Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
> The original gospel writers refrained from inventing a
> childhood, youth or early manhood for JC because it was not
> necessary to their central drama of a dying/reborn sun-god. But
> as we know, the story grew with the telling, particularly as
> the decades passed and the promised redeemer and judge failed
> to reappear. The re-writer of the Gospel of Mark, revising his
> text sometime between 140 and 150 AD, introduces the name of
> the city only once in chapter one with these words:
>
> "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from
> Nazareth of Galilee ..." – Mark I, 9.
>
> From then on the name is almost forgotten. We may reasonably
> suspect that all four references in Mark are a later
> interpolation.

Your belief, David that Nazareth is an interpolation is inaccurate and doesn't stand up to logical reason, a hole posters often fall into when they plagiarise and pass off their writing as their own. I say that because what you wrote above is not your own words but copied and pasted from "Yahoo! Answers":

[feu.answers.yahoo.com]

It's a shame you didn't give a credit to the source for what you wrote because if had of written what you wrote, at least it would show you're thinking for yourself. Now, you're going to have to justify something someone else wrote, but if you would have thought more deeply about what they wrote, you wouldn't have used that page as a source.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that the Gospel texts were written as late as 140 AD, I really do not believe that people of that time would have swallowed a fiction such as a "Jesus of Nazareth", and formed themselves into a movement such as Christians, as they would have been mocked because when they would have gone about telling others about Jesus of Nazareth, people would have said, "Nazareth? There was no such place as Nazareth!" People would have mocked anyone trying to be Christian because they would have said, "Where is Nazareth? There is no such place! Nazareth doesn't exist!" How on earth could people claiming to be Christian, around 140 AD, have referred to a man from Nazareth if only a 100 years previously, there were no records of such a town? There would have been people with relatives from local areas queuing up to testify that such a place never existed. Historians and commentators of that time would have commented on this new Christian sect being based on a lie drawing attention to the simple point that there was no town called Nazareth in recent history, but there significantly aren't any such controversies recorded. There are no commentaries or reports from the 2nd century that Nazareth never existed, let alone even from the 3rd or 4th centuries and beyond. The only controversy about Nazareth is the controversy that's in the imagination of critics today and in more relative, modern times!

In the last paragraph of what you plagiarised from the "Yahoo! Answers" page, the author writes:

"From then on the name is almost forgotten."

The author of the essay you plagiarised interestingly states that from the time of Mark, the town of Nazareth is "almost forgotten". The author makes a terrible slip because this confirms that indeed, Nazareth was such an important town that it was quite forgettable, therefore, Nazareth must have existed, and therefore, the author scores an own goal and by default admits that such a place did exist, thus strangely contradicting his overall assertion.

The text you copied and pasted, without a credit, continued (2 years ago):

> We can trace the subsequent elevation of Nazareth in the Gospel
> of Luke. Luke is the writer who emphasizes JC's ties to
> 'Nazareth.' Luke is the writer who goes out of his way to
> demonstrate an anti-Capernaum stance. Scholars have concluded
> Luke was not a Jew himself because of his 'glaring errors in
> things Jewish'. He also makes mistakes in his geography. He
> knows little about the place and in his mini-drama describes an
> impossible incident:
>
> " ... and brought him to the precipice of the mountain that
> their city was built upon." – Luke 4.29.
>
> Nazareth, in fact, is located in a depression, set within
> gentle hills. The whole region is characterized by plains and
> mild rises with no sharp peaks or steep cliffs. The terrain is
> correctly understood as a high basin, for in one direction is
> the much lower Plain of Esdraelon. But there is no disguising
> Nazareth is built in a valley and not on a mountain. Even the
> mediaeval town sat below the summit – protected from the wind.
> Beginning only in 1957, the Jewish suburb called 'Nazerat
> Illit' ('Upper Nazareth') was built to the top ...

It's at this point in your copied and pasted text that you flipped over to some of your own words and accompanied it with pictures from a tacky Web site called "JesusNevererEisted.com". However, I already addressed the issue of the gegography of Narareth with a prior post, in which I gave this credited post:

Quote

Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600-900 BCE, it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16), which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of the Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus, and her name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.It seems that the words of Nathanel of Cana, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:47) characterized the site's seeming insignificance. It is needless to say that the people of Judea had never heard of Nazareth.

And from this we understand the reason that Pontius Pilate decorates the cross with the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (John 19:19) - meaning that the "King of the Jews" is from "nowhere." The early name "Nazarenes" given to the Christians might have been a derogatory nickname that the people of Judea gave to the followers of Jesus (Matthew 26:71, Acts 6:38). Jesus was known throughout the Galilee as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Matthew 21:11 , Mark 14:67) - but for those not from the Galilee, this name had no meaning for them. In order to explain where Nazareth was located, the Galileans had to explain that the village was near Gat-Hyefer (Jonah's hometown,Kings II 14:25), which could be seen from Nazareth. Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.

The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BCE. After those years, there was a break in settlement until the year 200 BCE.

Since then, the site of Nazareth has been consistently inhabited. Most of the archeological finds consist of caves, cisterns and grain storage bins. The agricultural character of the site is made obvious with the discoveries of oil mills and mill stones. There were a large number of underground rooms because the soft chalk of Nazareth made it easy to hew caves.

Nazareth is located between the open space of the Jezreel valley and the mountainous regions of the Galilee. The valley and its history were well known to the Jews of Nazareth in the time of Jesus.During the first 20 years of his life that he spent in Nazareth, Jesus had many an opportunity to walk on the mountain ranges, to look over and think about the history of his people. The great battles that had taken place in the valley, together with the great hopes that were dashed with their losses, must have affected and shaped his view on life. The valley of Jezreel, as it is seen from Nazareth, is a natural battlefield. This fact must have influenced the idea of "...all the holders of swords shall fall by the sword," (Matthew 28:52). Another geographical area adjacent to Nazareth was the lower Galilee and the Beti Netofa valley.

In this region there were many small Jewish villages and towns settled by Hellenized Syrians. The largest of these towns was Tzippori, the capital of the Galilee until the year 18 BCE. Even though Tzippori is a 45- minute-walk from Nazareth, the town is not mentioned in the New Testament. The main events in Jesus's life, as described in the New Testament, are the annunciation of his birth (Luke 1:26-38),his childhood and early manhood (Luke 2:39-52, Matthew 2:19-23), and the clash with his fellow citizens (Matthew 13:54-58, Luke 4:17-30). From the very first events relating to the life of Jesus in Nazareth, we learn that the people of his village did not approve of his thinking and behavior. To them he was Jesus, one of the sons of Joseph the carpenter (the other brothers were James, Joseph, Simeon and Judah - Matthew 13:55). Luke describes with great drama how Jesus was rejected by the people of Nazareth. After his sermon in the synagogue aroused their anger, the people took him "and brought him to the precipice of the mountain that their city was built upon" (Luke 4). Some have pointed out that this sentence in Luke is not correct, as Nazareth is built in a valley and not on a mountain. But the valley of Nazareth is on a mountain overlooking the Jezreel valley - and the mountain of the precipice overlooks the valley of Nazaret and the valley of Jezreel.

So actually, David, it's you who are making a mountain out of molehill and not only that, you've dug yourself into a deeper hole in the process!

