| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/07/2008 12:37:47 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...you'd consider the Horus attributes to be mentioned in credible books of known authorship? |
As we don't know either source, I'd say they're about equal in that regard. ;-) |
To be clear, I'm not talking about the hieroglyphs or manuscripts talking about Horus. I'm talking about the gospels which recorded these attributes about Jesus Louis' author used to find his Horus parallels. Anyway, it's not worth belaboring.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 12:58:36 PM · #177 |
Thousands of scholars would be embarassed by your characterization of Mr. Harpur as a "joke".
PS: You screwed up your "not like Horus" list. Horus DID walk on water, IS coming again to reign for millennia. You're right about the water into wine though. That was Osiris (if you were Egyptian) or Dionysus (if you prefer Greek).
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 13:14:49. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:10:33 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Thousands of scholars would be embarassed by your characterization of Mr. Harpur as a "joke". |
Indeed. Harpur was educated at the University of Toronto, where he won the Jarvis Scholarship in Greek and Latin. He studied at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar from 1951 to 1954. Between 1954 and 1956 he studied theology at the Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, where he was a tutor in Greek, winning the prizes in homiletics and Greek. Harpur was ordained an Anglican priest. From 1957 until 1964. From 1964 to 1971, Harpur was Professor of New Testament at the University of Toronto's Toronto School of Theology. He worked as a journalist for thirty years, twelve of which as the Toronto Star's religion editor. Harpur is a Fellow of the American Religious Public Relations Council, and in 1976 won the State of Israel Silver Medal for Outstanding Journalism (1976). His biography is included in the American Who's Who in Religion, Canadian Who's Who, and Men of Achievement. Some joke. :-/ |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 01:18:03 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
Thousands of scholars would be embarassed by your characterization of Mr. Harpur as a "joke". |
Indeed. Harpur was educated at the University of Toronto, where he won the Jarvis Scholarship in Greek and Latin. He studied at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar from 1951 to 1954. Between 1954 and 1956 he studied theology at the Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, where he was a tutor in Greek, winning the prizes in homiletics and Greek. Harpur was ordained an Anglican priest. From 1957 until 1964. From 1964 to 1971, Harpur was Professor of New Testament at the University of Toronto's Toronto School of Theology. He worked as a journalist for thirty years, twelve of which as the Toronto Star's religion editor. Harpur is a Fellow of the American Religious Public Relations Council, and in 1976 won the State of Israel Silver Medal for Outstanding Journalism (1976). His biography is included in the American Who's Who in Religion, Canadian Who's Who, and Men of Achievement. Some joke. :-/ |
You do realize that as a doctor I've been solicited by Who's Who many times. It's really just a money-making venture aimed at the vain and self-aggrandizing. Anyway, I can agree he seems well versed in Greek and Latin. How well versed is he in Egyptian history, mythology, and hieroglyphics? Somehow I'm missing that up there.
Anyway, my opinion is his Horus writing isn't worth the paper it's written on and I'm sticking to it. I guess I'm just disagreeing with Louis' "thousands of scholars".
Here's a review of The Pagan Christ which pretty well says what I'm contending:
For Harpur, the gospels were originally intended to be mythological, expressing deep spiritual truths flowing from the ancient religion. A combination of the machinations of fanatical ecclesiastics and colossal blunders resulted in the gospels being interpreted in historical fashion, thereby robbing Christianity of much of its spiritual power. In a fraud unparalleled in history, the evidence of this deceit was destroyed or covered up in the early centuries of the Christian era, and the pagan roots of Christianity repudiated. The historical Jesus never existed; he is a mythological expression of the god in every person. The events related in the gospel stories describe archetypal interior experiences common to all humanity, and the Jesus story is a spiritual allegory of the soul.
These are serious charges with enormous consequences, requiring a meticulous assemblage of evidence. This is where the problems with the book begin. There is virtually no dialogue with current mainstream scholarship. Much of the book draws on outdated or fringe work. It is questionable whether Madame Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy, should be considered a suitable source for a work of this nature (page 165). The bibliography is weighted very strongly in favor of esoteric and theosophical works, and relies very heavily on the works of Gerald Massey (1828-1908) and Alvin Kuhn (1881-1963), two orientalists who wrote extensively on esoteric religion.
Their works, however, are idiosyncratic, and not accepted within the field of Egyptology. One can see why: both of them work from the narrowest range of sources, making tortured and questionable word etymologies and esoteric interpretations of hieroglyphics and Egyptian art. We are asked to accept their interpretations at face value with little or no supporting evidence or proof.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 13:24:16.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 02:39:26 PM · #180 |
| It's a good review. It is from the Catholic New Times. Here it is in full. As someone with respect for the work of latter-day historians, I would be appalled at the lack of citation, footnoting, and cross-referencing in The Pagan Christ, if it is as egregious as the review makes it out to be. I would be remiss in not pointing out that in my view one of the most important works of criticism of modern historians is Richard Evans' "Lying About Hitler". It's a good read for anyone who cares about proper research, and how easily people can be swindled. Lack of footnoting and bad references should be anathema to true historians. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 02:43:00 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You do realize that as a doctor I've been solicited by Who's Who many times. It's really just a money-making venture aimed at the vain and self-aggrandizing. Anyway, I can agree he seems well versed in Greek and Latin. How well versed is he in Egyptian history, mythology, and hieroglyphics? Somehow I'm missing that up there.
Here's a review of The Pagan Christ which pretty well says what I'm contending:
For Harpur, the gospels were originally intended to be mythological, expressing deep spiritual truths flowing from the ancient religion. A combination of the machinations of fanatical ecclesiastics and colossal blunders resulted in the gospels being interpreted in historical fashion, thereby robbing Christianity of much of its spiritual power. In a fraud unparalleled in history, the evidence of this deceit was destroyed or covered up in the early centuries of the Christian era, and the pagan roots of Christianity repudiated. The historical Jesus never existed; he is a mythological expression of the god in every person. The events related in the gospel stories describe archetypal interior experiences common to all humanity, and the Jesus story is a spiritual allegory of the soul.
These are serious charges with enormous consequences, requiring a meticulous assemblage of evidence. This is where the problems with the book begin. There is virtually no dialogue with current mainstream scholarship. Much of the book draws on outdated or fringe work. It is questionable whether Madame Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy, should be considered a suitable source for a work of this nature (page 165). The bibliography is weighted very strongly in favor of esoteric and theosophical works, and relies very heavily on the works of Gerald Massey (1828-1908) and Alvin Kuhn (1881-1963), two orientalists who wrote extensively on esoteric religion.
Their works, however, are idiosyncratic, and not accepted within the field of Egyptology. One can see why: both of them work from the narrowest range of sources, making tortured and questionable word etymologies and esoteric interpretations of hieroglyphics and Egyptian art. We are asked to accept their interpretations at face value with little or no supporting evidence or proof. |
If correct, that is a pretty convincing critique of the author of what seems (from what I've seen noted in this thread - I'd never heard of the guy before) to be a pretty extreme non-theistic position on the historical rise of Christianity and the Catholic Church. (And by the way, I'm a first year attorney, and I've already been solicited by Who's Who - so the Dr.'s completely right on that score).
I'm curious about your take on someone more mainstream (both research-wise and in popularity) such as Karen Armstrong. Her "History of God" was an incredibly influential book in my own early thinking about religion generally, and Christianity in particular, and I've generally followed her later progression. Armstrong is not at all hostile to religion, although I know many fundamentalist believers who really don't like her because of the non-literal approach she takes to religious doctrine and her willingness to see the best in the competing religious philosophies.
Her outlook on all three of the monotheistic faiths is basically to see them as philosophical quests, flowing from early pagan Canaanite religious practice and beliefs. While not seeing any of the monotheistic religions as being literal, she is highly sympathetic to the traditions and generally sees religion as a positive (or at least potentially positive) force - providing necessary knowledge in the "mythos" of the human experience. (As compared to the "logos" of practical knowledge.) It's not exactly a "separate spheres" argument, as I truly don't believe that she believes in a literal God, but rather sees God as an expression of human need and philosophical knowledge.
My own take on Armstrong is quite favorable, although I do believe that she is too willing to serve as an apologist for many of the excesses of religious practice and too quickly glosses over much of the problematic nature of organized religion generally. But she seems incredibly sincere, and her knowledge of the early histories of the monotheistic religions appears to be quite expansive.
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 14:44:18. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 03:04:58 PM · #182 |
Personally I read some liberal intellectual Christians, but not a ton. I'm currently reading Thomas Cahill's Desire of the Everlasting Hills. He's certainly willing to go with the idea that the bible was sculpted and shaped by the autors and time. He has some interesting ideas and I like how he places the gospels and letters of Paul in their historical context.
Anyway, as you might suspect, I ultimately leave such authors because my faith means something more to me. It isn't merely an object of intellectual scrutiny. It is alive. Getting too caught up in the minutae of such matters saps the life out of faith and robs it of its power to transform a person. At least that's the conclusion I've come up with.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 03:21:42 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally I read some liberal intellectual Christians, but not a ton. I'm currently reading Thomas Cahill's Desire of the Everlasting Hills. He's certainly willing to go with the idea that the bible was sculpted and shaped by the autors and time. He has some interesting ideas and I like how he places the gospels and letters of Paul in their historical context.
Anyway, as you might suspect, I ultimately leave such authors because my faith means something more to me. It isn't merely an object of intellectual scrutiny. It is alive. Getting too caught up in the minutae of such matters saps the life out of faith and robs it of its power to transform a person. At least that's the conclusion I've come up with. |
Consalato Dei? (forgive my crappy Latin)
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 15:48:09. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 03:25:49 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, as you might suspect, I ultimately leave such authors because my faith means something more to me. It isn't merely an object of intellectual scrutiny. It is alive. Getting too caught up in the minutae of such matters saps the life out of faith and robs it of its power to transform a person. At least that's the conclusion I've come up with. |
I assume you already know it, but that reads like 'I don't want to let the historical truth or logic get in the way of how I want to feel and believe' |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 03:33:01 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's a review of The Pagan Christ which pretty well says what I'm contending |
Ahh... so it's not that the theologian and journalist Harpur is a joke- it's that his claims lack credible sources and therefore can't be relied upon. Well gee, I certainly can't argue with that. By the same reasoning, if Mark's claims were backed with something like, "An interview with a witness who saw Jesus walking on water revealed the following account..." or if Luke had cited research from a respected Jewish historian, then we might afford those texts some degree of reliability too. Unfortunately, all we have are claims that Jesus said or did something... claims that vary in scope and detail. At least we know Harpur's real name, personal credentials and source material- none of which can be said of anything written in the Bible. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 03:47:24 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
That is why God has sent the Holy Spirit to live inside of the true Christian. |
Are you suggesting that God speaks only to Christians? Sure no God would be so exclusionary as to cast aside all those that never had the chance to hear of the word of God.
Just asking,
Rau |
Consider that God is the creator of all of us. He endows us with a conscience such that we know right from wrong and what is good and what is not good. I contend that those who do not know and have never had a chance to hear the word of God that they will be judged by what has been given them. God is evident by his very creation around us leaving all without excuse. For instance the maker of idols whose conscience says 'you make the idol with your hands to worship it. Why not instead worship the maker of your hands?' and then does not do what his conscience tells him to do then will be judged according to that conscience which God himself has given him. If he does what his conscience tells him then he is a true Christian whether or not he recognizes that it is indeed Christ the Son and God the Father that he worships and the Holy Spirit will indwell in him just as he would anyone having accepted Jesus as his savior after having heard the word of God. God will speak to those who seek the truth and obey their conscience. However this is a very small group of people that would fall under this category of not being exposed to the word of God, especially in the age of the internet. It is God's goal that all the people of the world shall have the opportunity to hear and be taught the word of God which is the Bible. It's happening right in front of our eyes. I will agree with you that this is a hard thing to understand. I prayed about this and asked others what they thought before answering. I hope this is sufficient to answer your question. God is a righteous judge and judges men's hearts and is not constrained by man made rules which might seem to make it impossible for someone not having heard or taught the Word of God to be judged rightly. So in the final analysis I think the answer is yes, he can and does speak to all and everyone. It's really just a matter of listening. Do you have ears to hear.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 03:56:47 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Really? I thought it was termed the Law of Gravity for the very reasons you state. |
Urm, which 'Law of Gravity' ? If you mean Newton's theory, that's mostly been superseded and doesn't generally apply. (which is one of Einstein's major contributions with his general theory of relativity)
All theories. The lay definition of a theory and the scientific use of the words differ and usually lead to these sorts of conversations.
So yes, gravity isn't a fact, but it is generally held to be true, similarly evolution. |
It is referred to as the 'Law of gravity' that it is a misnomer I will agree. You cannot state however that the theory or law of gravity and evolution are given with the same degree of certainty. One involves something one can observe right now and the other involves things that happened long long ago. You cannot replicate the evolution of an eye but I can drop an apple and see it fall.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:02:09 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
God is evident by his very creation around us leaving all without excuse. However this is a very small group of people that would fall under this category of not being exposed to the word of God, especially in the age of the internet. It is God's goal that all the people of the world shall have the opportunity to hear and be taught the word of God which is the Bible. It's really just a matter of listening. Do you have ears to hear. |
Vishnu is evident by his very creation around us leaving all without excuse. However this is a very small group of people that would fall under this category of not being exposed to the word of Vishnu, especially in the age of the internet. It is Vishnu's goal that all the people of the world shall have the opportunity to hear and be taught the word of Vishnu which are the Sruti and Smriti...
Need I continue...? |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:06:23 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
...you have run out of all logical reasoning to support your position that God certainly and without a doubt does not exist. |
Can you offer any logical reasoning that would support a conclusion that Zeus or fire breathing dragons certainly and without a doubt do not exist (that wouldn't equally apply to God), or do you believe in those too? |
I can state very logically that God exists because I have a relationship with him. It is not scientific proof but it is very logical. It would be impossible to have a relationship with a non-existent entity. As far as Zeus being an actual God I can state very logically that because the one true God which I have a relationship with has told me that this was a false God that indeed Zeus only exists in the foolish hearts and imaginations of men. The fire breathing dragon thing I actually have no knowledge of and thus cannot state logically that they did not exist but only that the probability of a flesh and blood animal that spews fire is not likely but not an impossibility. It is not my burden to prove to you God's existence anyway. It is yours to prove that He could not possibly exist. Can you do that? I'll answer for you. NO.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:12:29 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
In the case of gravity their is a high degree of certainty |
Which theory of gravity are you talking about here ? |
I'm not an expert on the science of physics but I can certainly see the apple hit the ground when I drop it. I can't see an eye evolve from nothing to the complex organ of human sight. Whichever theory best describes why gravity is (Einsteins stuff or Newtons)I can agree that gravity is because right now I am experiencing it. That's a pretty darn high degree of certainty.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:15:11 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
It is not scientific proof but it is very logical. It would be impossible to have a relationship with a non-existent entity. |
And yet....
You may believe whatever you like, but you have stretched the definition of "logic" to beyond the breaking point. "Logic" is one of those words that many people misuse, and I'm afraid that you've misused it terribly here. You have essentially said:
A. It is illogical to have a relationship with a non-existent entity.
B. I have a relationship with God.
C. Therefore, God exists.
Yikes. That is profoundly, disastrously convoluted.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
It is not my burden to prove to you God's existence anyway. It is yours to prove that He could not possibly exist. |
You would make a lousy lawyer.
I submit that you are so wrong on this last point that it is probably not worthwhile trying to examine the many and varied violations of discourse contained in it.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:16:39 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
In the case of gravity their is a high degree of certainty |
Which theory of gravity are you talking about here ? |
I'm not an expert on the science of physics but I can certainly see the apple hit the ground when I drop it. I can't see an eye evolve from nothing to the complex organ of human sight. |
And then you go on to claim that God exists despite you not being able to prove it? There is something terribly, terribly wrong here...
Message edited by author 2008-04-07 16:16:50. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:19:30 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I can state very logically that God exists because I have a relationship with him. It is not scientific proof but it is very logical. It would be impossible to have a relationship with a non-existent entity. As far as Zeus being an actual God I can state very logically that because the one true God which I have a relationship with has told me that this was a false God that indeed Zeus only exists in the foolish hearts and imaginations of men. |
Everyone who ever believed strongly in ANY god could say exactly the same thing from their context: "I can state very logically that Zeus exists because I have a relationship with him. It is not scientific proof but it is very logical. It would be impossible to have a relationship with a non-existent entity. As far as God being an actual god I can state very logically that because Zeus, with whom I have a relationship, has told me that this was a false deity that indeed God only exists in the foolish hearts and imaginations of men." Simply stating that something is logical does not make it so. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:20:53 PM · #194 |
| Serious question...Why does it matter so much to nonbelievers to disprove God's very existence? What do nonbelievers stand to gain from "winning" the argument? |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:24:32 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Oh please...stop with the martyr complex BS, you're gonna make me all teary. |
I have no martyr complex. Just explaining why belief and knowledge of God is not like doing crack. Being ridiculed by people like you is not causing endorphins to rush around in my head causing me to feel ecstatic. I get no such payoff for my submission to God's Holy Spirit. |
I'm not ridiculing anything that's not already ridiculous. |
Resorting to personal attacks does not advance your position one iota and does not bother me in the least. Keep it up, I actually get a good deal of satisfaction from knowing that you have run out of all logical reasoning to support your position that God certainly and without a doubt does not exist. |
You're the one who brought up the persecution of Christians, evidently to make some kind of point. It's a ridiculous argument since nearly every religion has suffered persecution, often at the hands of some other religious group who has, at other times been persecuted.
All religions that I can think have both been persecuted and been the persecutor at some point in history. If you have some evidence that makes Christianity special in that regard, please do share.
I don't have to prove God doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove he does. |
I think I have stated this before but I only brought up the fact that Christians are persecuted and martyred to make the point that it is not all that pleasant to be a Christian in many circumstances thus refuting the assertion that we believe in God because it gives us an endorphin rush and thus pleasure. It is often very unpleasurable to be a Christian. I would say this equally applies to a lot of different belief systems as you point out. That does not however negate the truth of the experience of the Christian. As far as my having to prove God's existence, I have emphatically stated that I cannot prove God's existence. I have stated this over and over. It simply cannot be done nor am I trying to convince you by supplying you with verifiable facts. I simply argue that evolution theory is very much lacking in any certainty.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:26:13 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
...you have run out of all logical reasoning to support your position that God certainly and without a doubt does not exist. |
Can you offer any logical reasoning that would support a conclusion that Zeus or fire breathing dragons certainly and without a doubt do not exist (that wouldn't equally apply to God), or do you believe in those too? |
I can state very logically that God exists because I have a relationship with him. It is not scientific proof but it is very logical. It would be impossible to have a relationship with a non-existent entity. As far as Zeus being an actual God I can state very logically that because the one true God which I have a relationship with has told me that this was a false God that indeed Zeus only exists in the foolish hearts and imaginations of men. The fire breathing dragon thing I actually have no knowledge of and thus cannot state logically that they did not exist but only that the probability of a flesh and blood animal that spews fire is not likely but not an impossibility. It is not my burden to prove to you God's existence anyway. It is yours to prove that He could not possibly exist. Can you do that? I'll answer for you. NO. |
The same argument can be made for the flying spaghetti monster. |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:28:42 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
In the case of gravity their is a high degree of certainty as compared to evolution which is filled with gaps and holes in the evidence that if were available may show that evolution theory does not adequately explain the processes that it purports to explain. Perhaps not. We simply do not know. |
The facts relating to gravity are very much unknown. You might as well say that gravity is the constant application of god's will, and at any time he could change his mind and we would all float off into space...
