Jesus Was a Great Man

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Goddess Kali
Whether you beleive in Christ as your savior, a man who is human and God, or you simply beleive him to be a legendary Historical Figure...


You have to admit. He was definately a Revolutionary, a man who was ahead of his time.


Think about it:



1) He had more female followers than male. He was always surrounded by women. In a culture that favored men and had no trust in women, he had ultamate trust and compassion for women.

The Legend even claims that it was a woman, Mary Magdeline, who delivered the message of his supposed Resurrection.

Many even beleive that Mary Magdeline was one of his Apostles...not just a follower. However, this is eternally debatable since the only records we have of Jesus are the Bible and various Roman documents, that do not clarify.




2) He beleived in a Life of Non-Violence. Never did he condone human violence against fellow human. Never did he kill or torture another person, nor did he enable the killing or torture of other human, or even animal for that matter !

He taught that we should Love One Another as we Love Ourselves (A very Buddhist concept).

He taught us to Turn the Other Cheek and to Love Thy Enemy.


Why do we forget this ? Why do beleivers and non beleivers alike forget these wondorful words ?




3) He promoted Tolerance.


Jesus the Man, (I am not going to say Jesus Christ, because that suggests Divinity, a religious and unproven belief) taught that we should all Love each other, and that we are all children of God. He did not separate one person from another. He did not teach us to look at other people as "others".


So many Christians today tend to separate themselves from non-beleivers and even other beleivers. Many Christians today tend to think of themselves as "us" and everyone else as "them"


Jesus did not teach this. We are all children of God is the message Jesus taught, and today many people ignore this, and even twist it around. You even get certain**** Christians, who claim that there are those who are Children of God, and then those who are Children of Satan.


Jesus clearly stated that God created us all, and that we are all his children.




4) Whether Jesus was resurrected or not, is infinately debatable. However, despite the issue, Jesus did die, not for his own ambitions, but to serve as an example of the rest of us. The example of Love.



He most probably died beleiving that he was taking the punishment of all people who have done wrong, and suffering in thier place. His intent was Noble.


He did not come to fight a War...he did not lead any crusade.


Heck, he even supposedly healed the ear of a soldier who Peter attacked in his defense. He allowed himself to be arrested, beaten, and kept his mouth shut about who is Disciples were.


**************************************************
**************




There are many who beleive that He is infact, the Son of God.







There are many others who beleive that in his travels, he learned about the many Eastern philosophies (particularly Buddhist teachings) about Peace, Love, and Unconditional Compassion, and integrated them into his own philosophies.







There are others who beleive, that he had access to his own mind, to his own spirit, and to the Nature of this world, that most people lack. There were many other Great people who had done unbelievable things, who are comparable to Jesus. Jesus is not the first person recorded to have healed people, or sacrafice himself for the safety and benefit of others.





But whatever the case....





Jesus was a Great Man




Human or God.....

WrathfulDwarf
I consider him more of a missionary and teacher than revolutionary.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I consider him more of a missionary and teacher than revolutionary.


I do not mean Revolutionary as in a fighter or warrior. I meant Revolutionairy as in being a Man of Change.



Alexander The Great was a Great Conqueror, but also an even greater leader. Unlike many of his predecessors, Alexander wanted to learn about the cultures he subdued, and integrated them with his own. He promoted racial, religious, cultural, and sexual diversity within his empire. How fkn amazing is that ? That is truly Revolutionary.



Same with Jesus. He spoke words which very few at that time were willing to listen to.


He promoted Non-Violence in a time of GREAT Violence....he trusted and loved women in a time when women were not to be trusted and were oppressed.


That is why he was killed. His words promoted such extreme change, that everyone saw him as a Threat to the status quo. Which he indeed was.

Shakyamunison
I wish Christians would follow his teachings instead of his death.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wish Christians would follow his teachings instead of his death.



So Do I Shaky...So Do I.... sad

Gregory
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
He had more female followers than male.

Evidence for this?



Jewish, actually. From Leviticus.

