# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had two children?

## navy-vet

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-christs-life/

----------


## navy-vet

I suppose that the validity of this claim, is dependent on the verification of authenticity of the materials and author.
I am perplexed at the thought of people walking among us with the genes of Christ.

----------


## navy-vet

It makes perfect sense to me that Jesus and his followers would be concerned as to the welfare of Magdalene and the children. I mean, it makes sense that they would protect them from the enemies of the Lord doesn't it?
Assuming of course that this is true.

----------


## CPUd

The sketchy part is that it doesn't mention them directly, it is claimed to be some kind of code.

----------


## William Tell

> As the Washington Post noted, the text, known as the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias Rhetor, was purchased in 1847 from an Egyptian monastery and brought to the British Museum. Scholars believed it to be insignificant, though Wilson and Jacobovic have apparently come to a very different conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> The text, they claim, was written in a code of sorts. Rather  than naming Jesus and Mary Magdalene directly, it focuses on a man named  Joseph and his wife Aseneth, who, according to Wilson and Jacobovic, strike a resemblance to the aforementioned biblical characters


Umkay?

----------


## navy-vet

I liked this comment from someone which makes sense to me:
AND just for all those fundamentalist thumpers and atheist haters out there…
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THINKING JESUS WAS MARRIED!
He was a 30 year old man for gawd sakes…men at the time period were married by 18-20 to 13-14 year old maidens… HELLO…Mary was 13-16 when she was betrothed to Joseph who was in his early 20′s..NOTHING CREEPY about it..just the CULTURE of the time because most people DIED by 40…
and I will take the MATURITY of a young teen 2000 years ago over the adulthood and maturity of most late 20′s/early 30 somethings today…
So..YES..we know that Jesus had brothers and sisters..Bible says so several times ( and I am a RCC and ADMIT this..it is biblical fact)..so what..doesn’t change the story of his Life and Ministry….
Was Jesus married – MAYBE – also doesn’t change the story of his Life and Ministry…BIG DEAL if he was…historical context would suggest OF COURSE he was…and being the OLDEST child of Mary, she lived with him and his wife and children (if there were any – probably but there is NO text that speaks of this ANYWHERE specifically – only eluded to by pieces out of context by authors??? like Dan Brown..)
Does ANY true Christian think it would be out of his character to find a woman that was a sinner, forgive her, minister to her, and after she dedicated herself to following him, fall in Love with her and she with him?
the whole Bride of Christ being the Church is a MARRIAGE METAPHOR!!
He used them A LOT!!

----------


## jmdrake

> I liked this comment from someone which makes sense to me:
> the whole Bride of Christ being the Church is a MARRIAGE METAPHOR!!
> He used them A LOT!!


Well we had a long discussion earlier about whether or not the "this is my body and my blood" was metaphor or literal so.......

That said, it seems kind of odd that Christianity would be focused on Jesus and yet all the gospels ignored His physical progeny.

----------


## navy-vet

> Umkay?


Yeah, I agree that this isn't definitive proof...

----------


## Ronin Truth

YouTube or it didn't happen.

* "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."*

----------


## Kevin007

simple answer, no.



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdro...real-evidence/

----------


## RJB

> YouTube or it didn't happen.
> 
> * "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."*


Or a google bomb.

----------


## Sola_Fide

No.  This is a myth that is popular in Morminism.  Remember,  in Morminism,  one cannot attain to the highest levels of godhood without having a family...so this is where they have to stuff this myth in.

----------


## dannno

//

----------


## Sola_Fide

> //


Yes it is.  Several founding latter day saints believed Jesus was married, including Joseph Feilding Smith.  Many latter day saints believe it today.

----------


## dannno

> Yes it is.  Several founding latter day saints believed Jesus was married, including Joseph Feilding Smith.  Many latter day saints believe it today.


Ya you're right, it has been mentioned but it is not part of the generally taught doctrine, it is just something that has been extrapolated by some church leaders. So I wouldn't say it is a "popular" myth within Mormonism.

----------


## Jamesiv1

Jesus could have married Mary when he was 16 or 17, Mary being 13 or 14.... Had a couple of kids which would be 12 or 13 by the time Jesus was 30 years old. He could have then retired from married life and taken sanyasa (renounced monk) as he began his ministry.

The gospels don't say much at all about Jesus' life prior to his ministry - so if he did have a family, I wouldn't expect to see that in there, either.

Me... I think he probably married Mary and had his kids after the crucifixion - but that might be just me.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus could have married Mary when he was 16 or 17, Mary being 13 or 14.... Had a couple of kids which would be 12 or 13 by the time Jesus was 30 years old. He could have then retired from married life and become sanyasa (renounced monk) as he began his ministry.
> 
> The gospels don't say much at all about Jesus' life prior to his ministry - so if did have a family, I wouldn't expect to see that in there, either.
> 
> Me... I think he probably married Mary and had his kids after the 'staged' resurrection - but that might be just me


You think huh?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> You think huh?


Just because the resurrection was staged doesn't mean you are no longer a Christian, SF.

You can still embrace your faith and live a good, Christian life.  Some might experience a "crisis of faith" but it doesn't have to be that way.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just because the resurrection was staged doesn't mean you are is no longer a Christian, SF.
> 
> You can still embrace your faith and live a good, Christian life.  Some might experience a "crisis of faith" but it doesn't have to be that way.


The resurrection was staged?  Source?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No.  This is a myth that is popular in Morminism.  Remember,  in Morminism,  one cannot attain to the highest levels of godhood without having a family...so this is where they have to stuff this myth in.


True.  There are also serious theological problems with the idea of Jesus having children, if you even think about it for half a second.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> The resurrection was staged?  Source?


