Jump to content
IGNORED

Claims about the NT


Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  483
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/22/2009
  • Status:  Offline

Yes indeed there are several sources from the first and second centuries, however you seem to be happy to take the good Doctors word with no source, so i dont feel particularly inclined to give mine

I'm not being hard against you, just making a point :laugh:

No problem. I am not here to force people to give me what I ask for. You can refuse me at anytime for whatever reasons you wish. I do not control your actions. Peace.

Regards,

UF

UF,

I am wondering... there are many sources to back me and i can offer them no problem

i have 2 questions first

You agreed that his credentials dont mean he isnt bias or hasnt an agenda that is antichristian... so why are you willing to just accept what he offers at face value without a single source presented to back him? Do you consider this credible?

Secondly, if i DID give you sources that would be however many i gave you FOR my arguement against NONE for him.. what effect would this have on your opinion? ...and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  16
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,063
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   15
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/02/2004
  • Status:  Offline

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear nebula,

Thank you for your response.

By the way UF -

Do you believe that Bart D. Ehrman is unbiased?

No. I do not believe Professor Ehrman is unbiased. However, I am willing to hear him out and see what he has to say and the evidence he presents.

In addition, if you are looking for reliability, have you ever seen a comparison between the reliability of the Bible against other ancient manuscripts?

These websites are a couple sources that makes such a comparison:

http://school.carm.org/amember/files/demo/Bible/reliable.htm

http://www.irr.org/bible-reliable.html

Thanks for the website references. However, I am well aware of the problems associated with ancient texts including the NT. Simply summed up, there were no xerox machines (or the like) to publish accurate copies back then. I am not looking for reliability of the bible as compared to other ancient text. I am looking for internally consistent reliability of the bible as compared to itself. I really am not concerned with minor copyist errors. I am more concerned with what has been added, deleted or changed such that the original meaning has been compromised.

One such example of a major change is what Professor Erhman pointed out in his lecture: John 7 and 8, the only place in the bible that tells of the story of the woman caught in adultery and her potential stoning. Professor Erhman claims that earlier versions of John (in Greek) do not contain this story, and only in the 10th century was it added.

The story of the woman caught in adultery, and the famous lines that were attributed to Jesus...who among you that are without sin may cast the first stone (I am paraphrasing here) is a pretty good story, and well recognized. Is it an addition that was not in the original?

If we look to his evidence, and if he can show that all the earlier versions of the bible (among the 5700) pieces that we have, do not contain this story in John, he may be right. This is a very testable thing.

Further, he claims that most biblical scholars know and accept this. Is this true? I would like to know your prespective on this example.

Regards,

UF

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  16
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,063
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   15
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/02/2004
  • Status:  Offline

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear shiloh357,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

The book of Acts and the testimony of the Paul testify of Jesus's resurrection.

Sorry, I meant to say beyond the bible. I take it there are no extra-biblical documents that claim to have seen a resurrected Jesus?

Once again, all their enemies would have needed to do to stamp out Christianity once and for all is to produce the body of Jesus. What you need to understand is that Christianity stands or falls on ONE thing: The resurrection of Jesus. Christianity can weather all kinds of assaults on its credibility from atheists and others, but if Jesus isn't resurrected, that is the death knell to Christianity. No resurrection, no hope, no salvation, no Christian faith.

Hmmm, somehow your argument does not make sense to me. It appears you are saying that if the tomb was empty, and no one could produce his body, then Jesus was indeed resurrected. There are so many alternatives that can explain the empty tomb and the failure of producing his body, that will lead to non-resurrection. One of which is that relatives of Jesus raided the tomb, and removed the body to be buried elsewhere.

The fact that no one could produce a body and the fact that no one endures torture or dies for a lie they knowingly created, serves as evidence to the reliaiblity gospels and the NT as a whole.

You may see that as evidence, but I do not consider that so. Failure to produce a corpse is not evidence of resurrection. People who do not die for lies they created is not evidence that any book of writings is true.

Regards,

UF

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  16
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,063
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   15
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/02/2004
  • Status:  Offline

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response.

Yes indeed there are several sources from the first and second centuries, however you seem to be happy to take the good Doctors word with no source, so i dont feel particularly inclined to give mine

I'm not being hard against you, just making a point ;)

No problem. I am not here to force people to give me what I ask for. You can refuse me at anytime for whatever reasons you wish. I do not control your actions. Peace.

