General Chat

Len of the Chilterns -------------Continued------------ 6. And now it was that a horrible fear seized upon the seditious, insomuch that many of them ran out of the city, as though it were to be taken immediately; but the people upon this took courage, and where the wicked part of the city gave ground, thither did they come, in order to set open the gates, and to admit Cestius as their benefactor, who, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day. 7. It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, WITHOUT ANY REASON IN THE WORLD. ====== The armies of Cestius were defeated by the Jews, almost causing Nero to commit suicide Jesus had warned the Christians to flee Jerusalem when they saw the city surrounded by armies, which could have been the following ---------Chapter 20------------ ''1. After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was going to sink;'' There was also a period when Titus withdrew his troops for three days to enable the Jews to surrender and to pay his army their wages. Len whenever I see anyone attack the scriptures, I will defend them. You have already given your views on at least two earlier threads. Regards and God Bless David For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: Job 19:25

Len of the Chilterns, greetings. Thank you for taking time to reply. The scriptures claim to be inspired by God, or God breathed. If so, then they are the final authority, and I will continue to let them speak for themselves, rather than being accused of mis-interpreting them. You said that most original documents were lost in the war of 70 AD. I'm not sure if you referred to the Old or New Testaments. You had previously said that Revelation was written later than that, We would accept c96 AD for its date.Someone mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls. As these were witten before 70 AD what I am going to say now will apply to both comments. This evening I happened to meet a Jewish Christian, who mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls without knowing anything about this thread. He said that the scriptures in Dead Sea Scrolls were word for word the same as those he had learnt as a child. He read a page from the scrolls to us in Hebrew, and then said the King James Version was a word for word translation. He also said that the Jews, when copying the scriptures, counted every letter on every page that they had completed and discarded any page copied that had even a jot missing. It would not matter then if the original documents were destroyed. Copies were also only taken from the oldest copy. Obviously documents would wear out over the years, and a fresh copy would need to be used as the 'master.' This was always the oldest. The New Testament scriptures were mostly written to churches around the Empire and would have been preserved in them. They also undoubtedly had copies of the gospels. It is said that no Christian died in the seige of Jerusaalem, having been warned by Jesus in Luke 21: 20 -21 'And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.' (Also mentioned by Matthew and Mark and possibly in Daniel 12:1.) The armies were likely those of Cestius, who attacked Jerusalem and was on the point of taking it, when he withdrew his armies for absolutely no reason. The believers would no doubt have taken their scriptures with them. Following is Josephus' account of this event. The Wars of the Jews Book 2, Chapter 19: 4 But when Cestius was come into the city, he set the part called Bezetha, which is also called Cenopolis, [or the new city], on fire; as he did also to the timber market; after which he came into the upper city, and pitched his camp over against the royal palace; and had he but at this very time attempted to get within the walls by force, he had won the city presently, and the war had been put an end to at once; but Tyrannius Priscus, the muster-master of the army, and a great number of the officers of the horse, and been corrupted by Florus, and diverted him from that his attempt; and that was the occasion that this war lasted so very long, and thereby the Jews were involved in such incurable calamities. 5. In the meantime, many of the principal men of the city were persuaded by Ananus, the son of Jonathan, and invited Cestius into the city, and were about to open the gates for him; but he overlooked this offer, partly out of his anger at the Jews, and partly because he did not thoroughly believe they were in earnest; whence it was that he delayed in the matter so long, that the seditious perceived the treachery, and threw Ananus and those of his party down from the wall, and, pelting them with stones, drove them into their houses; but they stood themselves at proper distances in the towers, and threw their darts at those that were getting over the wall. Thus did the Romans make their attack against the wall for five days, but to no purpose. But on the next day, Cestius took a great many of his choicest men, and with them the archers, and attempted to break into the temple at the northern quarter of it; but the Jews beat them off from the cloisters, and repulsed them several times when they were gotten near to the wall, till at length the multitude of the darts cut them off, and made them retire; but the first rank of the Romans rested their shields upon the wall, and so did those that were behind them, and the like did those that were still more backward, and guarded themselves with what they call Testudo, [the back of] a tortoise, upon which the darts that were thrown fell, and slided off without doing them any harm; so the soldiers undermined the wall, without being themselves hurt, and got all things ready for setting fire to the gate of the temple. --- continued---

I keep forgetting that GR rations us as to how much we can write in a post. I noticed that my last post had been curtailed so here is the rest of it: Luke's inspiration and information for his Gospel and Acts came from his close association with Paul and his companions as he explains in his introduction to the Gospel: 'Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus' (Luke 1:1-3). If you will read the last long and somewhat ambiguous sentence carefully, Davo, and compare it with your version, you will find minor differences. If you take various version of the bible you will find difference throughout. We seem to have hi-jacked Lynda's thread and made it a discussion of the bible. Perhaps we should revert to her original theme? Len

Davo in Kent Luke Was born a Greek in Antioch, Syria. He may have been born a slave but it was not unusual for the times to educate a slave and train him to be skilled as a medic so as to be able to treat his masters. Few facts are known about him but it is documented that he met up with Paul in AD 51. We have to go to Acts to follow the trail of Luke's Christian ministry. We know nothing about his conversion but looking at the language of Acts we can see where he joined Saint Paul. I have several commentaries on the bible, having once studied theology, and obtain my information from various authors. My views are my own, arrived at by study of the information available. I am usually careful to be accurate with my information (and spelling) and endeavour to refrain from cant. It would be appreciated if you would do likewise and stop spouting passages from the scriptures as if they were the final authority. Perhaps they are for you, and that is your right. The story of the Acts is written in the third person, as an historian recording facts, up until the sixteenth chapter. In Acts 16:8-9 we hear of Paul's company 'So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, 'Come over to Macedonia and help us.' ' Then suddenly in 16:10 'they' becomes 'we': 'When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them.' So Luke first joined Paul's company at Troas at about the year 51 and accompanied him into Macedonia where they traveled first to Samothrace, Neapolis, and finally Philippi. Luke then switches back to the third person which seems to indicate he was not thrown into prison with Paul and that when Paul left Philippi Luke stayed behind to encourage the Church there. Seven years passed before Paul returned to the area on his third missionary journey. In Acts 20:5, the switch to 'we' tells us that Luke has left Philippi to rejoin Paul in Troas in 58 where they first met up. They traveled together through Miletus, Tyre, Caesarea, to Jerusalem.

Davo in Kent Luke Was born a Greek in Antioch, Syria. He may have been born a slave but it was not unusual for the times to educate a slave and train him to be skilled as a medic so as to be able to treat his masters. Few facts are known about him but it is documented that he met up with Paul in AD 51. We have to go to Acts to follow the trail of Luke's Christian ministry. We know nothing about his conversion but looking at the language of Acts we can see where he joined Saint Paul. I have several commentaries on the bible, having once studied theology, and obtain my information from various authors. My views are my own, arrived at by study of the information available. I am usually careful to be accurate with my information (and spelling) and endeavour to refrain from cant. It would be appreciated if you would do likewise and stop spouting passages from the scriptures as if they were the final authority. Perhaps they are for you, and that is your right. The story of the Acts is written in the third person, as an historian recording facts, up until the sixteenth chapter. In Acts 16:8-9 we hear of Paul's company 'So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, 'Come over to Macedonia and help us.' ' Then suddenly in 16:10 'they' becomes 'we': 'When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them.' So Luke first joined Paul's company at Troas at about the year 51 and accompanied him into Macedonia where they traveled first to Samothrace, Neapolis, and finally Philippi. Luke then switches back to the third person which seems to indicate he was not thrown into prison with Paul and that when Paul left Philippi Luke stayed behind to encourage the Church there. Seven years passed before Paul returned to the area on his third missionary journey. In Acts 20:5, the switch to 'we' tells us that Luke has left Philippi to rejoin Paul in Troas in 58 where they first met up. They traveled together through Miletus, Tyre, Caesarea, to Jerusalem.

David greetings Of course it is impossible to live by God's law. That is why we need to repent of our sins and turn to Christ. In Acts 2, Peter reminded the Jews (and others) that they had killed the Author of Life. 'Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.' As many as are far off means you and me. This promise is for us. regards David Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

Davo That doesn't answer my questions at all:) Rachel married her sister Leah's living husband - why was she not condemned as Herod? And what of the contradiction of us being told to kill sinners and yet told not to kill? This is my point - it's impossible to live completely by the word of the Bible.

David Owen, You are Soooo Right!!:-)))

The first generation of Christians, were Gnostics, meaning that they had a personal knowledge of God, and relied on that personal knowledge for their faith. The Roman Catholic Church, once it got its act together in the 3rd century, ruthlessly killed all Gnostic Christians. God was a mystery, said the RCs and the only way to Him was, ha ha, through the Roman Catholic Church. The secrets of the mystery werent to be given to the hoi-polloi, but only to the officers of the RC Church. The secrets were such that Rood Screens hid the Holy Mass from the ordinary people for many many centuries. It was forbidden to read the Bible (always supposing you could read) as it was thought far too good for the peasants, who wouldnt understand it anyway, being too stupid. The RC Church ruled the world with a burning rod of iron for nearly 1800 years - again, this is not God at work, but cynical man. OC

GypsyJoe greetings “Wasn't the bible written something like hundred or even a 1000 years after Jesus? Which means anything recorded was hearsay and gossip and again interpretations of those of the time.” “Answer NO the last book of the bible was written by John, about 96 AD. “No matter what people believe it doesn't really matter,” Answer: John 3: 16 “ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. “ The question is not if or not you are cremated, but are you right with God? Some years ago, in Chatham there was a Bible bookshop and a Pink stamp shop next to each other. Someone wrote to the local rag pointing out that there were two redemption centres next door to each other, and that you could get a bible for I book of S&H pink stamps, asking the question “How many books do you need to get to heaven.” The following week someone answered. “ONLY ONE.” See John 5:39 “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal lif”e: and they are they which testify of me.” said Jesus, and John : 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” David Owen, greetings. From the title page of the King James Authorized Version. “Translated out of the ORIGINAL TONGUES: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised by His Majestiy’s special command.” You say “The Bible is open to interpretations because it's full of contradictions and I can't understand how anyone can let it speak for itself - how do you decide which teaching to follow?” Would you like to list all of these contradictions, or even some of them, which the bible is full of? “Leviticus tells us it is an act of impurity to marry our brother's wife. Deuteronomy tells us it is our duty to marry our brother's widow - which do we do?” You have answered your own question there. IT was against Jewish Law to marry your brother’s wife, but the eldest had a duty to marry his widow, to preserve the property rights of his brother. Please read the book of Ruth, Herod the tetrarch put John the Baptist to death because he denounced Herod for marrying his brother’s wife. See Matthew 14. See also Matthew 22: 23 ¶ The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: 'Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 'Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 'Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 'Last of all the woman died also 28 'Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.' 29 Jesus answered and said to them, 'You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 'For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 'But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.' The levitical law shows how much those and other practices were hated by God. Of course I do not kill, but “All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God” Romans 3: 23. And “ (God) now commandeth all men every where to repent:” Acts 17 :30 Regards David Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth

Davo from Kent I would have thought it was quite clear what I meant - when we read the Bible we are reading something that has been translated several times since the original archaic language. The Bible is open to interpretations because it's full of contradictions and I can't understand how anyone can let it speak for itself - how do you decide which teaching to follow? Leviticus tells us it is an act of impurity to marry our brother's wife. Deuteronomy tells us it is our duty to marry our brother's widow - which do we do? According to Leviticus, adulterers, homosexuals and so on must be put to death yet the Ten Commandments tell us we shalt not kill - which teaching do we follow? Do you live by this Word of God and do as instructed? Where does this fit in with the love, understanding and forgiveness taught by Jesus?

Hi GypsyJoe, More than half the Bible was written before Jesus was born!!! :) No-one knows when the New Testament was actually written but best modern scholarship puts the gospels being written somewhere between 40 - 100 AD. This would be well within the life time of people who were actually present at the events. The other books in the New Testament were also thought to be written within that time-line with Revelation possibily being the last one written. Vonny

Davo another question for you then, Wasn't the bible written something like hundred or even a 1000 years after Jesus? Which means anything recorded was hearsay and gossip and again interpretations of those of the time. No matter what people believe it doesn't really matter, God is suppose to foegive us all of our sins so weather we believe or not now shouldn't make any difference. There are people that what solid proof of everything before they believe in something, so you can't say they will go to hell. People believe because they need to feel secure that there is something at the end that's what it comes down to. I've been told I shouldn't be cremated because when the lord comes back I can't be reserected. Can you really see a whole lot of bodies going heavenly? Pretty discusting thought really. Gypsyjoe

Len, thanks for so much interesting info re. the Bible's origins. It is a great loss that all the early manuscripts were destroyed in AD70. It would be fascinating if we could know what they contained. Nevertheless, as we know, faith can come to people through their own experience of God and not always, to begin with, through the written word. Personally I don't believe that St Paul's 180% turnaround in his perceptions, and his subsequent lifelong mission for Christ, was the result of a minor stroke. I think he was physically and mentally a pretty tough character, prepared to face beatings, shipwrecks, chains, imprisonment etc, because of an event, infinitely more powerful than a minor stroke, that stopped him in his tracks that day on the Damascus road. As for Etienne using numbers to split up Bible texts, I can't see what was wrong with that, it makes for easy reference. Regards, Joy.

Len wrote “Modern scholarship puts the possible date for compilation of St John's Gospel at between 90 and 110AD and it was possibly written in Ephesus. The discourses are long and differ markedly from the other 3 books. It terminates abruptly at chapter 16.8 and continues thereafter as a sort of addendum.” I don’t disagree with the first sentence, but you are confused in the second and seem to be referring to Mark’s Gospel. Len wrote “The original scriptures were written in a debased archaic language, mostly on papyrus, and lost much of the original meaning when translated into Greek, Latin and later into English.” How do you know? “Most early manuscripts were lost in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD70' You have just said theye were written after AD 70 so how could they be lost before they were wr “itten? and it was only by a prodigious stroke of luck in discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls that modern researchers have been able to gain such insight into the times. Naturally, today’’s church dignitaries are not keen on the Dead Sea Scrolls being made generally available as they contain so much contradictory material. The division of the text of the Bible into numbered verses, as in the Authorised Version, has no authority behind it and was the invention of a Frenchman Robert Etienne in 1551' The Dead Sea Scrolls have very little if any bearing on the scriptures. I would hardly expext any “Expert” that channel 4 manages to drag up, to be an expert on the Bible. Len wrote “of the 'big four' only Luke was independent, the other books being composed from many sources.” This the trird tiem I have answered this. Luke was not independent and said so. He wrote in Luke 1: 1 “¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,” You see he enquired from others to establish the truth. Luke was a faithful companion of Paul, and taught the church the same Jesus. Mark was also at times a companion of Paul. Your replies are a mish-mash of truth, error and opinion. David

Modern scholarship puts the possible date for compilation of St John's Gospel at between 90 and 110AD and it was possibly written in Ephesus. The discourses are long and differ markedly from the other 3 books. It terminates abruptly at chapter 16.8 and continues thereafter as a sort of addendum. The original scriptures were written in a debased archaic language, mostly on papyrus, and lost much of the original meaning when translated into Greek, Latin and later into English. Most early manuscripts were lost in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD70 and it was only by a prodigious stroke of luck in discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls that modern researchers have been able to gain such insight into the times. Naturally, today’s church dignitaries are not keen on the Dead Sea Scrolls being made generally available as they contain so much contradictory material. The division of the text of the Bible into numbered verses, as in the Authorised Version, has no authority behind it and was the invention of a Frenchman Robert Etienne in 1551. The Bible (From a Channel 4 documentary presented by Prof. Beckford)) The answer to ‘Who wrote the Bible?’ turns out to be complex. For a start, the Bible isn’t a single book, but contains 66 separate books which were collected over something like 1,200 years. Christians and Jews have usually been careful to say that the scriptures weren’t delivered from a passing cloud, but were, they believe, written, edited and compiled by human beings under the inspiration of God Take the Five Books of Moses, which open the Bible and include the world-famous stories of the creation, the Garden of Eden and Noah’s flood. Known in Hebrew (the language they were written in) as the Torah (Hebrew meaning ‘Instruction’), these books contain the foundations of Judaism and Christianity. It turns out that the Books of Moses weren’t written by Moses at all, but by four anonymous writers, each with his own particular view to promote. These writings were only brought together when an Israelite king found them useful to promote his political agenda, many centuries after the time of Moses. Says Professor Beckford: “King Hezekiah turned the Bible into a party political manifesto for monotheism. He definitely knew something about spin.” The same goes for the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Professor Beckford investigated ancient catacombs beneath a church in Rome to discover why Mark, the first Gospel writer, started to write about Jesus in the first place. It was as an encouragement to the first generation of Christians, who were facing persecution. He discovered that, although the Gospel writers seem to be giving us direct reportage from the life of Jesus, each of them actually had his own spin on the story. While Matthew was keen to show how Jewish Jesus was, for the Jewish wing of the early church, Luke pushed the Roman angle. He packaged the teaching and miracles of Jesus to show that even civilised Roman citizens could believe in him. The Gospels of Mark and John are anthologies from various sources and are variations on the same material. Len

If I can poke holes in a theory I will - and it deserves to be knocked down if it cannot stand questioning. I trust no politicians, even less if they wear a cassocks. I would not say that I want to believe in anything particular. I was quite happy when I did not. I do not accept any sectarian religion and am still bit hazy about 'God'. What does amaze me is a person who pays lip-service to a religious group but who does not believe in the basic principles of their own belief system. They have the makings of first-class politicians. I know so-called Christians who do not believe in such an entity as a soul let alone a ghost, holy or otherwise I have little respect for those who belittle and denounce out of hand concepts put forward by others without having done any research or investigation. Now that is real bigotry! Best not enter into dialogue with a closed mind. It seems that the authors of the New Testament (particularly St Paul) fitted up Jesus to conform to the prophecies of the Old Testament. Possibly, of the 'big four' only Luke was independent, the other books being composed from many sources. The Acts and most of the other gospels emanated from St Paul or his acolytes. If any one is interested in reading what went on in the world at the time of Jesus, try Seneca, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. Other writers, although not historians as such, were Plutarch and Pliny the Elder (he was a naturalist whereas his son was interested in politics and history). Seneca is good as he was contemporary and anti-Nero (the emperor from AD38) and explained the political reasons (to divert popular anger away from Nero) behind the persecution of the tiny Christian Sect, which got Nero temporarily off the hook after the burning of Rome - and pleased the Jews. It also martyred the Christians and gave their cause an enormous boost. Christianity, in its present form, was not founded by Jesus (who is well-documented other than in the Scriptures) but by his followers - and probably would have fizzled out but for one remarkable man who took it over some 20-30 years after The Crucifixion. Jesus was a mystic (there were a lot of them about at the time) and more of a political activist with an ideal (as was Marx) and a member of a movement called 'The Way'. He was also anti-Roman, the governing body. It is probable that he travelled armed, as did most males at the time. He and his followers were a thorn in the flesh of the Roman Administration who kept tabs on him and documented his activities. He had several brothers and possibly sisters – and, probably, a female partner otherwise he would have been considered a screwball in his day and culture. . The remarkable man referred to above was a Jew born in Eastern Turkey (Tarsus, according to St Luke) by the name of Saul. He had Roman citizenship, was a tent-maker and supplier to the Roman army so was well-heeled and much travelled with many social and business contacts in the Mediterranean world. In the way of the upwardly-mobile he was a great follower of the temptations of the flesh and enthusiastically joined in baiting helpless minorities (in that day and age being the Christians), as encouraged by Nero the Emperor. Saul made many journeys in pursuit of business and social matters and, when on the road to Damascus, it would appear that he suffered a minor stroke which, upon recovery from, he concluded was a warning shot from God over his sins of the past, in particular his attitude towards Christians. So he became a typical re-actionary, changing his name to Paul and going to extremes to reverse his previous life-style, condemning all pleasures of the flesh and whole-heartedly supporting Christians and becoming self-appointed Director and Administrator of their Church, a post he filled admirably and his directives (epistles) fill much of the New Testament. Had it not been for Paul, we may today have been worshipping Mithras who was gaining in popularity at the time. Mithraic altars have been found in Britain. Mahomet, who founded Islam, was born in Mecca in AD570. He was of Semitic stock, probably from Christian Arab tribes. Therefore, Judaism (a belief in one God), Christianity and Islam arose from a common source with an affinity with the Old Testament. Naturally, after he started preaching 'There is but one God' (Allah – from Ilãh, Arabic for ‘The God’) his new creed was mocked by the establishment- but his followers eventually got it off the ground. Muslims regard Jesus as an important prophet and also recognise Mary as a major figure in the scriptures. All three major western religions share a history and owe much to each other. Sadly, the adherents of each (not to mention factions within each) will not give one another an inch of leeway and contain in their ranks hosts of bigots who are prepared to coerce, maim and kill in the name of what they perceive to be their true God.

Following on from what I said earlier, concerning mind/consciousness/the soul, the mind may also contact and influence other minds instantaneously, irrespective of distance (technically called “distant intentionality” but commonly known as “telepathy”). This ability may account for other phenomena such as hypnosis, spiritual healing, clairvoyance, premonitions and so on. It may also affect inanimate things (Ref Prof. Robert Jahn and others). Anyone interested can Google 'P.E.A.R.' or J.B.Rhine Foundation. So is this mind an independent spirit which may still have intelligence after departing from a body? May it still have an interest in its old possession, its living kith and kin and perhaps seek to influence or comfort them? And could it return to a different, unborn body? That would be re-incarnation. Nor is it beyond reasoning, based on published scientific papers, that a mind separated from a body under traumatic or unexpectedly violent circumstances may be unable to adapt to the change and be left in a void or “time warp”. Ghosts did someone say? len

In the third century AD, the position of the Holy Roman Emperor was being seriously undermined . The Gnostic Christians, who preached a gentle sort of goodness, had found extreme favour with the people and the official Christian Church was in extreme danger of losing power and control. At a convention which lasted for many years, the Bishops of the Holy Roman Church picked out a series of religious writings and declared that these were the Bible and that the Bible was the Word of God. They left out ALL of the Gnostic Gospels, destroyed many other secular writings and changed, deleted, added, altered, censored, anything which did not fit their purpose. Thus emerged a powerful Church, which SAID it had the Word of God, which was pretty nasty - if you do not do what the Church tells you God wants you to do, you will be condemned to everlasting Hell. If you even as much HINT that the Word of God isnt absolutely true, well, sorry, we will have to kill you. Which they did with enthusiasm for many centuries. This of course, was not God's work, but the work of man. If God did indeed leave us a message when his son came to earth, its more or less lost for ever, corrupted by people whose only interest was in supreme political power. OC

David Owen Quote 'Joe's right about the Bible being translated and interpreted in many different ways - it's a fact that can't be denied not hearsay and gossip.' What on earth do you mean by 'interpreted in many different ways '? It has been translated by many different people, and into practically every language in the world. I try not to interpret the Word of God, but let it speak for itself. Paul writing to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2: 16. 'And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 1 ¶ I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.' David