All Comments (36)

TO REALIST:

You wrote, "Ask yourself what is the purpose of hell?"

We are responsible for our actions and even tho it may seem that some people may get away with things here on this planet by buying their way out of consequences or various other ways, so to speak, no one really does.

Hell is the Divine Justice that will be dealt out, hell does not last forever tho and that is what a lot of people that call themselves 'christian' really get upset about.

Hell, by the way, is custom made by the person that goes to it and they will know that they have no one to blame but themself.

The way that I put it is hell lasts for eternity but not forever, the dawning of the seventh day will get here.

There are also people that do not believe in an afterlife that also wishes hell would last forever, for the other person that is.

Some of those that call themselves 'christian' on these posts want a hell that lasts forever,[for the other person] but they want Divine Mercy and Mercy alone for themselves, mighty 'christian' of them, don't you think?

Whether you like it or not, we all answer for what we do and there will be some that don't believe at all in God and will be very pleasantly surprised from the get go upon physical death and others that do believe in God and even know His Name and will be, to put it mildly, unpleasantly surprised.

Ultimately, we will all be in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

It doesn't matter to me what anyone believes or doesn't believe but if anyone would be thankful to the putrid, spiteful, egotistical, revengeful piece of garbage that some people, [that know God's Name], think that He Is, then I feel sorry for them.

There is more to reality than what we perceive by the senses and I thank God that God is nothing like what some of the people that call themselves 'christian' think that God is.

You also wrote, " Who or what does it benefit?"

It benefits the person that built it for themself to experience that their actions meant something.

It seems like so much that Jesus taught has been so twisted by some of the people that call themselves 'christian' so as to be unrecognisable.

You also wrote, "I reserve my love for human beings. I prefer to have relationships with real people.", this is what Jesus taught but He also taught things such as "Love your enemies", "Judge not", "Forgive indefinitely" among other things which the apostles referred to as "hard sayings" which you would be hard pressed to realize from some of the 'christian' postings, true or not?

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum wrote:
"By the way, God is a Being of Pure Love and is a Trinity, God-Incarnate was a Man, a Jewish Man."

"One day, all will know that LOVE is not an attribute of God but Is God."

The idea of the trinity is a nonsensical invention of the Catholic church.

Love is nature's way of getting us to reproduce and stay together long enough for our children to survive on their own. It's also pretty good at motivating extended familiy units to support each other, thus increasing our collective ability to survive and reproduce.

One day we will know so much about how our brain works that we will all know that love is a biological phenomenon.

BTW it does not in any way lessen the love that I feel for my family to know that love is a natural phenomena and does not require any kind of supernatural explanation.

I reserve my love for human beings. I prefer to have relationships with real people.

God does not need our love, and if what the Bible says is true (and, fortunately, at least much of it certainly is not) I don't think He (or It) deserves our love either. Ask yourself what is the purpose of hell? Who or what does it benefit?

A loving, responsible parent does not leave a curious child alone next to a fire. This is exactly what the Bible claims God has done with humankind.

The God described in the Bible seems to revel in suffering and death, and then makes the hypocritical claim that It loves us. Sorry Thomas, but I don't buy it.

Regards,
Realist

One thing that you can say about the Man named "Jesus of Nazareth", [Who is King of the Jews, and Is God-Incarnate], being spoken about, is that it sure does upset some people, does it not?

I, for one, am glad that when the Holy Spirit came into my body, He revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus and this is exactly what Jesus said and it is reported in the Gospel, which means "Good News" by the way, and when He said this many people walked away, since this seemed like such an outlandish thing to say, to put it mildly.

In the Old Testament, God fed the Israelites in the desert with manna and now God feeds us in this desert of sin with His Very Self.

By the way, God is a Being of Pure Love and is a Trinity, God-Incarnate was a Man, a Jewish Man.

One day, all will know that LOVE is not an attribute of God but Is God.