Regards,

UF

UF,

I am wondering... there are many sources to back me and i can offer them no problem

i have 2 questions first

You agreed that his credentials dont mean he isnt bias or hasnt an agenda that is antichristian... so why are you willing to just accept what he offers at face value without a single source presented to back him? Do you consider this credible?

Secondly, if i DID give you sources that would be however many i gave you FOR my arguement against NONE for him.. what effect would this have on your opinion? ...and why?

You claim you have many sources to back you and that you can (but are not willing from your previous posting) to offer them. That's perfectly OK by me. You can claim anything you please. ;)

You then pose 2 questions to me:

1) I do not accept what Professor Ehrman has offered at face value. I intend to read his book, and see if he has presented evidence to support his claims. I have heard his lecture and I asked the question here (OP) to get a read on the differing perspectives. Specifically, Professor Ehrman gave one concrete example. He claimed that John 7 and 8 are wholesale additions to the original John, and the story of the woman caught in adultery was not present in earlier than 10th century versions of John. That is a big claim that I have not heard refuted by anyone here yet.

2) Your sources will be scrutinized by me, in the same manner I intend to scrutinize his book and his sources. I am not prepared to formulate my opinion now without having more information either way. However, you are free to keep your sources to yourself. I have no problems with that.

Regards,

UF

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  483
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/22/2009
  • Status:  Offline

Thanks for the website references. However, I am well aware of the problems associated with ancient texts including the NT. Simply summed up, there were no xerox machines (or the like) to publish accurate copies back then. I am not looking for reliability of the bible as compared to other ancient text. I am looking for internally consistent reliability of the bible as compared to itself. I really am not concerned with minor copyist errors. I am more concerned with what has been added, deleted or changed such that the original meaning has been compromised.

One such example of a major change is what Professor Erhman pointed out in his lecture: John 7 and 8, the only place in the bible that tells of the story of the woman caught in adultery and her potential stoning. Professor Erhman claims that earlier versions of John (in Greek) do not contain this story, and only in the 10th century was it added.

The story of the woman caught in adultery, and the famous lines that were attributed to Jesus...who among you that are without sin may cast the first stone (I am paraphrasing here) is a pretty good story, and well recognized. Is it an addition that was not in the original?

If we look to his evidence, and if he can show that all the earlier versions of the bible (among the 5700) pieces that we have, do not contain this story in John, he may be right. This is a very testable thing.

Further, he claims that most biblical scholars know and accept this. Is this true? I would like to know your prespective on this example.

Regards,

UF

UF

I may have something interesting for you

This is complete with all manner of verification.

Let me give you the facts however and then direct you to my thread.

First of all, we have 3-4 types of text, but many people recognize that there are in fact 2.. i see 2 in fact.

There is evidence that the first gospels were written in aramaic, but the claims of the good Doctor here are resting on the alexandrian texts. There are approximately 45 of these texts out of around 5255. There are 2 that are somewhat complete, called the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus. Now... the good doctor is making the same false claim made by the revisioners of the new greek text, Westcott and Hort. They were in fact NOT Christians, and the evidence is that they were intent on undermining christianity. I have this documented in the Doctrinal Questions forum in a thread called 'the superiority of the kjv'

The NIV, Westcott Hort, the good Dr, ALL claim that the vaticanus and the sinaticus are the 2 most reliable manuscripts AND the oldest...

Both claims are patently false.

You can find in Wiki even, under 'text types', that the OLDEST texts are NOT the Alexandrian texts, which are the text types of the vaticanus and the sinaticus, but the WESTERN text type is definately without dout older than the alexandrian. This is verified by nearly every scholar who has ever studied them.

Then AFTER the western we have the alexandrian, which was in fact REVISED by Origin in the 3rd century.. They were in fact revised by origin to reflect his particular theology what was what we call today, unitarian universalist.

THEN we have the byzantine, or the majority texts, which make up the textus receptus.

