homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  New poll  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Things we did   » The Da Vinci Code   » If the Da Vinci Code was true........

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: If the Da Vinci Code was true........
Quinny
Apprentice
# 11441

 - Posted      Profile for Quinny   Email Quinny   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello first post on the forum (so if this has been debated before don't get angry)

I was just wondering if (and its a big if) the theory articulated in the Da Vinci Code and elsewhere, about Jesus having children with Mary Magdalene was corect, then would you reject youre faith.

Obviously it would raise questions as whether the descendants of Jesus have a particular link with God that other humans don't have and would possibly call into question whether Jesus fufilled Gods plan for him on earth.

On the other hand Jesus was meant to sample life as a human and a big part of life for many humans is getting msrried and having children so maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.

thoughts/opinions?

Posts: 5 | From: Europe | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084

 - Posted      Profile for Gextvedde   Email Gextvedde   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Posted by Quinny

Obviously it would raise questions as whether the descendants of Jesus have a particular link with God that other humans don't have

Not really because Jesus would quite literally be just a man, albeit a very good one and being one of his descendants would be like being the descendant of any other good man. It’s an interesting question but I just can’t get round to thinking about it properly without my mind going but, but, but…….

Welcome to the ship by the way.

--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton

Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
quote:
Posted by Quinny

Obviously it would raise questions as whether the descendants of Jesus have a particular link with God that other humans don't have

Not really because Jesus would quite literally be just a man, albeit a very good one and being one of his descendants would be like being the descendant of any other good man. It’s an interesting question but I just can’t get round to thinking about it properly without my mind going but, but, but…….

Welcome to the ship by the way.

Why would Jesus having children mean that he was 'just a man', etc? Did his Sonship make him sterile?

T. (too tired to expand right now)

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084

 - Posted      Profile for Gextvedde   Email Gextvedde   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You're right, Jesus having children wouldn't make him just a man, nor would being married but the DVC plot relies on the church being wrong about who Jesus was. The book claims that Jesus was a 'mortal prophet' and not divine in any sense related to Christian doctrine and that the church made that stuff up around the time of Constantine. So, if the book is true, Jesus was just a normal guy in all senses of the word and the church has covered up the truth by making him out to be divine.

I was thinking of what it would mean to be one of his descendents if this was the case and IMHO, if the whole book is correct (not just the married with kids stuff) then being one of his offspring wouldn't mean that much.

--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton

Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
musician

Ship's grin without a cat
# 4873

 - Posted      Profile for musician   Email musician   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Would his divinity be part of his DNA then? Or would it only be his humanity in his DNA?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If DVC was true, then we'd have had a knock-down argument in the 2nd century against the Docetists (have I got the right heresy?) who claimed that Jesus was merely a spirit who appeared as a man.

Since in the 2nd century Jesus's great-grandchildren didn't come forward as a clinching proof against that troublesome heresy, I assume DVC isn't true. [Biased]

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452

 - Posted      Profile for Matrix     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If DVC was true that every person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to have had some kind of experience of Jesus would be either a liar or fool.

Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, Polycarp, or Wilberforce, Wesley, or Booth.

--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State

Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997

 - Posted      Profile for Archimandrite   Author's homepage   Email Archimandrite   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
If DVC was true that every person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to have had some kind of experience of Jesus would be either a liar or fool.

Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, Polycarp, or Wilberforce, Wesley, or Booth.

Or they just ran into a great-nephew who was also in to the hippyish beard-and-kaftan combo.

--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).

Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
kempis3
Shipmate
# 9792

 - Posted      Profile for kempis3         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
If DVC was true that every person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to have had some kind of experience of Jesus would be either a liar or fool.

Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, Polycarp, or Wilberforce, Wesley, or Booth.

Augustine -- you're a liar
Aquinas -- you're a liar
Polycarp -- you're a liar
Wilberforce -- you're a liar
Wesley -- you're a liar
Booth -- you're a liar

Because you all lurve your social power in this world.

But that does not make TDVC true.

[Biased]

--------------------
Man plots -- God laughs.

Posts: 148 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358

 - Posted      Profile for humblebum   Email humblebum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If the DVC were true, and Jesus had kids, I'm very surprised that people in the various branches of the early church weren't interested in finding them, and claiming them as their new leader.

