is there a God?

[Tinian]

  scutfargus said:

  Tinian said:

I've spent a fair amount of time discussing the issue of the 'historical jesus' with people that have studied theology at undergraduate and graduate/doctorate level at university. They all seem pretty clear on the fact that the quest to unearth a historical jesus in the bible is now generally deemed as a lost cause in academic circles. No doubt some of the new testament may reflect actual words or events in Jesus' life, but the criteria to determine which bits do and which bits don't are full of landmines. It often ends up being based around subjective opinions as to what one would WANT Jesus to have said and emphasising those bits. And surely you would not assert that EVERYTHING in the gospels is completely pure history? Or would you?

(This in no way, however, undermines the validity of whether Christian values are 'true' or not; it's solely about whether we can discover a historical jesus in the bible - two utterly separate things. Often people get very worked up because they assume that if one says we can't say much about jesus FROM A HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW. this therefore entails an attack on christianity - the two are not at all the same thing.)

Importantly, one has to accept that historical veracity probably wasn't high on the list of priorities for the authors that composed the various parts of the new testament. As in nearly all religious literature of that period, narrative and hagiography play a massive role - that doesn't mean that they don't spell out spiritual truths (in fact, some might argue that the narrative genre actually highlights religious truths better than a factual document), but it does mean that a lot of the time we have to take off our historian's hats and accept that we're dealing with a genre in which questions of history are not always relevant. (In fact, Buddhism has a very similar problem with the life of the Buddha in the Pali canon and the extent to which we can unearth a historical Buddha.)

This reflects the academic situation in Britain, and I believe in Europe generally. I don't know if it reflects the academic situation in America. Are these the views of cynics? Do you see this as a temporary academic trend (though it's been around for a good couple of decades now and shows no signs of disappearing....)?

There have been those who opposed Jesus Christ from the very beginning. This has been true from 30 AD (or thereabouts) until today. Even our seminaries are filled with people who oppose Jesus Christ. Since Jesus is God, this is what we should expect. We should not ever be surprised.

And again, no matter, what is said by this person or that, we have eyewitness testimony. We have a myriad of manuscripts of those eyewitnesses and these manuscripts go back to being within a century of being written. For ancient history, there is a greater, more reliable witness that Jesus arose from the dead than any other historical event that men believe in (there is more evidence that Jesus arose from the dead than there is for the Crusades, for Julius Caesar being a real person, and even more evidence for Him than for the existence of Napoleon). However, man will always dispute everything they can about Jesus. They will dispute His existence, His words, His teachings. On the one hand, as we have seen here, people will try to make Jesus fall in line with their own pet beliefs (that is, they make God in their own image). On the other hand, they reject everything about Him they do not like. This is typical of man--in our souls, we are against God. It is our nature. If you don't think man is evil, just pick up a newspaper and read.

So, who am I going to trust? Man or Jesus? .

This really is hiding your head in the sand. You have not addressed any of the issues i raised. If you think that all academics are crazy - fine. But the fact is that they have spent a lot of time trying to figure out whether we can reach any information about a historical jesus and you are just ignoring that. 100 years is still a long time, my friend, and I'm afraid the gospels are not in accord about everything. If someone came to me now and said - hey i have an eye-witness account on the life and times of queen victoria that is in a manuscript 100 years later than her life, i might be a bit cautious about how historically valid it is. But that is irrelevant. You're ignoring the fact that the genre of the gospels is not one of 'history' - it's narrative and needs to be treated as such. I repeat - this is NOT a bad thing. It's just that we can't say much about it in terms of history. The religious values it professes are still pure (if you believe in them).

[cs3602001]

  johnno said:

rule 12. no poofters

woops, sorry craig, i am getting off the topic here

i laughed like hell, nearly split my sides when i read about you telling someone to stick to the topic. 8) :shock:

Johnno!!!!

Back to the topic!!!!! Outrageous behaviour!!!!!!!!