I can show you also that the western texts and the byzantine texts are nearly identical, with the exception of a word or 2... BUT right between them we have the alexandrian. Now concerning the sinaticus and vaticanus, these manuscripts dont even contain many of the same books, both leave out several books. The truncate sentences and even entire sections. They repeat sentences, and then in places begin to repeat sentences and then move on with the rest of the text. HUNDREDS of years ago the ink faded until they were unreadable... they copied these letters but not neccessarily word for word and letter for letter. There are the notes of scribes, no less than 4 major ones, who revised the manuscripts from the 4th century to the 12th and 16th centuries respectively. There were a total of 10 that can be discerned qall together including the major 4 revisioners. There is proof that the text was changed even from Jerome around 390 AD... he so much as states so damning the alexandrian rype. one scribe in the very vaticanus himself wrote a condemnation for the changing of the texts... he was entirely hot in protest and wrote it in the very document that so many now call the most reliable...

The good doctor is in complete error and i already HAVE it documented in the thread i mention above.

Now the question remians... which would you accept... the good doctors word who provides no documentaiton for his error? Or ddocumentaiton showing that what i tell you here is true? ;)

Edited by WolfBitn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 24 2009, 03:22 PM)

The book of Acts and the testimony of the Paul testify of Jesus's resurrection.

Sorry, I meant to say beyond the bible. I take it there are no extra-biblical documents that claim to have seen a resurrected Jesus?

Even if there are not, that still does not make the Bible's claims untrue.

Hmmm, somehow your argument does not make sense to me. It appears you are saying that if the tomb was empty, and no one could produce his body, then Jesus was indeed resurrected. There are so many alternatives that can explain the empty tomb and the failure of producing his body, that will lead to non-resurrection. One of which is that relatives of Jesus raided the tomb, and removed the body to be buried elsewhere.

For one thing, that shows a great lack of understanding of Jewish culture, particularly as it relates to how dead bodies were handled.

The alternatives especially the one you cite in particular fail to take into account the fact that the tomb was sealed with a Roman seal to prevent just such a raid and to break that seal would bring the penalty of death. Not to mention the fact that a 16-man Roman guard was stationed to prevent the very scenario you describe. The religious authorities were afraid of a grave robbery and they petitioned Pontius Pilate to seal up the tomb and prevent anyone from stealing the body of Jesus and claiming he had been ressurrected. The Roman seal consisted of an iron bracket that was placed across the stone that covered the entrance and the end of the bracket on either side of the stone was hammered into the face of the tomb making it impossible for the stone to moved unless you had the tools to remove the bracket.

Further, the disciples of Jesus were in hiding prior to his resurrection. They were afraid of being hunted down and suffering the same fate as Jesus by being crucified. They were fearful for their lives and were paralyzed with fear as they waited for a safe opportunity to be seen in public.

The last thing they would have done is run out into the streets to fabricate a resurrection. They certainly were not going to show up at the tomb and try to best the Roman guards, and break the seal in order to steal the Body.

You may see that as evidence, but I do not consider that so. Failure to produce a corpse is not evidence of resurrection.
In this case, it would be strong evidence given that it been less than 2 months since Jesus death. It would have been no problem for their enemies to produce the corpse given surrounding circumstances. There is a lot of interplay here with Jewish traditions that you are not aware of, that make it very strong evidence for a resurrection.

People who do not die for lies they created is not evidence that any book of writings is true.
It is evidence that the apostles are not lying or making up a story particularly when holding to the story is more dangerous and life-threatening than just caving in and claiming they made the whole thing up.

You are trying to downplay and dismiss the obvious fact that the apostles all have a consistent testimony that they have seen Jesus alive and that something happened to change them from fearing death, to being willing face not only death but torture and imprisonment as well. The fact that they were so dramatically transformed 180 degrees opposite of what they were, is evidence that they had a very significant and important encounter to cause such a change, and according to them, it was Jesus' resurrection.

The entire New Testament is founded on that testimony. It is founded the eyewitness testimony to the resurrected Christ. Without the resurrection, there would have been no New Testament. The resurrection of Jesus is the lynch pin for the entire Christian faith. So the fact that the apostles were willing to die for their testimony that Jesus was alive and the fact that the New Testament is founded on that testimony of eyewitness demonstrates a very strong evidentiary basis for accuracy and veracity of the NT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  483
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/22/2009
  • Status:  Offline

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 24 2009, 03:22 PM)

The book of Acts and the testimony of the Paul testify of Jesus's resurrection.

Sorry, I meant to say beyond the bible. I take it there are no extra-biblical documents that claim to have seen a resurrected Jesus?