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 284 shamanaut 30-May-09 16:38
The work of Acharya S has been debunked 186 Milo 30-May-09 17:13
Obviously Christians are going to Gawf 131 shamanaut 30-May-09 23:14
Obviously Achyara supporters are going to Gawf 160 Milo 31-May-09 00:16
I cant debate with 'Faith' logic. 169 shamanaut 31-May-09 16:15
Re: I cant debate with 'Faith' logic. 139 Milo 31-May-09 16:24
Re: Obviously Christians are going to Gawf 177 David L 02-Jun-09 04:31
Re: Obviously Christians are going to Gawf 169 Milo 02-Jun-09 09:41
Re: Obviously Christians are going to Gawf 137 David L 03-Jun-09 04:48
Everyone on this forum has different beliefs to the next poster anyway 161 Milo 03-Jun-09 09:50
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 155 David Campbell 31-May-09 01:02
Nazareth - Archeological Evidence 193 Milo 31-May-09 01:10
Re: Nazareth - Archeological Evidence 121 David Campbell 31-May-09 02:02
Re: Nazareth - Archeological Evidence 145 Milo 31-May-09 02:23
Re: Nazareth - Archeological Evidence 142 Eddie Larry 31-May-09 03:06
Re: Nazareth - Archeological Evidence 147 Milo 31-May-09 03:18
Re: Nazareth - Archeological Evidence 145 Eddie Larry 31-May-09 03:33
Re: Nazareth - Archeological Evidence 123 Milo 31-May-09 03:47
Re: Nazareth - Archeological Evidence 151 David Campbell 31-May-09 04:44
Plagiarism 164 Milo 31-May-09 11:12
Re: Plagiarism 140 David Campbell 31-May-09 17:14
Re: Plagiarism 158 Milo 31-May-09 17:31
Re: Plagiarism 178 Lee McGiffen 03-Jun-09 14:08
Re: Plagiarism 122 Milo 03-Jun-09 21:48
Re: Plagiarism 168 Lee McGiffen 04-Jun-09 02:29
Re: Plagiarism 166 Milo 04-Jun-09 02:34
Demons 157 Milo 04-Jun-09 02:40
Re: Demons 123 Lee McGiffen 04-Jun-09 02:50
Re: Demons 148 Milo 04-Jun-09 03:03
Re: Plagiarism 139 Milo 04-Jun-09 03:07
Re: Plagiarism 126 Lee McGiffen 04-Jun-09 05:23
Re: Plagiarism 143 Milo 04-Jun-09 12:14
Re: Plagiarism 161 Lee McGiffen 04-Jun-09 12:30
Re: Plagiarism 144 Milo 04-Jun-09 12:35
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 140 papalou 03-Jun-09 23:03
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 156 Milo 03-Jun-09 23:09
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 162 papalou 04-Jun-09 18:01
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 137 Milo 04-Jun-09 18:57
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 126 martinpescatore 04-Jun-09 19:06
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 138 papalou 07-Jun-09 22:40
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 120 Milo 08-Jun-09 04:41
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 156 martinpescatore 08-Jun-09 08:25
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 162 Milo 08-Jun-09 12:42
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 110 martinpescatore 08-Jun-09 13:49
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 184 Milo 08-Jun-09 13:53
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 154 martinpescatore 08-Jun-09 14:44
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 155 Milo 08-Jun-09 14:52
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 148 martinpescatore 08-Jun-09 15:23
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 147 Milo 08-Jun-09 15:32
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 140 martinpescatore 08-Jun-09 16:14
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 146 Milo 08-Jun-09 16:21
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 109 martinpescatore 08-Jun-09 16:31
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 133 Milo 08-Jun-09 16:34
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 139 papalou 09-Jun-09 04:13
Re: The work of Acharya S has been debunked 127 Milo 09-Jun-09 05:18
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 156 David Campbell 31-May-09 00:42
The Underlying Agenda 126 Milo 31-May-09 01:03
Re: The Underlying Agenda 161 David Campbell 31-May-09 01:18
Re: The Underlying Agenda 159 Milo 31-May-09 01:27
O wunden, wundenwoller heilige Speer! 126 Milo 31-May-09 01:48
Re: O wunden, wundenwoller heilige Speer! 155 David Campbell 31-May-09 02:41
Re: O wunden, wundenwoller heilige Speer! 117 Milo 31-May-09 02:44
Herodias, Magdalen and Prakriti 143 Milo 31-May-09 02:52
Re: Herodias, Magdalen and Prakriti 118 David Campbell 31-May-09 03:58
Re: Herodias, Magdalen and Prakriti 176 Milo 31-May-09 04:11
Re: Herodias, Magdalen and Prakriti 160 David Campbell 31-May-09 04:22
Re: Herodias, Magdalen and Prakriti 140 Milo 31-May-09 04:31
Re: Herodias, Magdalen and Prakriti 161 Milo 31-May-09 04:34
Re: The Underlying Agenda 153 David Campbell 31-May-09 02:28
Re: The Underlying Agenda 158 Milo 31-May-09 02:40
Re: The Underlying Agenda 149 David Campbell 31-May-09 03:03
Re: The Underlying Agenda 159 Milo 31-May-09 03:20
Re: The Underlying Agenda 149 David Campbell 31-May-09 04:11
Re: The Underlying Agenda 182 Milo 31-May-09 04:29
Re: The Underlying Agenda 140 The Kwuda 01-Jun-09 17:43
Re: The Underlying Agenda 123 Milo 01-Jun-09 19:14
Re: The Underlying Agenda 148 The Kwuda 02-Jun-09 10:55
Re: The Underlying Agenda 135 Milo 02-Jun-09 11:09
Re: The Underlying Agenda 127 The Kwuda 02-Jun-09 11:40
Re: The Underlying Agenda 168 Milo 02-Jun-09 13:41
Re: The Underlying Agenda 106 The Kwuda 02-Jun-09 11:51
Re: The Underlying Agenda 165 Milo 02-Jun-09 13:42
Re: The Underlying Agenda 148 The Kwuda 02-Jun-09 17:16
Re: The Underlying Agenda 145 Milo 02-Jun-09 22:04
Re: The Underlying Agenda 172 shamanaut 31-May-09 16:47
source of my quote 134 shamanaut 31-May-09 16:48
Re: source of my quote 166 Milo 31-May-09 17:27
Re: source of my quote 140 Milo 31-May-09 17:40
Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 153 Raja 01-Jun-09 21:25
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 157 Raja 01-Jun-09 21:30
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 149 R and M 02-Jun-09 09:18
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 146 The Kwuda 02-Jun-09 11:04
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 127 The Kwuda 02-Jun-09 17:45
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 176 R and M 03-Jun-09 04:28
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 136 The Kwuda 04-Jun-09 06:39
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 154 Milo 04-Jun-09 10:35
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 129 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:31
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 163 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:34
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 115 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:37
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 173 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:37
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 140 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:40
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 134 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:43
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 111 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:46
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 157 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:47
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 154 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:43
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 120 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:44
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 150 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:39
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 153 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:41
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 128 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:44
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 119 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:45
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 127 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:47
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 121 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:48
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 131 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:50
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 147 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:51
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 144 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:53
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 142 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:53
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 144 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:51
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 113 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:53
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 120 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:55
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 160 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:56
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 147 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:58
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 151 Milo 06-Jun-09 00:02
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 149 The Kwuda 06-Jun-09 00:01
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 170 Milo 06-Jun-09 00:03
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 122 The Kwuda 06-Jun-09 00:06
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 135 Milo 06-Jun-09 00:09
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 116 The Kwuda 06-Jun-09 00:13
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 152 Milo 06-Jun-09 00:28
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 159 R and M 04-Jun-09 10:49
The two seeds of Genesis 3 128 Milo 04-Jun-09 11:39
Re: The two seeds of Genesis 3 142 R and M 05-Jun-09 05:47
Re: The two seeds of Genesis 3 138 Milo 05-Jun-09 10:21
Re: The two seeds of Genesis 3 160 R and M 05-Jun-09 13:29
Re: The two seeds of Genesis 3 142 ariston 05-Jun-09 13:41
Re: The two seeds of Genesis 3 112 Milo 05-Jun-09 14:14
correction... 126 Milo 05-Jun-09 14:16
Re: correction... 130 ariston 05-Jun-09 14:39
Ying and Yang is a flawed philosophy 160 Milo 05-Jun-09 15:01
correction... 144 Milo 05-Jun-09 15:45
Re: correction... 114 ariston 05-Jun-09 18:16
Re: correction... 157 Milo 05-Jun-09 22:30
Re: correction... 153 ariston 06-Jun-09 02:19
Re: correction... 144 Milo 06-Jun-09 03:00
Re: correction... 115 ariston 06-Jun-09 04:12
Re: correction... 144 Milo 06-Jun-09 04:23
Re: correction... 148 Eddie Larry 07-Jun-09 15:23
Re: correction... 148 Milo 07-Jun-09 17:42
Re: correction... 162 Eddie Larry 09-Jun-09 02:50
Re: correction... 148 Milo 09-Jun-09 05:19
Re: correction... 106 Eddie Larry 10-Jun-09 00:50
Re: correction... 151 Milo 10-Jun-09 05:02
Re: Ying and Yang is a flawed philosophy 153 papalou 07-Jun-09 22:53
Re: Ying and Yang is a flawed philosophy 132 papalou 07-Jun-09 23:15
Re: Ying and Yang is a flawed philosophy 146 Milo 08-Jun-09 04:45
Re: Ying and Yang is a flawed philosophy 149 papalou 07-Jun-09 23:24
Re: Ying and Yang is a flawed philosophy 120 Milo 08-Jun-09 04:48
Re: Ying and Yang is a flawed philosophy 131 papalou 09-Jun-09 04:18
Re: Ying and Yang is a flawed philosophy 160 Milo 09-Jun-09 05:20
Re: Ying and Yang is a flawed philosophy 109 Milo 08-Jun-09 04:44
Re: The two seeds of Genesis 3 160 R and M 06-Jun-09 07:54
ABC 167 Milo 06-Jun-09 12:36
Re: the end 163 R and M 07-Jun-09 10:12
Re: the end 145 Milo 07-Jun-09 11:20
Re: the end 126 R and M 08-Jun-09 07:15
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 145 The Kwuda 02-Jun-09 11:00
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 150 Milo 02-Jun-09 11:10
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 143 The Kwuda 02-Jun-09 11:37
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 135 The Kwuda 02-Jun-09 11:43
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 131 Milo 02-Jun-09 13:44
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 137 Milo 02-Jun-09 13:43
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 118 The Kwuda 02-Jun-09 17:51
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 143 shamanaut 03-Jun-09 17:07
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 121 Milo 03-Jun-09 21:50
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 127 Raja 04-Jun-09 07:14
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 205 Aine 04-Jun-09 15:59
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 154 Milo 04-Jun-09 19:07
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 204 Aine 04-Jun-09 19:51
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 155 Milo 04-Jun-09 20:31
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 119 martinpescatore 04-Jun-09 21:20
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 106 Milo 04-Jun-09 21:26
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 161 martinpescatore 05-Jun-09 06:18
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 175 Milo 05-Jun-09 10:22
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 158 martinpescatore 05-Jun-09 20:16
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 123 Raja 05-Jun-09 21:10
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 168 carolb 04-Jun-09 20:19
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 154 Milo 04-Jun-09 20:35
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 164 carolb 04-Jun-09 21:23
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 111 Milo 04-Jun-09 21:30
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 179 carolb 04-Jun-09 22:44
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 140 Milo 04-Jun-09 22:51
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 149 carolb 04-Jun-09 22:59
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 111 Milo 04-Jun-09 23:02
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 116 carolb 04-Jun-09 23:14
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 154 Milo 04-Jun-09 23:33
Re: Here's the firebrigade, fire turns to smoke... 140 Milo 04-Jun-09 23:35
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 160 Tom Hebert 02-Jun-09 18:11
jesus was a man; Jesus was a myth 144 Eddie Larry 03-Jun-09 04:44
Re: jesus was a man; Jesus was a myth 152 Susan Doris 03-Jun-09 08:40
Re: jesus was a man; Jesus was a myth 146 Eddie Larry 04-Jun-09 01:13
Re: jesus was a man; Jesus was a myth 97 Tom Hebert 03-Jun-09 10:31
Re: jesus was a man; Jesus was a myth 130 Eddie Larry 04-Jun-09 03:15
Re: jesus was a man; Jesus was a myth 131 Milo 04-Jun-09 03:16
Jesus was not a myth 146 Milo 04-Jun-09 03:18
Re: jesus was a man; Jesus was a myth 147 Eddie Larry 04-Jun-09 03:49
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 114 Diomede 04-Jun-09 00:11
For a guy who never existed, he gets a lot of attention on the GHMB 132 David L 04-Jun-09 02:34
Re: For a guy who never existed, he gets a lot of attention on the GHMB 136 Milo 04-Jun-09 02:38
Re: For a guy who never existed, he gets a lot of attention on the GHMB 144 Eddie Larry 04-Jun-09 03:10
Jesus 141 Milo 04-Jun-09 03:14
Diabolical Mimicry 151 Deep1 04-Jun-09 21:11
Re: Diabolical Mimicry 143 Milo 04-Jun-09 21:15
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 133 Enigcom 05-Jun-09 17:43
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 113 The Kwuda 05-Jun-09 23:49
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 135 Milo 05-Jun-09 23:50
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 118 deeside 06-Jun-09 19:42
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 154 Milo 06-Jun-09 20:07
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 160 deeside 06-Jun-09 20:47
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 158 Milo 06-Jun-09 20:51
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 161 deeside 06-Jun-09 21:08
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 121 Milo 06-Jun-09 21:18
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 160 deeside 06-Jun-09 21:52
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 138 deeside 07-Jun-09 09:16
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 151 Milo 07-Jun-09 11:16
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 162 childinthesun 07-Jun-09 17:02
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 147 Milo 07-Jun-09 17:44
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 156 ariston 07-Jun-09 17:52
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 144 Milo 07-Jun-09 18:05
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 128 deeside 08-Jun-09 14:46
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 139 Milo 08-Jun-09 14:57
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 168 deeside 08-Jun-09 21:32
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 155 Milo 09-Jun-09 05:21
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 146 ariston 06-Jun-09 20:52
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 116 Milo 06-Jun-09 21:25
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 168 deeside 07-Jun-09 21:24
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 117 Milo 08-Jun-09 04:49
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 132 Eddie Larry 09-Jun-09 00:23
jesus was there... 146 shazaman 09-Jun-09 09:54
Re: jesus was there... 142 papalou 11-Jun-09 02:08
Re: jesus was there... 133 Milo 11-Jun-09 08:46
Re: jesus was there... 118 martinpescatore 11-Jun-09 09:38
Re: jesus was there... 140 Milo 11-Jun-09 10:14
Re: jesus was there... 135 Milo 11-Jun-09 10:37
Re: jesus was there... 166 martinpescatore 11-Jun-09 11:32
Re: jesus was there... 173 Milo 11-Jun-09 13:17
Re: jesus was there... 139 martinpescatore 11-Jun-09 19:56
Re: jesus was there... 142 Milo 11-Jun-09 21:44
Re: Was Jesus a Myth? Blog of Acharya S 140 martinpescatore 11-Jun-09 15:36


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.