The use of the word "poofters" is someone uncalled for, the group you refer to are human too, they do not deserve to be ridiculed in such a way!!!!!

[johnno]

hey scutfargus, old chap (is that polite enough loburt?) can you explain something to poor dumb non-mensa member me please?

question.... how come, in a place such as jerusalem and other places mentioned in the bible, all Jesus's friends and acquantances all have lovely english names (joseph, james, john, paul, matthew, mary etc) and others don't? romans have roman names, arabs have arab names. how come in a place that is populated by arabs, romans etc, these english named people existed and are named such?

end of question.

[johnno]

craig, sorry mate, you caught me out there.

but in my defence, i wasn't actually saying that anyone here in particular was a poofter per se, i was just saying that in a place named "thailandfriends", we don't want any poofters here.

homosexuals and lesbians are quite ok and i welcome them here, but please, no poofters 8) :shock:

[CiaranM]

  scutfargus said:

  CiaranM said:

i would like scutfargus to answer a couple of very simple questions ..

1. does he believe u must be a christian to get to heaven ?

2. does he believe all non-christians go to hell ?

i don't care what god, jesus or the bible says, just two simple answers to two simple questions.

Now, I know you want to go off on some tangent about everyone else who has not heard the gospel, and what about this or that person who hasn't heard. Even though there are answers for that, you have heard. The only person who can make a decision for you is you. Make up any excuse that you want, but you have a choice to make. I can't make that choice for you, I can only make it clear to you what that choice is.

so basically u didn't answer the f**king question. get a life u sad f**ker !!!

[Tinian]

  scutfargus said:

Salvation is in Christ; it is free because He paid for our sins; He broke down the barrier between man and God. Other religions require, in many cases, works and a lifetime commitment. Salvation in Christ requires a few seconds of your life. Nothing more than that.

This may be your view. But you have to accept that it is a very extreme Protestant view which does not necessarily reflect the majority of Christian approaches. It is very characteristic of fundamentalist Protestantism to say that a few seconds of faith is all that matters. It's also a big reason why Protestantism has flopped so badly in northern european countries - because a religion that is based on a few seconds of emotional devotion isn't particularly substantial. I don't think there would be many catholic priests who would agree that a few seconds of faith is all that matters - why bother even trying to practice a Christian life then or to ponder the weighty issues that Christianity offers?

It seems that my post about academia hit a raw nerve. Either you can reply to their analysis or you can't. It's no use replying: 'Man is evil. They always try to undermine pure divinity.' As you well know, there is no possible dialogue to be had in that situation. You're simply using absolutist phrases as a form of rhetoric in order to close all possible argument. If all you can say is: rational argument that contradicts my view is simply an expression of degenerate human behaviour, then it really is end of discussion.

[johnno]

  CiaranM said:

so basically u didn't answer the f**king question. get a life u sad f**ker !!!

uh oh, i don't think you are allowed to say these things to my mate fartygas. loburt has decreed that it is naughty to say things like this. i hope you don't end up on the outside looking in like i think is going to happen to me very soon, if loburt gets his way 8) :shock:

[zeusbheld]

  cs3602001 said:

_rob you blabbering old fool, scutfargus can question whoever he wants on whatever subject he pleases, I cannot find it anywhere in the terms and conditions of the site where it says "Others are entitled to their beliefs too, without you questioning their ability and willingness to reason or think."

Stick to the content of the topic and practice what you preach.

********moderator alert *******

craig,"blabbering old fool" is way out of line. that is official, as a moderator. attack the message all you want but attacking the messenger is out of line. dont do it.

i've noticed a pattern here, craigster.

it would be really nice if you could refrain from automatically pouncing on something just because one of your leastt favorite members says it.

you all do not have to love each other but you do have to coexist. coexisting is in the terms and conditions. please start coexisting with _rob, effective immediately. thank you and have a nice day.

**** end moderator alert *******

as far as attacking the message goes... before you move on to an advanced subject like sticking to the content of the post, start with the basics---actually reading the post you criticize.

from your post, it looks like you havent bothered understand what _rob said, you just want to gainsay it because he said it and he annoys you.

[SiamHotel]

neh! NOT today

** OUT PHi$HiNG **

( ....mondayzx you know :? )

but plz do feel free to call back again... if you dare! :twisted: 8)

[bobbyboy112003]

Hi guys,

Listen, aside from Loburt, I also think there is a limit to how we should address people here. I think this is a really good discussion and some interesting points are being made.

Why spoil it by attacks and name calling?

Please try and keep this discussion civil and on point, ok?

Thank you,

Bobby

[johnno]

  bobbyboy112003 said:

Why spoil it by attacks and name calling?

cos its fun

johnno

[cs3602001]

  zeusbheld said:

  cs3602001 said:

_rob you blabbering old fool, scutfargus can question whoever he wants on whatever subject he pleases, I cannot find it anywhere in the terms and conditions of the site where it says "Others are entitled to their beliefs too, without you questioning their ability and willingness to reason or think."

Stick to the content of the topic and practice what you preach.

********moderator alert *******

craig,"blabbering old fool" is way out of line. that is official, as a moderator. attack the message all you want but attacking the messenger is out of line. dont do it.

i've noticed a pattern here, craigster.

it would be really nice if you could refrain from automatically pouncing on something just because one of your leastt favorite members says it.

you all do not have to love each other but you do have to coexist. coexisting is in the terms and conditions. please start coexisting with _rob, effective immediately. thank you and have a nice day.

**** alert moderator alert *******

as far as attacking the message goes... before you move on to an advanced subject like sticking to the content of the post, start with the basics---actually reading the post you criticize.

from your post, it looks like you havent bothered understand what _rob said, you just want to gainsay it because he said it and he annoys you.

Humble apologies.....

Peace

ÊѹµÔÀÒ¾

[funfarang]

  scutfargus said:

Psa 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning?

.

psa 666:1 My God my God , put some KY on, it hurts like hell , don't you hear me moaning?

how can people believe the bible in the first degree is really beyond me .

only retards don't understand the symbolic meaning of the writings

[johnno]

oh damn it bobby, you have shamed me into it.

i promise i won't call scutfargus "fartygas" or "numpty" anymore, scouts honor, cross my fingers and hope to die if i call him names again 8) :shock:

[bobbyboy112003]

  johnno said:

  bobbyboy112003 said:

Why spoil it by attacks and name calling?

cos its fun

johnno

Johnno,

It may be fun for you, but for some members it's not.

But, i can appreciate the effort...thank you.

[CiaranM]

  funfarang said:

only retards don't understand the symbolic meaning of the writings

i'm pretty sure this applies to scutfargus. although why some sad f**king loser would want to come onto TF and peddle this christianity **** is beyond me.

unless it's a reincarnation of FB2 and this is his revenge on TF. it is possible, this scutfargus does spout an unhealthy amount of pure crap ...

[Carlinho]

  babyoiy said:

  Carlinho said:

yep, baby, but it is the life after death what religion is all about. most of the business concepts of religions are based on the fear of their potential clients..my church tax was just the risk premium i paid

Business concepts of religions? Potential clients? what you talking about? Business Adminstration? lolz ..

.

yes baby, i have become cynical throughout the years and reduced priests to marketing gods and donations to fee income. sold my faith and my soul to the mephistopheles of financial management :wink: (thank god, my mephisto looked like a pretty thai woman at least)

[Tinian]

  CiaranM said:

  scutfargus said:

  CiaranM said:

i would like scutfargus to answer a couple of very simple questions ..

1. does he believe u must be a christian to get to heaven ?

2. does he believe all non-christians go to hell ?

i don't care what god, jesus or the bible says, just two simple answers to two simple questions.

Now, I know you want to go off on some tangent about everyone else who has not heard the gospel, and what about this or that person who hasn't heard. Even though there are answers for that, you have heard. The only person who can make a decision for you is you. Make up any excuse that you want, but you have a choice to make. I can't make that choice for you, I can only make it clear to you what that choice is.

so basically u didn't answer the f**king question. get a life u sad f**ker !!!

Following up on ciaranM's post, and in case scutfargus didn't read this where i posted it elsewhere:

The problem I have with scutfargus' words is your absolute certainty that there is nothing remotely problematic with claiming that if one never turns to jesus one will go to hell. Looks like the Dalai Lama is heading for a bit of a downer, and that he'll be joining Gandhi in hell too. What about some geezer in some remote country who's never heard about some bloke called Jesus but who is a very good and charitable person? (Bad luck? Or, hang on, that's what missionaries are for! Shame they didn't manage to get to this guy though... drat... ) I know plenty of people who are devout practising Christians but who feel that this is a viewpoint that is hard to accept in a simple, literalistic way. AND THEY DEBATE WITH EACH OTHER THE VALIDITY OF IT. What's wrong with a bit of ambiguity in life? What's wrong with debating certain Christian viewpoints if one is a practitioner and with dealing with some grey areas? Do you really have to swallow such creeds hook, line, and sinker? Life isn't only about answers - it's about living with questions, surely.

Surely there is something very problematic about saying that those that practise all other religions are damned. I realise that there is always inevitably going to have to be some sense of 'our religion is ulitmately the true path', especially with theistic religions that subscribe to one god, but surely there are ways of interacting with other religions, without the blaz? attitude of: 'well, it's not my problem if you're not willing to turn to Jesus, you can't say I didn't warn you, it's up to you'. Strikes me as if words of compassion are actually acting as a cloak for something else.

All religions have the problem of how to deal with the fact that other religions also have their own ideas of 'truth'. Buddhism tries to deal with it by saying that other religions get you some way along the path (and even very far along the path), but Buddhism gets you all the way. OK, there's a hierarchy here, with Buddhism at the top, but it still allows a place for other religions. I've actually heard the Dalai Lama dissaude people with Christian backgrounds from converting to Buddhism, because he felt that it would be too confusing for those particular people to convert and that they'd have better spiritual practcie if they stuck with the religion that their culture largely subscribes to. I'm not a practising Buddhist, but it still seemed an admirable attitude to me... But anyway, this is largely irrelevant. I'm not saying that Buddhism has a correct or incorrect attitude to other religions (I was just raising it as an example of how life can be ambiguous and more complicated than 'us' and 'them'), it's just that I find it amazing for someone that seems intelligent to have no problem with the notion that those who do not turn to jesus will go to hell. Honestly, now, doesn't it niggle just a little bit?

[scutfargus]

Let me answer you point by point:

  Tinian said:

I've spent a fair amount of time discussing the issue of the 'historical jesus' with people that have studied theology at undergraduate and graduate/doctorate level at university. They all seem pretty clear on the fact that the quest to unearth a historical jesus in the bible is now generally deemed as a lost cause in academic circles.

First of all, let me quote from Cecil Adams, who is not a Christian, and, if anything, is against the notion the Jesus was anything but a man:

  Quote

If what you're looking for is proof positive that Jesus Christ lived and breathed--e.g., library card, baby pictures, etc.--you're out of luck. The big guy left no written records, and no accounts of his life were written while he was still alive. The earliest Gospels date from maybe 70 AD, 40 years after his demise.

Still, barring an actual conspiracy, 40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of whole cloth. Certainly the non-Christians who wrote about him in the years following his putative death did not doubt he had once lived. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html (in case you want to read this or any other Cecil's other columns--those who claim to be intellectuals might get a kick out of him)

Will Durant, probably the leading authority on ancient history of the past century, who also does not believe in miracles and does not believe in Jesus as his Savior (last time I checked, anyway) defended the historical accuracy of the Bible (apart from the miracles) and said that it could not be discounted as accurate history (I can dig up the exact quote, if you would like).