Even if there are not, that still does not make the Bible's claims untrue.

actually there is extrabiblical evidence and testimony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  16
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,063
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   15
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/02/2004
  • Status:  Offline

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

UF

I may have something interesting for you

This is complete with all manner of verification.

Let me give you the facts however and then direct you to my thread.

First of all, we have 3-4 types of text, but many people recognize that there are in fact 2.. i see 2 in fact.

There is evidence that the first gospels were written in aramaic, but the claims of the good Doctor here are resting on the alexandrian texts. There are approximately 45 of these texts out of around 5255. There are 2 that are somewhat complete, called the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus. Now... the good doctor is making the same false claim made by the revisioners of the new greek text, Westcott and Hort. They were in fact NOT Christians, and the evidence is that they were intent on undermining christianity. I have this documented in the Doctrinal Questions forum in a thread called 'the superiority of the kjv'

The NIV, Westcott Hort, the good Dr, ALL claim that the vaticanus and the sinaticus are the 2 most reliable manuscripts AND the oldest...

Both claims are patently false.

You can find in Wiki even, under 'text types', that the OLDEST texts are NOT the Alexandrian texts, which are the text types of the vaticanus and the sinaticus, but the WESTERN text type is definately without dout older than the alexandrian. This is verified by nearly every scholar who has ever studied them.

Then AFTER the western we have the alexandrian, which was in fact REVISED by Origin in the 3rd century.. They were in fact revised by origin to reflect his particular theology what was what we call today, unitarian universalist.

THEN we have the byzantine, or the majority texts, which make up the textus receptus.

I can show you also that the western texts and the byzantine texts are nearly identical, with the exception of a word or 2... BUT right between them we have the alexandrian. Now concerning the sinaticus and vaticanus, these manuscripts dont even contain many of the same books, both leave out several books. The truncate sentences and even entire sections. They repeat sentences, and then in places begin to repeat sentences and then move on with the rest of the text. HUNDREDS of years ago the ink faded until they were unreadable... they copied these letters but not neccessarily word for word and letter for letter. There are the notes of scribes, no less than 4 major ones, who revised the manuscripts from the 4th century to the 12th and 16th centuries respectively. There were a total of 10 that can be discerned qall together including the major 4 revisioners. There is proof that the text was changed even from Jerome around 390 AD... he so much as states so damning the alexandrian rype. one scribe in the very vaticanus himself wrote a condemnation for the changing of the texts... he was entirely hot in protest and wrote it in the very document that so many now call the most reliable...

The good doctor is in complete error and i already HAVE it documented in the thread i mention above.

Now the question remians... which would you accept... the good doctors word who provides no documentaiton for his error? Or ddocumentaiton showing that what i tell you here is true? :laugh:

Dear Wolfbitn,

Thank you for your long response above.

I will look into your other thread. However, you did not address my one example. Do you think that the references in John 7 and 8 regarding the parable of the woman caught in adultery as a 10th century insertion or part of the original John? Clearly Professor Ehrman claims the former. From your response above, it was not clear to me what your position is.

I have ordered Professor Ehrman's book, and I will be reading it with great scrutiny (including his source materials). I will also read what you have to say with great scrutiny (including your source materials). I will also do some independent research to verify and validate each claim.

Regards,

UF

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  16
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,063
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   15
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/02/2004
  • Status:  Offline

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear shiloh357,

Thank you for your responses.

Even if there are not, that still does not make the Bible's claims untrue.

Nor does it make the bible's claim true.

For one thing, that shows a great lack of understanding of Jewish culture, particularly as it relates to how dead bodies were handled.

My understanding or lack of understanding of jewish culture has nothing to do with the true statement that failure to produce a corpse is not evidence for resurrection. Is failure to produce Lao Tzu's corpse evidence that he dematerialized from this world and joined the Tao? I think not.

It is evidence that the apostles are not lying or making up a story particularly when holding to the story is more dangerous and life-threatening than just caving in and claiming they made the whole thing up.

Sorry, your assertion that it is evidence does not make it so. Joe Smith wrote down stories that is now part of the BoM. Clearly it was dangerous to do so in the environment he was living in. Does it make his stories true? I think not.

Regards,

UF

Edited by UndecidedFrog
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  16
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,063
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   15
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  08/02/2004
  • Status:  Offline

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 24 2009, 03:22 PM)

The book of Acts and the testimony of the Paul testify of Jesus's resurrection.