Dan Brown's explanation of this (if I understand it correctly), that the disciples were so busy making Jesus into a God that his wife and kid would have feared for their lives, is total bunk IMO.

quote:
Originally posted by Quinny:
On the other hand Jesus was meant to sample life as a human and a big part of life for many humans is getting married and having children so maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.

A big part of life for many humans is being female, and by all accounts Jesus didn't sample that bit either.

--------------------
humblebum

Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
kbe323
Apprentice
# 9837

 - Posted      Profile for kbe323   Email kbe323   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Matrix writes:

__________________________________________________
::If DVC was true that every person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to have had some kind of experience of Jesus would be either a liar or fool.

Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, Polycarp, or Wilberforce, Wesley, or Booth.::
__________________________________________________
Why are liars or fools the only choices? How about being misled, misinterpreting their experiences or just plain being wrong? No matter how much adherents to one or another religion want it to be 'fact', the fact remains, although the great majority of those religions truly believe in them, a belief in any mystical system is just that--a belief, a faith, and not empirically provable and so beyond question.

--------------------
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us"--Pogo

Posts: 19 | From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452

 - Posted      Profile for Matrix     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kbe323:
Matrix writes:


::If DVC was true that every person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to have had some kind of experience of Jesus would be either a liar or fool.

Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, Polycarp, or Wilberforce, Wesley, or Booth.::

Why are liars or fools the only choices? How about being misled, misinterpreting their experiences or just plain being wrong? No matter how much adherents to one or another religion want it to be 'fact', the fact remains, although the great majority of those religions truly believe in them, a belief in any mystical system is just that--a belief, a faith, and not empirically provable and so beyond question.

These people i chose becuase they all claimed not merely a belief, but an experience, and one that drove thier ministry and life.

They each claimed to have had some kind of encounter with the risen Christ, not that they accepted a set of ideals or gave assent to a theory. So either they lie about their encounter, or they are fools, misled dupes.

M

[ 22. June 2006, 16:14: Message edited by: Callan ]

--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State

Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
These people i chose becuase they all claimed not merely a belief, but an experience, and one that drove thier ministry and life.

They each claimed to have had some kind of encounter with the risen Christ, not that they accepted a set of ideals or gave assent to a theory. So either they lie about their encounter, or they are fools, misled dupes.

M

Could they not be mistaken without being fools or dupes?

Plenty of people make claims about all kinds of physical, supernatural and wonderful happenings. Many can be dismissed as being fools or dupes, but there are many who appear to be rational and reasonable people (not that all the people you suggest could be described could be considered to be rational and reasonable all the time!) - yet I still don't believe in the same stuff as them.

Strikes me that is a very poor measure of correctness.

C

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023

 - Posted      Profile for noneen   Email noneen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Quinny
quote:
I was just wondering if (and its a big if) the theory articulated in the Da Vinci Code and elsewhere, about Jesus having children with Mary Magdalene was corect, then would you reject youre faith .
(bold added by me!)

I just re-read Quinnys OP (welcome Quinny!!!) and noticed what i suppose is a central question in all this DVC hype... if true, would DVCs story affect my faith.

DVCs story seems to say that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he sneaked off, and lived a full life with Mary Magdelene his wife.

If the ressurection was a fake, then - yep - it would affect my faith. It would make any relationship i have with Jesus into a lie, it would make me feel like a deluded fool and i would walk away from christianity. (there was or is a whole thread on ressurection and its importance somewhere else - i'm just talking about my feelings here !!)

If - as some have mentioned on other threads here - Jesus rose, but never ascended - then i'd be very shook but not as devastated. I just wouldn't understand it, but would be prepared to work at the relationship (so to speak!!!) ... i think i would anyway!

[ 26. May 2006, 12:22: Message edited by: noneen ]

--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied

Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noneen:
DVCs story seems to say that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he sneaked off, and lived a full life with Mary Magdelene his wife.

I think that claims is in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but not in DVC. I've not read either book, but I remember Dan Brown (who is himself a Christian) drawing attention to this point in the run-up to the plagiarism trial.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Quinny
Apprentice
# 11441

 - Posted      Profile for Quinny   Email Quinny   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for your comments everybody [Overused]

I would be interested to know how Dan Brown can justify being a christian if he genuinely believes the premise behind the Da Vinci Code.