I'm not going to pick an arguement with you, but I will point out that it's hard to accurately judge someone when the only source of information we have about him is written by his followers. If Jesus got drunk one day and beat the hell out of a homeless man, how would we know? His followers sure wouldn't include it in their writings.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Gregory
Evidence for this?



Jewish, actually. From Leviticus.

I'm not going to pick an arguement with you, but I will point out that it's hard to accurately judge someone when the only source of information we have about him is written by his followers. If Jesus got drunk one day and beat the hell out of a homeless man, how would we know? His followers sure wouldn't include it in their writings.
Ya, you are right. They would have written that the homeless man was possessed and Jesus was casing out the demons. It is possible.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Gregory
Evidence for this?



Jewish, actually. From Leviticus.

I'm not going to pick an arguement with you, but I will point out that it's hard to accurately judge someone when the only source of information we have about him is written by his followers. If Jesus got drunk one day and beat the hell out of a homeless man, how would we know? His followers sure wouldn't include it in their writings.



How do I know Alexander the Great really did conquer all those nations and established his empire ?


How do I know what Buddha really taught ?



I don't...niether do you....I am only going by the information available. The Bible is not the only information available on Jesus. There are roman records of his arrest and arguments.

Atlantis001
He was a great man indeed, and he had his connection with the divine.
He is a person who worked very well his spirituality and reached a very far degree, so it was left for him to show others how to get the same degree he did as a teacher is supposed to do. His greatness is not because he was the son of God, it comes from his own merit and effort. That means we can and should do the same. Spiritual enlightment requires effort, it is not only a matter of converting to the right religion.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Atlantis001
He was a great man indeed, and he had his connection with the divine.
He is a person who worked very well his spirituality and reached a very far degree, so it was left for him to show others how to get the same degree he did as a teacher is supposed to do. His greatness is not because he was the son of God, it comes from his own merit and effort. That means we can and should do the same. Spiritual enlightment requires effort, it is not only a matter of converting to the right religion.

Did Jesus teach that you could not get into heaven by works?

lord xyz
Seeing as this thread is by Kali, I can't not see the gay references in his story about Jesus.

lil bitchiness
Jesus was a devote Jew. I doubt he wanted to start a new religion. I believe he wanted to see reform of his own religion. Or maybe he was preaching what he found in India.

I agree Kali. And there is just no way, according to the way Jesus lived and what we know of him, that he would condone anything from Vatican to Baptism (actually, I don't know what is the difference between anything and baptism, but I am guessing)

Atlantis001
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did Jesus teach that you could not get into heaven by works?

Do you mean, if you could not get into heaven if you do not do any effort ?

I think not, but it is the way people believe it works. Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins so mankind could go to heaven, so the only thing we need to do is accepting him as our lord and savior( i.e. the christian faith).

Gregory
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
How do I know Alexander the Great really did conquer all those nations and established his empire ?


How do I know what Buddha really taught ?



I don't...niether do you....I am only going by the information available. The Bible is not the only information available on Jesus. There are roman records of his arrest and arguments.

There is a lot more varifiable, unbiased information on Alexander the Great then there is on Jesus, Specifically, there's a lot on the first, and absolutely none on the second. You shouldn't try to pretend the situations are similar.

I am not making any positive statement to the effect that Jesus was not as the gospels depicted him, but you should at least acknowledge that judging someone to have definitely been a good person when the only writings we have about him were specifically designed to make him look that way is problomatic.

lil bitchiness, Jesus might condone baptism. If you believe the gospels, anyway--he was baptised himself.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Do you mean, if you could not get into heaven if you do not do any effort ?

I think not but it is the way people believe it works. Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins so mankind could go to heaven and the only thing we need to do is accepting him as our lord and savior( i.e. the christian faith).

The problem, as I see it, most Christians follow the teachings of Paul and not Jesus.

Atlantis001
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Jesus was a devote Jew. I doubt he wanted to start a new religion. I believe he wanted to see reform of his own religion. Or maybe he was preaching what he found in India.


I agree, that should explain similarities between different religions.