And that God-Incarnate is LOVE-INCARNATE.

I repeat: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Take care, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Great post Fate! You make some good points.

Thanks,
Realist

What Jesus spoke of was the replacement of Roman occupation and Jewish rabbinical leadership with an idealized absolute ruler in spiritual form, uncorruptable. We have seen idealized governments played out many times, in Germany, in Russia and China, all of which truly believed they were creating idealized societies. Has anyone considered that if Jesus had turned Rome into the christian society it eventually became during his lifetime, His leadership would have been demanded and He likely would have been made Ceasar? Has anyone considered what He would have done to the moneychangers and others he spoke ill of if He had the powers of a government? One thing we know today, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and whether you believe Jesus was the son of God or not, there is no question that he was a man, a human, with all of our human failings. If He had become Ceasar He would have become corrupt, no doubt, since all men become corrupt with absolute power. And if He were here today, looking at our democracy, our freedoms, our ability to elect and in certain circumstances, remove our leaders, he would not and could not understand it, for His world was one of occupation, oppression, absolute authorities and no freedoms, which it seems clear is why a benevolebt dictator was all He could imagine as a better solution to what He lived under.

But today we need to consider, is a benevolent dictator, one who is said to have destroyed whole cities and encouraged Hebrew wars of aggression, destroyed almost all life on earth, is that the benevolent dictator we pray for? Or should we support democracy and the rule of law, for of all the kingdoms and governments that came before, democracy has shown itself to be the most peaceful of societies with the most freedoms. One would think Jesus would speak well of democracy if He were here today, yet there is no mention even of the concept of democracy in Jesus' teachings, instead just the benevolent dictator coming to make it all better.

John 6:15 -- Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

Mt 22:17-22

Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the tax." And they brought him a coin. And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said, "Caesar’s." Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." When they heard it, they marveled; and they left him and went away.

Moderate and Ken,

We still await your proof that "The Jesus seminar that made them famous (and determined that 30% of his attributed sayings were actually spoken by Jesus) has been widely exposed by serious scholars as a publicity stunt with a methodology jury-rigged to arrive at their wanted results."

The two of you are not scholars.

Dear Ken,

"The Jesus seminar that made them famous (and determined that 30% of his attributed sayings were actually spoken by Jesus) has been widely exposed by serious scholars as a publicity stunt with a methodology jury-rigged to arrive at their wanted results."

Quite So.

A good book on the subject is "Hidden Gospels" by Philip Jenkins. Oxford University Press. It explains the Jesus Seminar.

Shell Script:

"We anxiously await for the historical Jesus experts like Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen to give their input."

YOU await. WE do not.

Realist,

Your comments have been echoed by many as noted below:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Jesus, real or myth, does not make a whole lot of difference because after you strip away the embellishments there is not much left anyway.

As usual..a stupid comment by Cal Thomas.

Concerned,
The standards of evidence accepted by Christians for many historical claims about Jesus are much lower than what historians would normally accept about any other historical figure.

To prove that a historical figure existed, you would at least want to find a written reference by someone who actually met the person. Failing that, you might accept several references by people who documented testimony by people who actually knew the person. I would want to know at least the name of one person who met them and what their relationship to the person was.

Christians always say references by Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny provide historical proof that Jesus was a real person.

Firstly Tacitus and Pliny did not live at the time of Jesus. Tacitus only mentions Jesus' followers. Obviously there were Christians around in the 1st century. Nobody disputes that. Pliny, in a letter to the Emperor Trajan asks how to handle people caught in a witch hunt and accused of the crime of being Christian. This was around the year 112 CE. This just proves again that there were Christians at year 100 CE. Nobody disputes that.

The passage from Josephus that Christians refer to was almost certainly added later or haevily edited.
See http://roman-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/pliny_tacitus_josephus_and_jesus
for example, to get an idea of how little real evidence there is for the existence of Jesus.

From Wikipedia:
In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree."