"Jesus Lived in India: His Unknown Life Before And After the Crucifixion" by Holger Kersten

Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Lived-In.../dp/0143028294

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "Jesus Lived in India: His Unknown Life Before And After the Crucifixion" by Holger Kersten
> 
> Amazon:
> http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Lived-In.../dp/0143028294


Since I'm not going read that book, could you explain to me how he came to that conclusion?

----------


## anaconda

The Ring of Power video made an intriguing case that Jesus was a son of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra.

(the obnoxious music at the beginning is only for the first 18 seconds )...

----------


## otherone

> Since I'm not going read that book, could you explain to me how he came to that conclusion?


In the forward he writes he was enlightened by a flash of light on the road to Damascus.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Since I'm not going read that book, could you explain to me how he came to that conclusion?


C'mon, Sola... read it. It's well-researched and very compelling.  Even if half of it is bull$#@! it's still a lot to consider.

$8 bucks at Amazon - cheap.  Heck, I'll buy you one if you promise you will read it. Just tell me where to ship it (you can PM me if you want)

----------


## Sola_Fide

There all kinds of wacky things coming out about Jesus in our postmodern secular world.  I was hoping someone would offer an argument on the boards so everyone could see both sides of the argument.  Any takers?

----------


## otherone

> There all kinds of wacky things coming out about Jesus in our postmodern secular world.


Lots more in the wacky ancient Christian world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Lots more in the wacky ancient Christian world.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies


Yeah.  There have been all kinds of unbiblical things that religious people have come up with over the years.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> There all kinds of wacky things coming out about Jesus in our postmodern secular world.  I was hoping someone would offer an argument on the boards so everyone could see both sides of the argument.  Any takers?


"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”  - William Paley

It's a well-written piece of research - with footnotes.

Don't be a chicken.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”  - William Paley
> 
> It's a well-written piece of research - with footnotes.
> 
> Don't be a chicken.



So I gather that you don't even know what's in the book.  Do you?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> So I gather that you don't even know what's in the book.  Do you?


I've read it three times - one of my favorites. I've shared it with several friends, and I get bummed out when it's not returned in a timely manner.  So I've started giving it instead of loaning it lol

Here's a good synopsis:

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Or a google bomb.


Those often seem pretty extraordinary to me, even when they're not definitive.

----------


## RJB

> Those often seem pretty extraordinary to me, even when they're not definitive.


I understand where you're coming from.   You are trying to get a conversation with those google bombs.  

I also like your sense of humor.  That remark above was meant in jest, not an insult.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I understand where you're coming from. You are trying to get a conversation with those google bombs. 
> 
> I also like your sense of humor. That remark above was meant in jest, not an insult.



I usually tend to view it as just tossing more logs on the fires.  

Jest taken, you can't insult me without my permission.

----------


## Ender

> Yeah.  There have been all kinds of unbiblical things that religious people have come up with over the years.


Well, the first thing is that the Bible as we know it was formed by the Nicene Creed under Constantine, who was known to be a pagan. Books they didn't care for were thrown out. So those other books that were taken out by MEN don't have any truth? Do you really believe that only the Bible, which was put together by men, has the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Secondly, it would have been very unusual for Jesus not to have been married- this would have been mentioned.

Third, His name was never Jesus- it was Yeshua or Joshua. Jesus is a Greek name.

Fourth, Mary Magdalene's reputation was destroyed by early Popes because of the fear that her children were really the progeny of Christ. She was said to be the adulterous woman in the NT- there is no proof of that.

Fifth, the family of Jesus is said to have first been in Wales. The English throne is supposed to be held until the coming of Christ, then it is turned over to Him. The "Prince of Wales" is in deference to that, even when the Brits conquered Wales.

Sixth- do you have any kids? If you did, it might help you to understand the Love of God a bit better.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, the first thing is that the Bible as we know it was formed by the Nicene Creed under Constantine, who was known to be a pagan. Books they didn't care for were thrown out. So those other books that were taken out by MEN don't have any truth? Do you really believe that only the Bible, which was put together by men, has the whole truth and nothing but the truth?


This is a myth that has become popular by Dan Brown's work of fiction called the Da Vinci Code.  Constantine or the Council of Nicea had absolutely nothing to do with canon.  




> Secondly, it would have been very unusual for Jesus not to have been married- this would have been mentioned.


"This would have been mentioned"?  How about, if Jesus was married, it would have been recorded in Scripture.  It wasn't.




> Third, His name was never Jesus- it was Yeshua or Joshua. Jesus is a Greek name.


I'm not sure what this has to do with it.




> Fourth, Mary Magdalene's reputation was destroyed by early Popes because of the fear that her children were really the progeny of Christ. She was said to be the adulterous woman in the NT- there is no proof of that.


Where do you get that?




> Fifth, the family of Jesus is said to have first been in Wales. The English throne is supposed to be held until the coming of Christ, then it is turned over to Him. The "Prince of Wales" is in deference to that, even when the Brits conquered Wales.


Jesus is said to be an alien.  People say a lot of things.   It doesn't matter what people say, it matters what the Bible said.




> Sixth- do you have any kids? If you did, it might help you to understand the Love of God a bit better.


Yes I do, and the relationship that a Father has with his kids is not analogous to the relationship that God has with fallen man.  Man is at enmity with God, at war with him.  This doesn't parallel a loving Father/Child relationship.

----------


## pcosmar

> This is a myth that has become popular by Dan Brown's work of fiction called the Da Vinci Code.  Constantine or the Council of Nicea had absolutely nothing to do with canon.