Atlantis001
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem, as I see it, most Christians follow the teachings of Paul and not Jesus.

It is true. I do not think the problem is with Jesus teachings, but a lot of what is taught was changed or misinterpreted.

Symmetric Chaos

Boris
He was just a head case.

Goddess Kali
Jesus was just human...he even started miniature riots in temples, and was disrespectful to his rabbi teachers at an early age.


He was just a human...a very highly accomplished, spiritual, and wise human..but a human nonetheless, so ofcourse he is not perfect.


I agree with Atlantis. thumb up On everything he said.


Gregory-the only sources we have to go on about Jesus Christ are the Bible and the Roman documents.

The Roman documents were founded, and are unbiased, because Jesus was recorded as a criminal. Jesus was a real person you know...unlike God and Satan, Jesus isn't made up. It's just the myths about his resurrection that are.

However, the core of his teachings are consistant with many of the roman document accusations according to History Channel and other Theological/Historical sources.

Christ was a rebel..a non-violent rebel, but a rebel nonetheless, similiar to Ghandi.


Jesus, however, was very upfront at an early age. According to the sources available, he scolded rabbis...he even wrecked books and small properties out of anger for the hypocritical authorities and teachers.

What a cool guy thumb up

debbiejo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did Jesus teach that you could not get into heaven by works? I thought it was others that said that. Jesus was more interested in a persons heart...ie fruits. His other writings were taken and twisted. Jesus never called himself god.

Goddess Kali
He didn't ?

Darth Macabre
Jesus was a good man. In my opinion, he's right up there with Siddhartha as being the greatest human ever.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Christ was a rebel..a non-violent rebel, but a rebel nonetheless, similiar to Ghandi.

sad Tell that to the fig trees.



But seriously I agree with your overall point.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
He didn't ? No. Jesus said Me and the Father are one. That doesn't mean that he meant he and god are one. He also said that the only why to the Father is through me. That doesn't me he is the only way to heaven either.

Mindship
I think Jesus was an enlightened being, like a lucid dreamer awakening to the reality of the Dream.

debbiejo
There you go again with that phrase..........lol

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Nellinator
Originally posted by debbiejo
No. Jesus said Me and the Father are one. That doesn't mean that he meant he and god are one. He also said that the only why to the Father is through me. That doesn't me he is the only way to heaven either. Umm... the Hebrew word for one is one of essence, not purpose. He calls himself "I Am" which is the title of God. The Father is in Heaven according to Jesus, so the only way to heaven is through Jesus.

Anyways, Jesus was sweet.

Someone (Shaky I think) said something about living by his teachings, not his death. That is something I wholeheartedly agree with, although I would say, by his resurrection, not his death. The death is atonement, but there is no victory there. The resurrection is victory over sin and that is basically where all the good things Christians should be doing stem from.

Gregory
Uh huh. And which Roman documents would these be?

(I said I wasn't trying to start an argument ... apparently, I'm not succeeding.)

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
the only sources we have to go on about Jesus Christ are the Bible and the Roman documents.


Youre forgetting a major one: the Koran.

Jesus is mentioned by name 93 time in the Koran, which is more than he is in the entire Bible.

RedAlertv2
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Youre forgetting a major one: the Koran.

Jesus is mentioned by name 93 time in the Koran, which is more than he is in the entire Bible. Dude, thanks for sharing. Thats pretty damn interesting.

Gregory
I think we're trying to restrict ourselves to at least semi-contemporary sources, here. The Koran wasn't written until over 500 years after Jesus' death, so it's not much of a source for our purposes.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Gregory
Uh huh. And which Roman documents would these be?

(I said I wasn't trying to start an argument ... apparently, I'm not succeeding.) Tacticus and Pliny are probably what he is referring to.

Gregory
Tacticus and Pliny don't talk about his teachings, do they? They just mention that he lived and was crucified. I certainly never questiond that.

Again, I'm not saying that I think Jesus was a bad guy; just that if he was, we'd never know. It's the sort of thing that's interesting to consider for an hour or two, but not much use in practice.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Gregory
The Koran wasn't written until over 500 years after Jesus' death, so it's not much of a source for our purposes.

Sure it is.

Mindship
Originally posted by debbiejo
There you go again with that phrase..........lol

roll eyes (sarcastic) smokin'

Alfheim
You know what im not sure if he was a pacifist. Apparently there were followers after his death called zealots that used violence.

Apparently when they were in the garden and one of his followers cut off the Romans ear. Jesus was against it because it would have made the situation worse not because he used violence. Thats just one opnion.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Youre forgetting a major one: the Koran.

Jesus is mentioned by name 93 time in the Koran, which is more than he is in the entire Bible.

And? Muhammad's first wife was Christian, who told him the stories of the bible, and Jesus.

Thats why Qur'an has errors in it.

Qur'an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur'an has confused Jesus' mother with Aaron's sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them.

debbiejo
. Could mean we are of the same essence also, and he was showing us that.
Mary thought so.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Nellinator
Originally posted by debbiejo
. Could mean we are of the same essence also, and he was showing us that. No it can't. Not in the context with that word.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Gregory
Tacticus and Pliny don't talk about his teachings, do they? They just mention that he lived and was crucified. I certainly never questiond that.

Again, I'm not saying that I think Jesus was a bad guy; just that if he was, we'd never know. It's the sort of thing that's interesting to consider for an hour or two, but not much use in practice. Well, naturally the Bible is all we really have for his teachings. That and the writings of the early church fathers.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, naturally the Bible is all we really have for his teachings. That and the writings of the early church fathers.

We also have the Gnostic Gospels.

Nellinator
Too late of a date.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
Too late of a date.

Incorrect, the copies we have are from 300 AD, but the originals are probably much older. However, the early church destroyed the originals. Why did they destroy them?

Nellinator
No, not incorrect. The majority of scholarly opinion puts the oldest gnostic gospel at 140AD for a date of composition. That is too late to be of use. The church didn't destroy them. The denied their validity, but they never destroyed them as they would have been unable to do so.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
No, not incorrect. The majority of scholarly opinion puts the oldest gnostic gospel at 140AD for a date of composition. That is too late to be of use. The church didn't destroy them. The denied their validity, but they never destroyed them as they would have been unable to do so.

140AD ok that is just as old as all of the other Gospels then.

Nellinator
No it's not. The oldest gospel is John which about 90AD. 60 years later, ie. one generation, instead of 110 years and no living eyewitnesses.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
No it's not. The oldest gospel is John which about 90AD. 60 years later, ie. one generation, instead of 110 years and no living eyewitnesses.

John was written just like Luke was written. They are rewrites from a unknown Gospel (X Gospel) and are not the original.

Nellinator
Luke and John are nothing alike. They are obvious not rewrites of the same thing. Besides that, the Q document theory is rather unsubstantiated. Besides that, they were written well before 140AD.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, naturally the Bible is all we really have for his teachings. That and the writings of the early church fathers. Not even the Romans? The ones who crucified him?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
Luke and John are nothing alike. They are obvious not rewrites of the same thing. Besides that, the Q document theory is rather unsubstantiated. Besides that, they were written well before 140AD.

So, you do know what I'm talking about. big grin

Nellinator
Originally posted by lord xyz
Not even the Romans? The ones who crucified him? Why would the Romans record the teachings of a Jew in Palestine whom they executed? Why would they record anyone's teachings?

That said, there were Romans that do record Jesus's teachings. These are the church fathers.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
Why would the Romans record the teachings of a Jew in Palestine whom they executed? Why would they record anyone's teachings?

That said, there were Romans that do record Jesus's teachings. These are the church fathers.

That is correct. Jesus was not a big enough problem to get the attention of the Romans.

Nellinator
No religious leader from the inside ever was really until after Constantine.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
No religious leader from the inside ever was really until after Constantine.

From the inside? From the inside of what?

Nellinator
Inside the Roman Empire.

Shakyamunison
It seems strange to me that the Romans did not take notice to a man going around and healing the sick and raising the dead. It would be like if today a person where to heal the sick and raise the dead but never get on the news. Even the crack pots and con artists of today get news coverage.

Nellinator
Well, the Romans never had the news. Besides that, the Romans had a much more spiritually diverse culture than our own. They believed many things and I'd assume healings weren't an extraordinary claim at the time.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, the Romans never had the news. Besides that, the Romans had a much more spiritually diverse culture than our own. They believed many things and I'd assume healings weren't an extraordinary claim at the time.

However, I believe that Jesus was alive during the time of emperor Claudius. Claudius was a man who was plagued with illness. If the governor of Palestine had send a healing slave to the emperor, he would have gained great favor in the empire. Why did he miss this opportunity?

Nellinator
Because that would not have been that politically prudent. There likely would have been a revolt in Jerusalem which would have lead to Pilate's removal from office anyways. On top of that, Jesus likely wouldn't have healed Claudius under those circumstances. Furthermore, Jesus wasn't a slave, nor would Pilate have been allowed to take him as one from my understanding.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
Because that would not have been that politically prudent. There likely would have been a revolt in Jerusalem which would have lead to Pilate's removal from office anyways. On top of that, Jesus likely wouldn't have healed Claudius under those circumstances. Furthermore, Jesus wasn't a slave, nor would Pilate have been allowed to take him as one from my understanding.

Still, the Romans where almost neurotic about record keeping. If a rich man had died and then been raised from the dead, this would have caused problems with the tax collection. Why didn't they record this anomaly?

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Still, the Romans where almost neurotic about record keeping. If a rich man had died and then been raised from the dead, this would have caused problems with the tax collection. Why didn't they record this anomaly?


lol laughing

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Youre forgetting a major one: the Koran.

Jesus is mentioned by name 93 time in the Koran, which is more than he is in the entire Bible.



Thanks for correcting me....would you care to enlighten us as to what the Koran says about Jesus ?

Nellinator
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Still, the Romans where almost neurotic about record keeping. If a rich man had died and then been raised from the dead, this would have caused problems with the tax collection. Why didn't they record this anomaly? Who Lazarus? He was only dead for four days. There wouldn't be a problem.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And?

And the Bible isnt the document to go by. (my first sentance pointed that out, the other was just a fun-fact)

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Thanks for correcting me....would you care to enlighten us as to what the Koran says about Jesus ?

It speaks really highly of Jesus but rejects his divinity. It also talks about miracles performed by Jesus that werent in the Bible, such as breathing life into clay birds.

It pretty much agrees with the Bible, but with the huge exception of him being the son of God.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It speaks really highly of Jesus but rejects his divinity. It also talks about miracles performed by Jesus that werent in the Bible, such as breathing life into clay birds.

It pretty much agrees with the Bible, but with the huge exception of him being the son of God.


Then the Quran and myself have a similar stance on Christ.



I am totally open to the possibility that Jesus performed miracles, because I do not find that totally unbeleivable.


There are so many people in History to have been said to have great abilities, even today. There are people who have done extraordinary things, and experience unexplainable events beyond our understanding.


Besides...masses of people have attested to the claim of his miracle work. Why would they all Lie ?


I just don't think Jesus was the only person capable of extraordinary things...I think he is one of those special beings who had a rare access to nature that most of us lack.

Ditte3
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Youre forgetting a major one: the Koran.

Jesus is mentioned by name 93 time in the Koran, which is more than he is in the entire Bible. Sorry to say that but you are wrong.In gospel of Matthew alone (which is the first book in the New Testament in the Bible)the name of Jesus is written at least 123 times (what I counted),and that's not the whole Bible not even the whole New Testement. smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Ditte3
Sorry to say that but you are wrong.In gospel of Matthew alone (which is the first book in the New Testament in the Bible)the name of Jesus is written at least 123 times (what I counted),and that's not the whole Bible not even the whole New Testement. smile

Now we are counting the number of times that the name Jesus is written in our little holy books. roll eyes (sarcastic)

In the Lotus Sutra, Jesus can be found 0 times. stick out tongue

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Ditte3
Sorry to say that but you are wrong.In gospel of Matthew alone (which is the first book in the New Testament in the Bible)the name of Jesus is written at least 123 times (what I counted),and that's not the whole Bible not even the whole New Testement. smile


And ?