Nearly all of our knowledge of the details of Jesus life come from the gospels. Historians believe these were written much later (at least 40 years and more likely 100 to 150 year later) than the events they describe. Nobody know who wrote the gospels. Nobody knows their names or anything about them. Many Christians believe as I did when I was a kid that the gospels were written by Jesus disciples, but this is not true and is not in dispute by historians.

From Wikipedia:
The solution most commonly held in academia today is the two-source hypothesis, which posits that Mark and a hypothetical 2nd source, called the Q document, were used as sources for Matthew and Luke. Other solutions, such as the Augustinian hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis, posit that Matthew was written first and that Mark was an epitome.

So the gospels are not independent accounts.

If we came across a book like one of the gospels today written 100 years after the events it describes, we would dismiss it as fantasy. I think the evidence in favour of Scientology or Mormonism or Sai Baba's divinity is much more convincing than that of Jesus miracles and divinity.

Regards,
Realist

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Yeah, I'm sure that's how it's taken. I could be wrong about that you know.

Just the thought of the Bible being proved bogus makes evangelical heads hurt. Take two Advil and keep the faith I always say. Lay down a few minutes and maybe you'll get over it.

I should read still one more of millions of rants by people who are as lost as those who wrote the Bible? I did. It's absolutely so for 10,000 scholars can't possibly be wrong. Again, honesty prompts me to notice that I could be wrong about that.

They have all those references to what each other said. I didn't notice any to the original sources of the documents they know so much about. Scholarly is probably some form of democracy where history past is determined by vote. Historical Jesus wins the election but, accoring to Cal, has some kind of problem that precludes Him from being president. Al Gore had the same problem so maybe Jesus has come again and can't be president because He's a Democrat.

B Gone,

I highly recommend reading the references cited.

And your hoax site needs some real attention. Once someone looks at it, all your commentary becomes meaningless.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Your list of Bible refs says there was a lot of different folk that saw the same thing or a lot of folk were there when it happened to witness it and all of them wrote about it. Which way was it? Were they there or did they see something? Maybe some writing somewhere, a faded picture or something?

We can discount them actually being at the trial and execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Why? Because they don't say they were there do they? They say everything else but not that they witnessed it. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all four could be Apostles but they don't say that either do they? And the followers of Jesus all ran away anyhow so they wouldn't have been at Golgotha?

All that duplicate writing makes no sense at all unless there was ONE original document of some kind that all those authors used like a Physics writer uses the same formulas in his books that all others used. There was just ONE original formula. There must have been just ONE original document from which the Jesus etc stories come.

Where did the Jews get the notion they are the chosen people of God? Where did the Moses tale come from? That writing does not identify it's authors as having been there either. Where did they get the story to write it?

Why is the Bible the INSPIRED word of God and not the word or God? The people who wrote those stories all looked at the same unreadable writing on the wall and did a lot of guessing about what it said. And they disputed each others findings too. But the religious authorities settled all disputes and destroyed the work of those who got it wrong.

There was just ONE story and nothing nearly as complicated as the Bible makes it out to be. Those complications come from laying end to end and patching together different misreadings of just ONE story. The same story is repeated piecemeal over and over with only the names and sequences of the actions changing.

The actions are all the same. Moses killed somebody and left Egypt... Jesus threw the money changers out and got arrested, tried, convicted and put to the cross. Put to the cross the Gospel writers said, then it must have been a crucifixion. Only the stupid believe one dies by the Roman crucifixion in 3 hours -they got the time to die on the Egyptian cross straight.

There was ONE original story but, like you said it got told a lot. Odd how none of those story tellers were eyewitnesses and how the don't give us any references. Must have mused at the ceiling and thought the same story up separately and together like but not exactly. Close enough for religious work with a little help from the religious authorities.

http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 has the original story form which the Bible stories originated. I doubt that story is perfect but it's a lot closer to the truth by light years than the Bible. Both the Torah and the Bible waere concocted using the same guesses at what the unreadable writing on the wall said -with many duplications, names of people and places changed but not the action.