In my opinion the wider issue here is if the arguments for Jesus existing (as he is portrayed in the bible) are proven to be inaccurate by the Da Vinci Code then can we still rely upo the spiritual experiences that I and many christians claim to have had.

Posts: 5 | From: Europe | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinny:
In my opinion the wider issue here is if the arguments for Jesus existing (as he is portrayed in the bible) are proven to be inaccurate by the Da Vinci Code then can we still rely upo the spiritual experiences that I and many christians claim to have had.

I'd have to disagree with that, Quinny. I don't think it's an appropriate response to properly presented scientific or historical evidence simply to say 'my faith tells me different'. The historicity of Jesus broadly, though perhaps not exactly, as his earthly life is presented in the Bible is a key part of Christianity. The sacrifice of Calvary is not a matter of subjective religious experience, but rather an integral part of God's relationship with humanity as a whole, as member, servant, and saviour.

Besides, a novel will never prove anything.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinny:
I would be interested to know how Dan Brown can justify being a christian if he genuinely believes the premise behind the Da Vinci Code.

It is fiction. He does not believe it. Neither should anyone else.

quote:
Originally posted by Quinny:
In my opinion the wider issue here is if the arguments for Jesus existing (as he is portrayed in the bible) are proven to be inaccurate by the Da Vinci Code then can we still rely upo the spiritual experiences that I and many christians claim to have had.

Da Vinci Code proves nothing - it is fiction. So, your "wider issue" is irrelevant and unimportant.

btw, welcome to the Ship.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If DVC was true, then we'd have had a knock-down argument in the 2nd century against the Docetists (have I got the right heresy?) who claimed that Jesus was merely a spirit who appeared as a man.

Since in the 2nd century Jesus's great-grandchildren didn't come forward as a clinching proof against that troublesome heresy, I assume DVC isn't true. [Biased]

There are many reasons to believe that the DVC is fiction, and you have highlighted one. The fact that He asked John to look after His mother (from the cross) but not His wife or children is another.

[ 26. May 2006, 13:57: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
kbe323
Apprentice
# 9837

 - Posted      Profile for kbe323   Email kbe323   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Teufelchen writes:

__________________________________________________
I'd have to disagree with that, Quinny. I don't think it's an appropriate response to properly presented scientific or historical evidence simply to say 'my faith tells me different'. The historicity of Jesus broadly, though perhaps not exactly, as his earthly life is presented in the Bible is a key part of Christianity. The sacrifice of Calvary is not a matter of subjective religious experience, but rather an integral part of God's relationship with humanity as a whole, as member, servant, and saviour.
__________________________________________________

This is the heart of the problem in a nutshell. Does the current bible accurately express the original writings of the author(s) or has is what we now have a reference a work that some scriptologists contend is rife with omissions, changes, additions and errors introduced by scribes with good intentions but erring fingers or those who had their own idea of what the scriptures should say? Without originals to compare with and with scriptural scholars often at odds with one another as to what the original text said or meant in so many instances, do we have to trust the scholorship and intent of fallible men and women or our own intuition as to what is the 'real truth'?

--------------------
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us"--Pogo

Posts: 19 | From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023

 - Posted      Profile for noneen   Email noneen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:

Originally posted by noneen:
DVCs story seems to say that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he sneaked off, and lived a full life with Mary Magdelene his wife.


I think that claims is in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but not in DVC. I've not read either book, but I remember Dan Brown (who is himself a Christian) drawing attention to this point in the run-up to the plagiarism trial.

T.

I stand corrected ... i gave away my copy of DVC so i can't check, ... i obviously 'remember it wrong' !!! [Smile]

[ 30. June 2006, 11:24: Message edited by: Callan ]

--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied

Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Honest John
Shipmate
# 11457

 - Posted      Profile for Honest John   Email Honest John   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't anything about microbiology but if Jesus had had kids, it would be interesting to see how their DNA compared to that of other mortals!

--------------------
'Remember this and mark it well; he who is not one up is one down'
Alister Sim

Posts: 100 | From: Liverpool | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest John:
I don't anything about microbiology but if Jesus had had kids, it would be interesting to see how their DNA compared to that of other mortals!