Actually the Council of Laodicea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea  ,(for a quick reference)
And yes. they did codify Cannon. as well as a hierarchy.(rule of man)
And they removed (and actively suppressed) a lot of knowledge. of both spiritual and historic significance.

It was a great deal of error. and has and continues to affect much.. This is why I asked you if you agree with them.
But then perhaps you are just ignoring that.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Haven't I read that is part of the job of the Holy Spirit to protect the Bible from corruption by ..... whoever and whatever?

----------


## navy-vet

> Haven't I read that is part of the job of the Holy Spirit to protect the Bible from corruption by ..... whoever and whatever?


Isn't that something that was written in the book of Mormon by their prophet Joseph Smith?
My research in the NRSV of the KJ is that the holy spirit resides within all of us and guides us to the truth we seek.

----------


## Ender

> This is a myth that has become popular by Dan Brown's work of fiction called the Da Vinci Code.  Constantine or the Council of Nicea had absolutely nothing to do with canon.  
> 
> 
> 
> "This would have been mentioned"?  How about, if Jesus was married, it would have been recorded in Scripture.  It wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this has to do with it.
> ...


A little education would go a long way for your POV - my God is a loving Father- good luck with yours.

----------


## Ender

> Haven't I read that is part of the job of the Holy Spirit to protect the Bible from corruption by ..... whoever and whatever?


There are many things is the Bible that are not correct translations.

For instance, the word "witch" was never in the original scriptures. It was put in by the King James team because he hated witches. The original verse read: Suffer a murderer not to live; murderer was changed to witch.

In John it says: 

*Search the holy scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life.* Many use this as a commandment to read the scriptures.


The correct translation from the Greek says" YOU search the holy scriptures for in them you have eternal life." Jesus was talking to the Pharisees, basically saying: you search the scriptures but I'm standing right in front of you and you don't get it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> There are many things is the Bible that are not correct translations.
> 
> For instance, the word "witch" was never in the original scriptures. It was put in by the King James team because he hated witches. The original verse read: Suffer a murderer not to live; murderer was changed to witch.
> 
> In John it says: 
> 
> *Search the holy scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life.* Many use this as a commandment to read the scriptures.
> 
> 
> The correct translation from the Greek says" YOU search the holy scriptures for in them you have eternal life." Jesus was talking to the Pharisees, basically saying: you search the scriptures but I'm standing right in front of you and you don't get it.


What's your take on, "Thou shalt not kill?". I think it really means exactly what it says.  Otherwise, why does it say it?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There are many things is the Bible that are not correct translations.
> 
> For instance, the word "witch" was never in the original scriptures. It was put in by the King James team because he hated witches. The original verse read: Suffer a murderer not to live; murderer was changed to witch.
> 
> In John it says: 
> 
> *Search the holy scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life.* Many use this as a commandment to read the scriptures.
> 
> 
> The correct translation from the Greek says" YOU search the holy scriptures for in them you have eternal life." Jesus was talking to the Pharisees, basically saying: you search the scriptures but I'm standing right in front of you and you don't get it.



Neither of those examples change anything about Christianity.   There are several translations that aren't as good as others.  The great thing about today is that there are several different translations to choose from and we get to choose the one that is closest to the original Greek.

And the best thing about Christianity is that the Bible by far is the most well attested book of antiquity.  We have more texts from the Bible than any other book from antiquity and it's not even close.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What's your take on, "*Thou shalt not kill?*". I think it really means exactly what it says.  Otherwise, why does it say it?


You mean "Thou shalt not murder" (6th commandment), right?  "Thou shalt not kill" is not in the bible text.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> You mean "Thou shalt not murder" (6th commandment), right?  "Thou shalt not kill" is not in the bible text.


Whether one thinks its more accurate or not, "thou shalt not kill" is a better commandment.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You mean "Thou shalt not murder" (6th commandment), right? "Thou shalt not kill" is not in the bible text.





> Exodus 
> 19:25 So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.
> 20:1 *And God spake all these words, saying, 
> *20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
> 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
> 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 
> 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, *and keep my commandments.
> *20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
> ...


//

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> //


Common mistranslation of the Hebrew.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill




> "*You shall not murder*" (Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח _lo tirṣaḥ_) (sometimes translated as *You shall not kill* (KJV) or *Thou shalt not kill* (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
>  The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt.[2] The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.
> 
> *Retzach* The Hebrew verb רצח (_r-ṣ-ḥ_, also transliterated _retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh_  etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder"  or "kill", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing  destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces"  as well as "to slay, kill, murder".
>  According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered _retzach_,[3] but if the killing is accidental, the accused must not leave the city, or he will be considered guilty of intentional murder.[4] The Bible never uses the word _retzach_ in conjunction with war.[5][6]
>  The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb _n-k-h_  "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill". This verb is used of both an  Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the Egyptian  in retaliation in Exodus 2:11-12. The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people that commit _n-k-h_.[7][8]
>  Another verb meaning "to kill, slay, murder, destroy, ruin" is _h-r-g_, used of Cain slaying Abel in Genesis 4:8. When Cain is driven into exile, complaining that "every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, he again uses this verb (_h-r-g_).
>  The commandment against murder can be viewed as a legal issue  governing human relationships, noting that the first five commandments  relate strongly to man's duty to God and that the latter five  commandments describe duties toward humans.[9][10] The commandment against murder can also be viewed as based in respect for God himself.[11][12] Since man is made in God's image, the shedding of innocent blood is viewed as a direct offense against the Creator.[13]


Plenty more at the link.  Surprised you didn't know this, RT.  You seem to be interested in things Biblical.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Whether one thinks its more accurate or not, "thou shalt not kill" is a better commandment.


How so?  That means you can't kill someone trying to kill you.

----------


## otherone

> How so?  That means *you can't* kill someone trying to kill you.


How does it stop you?

----------


## otherone

> Common mistranslation of the Hebrew.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
> 
> 
> Plenty more at the link.  Surprised you didn't know this, RT.  You seem to be interested in things Biblical.


WEIRD how they mistranslated....right?  Something as important as taking a life and all.
What version of the bible has the _correct_ translation?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Common mistranslation of the Hebrew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
> 
> 
> Plenty more at the link. Surprised you didn't know this, RT. You seem to be interested in things Biblical.


I've heard it lots of times, that doesn't mean I buy it nor have to.  Please feel free to go ahead and second guess and parse God's words in accordance with your conveniences and preferences.

Any of the other commandments you choose to weasel words around with?

----------


## William Tell

> I've heard it lots of times, that doesn't mean I buy it nor have to. * Please feel free to go ahead and second guess and parse God's words in accordance with your conveniences and preferences.*


You are the one deciding to go with the English mistranslation because you prefer it and its convenient.

Ironic for a guy with "truth" in his username.

----------


## pcosmar

> Whether one thinks its more accurate or not, "thou shalt not kill" is a better commandment.


NO.. it is not.. The command was *Don't Murder*. But killing was sometimes a requirement.

There is a difference.

In time past,, God requires sacrifice and offerings.. These required killing.. but not murder. 

Killing (by stoning) was a punishment for some crimes.. and killing in war or self defense is also not murder.

So yes, it does make a difference.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> NO.. it is not.. The command was *Don't Murder*. But killing was sometimes a requirement. There is a difference.


Then why do about a bazillion Bibles clearly state, "Thou shalt not kill"?  When you stop and really think about it, a billion+ jews and Christians stopping killing just might have some positive examples effects on the Muslims and Hindus, etc. kiiling too.  

Wars would be pretty tough to carry out without the killing.  

When Jesus returns do you really think he'll be OK with, "Thou shalt not murder"?

----------


## otherone

> You are the one deciding to go with the English mistranslation because you prefer it and its convenient.
> 
> Ironic for a guy with "truth" in his username.


Yah.  I'm guessing the amount of bibles that Ronin printed is ZERO.  Where do you think he got the "crazy" idea that "kill" means "kill"?

----------


## otherone

> Then why do about a bazillion Bibles clearly state, "Thou shalt not kill"?  When you stop and really think about it, a billion+ jews and Christians stopping killing just might have some positive examples effects on the Muslims and Hindus, etc. kiiling too.  
> 
> Wars would be pretty tough to carry out without the killing.  
> 
> When Jesus returns do you really think he'll be OK with, "Thou shalt not murder"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill

----------


## Ronin Truth

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

----------


## otherone

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule


We don't need no steenkeeng wiki:

----------


## pcosmar

> Then why do about a bazillion Bibles clearly state, "Thou shalt not kill"?  When you stop and really think about it, a billion+ jews and Christians stopping killing just might have some positive examples effects on the Muslims and Hindus, etc. kiiling too.


If they stopped the Murder is would be good.

But the same God commanded that certain crimes be punished by death. He also commanded the killing of sacrifices.

And the eating of meat. Hard to eat a cow that is still alive..

I would think that even the slow witted could grasp this.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If they stopped the Murder is would be good.
> 
> But the same God commanded that certain crimes be punished by death. He also commanded the killing of sacrifices.
> 
> And the eating of meat. Hard to eat a cow that is still alive..
> 
> I would think that even the slow witted could grasp this.


Weren't you just recently lecturing me about my thinking that my understanding and wisdom was greater than God's?

In a very consistent similar vein, what are the greatest commandments of Jesus? Do any of them involve killing? 

(Trick question)

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You are the one deciding to go with the English mistranslation because you prefer it and its convenient.
> 
> Ironic for a guy with "truth" in his username.


I'm just going with what the sacred *HOLY WORD OF GOD*, says.  You claim mistranslations, take up your concerns and opinions with God, not me. 

How about stealing, adultery, coveting, etc., any quibbles on any of those you'd care to share?

----------


## otherone

> If they stopped the Murder is would be good.
> 
> But the same God commanded that certain crimes be punished by death. He also commanded the killing of sacrifices.
> 
> And the eating of meat. Hard to eat a cow that is still alive..
> 
> *I would think that even the slow witted could grasp this.*


Taking over for Sola, are we?
Oh, and aren't we violating God's commandment by failing to stone adulterers?

----------


## William Tell

> If they stopped the Murder is would be good.
> 
> But the same God commanded that certain crimes be punished by death. He also commanded the killing of sacrifices.
> 
> And the eating of meat. Hard to eat a cow that is still alive..
> 
> I would think that even the slow witted could grasp this.


Exactly, they can grasp this. They are just trolling. The same biblical books that have the 10 commandments also mention capital punishment.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Exactly, they can grasp this. They are just trolling. The same biblical books that have the 10 commandments also mention capital punishment.


 Of course we can grasp it, it's just not what the book says. 

How are you doing on the Golden Rule? Or is that just a mistranslation too?

----------


## otherone

> If they stopped the Murder is would be good.
> 
> But the same God commanded that certain crimes be punished by death. He also commanded the killing of sacrifices.
> 
> And the eating of meat. Hard to eat a cow that is still alive..
> 
> I would think that even the slow witted could grasp this.


From your neg rep comment:




> Do you have any idea what you are talking about,,or just trolling


No, I don't.  I find mixed messages in the bible.  Please, break it down for me, and avoid the snark if possible.
God commands, "thou shalt not murder".
God decides what comprises murder, no?   God commands stoning of adulterers... so it isn't murder.  We no longer stone adulterers, even though God commands it?  When did the law change?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I've heard it lots of times, that doesn't mean I buy it nor have to.  Please feel free to go ahead and second guess and parse God's words in accordance with your conveniences and preferences.
> 
> Any of the other commandments you choose to weasel words around with?


I didn't second guess it.  I simply gave you the correct translation.  Read #47 above^^

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yah.  I'm guessing the amount of bibles that Ronin printed is ZERO.  *Where do you think he got the "crazy" idea that "kill" means "kill"*?


Reading a bad translation.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Reading a bad translation.


  Sorry, I'm really gonna need a signed witnessed verified and notarized note from God to support your Satanic Bible claim.

----------


## pcosmar

> Sorry, I'm really gonna need a signed witnessed verified and notarized note from God to support your Satanic Bible claim.


How about just using several translations,,or even better,, a Hebrew/Greek to English dictionary.

Not even necessary for most of the message,, but is is when quibbling over fine points.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> How about just using several translations,,or even better,, a Hebrew/Greek to English dictionary.
> 
> Not even necessary for most of the message,, but is is when quibbling over fine points.


 Nope, I just want the God note.  Till then the book stands, as is.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes I do, and the relationship that a Father has with his kids is not analogous to the relationship that God has with fallen man.  Man is at enmity with God, at war with him.  This doesn't parallel a loving Father/Child relationship.


Matthew 7: 7Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

Luke 11:9So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. 11Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?

Romans 5:7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

----------


## jmdrake

> From your neg rep comment:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't.  I find mixed messages in the bible.  Please, break it down for me, and avoid the snark if possible.
> God commands, "thou shalt not murder".
> God decides what comprises murder, no?   God commands stoning of adulterers... so it isn't murder.  We no longer stone adulterers, even though God commands it?  When did the law change?


Well I would say it changed when Jesus declined to have the woman caught in adultery stoned and added "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more."  Some well meaning, but ill informed, apologists will say "Oh but that's only because they didn't bring the man to be stoned as well."  Bollocks.  Jesus could have demanded they bring the man to be stoned as well.  He didn't do that.  Now one may say that Jesus abrogating that "stone adulterers" law showed Jesus was really an enlightened Buddhist, injecting injecting Buddhist ideas into Judaism.  Okay.  But go back further and look at what happened when the 10 commandments were spoken by God.  (See Exodus 20)  God did *not* speak the "stone adulterers" commandment, nor did he write that down on tables of stone.  In fact no record is given at all how that command, and many others, came about.  

After God spoke the 10 commandments, the people promised to obey them, but told Moses they didn't want God to speak to them directly anymore but to only go through Moses.  At one point Moses face was so bright from being in contact with God that he had to wear a veil.  But eventually the shine wore off.  Moses still wore the veil because he didn't want the people to realize the shine had faded.  (Exodus 34; 1 Corinthians 3).  Jeremiah 31 predicted a "new covenant" where no man stands as an intercessor between you and God telling you to "know the Lord" because you will already know Him.  Hebrews 8 repeats this prophecy.  I believe that Jesus' mission was to bring us back to the original "God speaks to man face to face" covenant and without some human intercessor enforcing the punitive parts of the moral law.

----------


## erowe1

> I suppose that the validity of this claim, is dependent on the verification of authenticity of the materials and author.


Why? Even if it really is 1500 years old, that still puts it over 400 years after the lifetimes of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. There is no possible scenario where this document turns out to have any value in telling us anything we didn't already know about the historical Jesus.

----------


## pcosmar

> From your neg rep comment:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't.  I find mixed messages in the bible.  Please, break it down for me, and avoid the snark if possible.
> God commands, "thou shalt not murder".
> God decides what comprises murder, no?   God commands stoning of adulterers... so it isn't murder.  We no longer stone adulterers, even though God commands it?  When did the law change?


God Command that we not Murder.. and long before that command was given,, Murder was punished.
When Cain murdered his brother Able,, God punished him. Murder was known and forbidden long before the "Law" was given.

And in the "law",,



> Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


So killing is sanctioned as a punishment for murder.

It does not take a rocket scientist.. and in fact,,it take some mental gymnastics to obscure it.

----------


## otherone

> But go back further and look at what happened when the 10 commandments were spoken by God.  (See Exodus 20)  God did *not* speak the "stone adulterers" commandment, nor did he write that down on tables of stone.  In fact no record is given at all how that command, and many others, came about.


Thank you for the reply.
Of all the laws, 'thou shalt not murder' seems ill-defined.  "Murder", meaning "unlawfully" killing.  Who decides what comprises "unlawful"?  Where are those laws written?  Does God leave it to civil authority (Romans 13)?  Or does his law take precedence?  If it is left to civil authorities, on what is it's law based?  God's?  What are God's laws then?  Do you see how circular this becomes?  If OT law IRT to killing have changed, what/where are the changes?

----------


## HVACTech

> The Ring of Power video made an intriguing case that Jesus was a son of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra.
> 
> (the obnoxious music at the beginning is only for the first 18 seconds )...


I watched that entire, like 5 hour video back in 06 or 07..  it made a lot of good and interesting points that even today I see rarely addressed. 
the connection and geographic location to Egypt was one of the best.
Egypt predates Abraham, and we have WAY more information about it.

----------


## otherone

> So killing is sanctioned as a punishment for murder.



Your 'Hammurabic' law appears to _mandate_ the death penalty:

_Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man._ 

But I'm not concerned with Natural Law, which is clear cut.    What concerns me is who decides when killing is lawful?

----------


## jmdrake

> Thank you for the reply.
> Of all the laws, 'thou shalt not murder' seems ill-defined.  "Murder", meaning "unlawfully" killing.  Who decides what comprises "unlawful"?  Where are those laws written?  Does God leave it to civil authority (Romans 13)?  Or does his law take precedence?  If it is left to civil authorities, on what is it's law based?  God's?  What are God's laws then?  Do you see how circular this becomes?  If OT law IRT to killing have changed, what/where are the changes?


I don't find it "ill defined."  Even the distinction between "lawful killing" and "unlawful killing" is a worthwhile one.  Would you rather live in a society where you could be killed just because someone felt like it or one where you could be killed for violating some law?  Even with the extremes of the death penalty for adultery, at least you aren't at risk for being legally killed because your brother doesn't like the fact that God honored your sacrifice and not his.  Of course ultimately what protects us from murder is that most people aren't murderers.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Since the (so-called) self proclaimed Bible gurus are all showing up, or so it appears, here's another one. 

What were Adam and Eve authorized by God to eat in the Garden of Eden?

----------


## pcosmar

> Your 'Hammurabic' law appears to _mandate_ the death penalty:
> 
> _Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man._ 
> 
> But I'm not concerned with Natural Law, which is clear cut.    What concerns me is who decides when killing is lawful?


I was not citing Hammurabi,, but was a direct quote from scripture.

As far as who decides,, Ultimately God does.. regardless of what any temporal government might say.

A Murder is the killing for personal reason or gain. rather than in defense or war. or the necessary killing for food,,or religious sacrifice.

Burnt offerings are no longer required.. but killing animals for food is still common. The "Law" was not against such killing.

The Law was against murder.  a very simple concept to grasp.

----------


## pcosmar

> Since the (so-called) self proclaimed Bible gurus are all showing up, or so it appears, here's another one. 
> 
> What were Adam and Eve authorized by God to eat in the Garden of Eden?


Fruit and vegetable..
Meat was not eaten till after the Flood.

Dude,, just read the book. (doing so is no longer forbidden in most of the world)  Read it over and over again,, more of it opens as you do.

----------


## otherone

> I don't find it "ill defined."


At what point does THIS violate the sixth commandment?:


Conventional lawful killing, or

Nuclear lawful killing, or

Chemical lawful killing, or

High-tech killing?

----------


## erowe1

> Thank you for the reply.
> Of all the laws, 'thou shalt not murder' seems ill-defined.  "Murder", meaning "unlawfully" killing.  Who decides what comprises "unlawful"?  Where are those laws written?  Does God leave it to civil authority (Romans 13)?  Or does his law take precedence?  If it is left to civil authorities, on what is it's law based?  God's?  What are God's laws then?  Do you see how circular this becomes?  If OT law IRT to killing have changed, what/where are the changes?


The Bible doesn't really say "murder." It really says, "Thou shalt not kill." Modern versions translate it as murder (I think appropriately), because it seems logically required in the context of the Torah to assume that this command was not meant to apply to certain cases where killing would be justified under the circumstances.

Who decides? God does. If that is not the case, then neither does there exist any real moral law against killing under any circumstances at all.

It isn't necessary for these laws to be written anywhere for them to exist. Morality was around before writing.

----------


## otherone

> Who decides? God does. If that is not the case, then neither does there exist any real moral law against killing under any circumstances at all.
> 
> It isn't necessary for these laws to be written anywhere for them to exist. Morality was around before writing.


These two comments, in concert, appear to say that God's laws are only relevant by their consequences, rather than by our adherence.   If this were the case, no written law would be needed.

----------


## erowe1

> These two comments, in concert, appear to say that God's laws are only relevant by their consequences, rather than by our adherence.   If this were the case, no written law would be needed.


I don't see how you reach the conclusion that the consequences would be all that mattered.

But I do think you're correct that ultimately no written law is needed. This doesn't mean that written laws have no use. But I do think that we could do without them and still have a clear understanding of God's moral law.

----------


## otherone

> I don't see how you reach the conclusion that the consequences would be all that mattered.
> 
> But I do think you're correct that ultimately no written law is needed. This doesn't mean that written laws have no use. But I do think that we could do without them and still have a clear understanding of God's moral law.


Isn't this the heart of the matter?  My clear understanding is that violence is always immoral.  Others clear understanding is different.

----------


## erowe1

> Isn't this the heart of the matter?  My clear understanding is that violence is always immoral.  Others clear understanding is different.


That situation doesn't only obtain with moral laws though. People disagree about all kinds of matters of objective truth all the time. Often there are means by which those disagreements can be resolved, so that we can figure out which one (it any) is right. These means don't have to involve consulting something written somewhere. But sometimes it's not easy to do that.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Fruit and vegetable..
> Meat was not eaten till after the Flood.
> 
> Dude,, just read the book. (doing so is no longer forbidden in most of the world) Read it over and over again,, more of it opens as you do.


I have, teach your granny to suck eggs. 

Intended to only be vegetarians. You are correct. What was the time span between the expulsion from Eden and the flood?

Now would you care to answer the other several questions I've asked you, that you've skipped?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nope, I just want the God note.  Till then the book stands, as is.


The book says "murder" in the NKJV.  Why is your edition better than mine?

----------


## pcosmar

> Isn't this the heart of the matter?  My clear understanding is that violence is always immoral.  Others clear understanding is different.


I see it a bit differently.. Violence Is.  it is a present reality. Nature is violent.

and there are reasons that people "do violence". Killing an animal for food is violent. Clearing land for planting is violent.

It is a matter of the heart,, whether is is right or wrong. Killing someone for selfish reason is wrong. Killing in self defense placing yourself in harms way to protect others,, is (I believe) justifiable.

The Final Judge is the one that knows all,, including the secrets of the heart. He will judge.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I see it a bit differently.. Violence Is. it is a present reality. Nature is violent.
> 
> and there are reasons that people "do violence". Killing an animal for food is violent. Clearing land for planting is violent.
> 
> It is a matter of the heart,, whether is is right or wrong. Killing someone for selfish reason is wrong. Killing in self defense placing yourself in harms way to protect others,, is (I believe) justifiable.
> 
> The Final Judge is the one that knows all,, including the secrets of the heart. He will judge.


And Satan rules the Earth.

----------


## pcosmar

> And Satan rules the Earth.


A sad but temporary reality.

Pro tip,, you don't have to follow his rule.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> A sad but temporary reality.
> 
> Pro tip,, you don't have to follow his rule.


That's a very significant part of the reason it's, "Thou shalt not kill.".

----------


## otherone

> That's a very significant part of the reason it's, "Thou shalt not kill.".


The biblical scholars here have provided clarity on God's commandment... "follow your heart" when it comes to killing people. 




> //ultimately no written law is needed. //we could do without them and still have a clear understanding of God's moral law.





> It is a matter of the heart,, whether is is right or wrong. //The Final Judge is the one that knows all,, including the secrets of the heart.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's a very significant part of the reason it's, "Thou shalt not kill.".


Does this mean that if someone assaults you for whatever reason and tries to kill you, you won't kill them to save your own life?  If nay, are there any caveats to your interpretation of that commmandment?

----------


## pcosmar

> The biblical scholars here have provided clarity on God's commandment... "follow your heart" when it comes to killing people.


I once came very close to taking a mans life,,  I did not kill him.

I (recently)met the child he abused for 18 years,, and apologized to her.

I will answer to the judge for that as well.

I do not know if I will ever take arms again,, (who knows what the future holds), But I will expect to answer to my Father if I do.

----------


## otherone

> Does this mean that if someone assaults you for whatever reason and tries to kill you, you won't kill them to save your own life?  If nay, are there any caveats to your interpretation of that commmandment?


Is stealing bread to save your life no longer stealing?  Is stealing bread to save your life moral?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Does this mean that if someone assaults you for whatever reason and tries to kill you, you won't kill them to save your own life? If nay, are there any caveats to your interpretation of that commmandment?


  WWJD?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> WWJD?


I asked for _your_ interpretation.  No dodging.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I asked for _your_ interpretation. No dodging.


 I have become very good at staying out of trouble and avoiding all of those do or die (kill) situations.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Is stealing bread to save your life no longer stealing?  Is stealing bread to save your life moral?


No on both counts.  There are "degrees" of taking a person's life (homicide, manslaughter, etc).  The bible describes this in the language of the OT. (it says "murder", not "kill") Stealing is objective.  Either one steals something or not.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I have become very good at staying out of trouble and avoiding all of those do or die situations.


For the sake of this discussion, assume the do or die situation is unavoidable.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> For the sake of this discussion, assume the do or die situation is unavoidable.



I don't do hypotheticals. They just tend to very quickly become a "what if" waste of time and energy.  

This discussion's sake is on its own.

----------


## otherone

> I once came very close to taking a mans life,,  I did not kill him.
> 
> I (recently)met the child he abused for 18 years,, and apologized to her.
> 
> I will answer to the judge for that as well.
> 
> I do not know if I will ever take arms again,, (who knows what the future holds), But I will expect to answer to my Father if I do.


IMO, this is the truest response, as it speaks Truth to me.

For me, the answer is very simple. God commands two things, and doing them is difficult.
God asks us to trust Him, and love our brother.  When we hurt our brother, for what WE feel are just reasons, we are telling God that we do not trust Him, that HIS Will be done.  If I kill to protect myself or my family from imminent harm, I break BOTH commandments.   If I steal from my brother to save myself or my family, I break BOTH commandments.  Would I do both?  Probably.  But as I see it, my justification does not make immorality righteous, and I will be held accountable.

----------


## otherone

> No on both counts.  There are "degrees" of taking a person's life (homicide, manslaughter, etc).  The bible describes this in the language of the OT. (it says "murder", not "kill") Stealing is objective.  Either one steals something or not.


Like stoning adulterers?  Is that moral?

----------


## pcosmar

> Is stealing bread to save your life no longer stealing?  Is stealing bread to save your life moral?


Proverbs 6:30-31



> Men do not despise a thief if he steals To satisfy himself when he is hungry; But when he is found, he must repay sevenfold; He must give all the substance of his house.…


If you have ears to hear,,
This is in a Book of wisdom.. not a book of Law.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> IMO, this is the truest response, as it speaks Truth to me.
> 
> For me, the answer is very simple. God commands two things, and doing them is difficult.
> God asks us to trust Him, and love our brother. When we hurt our brother, for what WE feel are just reasons, we are telling God that we do not trust Him, that HIS Will be done. If I kill to protect myself or my family from imminent harm, I break BOTH commandments. If I steal from my brother to save myself or my family, I break BOTH commandments. Would I do both? Probably. But as I see it, my justification does not make immorality righteous, and I will be held accountable.


Eternity in HELL?

----------


## otherone

> Eternity in HELL?


That's not up to me.  I can't judge myself.  I'm simply saying that pretending something is moral because it is expedient doesn't make it moral.

----------


## otherone

> Proverbs 6:30-31
> 
> 
> If you have ears to hear,,
> This is in a Book of wisdom.. not a book of Law.


Thanks for that, but whether men despise me or not doesn't determine the morality of my act.

----------


## pcosmar

> Thanks for that, but whether men despise me or not doesn't determine the morality of my act.


Theft is theft. regardless.
Take it from an ex-thief.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Like stoning adulterers?  Is that moral?


Jesus did away with that punishment for adultery.  Yes, it is immoral.  I don't see anything in the red letter text justifying death as a penalty for anything. (perhaps I missed it or forgot?) It might be an epistle.  I'd have to disagree with the epistle writer on that one if it is.

----------


## HVACTech

> For the sake of this discussion, assume the do or die situation is unavoidable.


you are asking a sophist what?

how funny is that?

----------


## HVACTech

> I don't do hypotheticals. They just tend to very quickly become a "what if" waste of time and energy.  
> 
> This discussion's sake is on its own.


they cannot "become" what they started out as.

poor answer, sophist.

----------


## pcosmar

This thread runs some interesting rabbit trails,, some educational derails.

But to the OP,, I do not believe that Jesus had any children while he was here. Not that he "could not have". there would have been no sin in being married or having children. I just believe that his mission was other than raising an earthly family. And there is no mention of such in the early church.

And Mary Magdalene was quite an interesting person, And mentioned several times by different writers. She was one of the first believers.
I wonder if she was the woman he saved from stoning,, Maybe,, and perhaps not.
But she was profoundly affected by His message and was present at some key events. But much of this is just romantic speculation.

Jesus knew he was born for a specific purpose. I believe he was not distracted from that goal.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> they cannot "become" what they started out as.
> 
> poor answer, sophist.


Ah, so you agree that they are just a waste of time and energy too, brother sophist.   LOL!

----------


## Ronin Truth

https://www.google.com/search?q=gosp...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

----------


## navy-vet

> This thread runs some interesting rabbit trails,, some educational derails.
> 
> But to the OP,, I do not believe that Jesus had any children while he was here. Not that he "could not have". there would have been no sin in being married or having children. I just believe that his mission was other than raising an earthly family. And there is no mention of such in the early church.
> 
> And Mary Magdalene was quite an interesting person, And mentioned several times by different writers. She was one of the first believers.
> I wonder if she was the woman he saved from stoning,, Maybe,, and perhaps not.
> But she was profoundly affected by His message and was present at some key events. But much of this is just romantic speculation.
> 
> Jesus knew he was born for a specific purpose. I believe he was not distracted from that goal.


Well thought out and stated.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> How so?  That means you can't kill someone trying to kill you.


I think the point is that man should have a solemn respect for all life - since only God can create life.

Like American Indians and the buffalo - they used every piece of the animal out of respect for the beast and the Great Spirit.

Hare Krishnas (evangelical Hindus) believe that creatures and beasts have a higher consciousness than plants - that's why the majority of the population of India is vegetarian.

Killing anything will have karmic and reincarnation consequences.  Killing plants has karma - killing beasts and humans (a higher level of consciousness) has more karma.

Sure, we've got to do some killing, but we should do it worshipfully. Genocide, rape and pillage and killing women and children ummmm.... doesn't meet the criteria, in my humble.

"How can man own what man did not create?"

----------


## Ender

> I think the point is that man should have a solemn respect for all life - since only God can create life.
> 
> Like American Indians and the buffalo - they used every piece of the animal out of respect for the beast and the Great Spirit.
> 
> Hare Krishnas (evangelical Hindus) believe that creatures and beasts have a higher consciousness than plants - that's why the majority of the population of India is vegetarian.
> 
> Killing anything will have karmic and reincarnation consequences.  Killing plants has karma - killing beasts and humans (a higher level of consciousness) has more karma.
> 
> Sure, we've got to do some killing, but we should do it worshipfully. Genocide, rape and pillage and killing women and children ummmm.... doesn't meet the criteria, in my humble.
> ...


My thoughts as well. There are also Hindus that believe in Christ- it is called Christ-Conciousness.

Also- some survival programs have the learners spend the last week with a sheep- taking care of it etc. At the end, they must kill it and prepare it for food, etc. This can be very devastating, as the sheep becomes a pet. It teaches one to be thankful for all life and to be humbled in instances where life must be taken for sustenance.

----------


## otherone

> It teaches one to be thankful for all life and to be humbled in instances where life must be taken for sustenance.


This is the message I take from the Last Supper.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I think the point is that man should have a solemn respect for all life - since only God can create life.
> 
> Like American Indians and the buffalo - they used every piece of the animal out of respect for the beast and the Great Spirit.
> 
> Hare Krishnas (evangelical Hindus) believe that creatures and beasts have a higher consciousness than plants - that's why the majority of the population of India is vegetarian.
> 
> Killing anything will have karmic and reincarnation consequences.  Killing plants has karma - killing beasts and humans (a higher level of consciousness) has more karma.
> 
> Sure, we've got to do some killing, but we should do it worshipfully. Genocide, rape and pillage and killing women and children ummmm.... doesn't meet the criteria, in my humble.
> ...


By God's permission.  YHWH makes man caretaker of all the earth in the Creation story.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> By God's permission.  YHWH makes man caretaker of all the earth in the Creation story.


True, but a caretaker is taking care, not owning.  I prefer the word 'steward'.... we should be good stewards of God's creation.

I gotta say I think mankind has failed miserably at that task.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> True, but a caretaker is taking care, not owning. I prefer the word 'steward'.... we should be good stewards of God's creation.
> 
> I gotta say I think mankind has failed miserably at that task.


Well the world rule and control by Satan and a 4% human population sociopath rate probably sure doesn't help the rest of us out any in our "assigned caretaker/stewardship" roles.

*1 John 5:19: We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of Satan.

*

----------