That Hoax Buster fellows poor communication skills does not make what he found wrong. Reading his stuff is no worse than reading the Bible. It's like panning for gold -mostly gravel is what you get but then there are those shiny specks that are worth a fortune.

Actually Realist there is significant evidence as to Jesus' existence:

Besides the Josephus references (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html), NT exegetes use the following attestations to Jesus' crucifixion as proof he existed.

Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.-

Were these stories embellished? Yes, but the crucifixion is consistent in each passage.

The Jesus Seminar after reviewing all the scriptural and non-scriptural documents from the time period, voted red (the event occurred) as follows:

Jesus was crucified

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Jesus was crucified with the participation of the highest Jewish authorities

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem

Jesus was crucified at Golgotha

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be. The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened. While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Professor Crossan's book, Who was Jesus?, was written unencumbered by pages of supporting references for a audience of non-specialists.
See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at http://books.google.com/books?id=AsPHR4-7Wc8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22place+of+life%22+%22the+historical+jesus%22+crossan&source=web&ots=8mVx_1M6g4&sig=XFqT8S1coAT18xq8Qwt1vMcMjW0

There is also a search engine for this book on the right hand side of the opening page. e.g. Search Josephus

(Warning, the online book is not complete).

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

Garyd wrote:
"Realist Jesus lived pre-printing press. We have more evidence for Jesus than we do the overwhelming Majority of almost any of his contemporaries of his contemporaries or for that matter most everyone prior to around 1500."

Gary, that's complete nonsense! Do some reading! Read what people who have actually studied the historical evidence write, not Christian propaganda on Christian web sites.

Concerned has provided numerous references.
You could start with something lighter like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Regards,
Realist.

Realist:

There's a few details of the life of the real Jesus that survive today, fortunately or unfortunately as one sees it.

If you care for those details, http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 In case you don't care to look here's a couple of verified things Jesus did. She chased the money changers out of the temple and she took a measly 3 hours to die on the cross -a record for being crucified by the Romans who insisted that anything short of a week was a complete failure. The ancient Egyptians were somewhat more civilized.

Not mentioned in the Gospels is the fact that Jesus was a woman with both a wife and a harem. She didn't cotton to the old law -probably the part about the ban on men laying with men but then it says nothing about women laying with women.

Those who believe she truly was the son of God can anxiously await her return. As a child of the sun she will surely rise again from the dead like her father does every day.

As for Cal's lengthy essay, seems like there's a crack in his pot of establishing the kingdom of God run by the big shot evangelical con man, right here and right now. Cal, that's certainly out of this world -just moving from galaxy to galaxy I see.

Ken,

And the references to support your comment "The Jesus seminar that made them famous has been widely exposed by serious scholars as a publicity stunt with a methodology jury-rigged to arrive at their wanted results." are ???????

I am aware of only three. See the list below for various "takes" on the historic Jesus:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ

Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past

Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero

Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary

Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage

John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit

Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change

Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior

Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright

Cal:

I love your posts. Most people, especially atheists, look at these short replies and call you all sorts of names. But, in reality, these are some of the most wise statements I have ever heard. Usually I would criticize people for giving an answer like to to a hypothetical question. Hypothetical questions are almost always EXTREMELY unlikely to happen, and sometimes even impossible. But that is what makes it hypothetical. But, taking something spiritual and trying to make it earthly makes no sense. Jesus came to save those who were lost. He came to love us no matter what we have done. And he ultimately came to die for our sins. Running a political office would go against everything He stands for. So again, thanks!

