Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
755 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 749 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,860 Year: 21,896/19,786 Month: 459/1,834 Week: 459/315 Day: 55/82 Hour: 5/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there two Christs in the Bible?
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 16 of 109 (345947)
09-02-2006 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by truthlover
09-01-2006 8:47 AM


Re: No priest for ever
Hi, TL.

As for Gen 14 or Ps 110:4 being a mistranslation or unrelated, maybe you can present Salibi's argument in brief. I don't see why there's any problem that needs solving there by proposing a mistranslation.

Salibi takes a chapter to develop his proposal, so it`s difficult to sum it up in a couple of paragraphs, but here goes:

From Chap 12--Melchizedek : Clues to a Pantheon

P143 'Given the unequivocal reference to a king-priest called Melchizedek in standard English versions of the Old Testament, it would seem churlish to question whether, in fact, he existed. Yet, if there was such a person, the Hebrew Bible has nothing to say about him. Now, it is true that a structure of consonants reading as mlky sdq does occur in two Biblical texts (Gen. 14:18 and Psalm 110:4), which has been translated to mean 'My King is Righteousness'. In each case, however, it seems highly unlikely that it is a personal name. In Gen 14:18, mlky sdq appears to be an idiomatic expression. In Psalm 110:4 it is almost certainly a reference to the 'kings' (mlkym, with the final m of the plural suffix dropped in the genitive structure) of a particular place.'

There follows a long paragraph explaining his idea of the correct translation.

P144 ' In the context of the story told in Genesis 14, the king of Salem honored 'Abram the Hebrew', who was on his way back home from a successful military venture, laden with booty. Having brought out his 'bread and wine', the king of Salem invited Abram to eat, idiomatically, he 'gave him a morsel of food' (w-ytn lw m'sr mkl, Gen. 14:20). This makes it even clearer that the mlky sdq of Gen. 14:18, like the mkl (Arabic m'kl, vocalised ma'kal) of Gen.14:20, refers to food, and is not a personal name, Melchizedek.'

'Turning to the consonantal text of Psalm 110:4, one finds the following: 'th khn l-'wlm 'l dbrty mlky sdq, tradionally vocalised to to read in translation as 'you are priest forever over the order of Melchizedek', the person addressed being presumably King David. However, consider the following:

1. The Hebrew '-'wlm can certainly mean for ever, but it can also mean 'to Olam'- the name of a god or shrine, or an epithet for Yahweh, the God of Israel, meaning 'everlasting' or 'eternal'. Considering no can be priest or anything else for that matter,--'for ever', the second possible interpretation of the Hebrew l-'wlm makes contextually better sense.

2. The Hebrew dbrty cannot mean 'order' because it is not a word in the singular. It can only be the dual of dbrh (dbrtym, as distinct from the feminine plural dbrwt), with the final m in the dual suffix dropped in the genitive structure dbrty(m) mlky(m) sdq. The Hebrew dbrh is the feminine verbal noun from dbr, here clearly in the sense of the vocalised Arabic dabara (also dbr), 'follow behind'. Thus the word must be translated as 'following' (i.e. 'area of jurisdiction', or more likely 'flock'), which would make dbrty(m) mean 'the two followings',or 'the two flocks'. The fact that there are places called sdq in two different parts of West Arabia should also be taken into account.

3. The Hebrew mlky(m) sdq, in context, stands as a genitive structure meaning 'the kings of Sedeq'. Of course, it can also be read as a personal name' Melchizedek'. Two Koranic references, however, suggest that sdq (vocalised sidq, and interpreted to mean 'righteousness'), could have actually been a place, one in which the people of Israel were made to settle (10:93); also the seat of a 'powerful king' (54:55). This strongly endorses the first interpretation. Significantly, there is no mention of Salem' or El' Elyon in the text of the Psalm.

In the light of these observations, the reading of Psalm 110:4 should be corrected to yield the following sense:'you are priest to Olam over the two flocks (or two dabrahs) of the kings of Sedeq'. Here, as in Gen 14:18. there is no question of anyone called 'Melchizedek'. '

And so on. Heavy going, especially with linguistics. but in spite of the furore over Salibi`s book title, I haven`t found anyone challenge him on translation issues.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by truthlover, posted 09-01-2006 8:47 AM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by truthlover, posted 09-05-2006 12:32 PM Nighttrain has responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2396 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 17 of 109 (346669)
09-05-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Nighttrain
09-02-2006 1:55 AM


Re: No priest for ever
Sorry, nighttrain, I can't buy what he says. Here's why.

you are priest to Olam over the two flocks (or two dabrahs) of the kings of Sedeq'

This verse (Ps 110:4) starts with "YHWH has sworn and will not repent." The Lord has sworn that someone will be a priest to Olam??? Provide some precedent to that in Psalms or anywhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures. That's bizarre.