Sorry, I meant to say beyond the bible. I take it there are no extra-biblical documents that claim to have seen a resurrected Jesus?

Even if there are not, that still does not make the Bible's claims untrue.

actually there is extrabiblical evidence and testimony

Dear WolfBitn,

Thank you for your response to my comments to shiloh357.

If you claim to have extrabiblical evidence, I should like to examine them, one at a time. With each, we should determine:

1) the time of the writing to determine if it is contemporaneous to the time of the events written about.

2) the comparison of the writing to other writings by the same author.

3) whether the writing is a primary source or (at best) secondary hearsay.

Regards,

UF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • You are coming up higher in this season – above the assignments of character assassination and verbal arrows sent to manage you, contain you, and derail your purpose. Where you have had your dreams and sleep robbed, as well as your peace and clarity robbed – leaving you feeling foggy, confused, and heavy – God is, right now, bringing freedom back -- now you will clearly see the smoke and mirrors that were set to distract you and you will disengage.

      Right now God is declaring a "no access zone" around you, and your enemies will no longer have any entry point into your life. Oil is being poured over you to restore the years that the locust ate and give you back your passion. This is where you will feel a fresh roar begin to erupt from your inner being, and a call to leave the trenches behind and begin your odyssey in your Christ calling moving you to bear fruit that remains as you minister to and disciple others into their Christ identity.

      This is where you leave the trenches and scale the mountain to fight from a different place, from victory, from peace, and from rest. Now watch as God leads you up higher above all the noise, above all the chaos, and shows you where you have been seated all along with Him in heavenly places where you are UNTOUCHABLE. This is where you leave the soul fight, and the mind battle, and learn to fight differently.

      You will know how to live like an eagle and lead others to the same place of safety and protection that God led you to, which broke you out of the silent prison you were in. Put your war boots on and get ready to fight back! Refuse to lay down -- get out of bed and rebuke what is coming at you. Remember where you are seated and live from that place.

      Acts 1:8 - “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth.”

       

      ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 1 reply
    • George Whitten, the visionary behind Worthy Ministries and Worthy News, explores the timing of the Simchat Torah War in Israel. Is this a water-breaking moment? Does the timing of the conflict on October 7 with Hamas signify something more significant on the horizon?

       



      This was a message delivered at Eitz Chaim Congregation in Dallas Texas on February 3, 2024.

      To sign up for our Worthy Brief -- https://worthybrief.com

      Be sure to keep up to date with world events from a Christian perspective by visiting Worthy News -- https://www.worthynews.com

      Visit our live blogging channel on Telegram -- https://t.me/worthywatch
      • 0 replies
    • Understanding the Enemy!

      I thought I write about the flip side of a topic, and how to recognize the attempts of the enemy to destroy lives and how you can walk in His victory!

      For the Apostle Paul taught us not to be ignorant of enemy's tactics and strategies.

      2 Corinthians 2:112  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. 

      So often, we can learn lessons by learning and playing "devil's" advocate.  When we read this passage,

      Mar 3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
      Mar 3:27  No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strongman; and then he will spoil his house. 

      Here we learn a lesson that in order to plunder one's house you must first BIND up the strongman.  While we realize in this particular passage this is referring to God binding up the strongman (Satan) and this is how Satan's house is plundered.  But if you carefully analyze the enemy -- you realize that he uses the same tactics on us!  Your house cannot be plundered -- unless you are first bound.   And then Satan can plunder your house!

      ... read more
        • Oy Vey!
        • Praise God!
        • Thanks
        • Well Said!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 231 replies
    • Daniel: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 3

      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this study, I'll be focusing on Daniel and his picture of the resurrection and its connection with Yeshua (Jesus). 

      ... read more
        • Praise God!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 13 replies
    • Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2
      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this series the next obvious sign of the resurrection in the Old Testament is the sign of Isaac and Abraham.

      Gen 22:1  After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
      Gen 22:2  He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

      So God "tests" Abraham and as a perfect picture of the coming sacrifice of God's only begotten Son (Yeshua - Jesus) God instructs Issac to go and sacrifice his son, Issac.  Where does he say to offer him?  On Moriah -- the exact location of the Temple Mount.

      ...read more
        • Well Said!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 20 replies

×
×
  • Create New...