Despite this, Newton's laws and Einstein's theories do a very good job of explaining what gravity is and its key interrelationships with the rest of the universe.
Similarly, evolutionary theory does a very good job of explaining the fossil record, its relationship with genetics and the massive diversity and complexity of life found on earth.
The difference is that, with evolution we have a detailed historical record that is easily observable and we can observe the process in action around us (directly, in very small fast replicating organisms and by way of its consequences with larger organisms such as birds).
Compare that to the search for the graviton - possibly too small ever to be observed, and certainly incompatible with a number of our leading theories that otherwise best explain the nature of our physical world.
On the strength of evidence, gravity (not the development of life on this planet through evolution) is the better candidate for the "god" explanation.
I would posit that the difference for you is that you constantly see and experience the consequences of gravity every day, whereas you never experience evolution first hand (it is, after all, rather a slow intergenerational process). Your prejudice has nothing to do with the strength of the underlying scientific theory, but your inability to grasp concepts that go beyond your personal experience.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
To your second point: we have not even gotten to the point where I can find one person to even acknowledge the rational possibility of the existence of a god... If I ever get that far then I will be more than happy to discuss why the Christian God is that one true God. |
If you find people illogical and gullible enough to think that belief with no evidence can be rational, I am sure that you will be able to convince them of your second. Believing in supernatural deities is one thing, but believing that you have found the one true deity and that everyone else is wrong takes you to a whole new level...
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:33:55 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
we have not even gotten to the point where I can find one person to even acknowledge the rational possibility of the existence of a god, any god much less the one true God... |
Jealous gods define themselves as infinite, invisible, intangible, unprovable and forbid their followers from acknowledging even the possibility that they do not exist. To do so is tantamount to forfeiting one's faith, yet you demand an assumption of faith from people who favor broadly accepted scientific theories backed by multiple lines of physical evidence? |
I don't demand anything from you or anyone else. Neither does God. He gives you free will to do as you please. If you choose to worship science and your five senses and exclude completely the possibility of an Intelligent designer that is your choice. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:36:22 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by L1:
Serious question...Why does it matter so much to nonbelievers to disprove God's very existence? |
It doesn't matter at all. To a non-believer, God doesn't exist, and there's nothing to "disprove". It is entirely up to the believer to "prove it" to the satisfaction of the non-believer... which is of course completely impossible.
I often ask the same question you've just asked, but in reverse. Why do some believers care if there exist hard atheists? Why are they so adamant that a complete lack of belief has to be challenged, sometimes with vitriol, sometimes with vapid arguments, sometimes with mawkish sentiment, but always with such gusto that it seems almost a panicked reaction to the very notion that some people just don't believe any of it? |
|
|
|
04/07/2008 04:37:06 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Just as a random thought... Jesus was widely reported to be a carpenter. I wonder what a chair made by Jesus would fetch on eBay these days? The craftsmanship must have been awesome. |
Now that is funny and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all. I'm still laughing. I bet it would fetch more than Rush Limbaugh got for his Letter... Good one.
|
|