Josephus, an historian from that era, put a great deal of trust in the Bible when it came to the record of historical events, as did almost every other historian from that era.

And then, there is the witness of those who actually saw Jesus, men who were willing to die for what they saw (not for what they believed, but for what they saw). So, who am I going to believe, some professors you have chatted with, or Cecil Adams, Will Durant, Josephus and men who actually saw Jesus? You believe whomever you want to believe.

  Tinian said:

No doubt some of the new testament may reflect actual words or events in Jesus' life, but the criteria to determine which bits do and which bits don't are full of landmines. It often ends up being based around subjective opinions as to what one would WANT Jesus to have said and emphasising those bits. And surely you would not assert that EVERYTHING in the gospels is completely pure history? Or would you?

This is rather interesting reasoning. The men who wrote this history did not receive fame, money, recognition, power, or anything else. They were killed for what they wrote and taught. They were willing to die not for what they believed, but for what they saw. If you think they made stuff up, why don't we have books from that era which dispute their facts? If you think they made stuff up, what, pray tell, would have been their motivation? These men were beheaded, stoned to death, hung on crosses, hung upsidedown on crosses, and died as a result of mob vioilence.

To answer your final question there, yes, I believe the Old and New Testament are pure history, apart from any minor errors which have crept into the text (there are certainly some numerical errors in the Old Testament).

  Tinian said:

(This in no way, however, undermines the validity of whether Christian values are 'true' or not; it's solely about whether we can discover a historical jesus in the bible - two utterly separate things. Often people get very worked up because they assume that if one says we can't say much about jesus FROM A HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW. this therefore entails an attack on christianity - the two are not at all the same thing.)

Sorry, YOU don't get to pick and choose from what Jesus said, and deem this worthy and that not worthy.

Jesus Christ, on many occasions, claimed to be God. Now, you might want to pick and choose from his teachings, but you have to contend with this. Was He telling the truth? Was He lying? Yes, I really want to follow the teachings of a man who lies about who He is. Was Jesus insane? Again, does it make sense to follow the teachings of man who is insane? You cannot offer the option that Jesus was a great teacher but He was not God. What great teacher would claim to be God (and Jesus did not claim to be a god, He claimed to be God--in the Greek there is no mistaking what He says)?

  Tinian said:

Importantly, one has to accept that historical veracity probably wasn't high on the list of priorities for the authors that composed the various parts of the new testament.

Again, rather than quote from your friends in academia (which I was a part of at one time), think for yourself here. What would be their motivation to lie? Why would 4 different men who actually saw the resurrected Jesus get from lying about that? Why would they be willing to die for something they just made up on a whim? And why were they ALL willing to die. Remember, these are not simply a group of religious martyrs. These are men who knew what they were saying was either the truth or a lie. They either saw the resurrected Christ or they lied about it. What would be their motivation? They were all persecuted, thrown in jail, and killed. In most cases, all they had to do to get out of it would be to say, "Okay, okay, I just made up this stuff about Jesus. I thought it would be cool to be a religious guy but maybe it isn't." But we do not have any writings or testimonies like that. Had any of the Apostles recounted their testimony, both Romans and religious Jews would have published that. I don't think you have a clue as to how much the Apostles were hated.

  Tinian said:

As in nearly all religious literature of that period, narrative and hagiography play a massive role - that doesn't mean that they don't spell out spiritual truths (in fact, some might argue that the narrative genre actually highlights religious truths better than a factual document), but it does mean that a lot of the time we have to take off our historian's hats and accept that we're dealing with a genre in which questions of history are not always relevant. (In fact, Buddhism has a very similar problem with the life of the Buddha in the Pali canon and the extent to which we can unearth a historical Buddha.)

Hey, I agree that most religious literature is a pile of crap. I have stated several times here and elsewhere some of the reasons that I believe the Bible to be historically accurate.

