Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'apologetics'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Worthy Lobby
    • Worthy Welcome
  • Christian Discussions
    • Study Group
    • General Discussion
    • Do you want to just ask a question?
    • Theology
    • Apologetics
    • Prophecy
    • Christian Culture
  • Upper Room
    • Prayer Requests
    • Praises
    • Absolutely Positive!
    • Testimonies
  • Community Center
    • Fellowship Hall
    • Legacy Lounge
    • Humor! Need a good laugh?
    • Golden Oldies
    • Sports, Hobbies, Entertainment, and other interests
  • Videos
    • General
    • Comedy
    • Biblical Topics
    • Christian Music
  • Current News
    • Worthy Briefs
    • Most Interesting News Developments
    • World News
    • Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    • U.S. News
    • Christian News
  • Worthy Ministries
  • Worthy Fantasy Football League's Discussions
  • Who's on the Lord side?'s Topics
  • Cooking club's What's your favorite recipe?
  • Cooking club's Bread
  • Cooking club's About Multi-cookers - features, tips, recipes
  • Cooking club's Smokers & related recipes/techniques
  • Gardening.'s Gardening Club Forum
  • Photography How To (tips and tricks)'s Photography Club Topics
  • Maker's Club's Life hacks & tips - useful things you know & have tried!
  • Maker's Club's Physical Art, specifically!
  • Maker's Club's So, what do you make, what have you made?
  • Maker's Club's Club News
  • Bible 365's THE DAILY READING
  • Bible 365's Misc. Things of interest
  • Bible 365's Bible Topics - Looking at the Bible Topically
  • Reading Club's Topics
  • Bible Trivia's Bible Trivia Quizzes
  • Bible Trivia's Bible Trivia Answers
  • Bible Trivia's Index to Bible Trivia and Answers
  • Bible Trivia's Announcements
  • Puzzle Club's Forums
  • The Prophecy Exchange's Forums
  • The Prophecy Exchange's Resources
  • Songs of Praise Poetry Club's Forums
  • Drone Club's Forums
  • Christ Centered Recovery Group's Forums
  • Christ Centered Recovery Group's 12 Steps and Biblical Comparison
  • Christ Centered Recovery Group's Testimonies
  • Christ Centered Recovery Group's Lessons
  • Worthy Book Club's Forums
  • The New Hobbies Club's Discussion board
  • Diabetes and Low Carb Eating Support Group's Low Carb Eating
  • Diabetes and Low Carb Eating Support Group's Diabetes
  • Triumph Over Cancer's Encouragement
  • Triumph Over Cancer's General topics
  • Triumph Over Cancer's Tips and advice

Christian Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


  • WCF Events
  • Worthy Fantasy Football League's Calendar of Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 18 results

  1. Suzarb

    Hi there!

    I’m looking forward to both learning from and sharing with fellow Christians on this site. Thanks!
  2. Recently, a well-educated individual posted a great response to a exegetically fallacious rendering of a passage. He was technically astute and handle the hermeneutics flawlessly, then he made one of the most ignorant remarks I have heard in a long while. "The majority of Western culture has held a false scientific view of the world as being flat, due to the influence of the Bible on our science understanding." Here is the research: False Flat Earth Myth According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[1] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[2] Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, andWashington Irving.[3,4,5] Atheists in the late 18th and 19th centuries were largely responsible for falsely propagating this myth in order to support an ad hominem attack on theists and especially Christians. Don't be suckered by myths invented by atheists. Call them on this fallacious trick to claim all Christians come from a scientifically ignorant culture. Notes: 1. Gould, Stephen J. (2011) [1999], "Columbus and the Flat Earth: An Example of the Fallacy of Warfare between Science and Religion", Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (e-book ed.), New York: Random House LLC,ISBN 978-0-307-80141-8 2. Lindberg, David C.; Numbers, Ronald L. (1986), "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science", Church History, Cambridge University Press, 55 (3): 338–354, doi:10.2307/3166822,JSTOR 3166822 3. Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1991), Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and modern historians, New York: Praeger, ISBN 0-275-95904-X 4. Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1993), "The Flat Error: The Modern Distortion of Medieval Geography", Mediaevalia, 15: 337–353 5. Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1997), "The Myth of the Flat Earth", Studies in the History of Science, American Scientific Affiliation, retrieved 2007-07-14
  3. Hello! I am a Christian and looking for a place to share ideas and connect with other believers. I am interested in topics such as how does the church interact with culture in an effective manner. Also, I would like to discuss ecclesiology and how does church structure affect the way we exercise our God-given gifts. I am hoping to generate some good discussion on these points and to see if others share my interest in these questions. I would also like to pray and share Christ with those in need and request prayer when needed. Let us bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. God bless you and thank you for the opportunity to participate here. Jerry806
  4. Posts in this series are aimed at helping those defending the Gospel message understand how to respond to popular but fallacious arguments raised against theism. Atheist have a variety of arguments, but the New Atheists use a large number of fallacious arguments and my goal is to poison the wells to such a waste of time and effort. In 2006 Wired Magazine author Mark Wolf coins the phrase, "New Atheist." The author described Richard Dawkins arguments as "logical," demonstrating that journalism schools don't require one to have even a basic understanding of logic. Once open to scrutiny, professional philosophers that shared the atheistic worldview, but not the propagandistic approach, started speaking out. Michael Ruse, atheist, philosopher of biology at Florida State, and author of hundreds of popular and scholarly papers, observes in an article about the new atheists, "I have written elsewhere that The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Let me say that again. Let me say also that I am proud to be the focus of the invective of the new atheists. They are a bloody disaster and I want to be on the front line of those who say so." Read more at Why I Think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster - Science and the Sacred There are a host of rhetorical tricks played by so-called New Atheist and their fundamentalist followers these days. These tricks have leached into intellectually-challenged minds for decades and have achieved a certain acceptance by tweeting millennials and their ilk. The goal of this series will be to help Christians defend against the rhetoric with rationality. There is much to be discussed with "Seekers," but little or none with "Seekers In Name Only," referred to as SINOs. I will arrange these threads by the logical fallacy deployed by these New Atheists in order to serve as both a critique but also to familiarize the reader with plenty of examples so as to not follow in their footsteps. Definitions are a good place to start. Dictionaries used to be a good resource but slang and Wikipedia have led to equivocation in favor of definitions that are not either historical or very descriptive. You get to define the terms of an argument but when making truth claims make them clear by defining terms. "God exists," is a truth-claim. "God does not exist," is a truth-claim. In both cases a truth-claim is being made. In both cases the truth-claim must be defended. Now historically they were defended. But recently, the last few decades, the New Atheist says, "Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods," by this redefinition they hope to avoid the burden of proof. But it muddles the meaning of "atheism," quite badly. On this view, my cat and dog are "Atheists." I'm sitting on an "Atheist," chair as I write this thread on my "Atheist," ipad. If we wanted to join the New Atheist in their word games we could say that "Theism is the lack of belief that their are no gods," BAM we no longer have to defend our claim because I is stated in the negative! Just kidding here. We do not have to act as if we haven't ever had a philosophy 101 class. We can take an intellectual honest route of defending our claims. Of course we would give various arguments such as: Cosmological (Leibniz/Kalam) Teleological (fine-tuning or design inference for life from DNA etc.) Moral Existence of miracles/ fulfilled prophecy Various arguments from desire (no atheists in fox holes) Now to my theist friends I give the following advise: 1 - Learn how to spot logical fallacies and not use them in an argument. 2 - We can be generous to those who are genuinely seeking. If you were unaware of some of these tricks so too may some of the seekers be. 3 - If the advice above fails to help, you may just have to disengage. I often link debates and other critical peer-reviewed discussions so my opponent can engage the real argument and not play tricks. But many of these individuals are SINOs as mentioned above. You will determine this lack of intellectual engagement by their refusal to do the smallest amount of research on topics. A blanket statement advising a philosophy 101 course at their nearest jr. college when they are finally motivated to get up off their couch should suffice as an exit strategy. We are generous to genuine seekers, but to fakers and pharisees no such consideration is warranted. 4 - Remember that you engaged the conversation in good-faith and have been manipulated by propaganda. Propaganda is a shortcut for the intellectual lazy or intellectually challenged. You don't (I hope) use propaganda to manipulate the seeker, you deserve the same respect. Don't be bullied by ignorant fools. This advise cuts both ways. Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Duane Gish all use similar fallacious propagandistic approaches to manipulate people to adopt the Christian Worldview. 5. We are not "proving anything!" Since Descartes modern philosophy has shown that we can't "prove" we are not a brain in a vat being manipulated to experience everything we experience. In fact we can't "prove" we live in an external world, with other minds (people), or that the past is real, or that the world operates consistently over time. In none. Our most foundational knowledge assumptions are "provable," what are the chances of proving theological truths based on historical information, especially given all the competing explanatory inferences? So don't get drawn into "proving" just focus on theism being the best explanation of the things we experience and the concepts we know. For theists, I recommend anything by William Lane Craig, his site is a valuable resource for beginners and advanced apologetics. For atheists, I recommend Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Quinten Smith, Kai Nielsen, J.L. Mackey, Michael Ruse, and the most prolific of the bunch (before he abandoned atheism), Antony Flew. People to avoid due to propagandistic approaches: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Atkins, Krauss, Coyne. For good programming that engages these issues from a rational standpoint I advise a program called, "Closer to The Truth."
  5. The title above is a Halle Berry line off a movie called, "The Program." One of my continuing frustrations on most forums these days is running into individuals who pretend to have done their homework but haven't. In fact within a few seconds of reading a post it is clear that they haven't even done a 30-second Google search on the topic of which they are pontificating. Method for Pretending to Be Smart: Questioning ad nauseam Don't do research just repeat back you objector's question and put a "What causes that," in front of it. Trick is you don't have to know anything and can produce an infinite amount of questions pretending to be engaged intellectually (especially effective with complex inferences such as philosophical arguments, or historical sciences). Further you can avoid justifying truth claims by pretending you don't have to justify you own claims. Recently after responding to a claim with evidence and arguments the reply came back, "Where is your support?" Yes, you guessed it, they didn't even read my evidence that formed premises that formed an argument. Create and then attack straw men This method is so simple (pronounced in a thick New Jersey accent). Just misrepresent the particular inference such as "Faith is believing something for which there is no evidence." Next attack the ridiculousness of the statement (remember you must pretend that it actually is a fair representation...not your own absurd definition) for more: read any New Atheist publication. Anachronistic fallacy (wait what?) (no, wait when!) Slavery is bad. The bible condones slavery. The Bible is bad. Here we just pretend that values we hold for the last few decades in the west are ubiquitous across all culture and all times. Again, I have yet to see a New Atheist that doesn't return over and over to this method. Don't worry few people have ever heard of the anachronistic fallacy so you can use it on theists with impunity. How to avoid pretense and actually learn something. 1 - Research the topic Use respected sources (not wiki crowd sourced research which can be at times excellent at at other times complete propaganda) Peer-reviewed literature in journals specializing in a particular body of knowledge. "Science News" as opposed to "Scientific American" For philosophical topics try Plato.org or internet encyclopedia of philosophy. 2 - Represent the topic and particular problem and give reasons why you pick one inference over the next. No shifting burden of proof. If you claim no knowledge (agnostic) then fine, but if you claim that a particular inference is true in the real external world be prepared to defend it with reasons and evidence. (Atheists often fall into this fallacy regarding God's existence, theists also make a similar mistake when they refuse to give reasons for God's existence (claiming their faith is superior because they don't have reasons (I will do an entire post on this foolishness, which ignores direct commands in scripture as well as the entire book of Acts! Example: Universe appears fine-tuned for life. The cause is: Chance, or a result of the physical laws, or design. An educated person would represent the best evidence for all 3 inferences. Then give reasons such as explanatory power why one inference is better than the next. I hope I have offended those who are intellectually lazy and just pretend to be smart.
  6. Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding X, i, 86 "Upon the whole, then, it appears that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and that even if it did amount to a proof it would be opposed by another proof derived from the very nature of the fact it is trying to establish. Hume concludes, "...so we may accept it as a maxim that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a legitimate foundation for any such system of religion." We know miracles are impossible therefore anyone who is making a report of a miracle is unreliable. Therefore all reports of miracles are unreliable. Hume discounts witnesses that report data that don't comport with the existing data. Ignoring his own "Problem of induction," he states all swans ever seen in the last several centuries are white. Any sailor, coming from say Australia, with a report of a Black swan stands in opposition to those data and must be giving an unreliable report. This deleted data that would have allow the naturalist to truly state, "Swans can be black or white in coloring," as opposed to Hume's method which forces naturalists to misrepresent the data. Empiricists recognized that Hume's ham-handed attempt at producing skeptics of miracles and other unaccounted phenomena, were not just circular but destroyed the very thing that made the scientific method so strong! Namely, the best explanation for the data must change over time to account for new data. Because he preceded Bayes by a few years, Hume can be forgiven his ignorance of same. What Bayes Theorem states is that we can compare the probability of M given the evidence and background information [Pr(M|E&B)] with the probability of not-M given the evidence and background information [Pr(not-M|E&B)]: Pr(R|E&B) ------------------------ Pr(not-R|E&B) So the question Hume should have been asking (given Bayes), is, "What are the chances of witnesses, and experts (doctors), reporting miracles knowing that they would be openly mocked as liars, charlatans and fools?" This applies even more significantly with testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. Since testimonies often resulted in death, not just being outcast. So what is the probability that sailors told the truth about seeing black swans in Australia/ the probability of other explications of their reports of seeing black swans (e.g. Mass hallucinations, or a black swan conspiracy) Within a few years George Campbell, A dissertation on miracles, p. 31-32, London: T. Tegg, 1824 "He [Hume] rests his case against belief in miracles upon the claim that laws of nature are supported by exceptionless testimony, but testimony can only be accounted exceptionless if we discount the occurrence of miracles." Every major step forward in science was met with both legitimate skepticism and Humean skepticism. Max Planck's Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's special, and general theories of relativity, were rejected by most top scientist of their day due to Humean reasoning rather than a close examination of the data. Someone tell me the irony in Hume's circular reasoning. Please comment on similar problems with Hume's concepts of space, time, external objects, personal identity over time, lack of free will, and his view that causation in not found in the external world. Non-theists, by all means join the conversation and let us know if you share my skepticism of Hume's method. If not, not why not?
  7. Recently on this apologetics forum while helping "Seekers," gain knowledge about philosophy of religion, the best atheist apologists, a few examples of good arguments for atheism, far from being "liked" or receiving "Winner," accolades, I was bombarded with mocking comments, fake definitions, straw man fallacies, question begging arguments. Rhetorical flourish and pseudo-intellectual arguments that would hardly fool a 12th-grader were continually offered instead of raising reasonable objections to theism. It seems that just as there are prerequisites for most college classes, so to for a cogent discussion on the weightier issues of philosophy of religion. I will let WLC make my case. World-renowned apologist and Philosophy of Religion Professor, William Lane Craig, makes the case for a philosophical foundation when discussing religion: "By employing the high standards of reasoning characteristic of analytic philosophy we can powerfully formulate apologetic arguments for both commending and defending the Christian worldview. In recent decades, analytic philosophers of religion have shed new light on the rationality and warrant of religious belief, on arguments for the existence of God, on divine attributes such as necessity, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness, on the problem of suffering and evil, on the nature of the soul and immortality, on the problem of miracles, and even on peculiarly Christian doctrines like the Trinity, incarnation, atonement, original sin, revelation, hell, and prayer. The wealth of material which is available to the Christian apologist through the labor of analytic philosophers of religion is breath-taking." Read more: Apologetics Training - Advice to Christian Apologists | Reasonable Faith Often when encountering both Theistic (Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind) and atheistic (Richard Dwakins, Larry Krauss, Peter Boghossian, Peter Akins, Jerry Coyne, etc.) apologists, no philosophical training is apparent in their arguments. Please comment on your favorite apologists and their concomitant contributions to the body of knowledge with regards to our religious understanding of the world. i have highlighted some non-examples of logical thinking so replies can focus on the examples. Example: Theist -William Lane Craig/ Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Kalam) Atheist - Logic and Theism (one of Sobel's arguments)
  8. Searching about the Trinity, I found very good explanations like the "one BEING that has 3 PERSONS" or the analogy of the cube as in C. S. Lewis book. But, if a cube is made of 6 sqaures, it means that, if one square is missing, we can no longer call that figure a cube, and, the square that is missing in this cube is not a cube anymore, it is just a square. Does that mean that, without one of these persons, God is not complete? Do those 3 persons depend on each other to become God like the squares depend on each other to become a cube? Would we say that the trinity is like 1/3 of God? Like 1/3+1/3+1/3=1? I know it doesn't fit in the definition of the Christian God. But what would be the answer for it? How does the trinity works in this sense?
  9. We went to go see the “God's Not Dead” matinee movie today, rated PG, thought it fairly well done. So passing along that thought here! Synopsis of movie: http://godsnotdeadthemovie.com/synopsis “How far would you go…to defend your belief in God? Present-day college freshman and devout Christian, Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper), finds his faith challenged on his first day of Philosophy class by the dogmatic and argumentative Professor Radisson (Kevin Sorbo). Radisson begins class by informing students that they will need to disavow, in writing, the existence of God on that first day, or face a failing grade. As other students in the class begin scribbling the words “God Is Dead” on pieces of paper as instructed, Josh find himself at a crossroads, having to choose between his faith and his future. Josh offers a nervous refusal, provoking an irate reaction from his smug professor. Radisson assigns him a daunting task: if Josh will not admit that “God Is Dead,” he must prove God’s existence by presenting well-researched, intellectual arguments and evidence over the course of the semester, and engage Radisson in a head-to-head debate in front of the class. If Josh fails to convince his classmates of God’s existence, he will fail the course and hinder his lofty academic goals. With almost no one in his corner, Josh wonders if he can really fight for what he believes. Can he actually prove the existence of God? Wouldn’t it just be easier just to write “God Is Dead” and put the whole incident behind him? GOD’S NOT DEAD weaves together multiple stories of faith, doubt and disbelief, culminating in a dramatic call to action. The film will educate, entertain, and inspire moviegoers to explore what they really believe about God, igniting important conversations and life-changing decisions.”
  10. There are a couple of great recent Christian movies available that deal with apologetics. One is called The Case For Christ and the other is God's Not Dead One. Both of them do wonderful job of presenting arguments for God, the Bible, historical evidence, etc. Here is the website link for the God's Not Dead movie: God's Not Dead
  11. Hi there anyone, my name is Daniel and I am particularly interested in apologetics. I would love to connect with anyone who is interested in the same. My instagram is @madluvofficial and I have a YouTube channel coming soon (just finished editing the 2nd video) and am soon to do daily vlogging. Can anyone recommend any good people on social media to follow in the same realm? Really appreciate your time guys and gals!
  12. Robert Skynner Flat XXX XXXXX House XXXXX Street Plymouth Devon XXX XXXX (United Kingdom) 13th May 2017 Dear Eddie, Thank you for the gift of the silver NWT Bible, it would be great if you would kindly explain one problem which I, a Trinitarian, have with it, namely John 8:58: “Jesus said to them, most truly, I say unto you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (John 8:58, NWT, 2013 (silver) revised edition). The New World Translation (NWT) of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, is the only Bible which mistranslates the Greek: "ego eimi," (this is the first person singular present tense of the verb "to be"), of John 8:58, as: "I have been?" All other versions of the Bible translate it correctly as "I am," and even the New World Translation itself, translates "ego eimi," consistently and accurately as "I am," elsewhere throughout the New Testament, i.e. at John 8:24, 9:5 and 9:9; which predate and postdate this verse! Why "ego eimi," means "I am" at every occurrence bar one is a puzzle to me, especially when the Watchtower Society has no Greek or Hebrew scholars that they can name. The NWT is not translated by educated and reliable scholars, but by amateurs with no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. However, this problem is greatly compounded for the Watchtower Society, when one considers the differing marginal notes and explanations of Greek tenses, which have been used to explain the mistranslation of "ego eimi," as "I am." The 1950 NWT edition of the Greek Scriptures, on page 312, and the NWT 1960 Bible on page 3108, explains "ego eimi," here as a perfect indefinite tense, a tense which does not exist in Greek, or even in any other language. In the 1969 (Purple) edition of the Kingdom Interlinear, on page 467, this tense was now changed to the perfect tense, some nineteen years later and after millions of Bible printings which contain the earlier nonexistent tense! Then in 1985, the revised (Blue) edition of the Kingdom Interlinear, on page 451, changes this to the perfect indicative. This is a third tense! Eddie, I enclose scans of these books. If you are unable to get hold of these books then please do visit me, and I can show you these originals. Please pass my details onto any Witness who is willing to study a part of the Really Teach book. Yours Sincerely Robert Skynner
  13. 12 Steps that Show Christianity is True Here's a Twelve Step argument for the Truth of Christianity. This is adapted from an Apologetics workbook by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Truth about reality is knowable. The opposite of true is false. It is true that a theistic God exits. If God exists, then miracles are possible. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as an act of God to confirm a word from God). The New Testament is historically reliable. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by" His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself; His sinless and miraculous life; His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection from the dead. Therefore, Jesus is God. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false). I will deal with each point in my Christian Apologetics podcast, Apologetics Evangelism. You can listen to my apologetics podcast on iTunes by clicking here. Or, you can listen on Podbean, my podcast website.
  14. What issues are most difficult for you to deal with? Islam Atheism Faith VS Reason Evolution How to start a conversation? Biblical Evidences You can add to the list. I just posted a few as examples. I'd love some feedback on this. I'll use these topics in upcoming podcasts. I launched my Apologetics Evangelism Podcast recently and want to deal with relevant issues! Thanks, Dylan
  15. Hey guys, I'm continuing my series on "12 Steps that Show Christianity is True." This episode deals with a very touchy subject. Namely, when we affirm one view we deny another. Here's the podcast Episode from my podcast, Apologetics Evangelism. https://apologeticsevangelism.podbean.com/e/episode-014-12-steps-that-show-christianity-is-true-part-2-the-opposite-of-truth-is-false/?token=803fd71b071874441728979d886c1440 Feedback welcome! Dylan
  16. Not all gospel messages are created equal. A god-shaped hole, a wonderful plan, and many others get pitched by well meaning Christians. What have you heard (or believed) that drifts from the gospel outlined in Romans, and by Paul in 1 Cor. 15??? Here's a podcast I did on this subject. Feedback welcome! http://apologeticsevangelism.podbean.com/e/episode-009-what-version-of-the-gospel-are-you-sharing/?token=9aa4ba458984739921bc97f1a4d4f2e2
  17. If you ever come across one of those annoying Atheists who claim that the Bible was made up and that the story of Jesus was stolen from other myths and legends, show them this video:
  • Create New...