According to orthodox Christianity, the DNA of Jesus's offspring would be indistinguishable from any other human DNA because Jesus was completely human. The fact that he was completely God at the same time is immaterial, because God doesn't have any DNA.

This is another reason why the assertions of the DVC are unlikely to be true: the idea of Jesus having had offspring is a great big resounding "so what?" - if he had had children, then the early Church within a couple of decades would have ironed out any little theological creases that arose from the fact, without having to resort to the kind of massive cover-up it would have been impossible for the Church to arrange anyway.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
we'd have had a knock-down argument in the 2nd century against the Docetists (have I got the right heresy?) who claimed that Jesus was merely a spirit who appeared as a man.

Yep, you've got the right heresy. Though they first arose in the first century, did they not?

Could I reiterate to Quinny that Dan Brown doesn't believe it's true at all*. Also, he's said that the resurrection is the one thing he wouldn't dare question in a book. Which is interesting, because I got the impression from reading TDVC that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but obviously I was wrong. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

*Why don't the dumbclot conspiracy theorists who love the book actually listen to him? I suppose they think that he's been blackmailed by God's Rottweiler?

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It took a long time for someone to answer Musicans's question about DNA. It's serious problem, and I think someone HAS dealt with it some where on these boards - anybody remember where?

Adeodatus's solution doesn't answer the problem for me - nice try, though. If Jesus's DNA was the same as any other human DNA, would not that mean he had a human, as well as a divine, Father? If his genes were all from Mary, would that not make him a clone (AH No - a clone would be female!) And God has no gender. So whence the male source of the (normal) genes in the blood of Jesus?

There's a useful article by Leslie Houlden in this month's "Theology" which talks, among other things, about the way we cling to the old
- perhaps comfortable - ways of working things out when those ways just do not work any longer.
This seems to be an example. Maybe DVC, flawed though it is as theology/history
, may be useful in showing up such problems in the arguments around it.

--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)

Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course I wouldn't reject my faith if he married and had kids. I agree with the poster who said that the proper response would be a resounding "So what?"

As for his hypothetical kids, there'd be no reason to expect them to be in any way different from the rest of the human race. He had (has, my bad) a full human nature.

As for the chromosomes, etc. I assume Mary had the usual full complement of genes, including unexpressed ones (recessives, etc.) I see no reason God couldn't have done a little jugggling to see to it that the parthenogenetic child came out with a somewhat different arrangement of the genes already present in his mother, rather than being a look-alike. The Y chromosome would be the only difficulty I can think of, and we've all heard that described as a crippled X [Biased]

No, seriously, if a miracle did happen at his conception (and I believe it did), why would it be so much harder for God to add, rearrange, or modify a little genetic data? He's done far bigger things.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A little genetic data..I cannot believe I'm hearing this. We're talking first-grade sums?

--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)

Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by kbe323:
quote:

This is the heart of the problem in a nutshell. Does the current bible accurately express the original writings of the author(s) or has is what we now have a reference a work that some scriptologists contend is rife with omissions, changes, additions and errors introduced by scribes with good intentions but erring fingers or those who had their own idea of what the scriptures should say? Without originals to compare with and with scriptural scholars often at odds with one another as to what the original text said or meant in so many instances, do we have to trust the scholorship and intent of fallible men and women or our own intuition as to what is the 'real truth'?

(my emphasis added)
I think this is vastly overstating the case. In the total dataset of text-critical scholars there are a tiny number who would argue that there is a significant doubt about some major point of doctrine. There are a huge number of variants - most of them very minor, and some of the variants are very hotly debated. The discipline of text criticism offers tools for evaluating these variants and identifying how they are likely (a) to have arisen and (b) to have been replicated, and (c) which of the variants is likely to be the original.

To the extent that I have studied this area myself, I am confident, on the evidence, that the NT is substantially historically reliable, and that the texts we now have very substantially represent the originals - but I could not reasonably expect you simply to take my word for it. I would love to be able to demonstrate this, but like most other historical and literary disciplines, this is too large an area to be covered reasonably within the scope of a Bulletin Board discussion.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Do I understand, BroJames, that you have a marvellous proof of the historicity of the whole NT, but the margin is too small to contain it?

T. (Sorry - maths joke)

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  New poll  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools