EQUIPPING BELIEVERS TO ANSWER CRITICS OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS Part 6

Gnostic Views On the Resurrection

Interest in Gnosticism and the Gnostic gospels has had a revival in recent years and has been further fueled by Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. For much of history, most of what was known about Gnostic thought and gospels came from the writings of the church fathers in their refutations of Gnosticism. Then in 1945, Coptic Gnostic codices were found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. These texts were dated about 350-400 AD. By 1977 they had been translated into English. (1)  Gnostics have a different interpretation of the resurrection. They see the resurrection as a spiritual rather than a physical resurrection. In her book, The Gnostic Gospels (2) , Elaine Pagels writes :

“But the Gnostic Christians rejected Luke’s theory. Some Gnostics called the literal view of the resurrection the ‘faith of fools.’ The resurrection was not a unique event of the past: instead, it symbolized how Christ’s presence could be experienced in the present . What mattered was not literal seeing but, spiritual vision.”

She goes on to state the Gnostic belief that Jesus taught His disciples secret teaching or mysteries that the disciples taught only to those more spiritual advanced. Only these people were taught the gnosis or secret knowledge. (3)

Not all books on Gnosticism write about a solely spiritual resurrection. In his book, Gnosticism New Light On The Ancient Tradition Of Inner Knowing (4)  , Stephen Hoeller writes that Jesus’ body could have gone through some type of reanimation on Easter morning.
Writers on Gnosticism want to date the Gnostic gospels as being written during the first century and circulating during the same time as the New Testament Gospels. They believe that it was only during the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, that the Gnostic gospels were left out in favor of the New Testament gospels. The facts are that the Gnostic gospels were written later in the second century long after the apostles, who are alleged to have written them, had died. The New Testament Gospels have been dated from circa 40 AD to 90 AD. The New Testament Gospels are quoted by the early church fathers and the canon was decided long before the Nicean council.

1 Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus Ancient Evidence For The Life Of Christ (Joplin: College Press Publishing Company, 2003), 101.
2 Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), 11.
3 Ibid, 15.

4 Stephen A. Hoeller, Gnosticism New Light On The Ancient Tradition Of Inner Knowing (Wheaton: Quest Books, 2002), 64.

 

Advertisements

About dwwork

The name of this blog is taken from 1 Peter 3:13 - “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience. This verse became special to me over ten years ago when I was asked to teach an adult Sunday school class on Christian apologetics. This interest grew over the years to the point that I took some graduate level classes in apologetics. I think the best way to be prepared to give and answer to everyone who asks is to know scripture. It is my hope that through these short devotionals the reader will become more familiar with each verse. I have tried when possible to make them personal hoping in some small way to show that God’s word written over two thousand years ago is still relevant today. In the writing of these short devotionals I have been able to better understand how God’s word impacts my life. It is my hope that you too will come closer to our Lord Jesus and develop a closer relationship with Him. Finally, if the reader finds anything in conflict with scripture please let me know. God’s word is the final authority always overrules anything I might write. David
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Comentary, God, Resurrection. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to EQUIPPING BELIEVERS TO ANSWER CRITICS OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS Part 6

  1. “The New Testament Gospels have been dated from circa 40 AD to 90 AD. The New Testament Gospels are quoted by the early church fathers and the canon was decided long before the Nicean council.”

    That makes me laugh, hard. Even today you can’t get 30,000 sects of Christianity to agree on a doctrine. What the hell makes you think it was all settled before the Nicean council?

    • dwwork says:

