Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

World|Thu, Dec. 20 2007 03:09 PM EST

Archbishop of Canterbury Dismisses Three Wise Men as 'Legend'

By Ethan Cole|Christian Post Reporter

Clarification appended

  • Nativity Story
    (Photo: New Line Cinema)
    This undated image provided by New Line Cinema pictures the three wise men from the movie 'The Nativity Story.'

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual head of the 77 million-strong Anglican Communion, recently dismissed one popular aspect of the Christmas story of the three wise men as “legend.”

Dr. Rowan Williams indicated that Scripture does not describe the magi as commonly depicted in nativity stories and scenes.

“Well Matthew's gospel doesn't tell us that there were three of them, doesn't tell us they were kings, doesn't tell us where they came from, it says they're astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire. That's all we're really told so, yes, 'the three kings with the one from Africa' - that's legend; it works quite well as legend,” he said in an interview with BBC Radio Five.

He noted there was no evidence of oxen or donkeys – popular characters in nativity scenes – in the stable and that the chances of snow falling around the stable in Bethlehem were “very unlikely.” Additionally, he said he doesn't know if there was a star above where baby Jesus lay. While the gospel of Matthew talks about the rising star and standing still, the Archbishop noted, he said "stars don't behave quite like that."

"There are various scientific theories about what it might have been at around that time and they (wise men) followed that trek; that makes sense to me," he said.

However, affirming some widely held beliefs of the Christmas story, the Archbishop said the detail that almost everyone agrees on is that Jesus’ mother is named Mary and his father, Joseph. Williams also affirmed his belief in the virgin birth and Jesus in a manger, but said the Gospels do not state if Jesus was born in December.

“Christmas is the time it is because it fitted very well with the winter festival,” Williams said in the interview.

The Anglican head explains that about a decade ago he was not too concerned about the literal truth of the doctrine of the virgin birth, but now sees it “much more as dovetailing with the rest of what I believe about the story.”

A recent Barna survey found that 75 percent of Americans said they believe in the gospel narrative of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ literally.

Williams did a literary-critical analysis of traditional Christmas cards and found that most featured a virgin Mary holding baby Jesus with shepherds on one side, the three wise men on the other, and oxen and donkeys surrounding them. The scene is sometimes depicted with snow falling and a bright star rising in the east, according to The Times of London.

The Anglican Archbishop contends that most of the happenings in the popular nativity scene could not take place as it is depicted. But the most important concept to take away from the Christmas story is the belief that God came to earth in human form as part of His plan for salvation.

Williams’ observation of the popular Christmas story is not new. Similar views are taught in the most conservative theological colleges, according to The Times. The Archbishop says his views on the Christmas story and other issues – including homosexuality, which is currently tearing up the Anglican Communion – are based on what the Bible says.

Clarification: Friday, Dec. 21, 2007:

An article on Thursday, Dec. 20, 2007, about Dr. Rowan Williams' comments on the nativity story ambiguously quoted the Archbishop of Canterbury from an interview he had with BBC Radio Five. Williams said the common depiction of one of the wise men being from Africa is a legend. He affirmed that there were magi but said Scripture does not indicate whether there were three of them or that they were kings.

He also affirmed that there was a star above the manger where Jesus lay but noted there are various scientific theories about whether it was a star, a constellation, or such, that the magi followed.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:25 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    It takes one with the spirit of the LIVING GOD to understand the truth of the Bible. Bible understanding is not by academic aquisition in the four walls of the university/school but the wall of the heart. The question is this "has the Arch Bishop ever has an encounter with Christ?'Saul later Paul did and he told us as it is in 1st Corinthians 1 Vs19-21

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "I'll stick with the word of God and my Catholic faith."

    So Revelations isn't part of the Catholic Bible or faith?

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:39 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    I am glad that others will be able to read your illogical and poor interpretations of scripture. Most KNOWLEDGABLE students of church history understands that the HISTORICIST interpretation of bible prophecy, PRECEED the SDA church. Your repetative assumption is extremely sad.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    One last thing, I have no idea about the temple it's all conjecture just like your 10 representing the EU. I'll stick with the word of God and my Catholic faith. You go ahead and interpret the end times...good luck

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    Go back and read Daniel 7; it says the the little horn was "DIFFERENT" from the previous powers. Once again you interpretation fails you.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I don't NEED to do anything. This Seventh Day Adventist stuff is so ridiculous it isn't even funny. You point to the 10 representing the EU ...how? the Vatican is incorrect but you'll twist it to make it sound correct. As for the Christian Fathers we already discussed this and I encourage people to read our previous postings. I'm done discussing this with you, it's bad enough when the SDAs come to my door and want to suck up my time discussing this ridiculous stuff. I'll stand by what has already been posted. All the best Online4Him....goodbye.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    So a denial of Jesus as the messiah and renewed animal sacrifces actually proves that a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem becomes the temple of God? This is ludicrous!!!!!!!!

