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK
01-13-2008 4:16 PM


I am not on Bottom Line anymore - Moderator
Mark wasn't a disciple and neither was Luke, and it's very unlikely that the author of Matthew was and we don't know about the author of John.
Some scholars believe that Mark put his signature on the gospel after his name in a certain humble incident.
That incident is the fleeing away of a young man naked, after the guards had tried to grab him by the cloths at the arrest of Jesus.
And a certain young man was accompanying Him, clothed with a linen cloth over [his] naked body; and they seized him. But he left the linen cloth behind and fled naked.
(Mark 14:51,52)
Maybe this was Mark's humble signature of something that happened directly to him on the night Jesus was portrayed. If so, I would not say he was one of the disciples in an appointed sense. But it is not at all difficult to believe that the youngster Mark witnessed some events about Jesus that night.
Possibly other things he witnessed as well as a little boy somehow around the disciples on occasion.
At any rate John Mark is traditionally believed to have been an assistant to the Apostle Peter. We can expect that he would write his Gospel with much material he heard Peter preach about.
Therefore you can't say that Mark or Luke do themselves down in the Gospels, and even your example form John is questionable.
Luke employed historian's methods and most likely interviewed people. He could have checked the veracity detailed accounts with any number of the following types of people:
1.) Former persecutors of Jesus who became disciples.
2.) People who were healed.
3.) People related to or very close to others who were healed.
4.) Roman guards who witnessed things Jesus did. Perhaps they became believing disciples.
5.) Public records of trials
6.) Politicians
7.) Authors of previously written accounts about Jesus.
8.) Paul, whom he accompanied on ministry journeys. And Paul could have had information about former priests, students, scribes, and Pharisees who passed on to Paul eyewitness testimony about Jesus. What Paul knew most likely would have been passed on to Luke.
The author of John is the only one to identify Jesus as God.
This is not at all true that only John says that Jesus was God.
Matthew declares that Jesus is "Emmanual, which is translated - God with us" (Matt.1:23) signaling the reader that an important aspect of his Gospel is - God incarnated as a man, Jesus. Matthew also closes his Gospel with Jesus saying "Behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age" (28:20). In other words He is "God with us" virtually from now on. Matthew never records the ascencion of Jesus up into heaven. As far as Matthew is concerned Jesus never went anywhere but if Emmanual - "God with us" having all authority in heaven and in earth in His hands (28:18) throughout the coming future.
Also Matthew clearly depicts Jesus as teaching that He was the God of the Old Testament Who like a parent bird, sought to protect Jerusalem under her wings:
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (Matt. 23:37,38)
"It was always God Himself who cared fpr Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young (Isa. 31:5; Deut. 32:11-12). When Jesus said "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," He indicated that He was God Himself.
Whereas the other Gospels beside John make mention of Jesus teaching that He was God, John clearly has it as a main emphasis in his Gospel.
Maybe he is being dishonest - or wrong - when he presents Jesus as making such claims.
And maybe PaulK is wrong and Jesus is indeed Who He says He is. And maybe the eleven apostles got it right, were significantly impressed that the world should know what they came to know.
While we can assume that the "difficult" teachings were genuinely believed by the authors, or at least their communities, we can't from that conclude that they came from Jesus.
Less likely that they invented very difficult teachings and put them into the mouth of Jesus.
As if they didn't have enough problems already without inventing tough teachings from the Master falsly, to make more enemies for themselves and less amiable audiences of their teachings.
Let it be noted that Matthew 5:3 is less hard than the equivalent in Mark (10:11).
This goes to strengthen my very point I think. The authors did not shrink back from recording difficult and potentially unpopular sayings of Jesus. The propogandist wanting to "sell" his product to the largest possible amiable audience would be expected to conceal unfavorable information about his "product".
(And most Protestant churches seem to allow marrying divorced women. I guess that most Protestants don't think much of THAT teaching.)
I don't see how any of these comments do anything but to strengthen to very point I am making. I don't know of what use they have to Paul for any other point.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2008 4:16 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2008 6:57 PM jaywill has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 246 of 262 (448479)
01-13-2008 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by jaywill
01-13-2008 6:33 PM


Re: I am not on Bottom Line anymore - Moderator
quote:
Some scholars believe that Mark put his signature on the gospel after his name in a certain humble incident.
And many more believe otherwise.
quote:
Luke employed historian's methods and most likely interviewed people.
Luke doesn't list his sources or mention any interviews and copied a good deal of material from Mark or Matthew. Unless you want to take the minority view that Mark and/or Matthew copied from Luke !
Your assertions are just guesses.
quote:
Matthew declares that Jesus is "Emmanual, which is translated - God with us"
Quoting Isaiah 7 - where it is NOT meant literally. And it isn't Jesus speaking anyway. So that certainly isn't an example of Jesus claiming to be God.
quote:
Matthew also closes his Gospel with Jesus saying "Behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age" (28:20)
Which doesn't claim that he is God.
quote:
Also Matthew clearly depicts Jesus as teaching that He was the God of the Old Testament Who like a parent bird, sought to protect Jerusalem under her wings:
Except that the bit about being God isn't even implied there. Your other examples are not even greatly similar. The bird referred to is in flight in both cases (and in Deuteronomy it's an eagle not a hen).
quote:
Whereas the other Gospels beside John make mention of Jesus teaching that He was God, John clearly has it as a main emphasis in his Gospel.
Then produce examples. Real examples.
quote:
Less likely that they invented very difficult teachings and put them into the mouth of Jesus.
Yet if their community had developed new rules, they might well attribute them to Jesus. And as I keep pointing out ancient historians were far less particular than modern ones about putting speeches in the mouths of their subjects. If they believed that Jesus would approve of their rules they could well attribute them to him, even if they had no direct testimony.
quote:
I don't see how any of these comments do anything but to strengthen to very point I am making. I don't know of what use they have to Paul for any other point.
They reinforce my idea that Jesus was not such a great moral teacher as you suggested. It's hard because it isn't a great teaching. That's why it's been set aside.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jaywill, posted 01-13-2008 6:33 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jaywill, posted 01-13-2008 8:49 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 248 by jaywill, posted 01-13-2008 9:15 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 249 by jaywill, posted 01-13-2008 9:25 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 250 by jaywill, posted 01-14-2008 5:18 AM PaulK has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 247 of 262 (448507)
01-13-2008 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by PaulK
01-13-2008 6:57 PM


Re: I am not on Bottom Line anymore - Moderator
And many more believe otherwise.
They reinforce my idea that Jesus was not such a great moral teacher as you suggested.
For someone seemingly eager to always go with the majority view why this strange inconsistancy?
So PaulK runs with the majority depending on what is believed? And then runs with the minority when it suites his purpose to do so?
I dare say your average fella or gal on the street, whatever else they may believe, will probably identify Jesus of Nazareth as one of the "great moral teachers" in history. Even in Atheistville, USA you'd probably get mostly positive responses to the question "Was Jesus a great moral teacher?"
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2008 6:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2008 1:24 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 248 of 262 (448518)
01-13-2008 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by PaulK
01-13-2008 6:57 PM


Re: I am not on Bottom Line anymore - Moderator
Quoting Isaiah 7 - where it is NOT meant literally. And it isn't Jesus speaking anyway. So that certainly isn't an example of Jesus claiming to be God.
The complaint of PaulK was that only John (or the author of John) says that Jesus was God.
PaulK wrote:
The author of John is the only one to identify Jesus as God.
The point was not about what Jesus said so much in this case, but as to what the authors of the individual Gospels say. So I demonstrated that Matthew says that Jesus was "God with us" quoting Isaiah the prophet.
This time I addressed PaulK's specific objection and then he seems to shift the objection.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2008 6:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2008 1:30 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 249 of 262 (448523)
01-13-2008 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by PaulK
01-13-2008 6:57 PM


Re: I am not on Bottom Line anymore - Moderator
Quoting Isaiah 7 - where it is NOT meant literally. And it isn't Jesus speaking anyway. So that certainly isn't an example of Jesus claiming to be God.
This is simply a matter of whose authority are you going to believe.
The Gospel writer Matthew (an apostle) says that this is what the verse means - "God with us".
PaulK says, not to be taken literally, Matthew's mistaken.
You, reader get to make up your mind whether you take PaulK's explanation or Matthew's. You probably know where my trust is.
Jesus is God with us. He claimed so and that is why they crucified Him. They didn't believe it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2008 6:57 PM PaulK has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 250 of 262 (448587)
01-14-2008 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by PaulK
01-13-2008 6:57 PM


Re: I am not on Bottom Line anymore - Moderator
Except that the bit about being God isn't even implied there. Your other examples are not even greatly similar. The bird referred to is in flight in both cases (and in Deuteronomy it's an eagle not a hen).
Wrong.
The allegory of the protective bird applies exactly to God Himself in both cases.
Isaiah 31:5 - "Like flying birds so Jehovah ...
Like flying birds .... SO JEHOVAH of hosts will protect Jerusalem; He will protect and deliver it; He will pass over and rescue it."
Jehovah of hosts, Who is God Himself, will act like protective birds over Jerusalem.
Deuteronomy 32:11,12 - "As the eagle rouses his nest, Hovers over his young, Spreads his wings, takes them, [and] bears them up upon his pinions; So Jehovah alone led him and there was no strange god with Him."
Again the allegory refers to God Himself. The escape IS God Himself. In some cases it is protection by deliverance. It is rousing the nest, protecting, shielding, including also protection by deliverance.
Now Jesus speaks in the New Testament:
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!
How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not." (Matt. 23:37)
1.) "How often" indicates more than once He had the desire. And the speaking of God being as a protective bird or birds over the children of Israel was employed more than once in the Old Testament.
2.) "I desired" refers to the man Jesus Himself. This indicates that before His incaranation as a man Jesus as God - pre-incarnation - "desired" to be the protective bird shielding his beloved Jewish people from harm.
3.) Jesus was not older than 30 some years old. Yet He is refering to the stoning of the prophets by Jerusalem before He was born. Often times then, in the Old Testament times when Jerusalem stoned prophets and killed those sent to her by God, Jesus as Jehovah God pre-incarnate, desired often to protect them.
The passage indicates that Jesus is God Himself. That He is "God with us" is more than strongly implied by Matthew 23:37. If Christ had said "How often [My Father] desired ..." or "How often [God] desired ... " then PaulK might have a case.
As it stands that is not what Jesus said, but rather "How often I desired to gather your children together ..."
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2008 6:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2008 7:45 AM jaywill has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 251 of 262 (448597)
01-14-2008 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by jaywill
01-14-2008 5:18 AM


Claiming to be God ?
quote:
Wrong.
Then you're going to have to show more than the vague similarity of "protecting bird" imagery. That isn't nearly enough to show that Jesus meant to claim that he was God.
quote:
Jehovah of hosts, Who is God Himself, will act like protective birds over Jerusalem.
Like a flock of birds flying over. So here you agree with me.
quote:
Again the allegory refers to God Himself. The escape IS God Himself. In some cases it is protection by deliverance. It is rousing the nest, protecting, shielding, including also protection by deliverance.
Again this disputes nothing that I said.
quote:
1.) "How often" indicates more than once He had the desire. And the speaking of God being as a protective bird or birds over the children of Israel was employed more than once in the Old Testament.
That he had the desire - but not that he was able to do it (indeed it tends to imply that he didn't do it). And a chicken crouched over her young is not a flock of flying birds nor a hovering eagle.
Now, if the images were exactly the same you would have a weak case. But they aren't even that.
So since you are reduced to trying to defend this laughable nonsense I think we can assume that you have no case at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by jaywill, posted 01-14-2008 5:18 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by jaywill, posted 01-15-2008 12:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 252 of 262 (448725)
01-15-2008 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by PaulK
01-14-2008 7:45 AM


Re: Casting your vote with the unbelievers
Then you're going to have to show more than the vague similarity of "protecting bird" imagery. That isn't nearly enough to show that Jesus meant to claim that he was God.
I don't feel the need to say anything more about that passage.
So since you are reduced to trying to defend this laughable nonsense I think we can assume that you have no case at all.
Rather we can assume that you are on the side of those who do not believe the words of Jesus. That's all.
We assume that you are casting your lot in along with those in Matthew's Gospel who disbelieved and opposed Christ. Nothing more interesting is going on than this.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2008 7:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2008 1:42 AM jaywill has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 253 of 262 (448733)
01-15-2008 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by jaywill
01-13-2008 8:49 PM


Re: I am not on Bottom Line anymore - Moderator
quote:
For someone seemingly eager to always go with the majority view why this strange inconsistancy?
So PaulK runs with the majority depending on what is believed? And then runs with the minority when it suites his purpose to do so?
Jay indulges in his habit of fabrication and evasion again. I've never gone purely with the majority. I've always reserved the right to my own opinions. And the evidence that you're avoiding shows that quite a lot of people implicitly accept my view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by jaywill, posted 01-13-2008 8:49 PM jaywill has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 254 of 262 (448734)
01-15-2008 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by jaywill
01-13-2008 9:15 PM


Re: I am not on Bottom Line anymore - Moderator
quote:
The point was not about what Jesus said so much in this case, but as to what the authors of the individual Gospels say. So I demonstrated that Matthew says that Jesus was "God with us" quoting Isaiah the prophet.
That still doesn't change the fact that Matthew is ONLY giving the meaning of the name and that he was quoting Isaiah. And the name was not meant literally by Isaiah. So on what grounds do you claim that Matthew meant it literally ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by jaywill, posted 01-13-2008 9:15 PM jaywill has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 255 of 262 (448738)
01-15-2008 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by jaywill
01-15-2008 12:46 AM


Re: Casting your vote with the unbelievers
quote:
I don't feel the need to say anything more about that passage.
i.e. you don't have a case.
quote:
Rather we can assume that you are on the side of those who do not believe the words of Jesus. That's all.
Even if we assume that Jesus spoke those words it does not mean that your interpretation - which is strained far beyond the point of reason - has any merit whatsoever. In fact it quite obviously doesn't.
So it isn't a matter of believing Jesus' words. It's a matter of putting YOUR words before the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by jaywill, posted 01-15-2008 12:46 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by jaywill, posted 01-21-2008 1:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024