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
And ?

but, or, so.

Oh, I thought this was a conjunction post that you were starting.

big grin

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
but, or, so.

Oh, I thought this was a conjunction post that you were starting.

big grin


Can I get a Who, What, Where, When, and Why ?


laughing

mr.smiley
Originally posted by Nellinator
No, not incorrect. The majority of scholarly opinion puts the oldest gnostic gospel at 140AD for a date of composition. That is too late to be of use. The church didn't destroy them. The denied their validity, but they never destroyed them as they would have been unable to do so.

In 381 Theodosisu made heresy a crime.Gnositc writings were deystroyed with fire.A proclamation even said

There shall be no opportunity for any man to go out to the public and to argue about relgion or to discuss it or give any counsel.

you can find that in elaine Pagel (1979) 93.
The supossed heretics continued to copy them however and the second Nicene Council,300 years later repeated the jugdement.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by mr.smiley
In 381 Theodosisu made heresy a crime.Gnositc writings were deystroyed with fire.A proclamation even said

There shall be no opportunity for any man to go out to the public and to argue about relgion or to discuss it or give any counsel.

you can find that in elaine Pagel (1979) 93.
The supossed heretics continued to copy them however and the second Nicene Council,300 years later repeated the jugdement.

We are just now finding some of the copies.

mr.smiley
They did a good job,but not good enough.When the new testiment was formed they went through many text that were gnostic in nature.Of course most were denied but you can find a lot of Gnostic teachings in the new testiment that suprises people.

debbiejo
Like Christ being with in you.

mr.smiley
yes yes

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
Like Christ being with in you.

I'm surprised that Goddess Kali has not chimed in on this. eek!

Alliance
Actually, this brings up an interesting point...how the hell do you know anything about Christ's life?

RocasAtoll
Gnostic writings are very interesting, and I believe better written than the gospel and books we have in the bible. I would suggest everyone here reads them, even JIA.

mr.smiley
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Gnostic writings are very interesting, and I believe better written than the gospel and books we have in the bible. I would suggest everyone here reads them, even JIA.

I agree.They have more of a spiritual base and for the most part,they don't take things as literaly as todays orthodox christians.Gnostics teachings click more in my head.But to each his own.Anyone who has an interest in Christianity should read the gnostic text though.Their's alot of interesting and different stuff in their teachings.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by debbiejo
Like Christ being with in you.


Me and Christ are so yesterday...he calls me for the occasional threesome with Apollo, however droolio

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Me and Christ are so yesterday...he calls me for the occasional threesome with Apollo, however droolio

Do you actuarially know some Mexican guy named Jesus. laughing

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you actuarially know some Mexican guy named Jesus. laughing \


Jesus is not Mexican, he has blue eyes, brown hair, and light skin. Jesus is white.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
\


Jesus is not Mexican, he has blue eyes, brown hair, and light skin. Jesus is white.


Does your illustrated bible have pages that are stuck together? eek! laughing out loud

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does your illustrated bible have pages that are stuck together? eek! laughing out loud



droolio laughing laughing dd laughing embarrasment

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
droolio laughing laughing dd laughing embarrasment

I take that as a YES! sick laughing

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I take that as a YES! sick laughing



Tee Hee embarrasment

Ditte3
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
\


Jesus is not Mexican, he has blue eyes, brown hair, and light skin. Jesus is white. Jesus is not mexican,and we don't know what color his eyes are,it really doesn't matter.The color of his skin doesn't matter either.What matters is who he is.

debbiejo
Jesus was black, everyone knows that.

Goddess Kali
Jesus was not Black, black is the color of SIN


Jesus was perfection, therefore he had blue eyes and dirty blonde hair. Look at any Evangelical Bible or Pamphlet, Jesus will be portrayed that way smile

Dangerous
He never existed at all

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.