The Hebrew dbrh is the feminine verbal noun from dbr, here clearly in the sense of the vocalised Arabic dabara (also dbr), 'follow behind'. Thus the word must be translated as 'following' (i.e. 'area of jurisdiction', or more likely 'flock'),

There's no justification given in your text for his adding the word "two" to make it two flocks, other than he thinks the word for "order" can't be singular. So why two? Why not three or forty?

"Follow behind" is really not much different than "after the order of," and I have to imagine that the repeated translation as "after the order of" works just fine even if it's more "exact" to say "following" or "follow behind."

And if you're going to translate Melchizedek rather than leaving it as a proper name, doesn't it make much more sense, considering that this is a Hebrew Psalm, to translate to "kings of righteousness" rather than to the king of some potential tiny little village? This is a Psalm of David, king over a nation, for heaven's sake. What sort of promise is it that he or anyone else would be a priest like the king of some desert oasis?

Now, back to Genesis.

This makes it even clearer that the mlky sdq of Gen. 14:18, like the mkl (Arabic m'kl, vocalised ma'kal) of Gen.14:20, refers to food, and is not a personal name, Melchizedek.

Because food is mentioned this makes it clear that we should change mlky to mkl????????? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Should we read Gen 14:18 as "Some food, the king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine?" How much sense does that make? It really seems much more sensical to read it as a personal name. In the end, there is no problem with the standard translation. There is no issue driving us to want to swap letters around and make melek into ma'kal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Nighttrain, posted 09-02-2006 1:55 AM Nighttrain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Nighttrain, posted 09-06-2006 2:23 AM truthlover has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 18 of 109 (346905)
09-06-2006 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by truthlover
09-05-2006 12:32 PM


Re: No priest for ever
Hi, Tl, lots and lots more, including a chapter on metathesis, or transposition of consonants. I don`t read Hebrew, let alone Arabic, so you have to take it that a native speaker, a professor of history at the American University in Beirut (duck,incoming)would have some grounds for challenging the orthodox translation. I`ll leave it to linguists to battle it out. :D

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by truthlover, posted 09-05-2006 12:32 PM truthlover has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5866
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 19 of 109 (347170)
09-06-2006 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mjfloresta
08-14-2006 11:32 AM


Re: Melchizedek as type of Christ
Wow, I must concur with Faith here. This was a great post. I'm kind of disheartened that I'm only just now seeing it nearly a month after the fact. This would have ben fun to participate in. Great post.


"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mjfloresta, posted 08-14-2006 11:32 AM mjfloresta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mjfloresta, posted 09-07-2006 6:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 4330 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 20 of 109 (347353)
09-07-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2006 11:49 PM


Re: Melchizedek as type of Christ
Thanks nem..It didn't seem to lead to anything but it was a fun post...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2006 11:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5866
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 21 of 109 (347846)
09-09-2006 7:13 PM


Two Christs or two different times?
I'm wondering if some people are confusing the Bible with the Talmudic discourse on the messiah's...? In the Talmud it makes mention of what certainly would seem to be two messiah’s. And of course the Talmud is a discourse itself or an exegesis on the Scriptures. In their best estimation, there is one who suffers and is rejected. The other, who precedes him, will reign gloriously. The one who suffers is known as ‘Mashiac ben Yosef,’ because like Joseph of Genesis 37 he is rejected by his own brethren, but is ultimately glorified by God. Thus, the majority of Israel will reject this messiah. The second, ‘Mashiac ben David,’ is named as such for two reasons. Like David of the Tenach, he will reign gloriously as a king and subjugate the gentile nations under Israel. As well, this messiah must come from the genealogical line of David. Invariably, its been assumed that these are two separate individuals. Humanly speaking, this is completely understandable. However, is this really the case? What would happen if Rabbinical scholars have been looking for two messiah’s, instead of one Messiah, at two different times?

Afterall, Jesus came lowly to this earth and was beaten and scourged to take upon Himself our punishment, however, prior to His crucifixion He promised to come back in the same manner that He left us, in the clouds, to return with power and glory. So, what if Rabbinical scholars misunderstood the nature of their own messiah and have confused tradition to mean two messiahs instead of one?


"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Nighttrain, posted 09-13-2006 11:29 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 22 of 109 (348961)
09-13-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
09-09-2006 7:13 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
The second, ‘Mashiac ben David,’ is named as such for two reasons. Like David of the Tenach, he will reign gloriously as a king and subjugate the gentile nations under Israel. As well, this messiah must come from the genealogical line of David.

Well, since He didn`t come from the genealogical line of David, that rules out Jesus as the Messiah


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2006 7:13 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2006 7:22 PM Nighttrain has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5866
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 23 of 109 (349141)
09-14-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Nighttrain
09-13-2006 11:29 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
Well, since He didn`t come from the genealogical line of David, that rules out Jesus as the Messiah

And how have you deduced that he didn't come from the line of David?


"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Nighttrain, posted 09-13-2006 11:29 PM Nighttrain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Nighttrain, posted 09-14-2006 7:31 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 24 of 109 (349143)
09-14-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2006 7:22 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
And how have you deduced that he didn't come from the line of David?

Patriarchal descent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2006 7:22 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2006 8:05 PM Nighttrain has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5866
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 25 of 109 (349147)
09-14-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Nighttrain
09-14-2006 7:31 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
Patriarchal descent.

I'll explain to you how Jesus and only Jesus could be the messiah and how He comes from the physical line of David through his mother and avoids a specific curse that comes through the patriarchal line of David. Isaac begat Jacob, who begat 12 sons of his own. These sons would establish the 12 tribes of Israel, from which they are so named even to this day. God reveals that of the twelve sons, the fourth, ‘Judah,’ would be the one through whom the Messiah would come out, of. After a stretch of time, David was hailed as the greatest Jewish king to sit on the throne of Israel. David ruled for approximately 1,000 years prior, to Yeshua (Jesus). God informed David that his descendant would rule forever. We see that God has decreed that there would be a king who will rule forever and that he would come from the nation of Israel. This narrows messianic eligibility down for any prospects. As well, Messiah will specifically come from the tribe of Judah. These two restrictions significantly narrow down the eligible list of candidates for the Messiah.

Now, we know that mankind was in need of a future Redeemer because of the original Fall of man spoken of in Genesis. All men have been building up Adam, as ‘ben,’ in Hebrew, means, ‘builder.’ In Biblical times, the father’s seed counted towards lineage, not the mother. Even today, tradition maintains that a son or daughter from a marriage typically takes the surname of the father. This is precisely why intermarriage was forbidden in Biblical times. Hypothetically, an invading foreign army with aspirations of establishing a new regime could impregnate Israelite women, and so, lose their heritage by way of attrition. This was not done out of issues of race, as so many have presupposed. Even today, a Jewish person is considered either a ‘Cohen’ (Priest), or a ‘Levy,’ (Levite), according to who is father is. Many Davidic kings on the throne of Israel had Gentile mothers. Did this make them Gentiles from the Tribe of Judah and the family line of David?

“But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting.” –Micah 5:2

“For unto us, a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His Name will be called, ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His Kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” –Isaiah 9:6-7

The prophets Micah and Isaiah wrote these prophecies some 700 years prior to Jesus’ birth, just so you know. We know this empirically from a few different corroborating sources, such as, but not limited to the Dead Sea Scrolls. In these messianic prophecies they describe the Messiah as being eternal. We know that only God is eternal, and so, Messiah cannot be merely a mortal man, but rather, something greater than that. Aside from this glaring point, since when is a man, any man, referred to as ‘Mighty God’ and ‘Everlasting Father?’ So, what else are we to deduce, other than, that the Messiah is God incarnate? Its evidence is all over the Old Testament prophecies and clearly fulfilled in the New Testament. The Old Testament is said to be the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. Truly, we see this duality and harmonization all throughout the Scriptures, given us, by God. There is no duplicity between the texts, but rather, they are homogenous. Aside from this, any man who might claim to be the Messiah has heavy burden to overcome. In all actuality, it is physically impossible to overcome. We know that Mashiac will come from the line of David. Nevertheless, as we will see, the line was essentially cursed from the time of the prophet Jeremiah. Just as Israel was going into exile, God made two declarations that first appeared contradictory about the last Davidic king over Judah, Jehoiachin (or other translations, ‘Coniah’). The first declaration was that of his physical descendants, that no one would ever sit upon the throne of David, in spite of the fact that they would continue to inherit the rights to the throne. How can this be, right?

“Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O’ land, land, land, hear the Word of the Lord! This is what the Lord says: ‘Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.” -Jeremiah 22:28-30

Well, this really presents a problem for everyone in Davidic lineage to inherit the throne, isn’t it? How can the Messiah overcome this? The second declaration makes it clear, if we have ears to hear and eyes to see. Also a promised ‘Branch’ would raise up the throne and sit upon it.

“In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from the line of David; He will do what is just and right in the land. In those days, Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the Name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord Our Righteousness.’ For this is what the lord says, ‘David will never fail to have a man sit on the throne of the house of David." –Jeremiah 33:14-17

Thus, we see that the Messiah is not a son of Adam, but rather, a Son of God. Because Jesus was conceived by the Spirit, rather than, by the will of a husband through natural procreation, He did not inherit the curse of Jehoiachin. However, because Joseph was His legal guardian, and Joseph and Mary were both from the line of David means that ONLY Jesus could still sit on the throne and avoid the curse. Jesus elucidates this point to the Pharisees by showing that David himself has considered the Mashaic to be God in the flesh.

“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, ‘What do you think about the Christ (Messiah)? Who’s Son is He?’ They said to Him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool?’ If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?’ And no on one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to question Him anymore.” –Matthew 22:41-46

Jesus is exactly right, (not that this should come as a surprise). How can David say, “Then the LORD said my Lord,” if he was not talking about God? Who is the Lord? The Lord is God, right? David himself is pointing out the deification of the Christ, and very plainly, that the Lord, the Messiah, is God the Son and that the LORD God, is God the Father. These are very clear teachings, and yet, the vast preponderance simply does not want to believe this truth because of its implications. But, Jesus was very clear. He essentially stated to the religious elite, if you know God, as you claim to do, then you would know who I AM; as it is very evident by your lack of fruitfulness, that you do not know who I AM.

And from this, Jesus asks the all-important question:

“Who is the Christ (Messiah)? So they said to Him, ‘Some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But what about you? Who do you say, I AM?’ Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You’re the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by My Father in heaven.” –Matthew 16:14-17

There is little else for us to surmise.


"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Nighttrain, posted 09-14-2006 7:31 PM Nighttrain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Nighttrain, posted 09-14-2006 9:00 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 31 by ramoss, posted 09-19-2006 8:59 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 26 of 109 (349170)
09-14-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2006 8:05 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
I`ll surmise away. Regardless of the convoluted apologetics you use which can be attacked on several fronts, if the Messiac heritage of David was gained through Mary`s line, why bother to include Joseph`s? Wishful thinking? Scandal of birth? More of Matthew`s accretions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2006 8:05 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-17-2006 10:00 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5866
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 27 of 109 (349751)
09-17-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Nighttrain
09-14-2006 9:00 PM


Re: Two Christs or two different times?
I`ll surmise away. Regardless of the convoluted apologetics you use which can be attacked on several fronts, if the Messiac heritage of David was gained through Mary`s line, why bother to include Joseph`s? Wishful thinking? Scandal of birth? More of Matthew`s accretions?

Because Joseph came from the physical line of David as well and any son, whether concieved from his loins or adopted has rights to the throne. What makes it more compelling is that had He been Joseph's physical son He would have inherited the curse. God in all His wisdom makes it so difficult for anyone to actually meet the criteria of being the Messiah that literally, just as He said, He would appoint for Himself the 'acceptable sacrifice.' Indeed, that's what Jesus is.


"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Nighttrain, posted 09-14-2006 9:00 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 529
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 28 of 109 (350054)
09-18-2006 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by carbonstar
08-13-2006 2:10 PM


Is this the other Jesus?
Several months ago there were some news items about an Italian sueing the Catholic Church for preaching that Jesus actually existed. Doing some googling, I came up with this:

"Luigi Cascioli is suing the Catholic Church. He says he wants them to show proof that Jesus Christ actually existed.

He says there was, in fact, no Jesus, but a military man named John of Gamala who lived in the time of Christ. And, he claims, it was the gospel writers who turned that mere mortal into the character of Jesus, a figure powerful enough on which to base an entire religion."

Does anyone know what happened to this affair? Was it treated seriously? Any support for this 'John of Gamala' being part of the NT?

I know I'm getting off topic, but the current topic of this thread seems to have died and gone to heaven and I didn't think the issue deserved a new thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by carbonstar, posted 08-13-2006 2:10 PM carbonstar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 09-18-2006 6:20 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17653
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 29 of 109 (350078)
09-18-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by AnswersInGenitals
09-18-2006 5:24 PM


Re: Is this the other Jesus?
AnswersInGenitals writes:

I didn't think the issue deserved a new thread.

There is nothing new under the sun, my son.

The general rule at EvC is we already have a thread on that subject. :D


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 09-18-2006 5:24 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Nighttrain, posted 09-19-2006 1:42 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 30 of 109 (350168)
09-19-2006 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
09-18-2006 6:20 PM


Re: Is this the other Jesus?
The general rule at EvC is we already have a thread on that subject.

Indeed. Or several.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 09-18-2006 6:20 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019