For those who care:

Jesus is not a myth or a fictional character. Christianity is not a illusion or a fantasy world. There is more evidence to support Jesus and His claims that to support Shakespeare's. It is also more likely that the Bible is better preserved than Shakespeare's writings that are taught in every school in America! If you want facts, heres a book to read..."The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. This book has been written and comprised by 50 different individuals that range from professors from Harvard to engineers from MIT. If anyone is truly searching for facts, and are capable of putting aside their bias and will allow themselves to be proven wrong if necessary, this is a great book to read for any real thinker.

God bless!!!

"We anxiously await for the historical Jesus experts like Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen to give their input."

Why? The Jesus seminar that made them famous (and determined that 30% of his attributed sayings were actually spoken by Jesus) has been widely exposed by serious scholars as a publicity stunt with a methodology jury-rigged to arrive at their wanted results.

All have done some serious scholarship but steadfastly refuse to think historically about the Gospels because they would have to forswear their pet theories. N.T. Wright, who also contributes to this blog, has effectively debated them in various books. He does think historically and has already commented on this topic.

That question of whether Jesus would run as a Republican or a Democrat would be known by whoever party sits in the White House after WW3. By that time, all idiots of the world would have been extinguised including those in America.

Whoever stands in the White House after the war, that I presume would be the true party of Jesus Christ.

But the prophecies tell that it's mostly democratic states which would be burned. With all the democratics states burned down, that leaves the Republican Party to rule the earth.

Jacques Berlinerblau and Susan Jacoby are democrats. Would you think God would spare these two idiots and their kind? Without much knowledge of the Bible, anybody on his right mind knows it's the Republican Party God favors.

Levent,

Your continued gibberish which no one reads oozes and bubbles with the stench of Islam.

Realist Jesus lived pre-printing press. We have more evidence for Jesus than we do the overwhelming Majority of almost any of his contemporaries of his contemporaries or for that matter most everyone prior to around 1500.

Levant,
If religion did that to your mind, I'm glad I gave it up.

Take your medication!
Realist

Dear Mr Thomas

That was the shortest and 'rightest' answer: Jesus wouldn't be running because His kingdom is not of this world.

But it is still wonderful to have politicians who are inspired by His commands and will make an attempt, in whatever imperfect way, to bring God's kingdom on earth by translating the commands of Jesus into real policy. Only politicians have the power to affect a whole country like that. The US as a superpower can affect the whole world.

It is my prayer that the Americans will choose a President that God has in mind for the US and the world. May every American listen to the still small voice of God in their hearts before making up their mind and casting their vote.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Richard,
Study you history!

Jesus is mostly a fictional character. There are very few details of the life of the real Jesus that surive today.

You can live in the real world and do real things to help real people in this life instead of wasting the only real life you know about living in a fantasy world.

Regards,
Realist

Jesus is already Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that, either now,voluntarily or later,after death, as it is appointed once for man to die, then the judgement. Jesus wins!

That Mr. Thomas is a cop out. The peace makers or the war mongers. YOU SIR KNOW THE ANSWER.

"For He is the living G_d and He endures forever;
His kingdom will not be destroyed, His dominion will never end."

Hallelujah, Hallelujah!
For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth

The kingdom of this world is become
The kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ.

And He shall reign forever and ever

King of Kings
Forever and ever
And Lord of Lords
Hallelujah, Hallelujah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abcgpn2UTV8

But of Course Mr. Thomas. The whole problem with this question is that it is worthy of only of that newest of cliches "Well Duhhhh!!!"

We anxiously await for the historical Jesus experts like Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen to give their input.

Two of the embellished Jesus'reps (Preacher Huck and Mormonizing Milt) have not fared well so one could conclude that the historic Jesus would not do well either as a politician. Labels like "illterate" peasant and mamzer also would not help his cause.

JJ,

Quit spamming please!

absolutely. Jesus' realm and interest is heavenly not earthly. Jesus would not compromise or try to be a "consensus builder." in other words, he would be an awful politician.

Well, now there's a smarmy answer. Nice weasel there.

Gods, the man finally got that bit. :)

Now apply it broadly. :)