  Tinian said:

This reflects the academic situation in Britain, and I believe in Europe generally. I don't know if it reflects the academic situation in America. Are these the views of cynics? Do you see this as a temporary academic trend (though it's been around for a good couple of decades now and shows no signs of disappearing....)?

From time immemorial, there are people who oppose Jesus. This is built into our souls. We are against God from the inside out. History is filled with authors, particularly in the past two centuries, of men who have sought to destroy the Bible's credibility with their writings. I have many of those books. Many of those men are dead and gone and I bet you do not even know one author's name from this group (I don't, and I have read their books). But we still have the Bible, 2000 years later. These professors you name and the trends you name? The professors will all die. The trends may or may not continue. The Bible will still be here.

Do you know what book was the first book to be translated into another language? The Bible.

Do you know what book is translated into more languages than any other book ever? The Bible.

Do you know what has been the best-selling book for every single month, year after year after year since the invention of the printing press? The Bible.

Do you know that there are more books written about the Bible than any other book ever? Do you know there are more books written against the Bible than any other book ever?

Do you know that the Bible is filled with prophecy? Do you know that the Old Testament talks about Jesus hundreds of years before He was born? Do you know God judged specific nations and areas prophetically, and these prophecies came to pass?

How should I put this? God is pretty damnned serious about getting His Word out there. Anyone who wants the truth, just pick up a Bible and read the book of John (or even just the first 6 chapters). If you are online and you can read this, then you can find the book of John online and probably in your language (see www.e-sword.net for instance).

If you really doubt what I am saying, but you think you have an open mind, I will send you a book which deals specifically with the Bible and with Jesus Christ. It will logically examine pretty much every single question you might have dealing with the historicity and accuracy of both and in great detail.

But in the end, even with all this evidence, it still comes down to, just Who is Jesus really?

Mat 22:41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,

Mat 22:42 saying, "What do you think of the Christ (Messiah)? Whose son is He?"

[scutfargus]

  funfarang said:

how can people believe the bible in the first degree is really beyond me .

only retards don't understand the symbolic meaning of the writings

I picked these out for you, Funfarang,

Jehovah God said, "I will pour on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look to Me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for Him, as one grieves for his firstborn. " (Zech. 12:10, written approximately 520 BC).

Or from the book of Isaiah, written about 700 BC:

Isa 11:1 There shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit.

Isa 11:2 The Spirit of Yahweh shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahweh.

Isa 11:3 His delight shall be in the fear of Yahweh; and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither decide after the hearing of his ears;

Isa 11:4 but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the humble of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips shall he kill the wicked.

and

Isa 53:1 Who has believed our message? and to whom has the arm of Yahweh been revealed?

Isa 53:2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he has no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Isa 53:3 He was despised, and rejected by men; a man of suffering, and acquainted with disease: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we didn't respect him.

Isa 53:4 Surely he has borne our sickness, and carried our suffering; yet we considered him plagued, struck by God, and afflicted.

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he didn't open his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is mute, so he didn't open his mouth.

Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the disobedience of my people to whom the stroke was due?

Isa 53:9 They made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in his hand.

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

[funfarang]

damn , you are such a retarded to believe this crap !!

[SiamHotel]

juzt XTOP IT, will ya!!!??

google_scut :x 8)

-- No{god}Xferatux

[scutfargus]

  Misty said:

  scutfargus said:

Paul (an eyewitness to Jesus' resurrection): "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

paul wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus. he was in the time of the early church, not the time of jesus.

Act 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,

Act 9:2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Act 9:3 As he traveled, it happened that he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him.

Act 9:4 He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

Act 9:5 He said, "Who are you, Lord?" The Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

You can continue reading from there about Saul, who Jesus renamed Paul.

[SiamHotel]

  SiamHotel said:

juzt XTOP IT, will ya!!!??

google_scut :x 8)

-- No{god}Xferatux

:evil: :evil: :twisted:

[SiamHotel]

almoxt time to... 'take a walk on the w1ld side' scut_boi.... that'z it