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    The Word of God, the Chruch Fathers, and the Reformers all support the Historicist position. Your position "futurism" is in the minority. You still think that a rebuilt Jewish temple can actually be a temple of "GOD". As I mentioned earlier; how can any re-built temple with renewed animal sacrifices and a disbelief that Jesus is the messiah, be the temple of God? You need to come up with something better than that.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I know it is difficult for you as a Seventh Day Adventist to believe this. You'd rather hold to aspects that don't even make sense. The 10 some how has something to do with the EU, the Vatican represents 4 mountains, even though it was yet to be founded and only sits on 1 hill, ..... I could go on and on but it's so ridiculous

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Further confirmation is found in Revelation speaking of the Jewish temple as if it were still operating (11:1), but soon to be trampled by the gentiles, along with the holy city (11:2). Shortly after Nero's reign, the gentiles did indeed invade Jerusalem, trample it, and destroy the temple.

    This suggests not only that the beast corresponded to the Roman empire in general and Caesar Nero in particular but also that the book of Revelation itself was written sometime in the early A.D. 60s, during Nero's reign, just before the Jewish War that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    What Daniel's four beasts have in common is that they are all pagan kingdoms that persecuted and conquered God's people, Israel. John's beast is the same kind of thing—a conquering pagan empire. Since it comes after Daniel's four beasts, Rome is the logical candidate. But it's not a future, "restored Roman Empire." It's the real thing, the pagan Roman Empire of the early centuries. This is confirmed by several lines of evidence.

    First, the book of Revelation is explicit in stating that it concerns events that will happen "soon" (1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 22:6, 7, 12, 20). This indicates that the bulk of the events of the book (those that precede the Millennium of Rev. 20:1-10, in which we are now living) should take place shortly after the book was written, likely in the A.D. 60s.

    Second, we are told that the number of the beast is 666 and that this is the number of a man's name (13:18). Not coincidentally, the persecuting, pagan Roman Empire was headed in the A.D. 60s by Caesar Nero, whose name happened to add up to 666 in the Hebrew system of letters and numbers. (In Hebrew, "Caesar Nero" = "NRWN QSR" = N 50 + R 200 + W 6 + N 50 + Q 100 + S 60 + R 200 = 666; a variant spelling of the name, NRW QSR, adds up to 616, which some manuscripts have in place of 666).

    Third, the seven heads of the beast are identified as seven mountains (17:9). Though this is not certain, these are likely the seven hills on which the city of Rome was built. (Vatican Hill, however, was not one of the seven; it is on the side of the Tiber River opposite the seven.)

    Thus there is good evidence that the beast from the sea is the pagan Roman Empire of the first century and, in particular, the emperor at its head. This, again, is like Daniel's four beasts, who were described both as four kings (Dan 7:17) and four kingdoms (cf. Dan. 7:23).

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:19 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    It is extremely obvious that you continue to grasp at any insignificant thing that will elevate your false unbiblical religion. Go back and “actually” read Daniel 7 and come up with another entity that fits this prophecy; you cannot. So, let us talk about denominations instead of “proving” your position from the bible; this is nothing more that “misdirection’s” to avoid the biblical text.

    BOTTOM LINE: These are the identification marks mentioned in Daniel 7; so, who else can it be? You cannot find another based on these BIBLICAL PASSAGES.

    It is well known from Daniel 7 that the antichrist would rise out of the fourth beast (Rome), remain in the midst of the ten horns (Europe), be different from the rest (a political & ecclesiastical power), uproot three kingdoms (Heruli, Vandals, & Ostrogoths), speak great words against the Most High (assume the titles of God), wore out the saints of the Most High (persecuted Christians), thought to change times and laws (tampered with the law of God), and would rule for a time, times, and half of time (1260 years).

    GIVE ME ANOTHER ENTITY THAT FITS THIS PROPHECY? Instead of shooting down this obvious interpretation; give me something to replace it with!!!!!!!!!! The nations of Europe “are” kingdoms which ROME was divided into; anyone who knows basic history understands this. Not only do you attempt to re-write history, you also attempt to alter the Word of God. Your church “HAS” assumed the titles of the old Rome and they have always operated from the city of ROME. Go back and read a history book.

    Go ahead and talk about “denominations” and secondary issues while I will continue to post “SCRIPTURE” :)

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sorry just flagged myself because I made a typo: It's not that the Word of God contradict itself it is that the person contradicts himself/herself. Just like your interpretations - you stated that the EU represents the 10 horns...what does the EU have 10 of? you stated that the Vatican sits on 4 hills/mountains...no it doesn't it sits on Vatican hill. I guess you are referring to Rome which sits on the opposite side of the river. I mean these statements are not even accurate, but represent a need by the seventh day adventists to point to the Church at the end times. Regardless that the statements aren't true.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    One can come on to CP and open any topic regardless of the denomination and notice that there are people finding problems with it.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Online4Him,

    Your beliefs are seventh day adventist - Sabbath is on Saturday, the evangelicals are wrong that once they accept Christ they are saved - once saved, always saved.... I agree there are various interpretations of scripture. Thus, there are thousands of different protestant faiths teaching different interpretations.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:22 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    Making a claim does not prove it. The Word of God does not contradict itself; can you say the same thing about the Catholic Church? I think not.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I guess anybody can use a quote here or there..now I really have to go.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    of course it is a protestant site...one last thing:
    Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinge in 1843 wrote strongly in favour of requiring Protestant soldiers to kneel at the consecration of the Host when compelled officially to be present at Mass. Moreover, in his works on The Reformation (3 vols. Regensburg, 1846-1848) and on Luther (1851, Eng, tr., 1853) he is very severe on the Protestant leaders, and he also accepts, in his earlier works, the Ultramontane view then current on the practical condition of the Church of England, a view he later changed. Meanwhile he had been well received in England; and he afterwards travelled in the Netherlands, Belgium and France, acquainting himself with the condition and prospects of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1842 he entered into correspondence with the leaders of the Tractarian movement in England, and some interesting letters have been preserved which were exchanged between him and Edward Pusey, William Gladstone and James Hope-Scott. When the last-named joined the Church of Rome he was warmly congratulated by Döllinger on the step he had taken.

    He regretted the gradual and very natural trend of his new English allies towards extreme Ultramontane views, of which Archdeacon, afterwards Cardinal, Manning ultimately became an enthusiastic advocate. In 1845 Döllinger was made representative of his university in the second chamber of the Bavarian legislature. In 1847, in consequence of the fall from power of the Abel ministry in Bavaria, with which he had been in close relations, he was removed from his professorship at Munich, but in 1849 he was invited to occupy the chair of ecclesiastical history. In 1848, when nearly every throne in Europe was shaken by the spread of revolutionary sentiments, he was elected delegate to the national German assembly at Frankfurt - a sufficient proof that at this time he was regarded as no mere narrow and technical theologian, but as a man of wide and independent views.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    That still does not change their "statement of faith"!

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Just like the person who runs the Catholic site on the homepage could tell you - there have been people on this site who have returned to their Catholic faith due to this protestant site - praise God. I have to go ...All the best.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    The passage says absolutely nothing about successors to Peter, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers actually opposes the Roman Catholic interpretation of Mt 16. The Fathers generally interpret the ‘rock’ in Matthew 16 to be Christ or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ. Some of the Fathers do refer to Peter as the rock but only in the sense of that he is the first to confess Christ to be the Son of God and is therefore representative of the entire Church. The Church is therefore built, not on Peter (or subsequently on the bishops of Rome), but on his confession of faith in the person of Christ. His confession points to Christ. The Fathers of the early centuries are not supporters of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Mt. 16:18 as proposed by Vatican One. Interestingly, it is the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox interpretation which is endorsed by the Fathers of the early church. This is affirmed by Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the 19th century who taught Church history as a Roman Catholic for 47 years.

    Von Dollinger states: ‘Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess-Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas-has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!

    Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation-stones of the Church (Revelation xxi. 14). The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as-what is obvious to anyone at first sight-they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing’ (The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), p. 74).

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    Debating and demonstrating your faith to be true; is something else.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    You can also review the CP's statement of faith and recognize that it does not agree with the RCC. You have yet to prove anything from scripture.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I don't mind debating my faith, I love being a Roman Catholic.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    Here we go with quotations from "outside" biblical sources. Should I go back to cut and re-paste my comments from the early church fathers and their disagreements about Matt. 16?

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    THE primacy of Peter is clearly noted in the Bible:

    "And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock ['Peter' is Greek for 'rock'] 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

    "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).

    "I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:33).

    God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).

    The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

    Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26).

    Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14).

    Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15).

    Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11).

    Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).

    Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3).

    After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

    Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter's name is always first. Sometimes it's just "Peter and the twelve. "

    Peter's name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I realize there are many ex-Catholics on this site and can also understand why if you go to the top of the page and do a search of Catholic in the search engine under all CP and count all the stories that the Catholic faith is mentioned in more stories than any other denomination, I can understand why there is a link to a Catholic site on the homepage, because the Catholic faith is an extremely important aspect of Christianity in general. I realize the Catholic Church will always be attacked due its position in history and Christianity. Like mother Mary I'll try to hold on at the foot of the cross and remain with the Church the apostles established. May God continue to guide the Church and its members to do the right thing. There is a link to a Catholic site on CP I'd advise you to use it Online4Him.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    Claiming apostolic succession and proving it, are two separate things. Yes, Rome has made the claim but has not proved it. Instead of trutsting in what that church says; I will rather depend on the written record. The Word of the Living God is completely silent on this issue. Paul never addresses "Peter" in Rome as a prisoner nor does Peter come to visit Paul in prison. Peter never claims any superiority in his letters, etc, etc, etc.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

    For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church's bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed 'an infallible charism of truth'" (ibid.).

    Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I feel the same way about my Catholic faith. Like the first Christians I have no doubts about how to determine which was and is the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

    Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    What was your point for bringing that up?

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    We will get back to that; what happened to our other conversations about the "once saved, always saved?

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    GMG,


    Well said!!!!!

    For goodness sakes, I was raised RC, came to know the Lord in a Baptist church, and call myself a Christian seeking to grow always in the Lord's word, through His word first and foremost. I am not any denomination, I have a relationship with Christ. If you want to call me anything you could probably call me southern baptist, but I don't believe everything they say either. Would something like that tell you all that I believe, or how my growth would give me more wisdom in the future on any given issue? Give it a rest.

    Maybe, if taj hears this from someone else; perhaps he will understand.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    Incorrect my friend; God himself has given us these prophecies. Until someone can give me an accurate explanation for these passages and refute the Historicist interpretation; I will have to stay put.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    well then here is your chance: where is it in scripture?

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Online4Him,

    You stated you would back up your answers from scripture where is there that there is a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    Jesus used the Word of God as his sole rule of faith. Jesus never used "tradition" as his authority. You can have the church; just be me Jesus Christ.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    well if you are referring to me church as the blank of Babylon then should be able to back up where you are coming from. If you are going to attack my Church then don't think I'm not going to put on the whole armor of God and want to know where the other person is coming from

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ok then demonstrate to me from scripture that there is a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven

  • GMG »
    Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    For goodness sakes, I was raised RC, came to know the Lord in a Baptist church, and call myself a Christian seeking to grow always in the Lord's word, through His word first and foremost. I am not any denomination, I have a relationship with Christ. If you want to call me anything you could probably call me southern baptist, but I don't believe everything they say either. Would something like that tell you all that I believe, or how my growth would give me more wisdom in the future on any given issue? Give it a rest.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You can't answer simple questions...very sad

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Your views are seventh day adventist: you reject the teachings of the evangelicals that belief in Jesus Christ is enough ...once saved, always saved, that the Sabbath is Saturday. You haven't responded whether there is a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven...you are adventist

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    Haha, you are to funny! Let's see - I have told you that I left, that I am done with denominations, that I observe the sabbath, that I adhere to the bible alone, that I adhere to the five solas of the Reformation, that you can have you choice of labels for me, that I am a Christian that can demonstrate what I believe from scripture and still you babble on with the same question. You need therapy my friend :)

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Online4Him, can't even answer a yes/no question how sad is that??

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Roman Catholics, don't believe the bible is the only way ...we never have and we never will. To do so would be to undercut the importance of the Church. The bible is the only way started at the protestant reformation the idea didn't exist previously. I answered your question now answer mine: Do you swear to God that you left the Seventh Day Adventists?

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    There you go jumping from one subject to another again. Let's finish the "Sabbath" conversation and once saved, always saved before jumping to eschatology.

    If you want to go back to eschatology; then figure out the specifics of Daniel 7.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Why will you not admit that you are seventh day adventist?

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    You have been told already that I can defend my beliefs from the bible. Can you say the same thing?

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    new yes or no question: do you believe that there will be a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven?

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Taj,

    Yeah, right? Do not flatter yourself.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links