      Ok, where to start. I am not sure where you got your 30k number, probably Wikipedia? It is easy to throw out a number without support and make statements without support. But whether it id 30k or 100k or two I think you confuse doctrine with traditions or worship style.
      So first to define what a Christians believe at the core. In order to be called a Christian one must believe in the oneness of God, that God is eternal and unchanging, the deity of Jesus; the triune nature of God, the virgin birth, that Jesus lives a sin free life, died by crucifixion on the cross, died was buried and was resurrected on the third day. One must believe that Jesus paid the price for our sins and He is the way back to reconciliation to God. One must believe that Jesus will come again and that all will be resurrected to face judgment.
      Now if a group calls themselves Christian yet does not believe in these core Christian doctrines then they are not Christian. For example the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, Mormons, believe that each person, men, can if they do the right things can become a god. They believe that God was once a man and still has a body but is now in an exalted state. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was a created being and is a separate God. Neither groups are Christian regardless of what they call themselves.
      Now to the Council of Nicea. The Council of Nicea was called by the Roman emperor Constantine in 325AD. By that time the early church fathers had already written and agreed on the core Christian doctrines for the past two hundred years. In fact Paul in his writings addressed every core doctrine before 66 or 69 AD. What the Council did was to codify these doctrines not create them. See the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna and Origen of Alexandria.
      Now to the dating of the Gospels. The synoptic Gospels were all written before 70AD. Yes you can trot out experts who will say different and I can trot out an equal number who agree with me. But why would anyone accept what people say almost two thousand years after the event over those that lived within the lifetime of the writers or shortly after? Regardless of what the experts say I find one fact of extreme importance in dating the Gospels, the destruction of the Temple. Not one of the synoptics mentions the biggest event in first century Judaism. The destruction of the temple changed Jewish worship forever after. If one was writing these letters centuries later than why exclude this event. One could argue that the destruction of the temple was a reason to embrace Christianity or at the very least that it confirmed Jesus’ prophesy that the Temple would be destroyed. Then there is Luke who faithfully not only chronicled the life of Jesus but the events of the early church and the travels of Paul. Why would the Book of Acts not mention the death of Paul if it was written after Paul died? For an author who detailed the ship travels and ports of call of Paul it seems an odd thing to leave out. As to the forth Gospel, John, it was written later but since we have the John Rylands fragment found in Egypt which has John 18:31–33, 37-38 and has been dated about 120Ad. Since the Gospel was written in Ephesus it would seem to have to have been written in the first century in order to travel that distance.
      Rather than laugh maybe you would do well to think thought some of this and why you continue to scoff even in the presence of evidence that counters your beliefs. Maybe you need to read why so many prominent Christian apologists were once atheist or why the foremost atheist philosopher of the twentieth century, Antony Flew, became a theist before he died. Something changed those people’s minds. Or maybe you are just smarter than CS. Lewis, Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell to name three.
      Finally just a question, why is it that most atheists seem unable to make an argument without at some time resorting to profanity. I have found way too many atheists blogs that I just cannot continue to read because of the profanity rather than argument that seems to be accepted. Name calling does not win many arguments. I have to say that your comments seem and one other does seem to steer away for such use. It is refreshing. Have a blessed day, David
      Sorry for taking so long to respond, I have been ill this past weekend. Blessing to you, David

      • David,
        Profane words are just words. Understand that to some ‘bless you’ and ‘god gave me a gift…’ are profanities that you probably have no trouble uttering and in fact would find it odd that someone would be offended. Perspective is everything.

        One definition of profane: relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious.

        By that definition all that atheists have is profane. So I’m going to guess that you mean swear words although most so-called swear words have nothing to do with an oath. Those words are just words and the hold only the amount of offence inside that that you give them the power to hold.

        I generally don’t feel a need to give references for things which are found via Google in 1.78 seconds: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

        The idea that there are ‘True Christians’ is called the ‘No True Scotsman Fallacy’

        1 – the oneness of God,
        2 – that God is eternal and unchanging,
        3 – the deity of Jesus;
        4 – the triune nature of God,
        5 – the virgin birth,
        6 – that Jesus lives a sin free life,
        7 – died by crucifixion on the cross,
        8 – died was buried and was resurrected on the third day.
        9 – One must believe that Jesus paid the price for our sins
        10- He is the way back to reconciliation to God.
        11- that Jesus will come again and that all will be resurrected to face judgment.

        The sect I grew up with has 13 doctrinal statements in order to be in alignment with that sect.
        You’ll have to explain how 33000 or so other groups are wrong. Sure a lot of them will be wrong in your eyes for the same reason but my point remains valid. Even this much time has not allowed ‘christians’ to state doctrine in uniformity. There was no uniformity before Nicea and that was the entire point from Constantine’s point of view. There was no organization to the early church until then.

        Your argument for authenticity of the early books seems sound when considering only dating of the material. What it does not explain is why no contemporary writer or historian of Jesus’s supposed time chronicle the miracles. The birth story is fatally flawed. The death and ressurections stories are flawed. Your argument does not address the flaws in the writings as they currently exist. The ‘tank man’ picture and how it is known in China today shows that in 20 years an entire culture can forget or change the history. The number of contradictions in the New Testament alone is staggering and strong enough evidence to bring the veracity of the books into serious doubt. There is historical reason to cast doubt on all writings of the time without external corroboration. The synoptics do not have that corroboration and contradict one another in places. Scholars do not know who they were written by but seem certain that there is one original gospel which was copied and retold in the others. Surely you are familiar with this problem. The NT relies very heavily on just one author.

        The kicker is that the preponderance of evidence does not indicate that the books are trustworthy. Dan Brown novels contain a lot of facts. This does not make the stories true.

        == Or maybe you are just smarter than CS. Lewis, Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell to name three.==
        Yes, I am. You left me to define ‘smart’ and I define it as: 1: very good at learning or thinking about things and 2: showing intelligence or good judgment

        Hope you’re feeling better. Did you go to the doctor?

        Thanks, MAL

      • dwwork says:

        MAL, Loved the way you signed your name, gives me a different way to address you. First, I did not go to the doctor, I have ulcerative colitis and sometimes I have a reaction to something I eat. After 14 years I am somewhat used to it but it still can get me down. Life goes on. I feel I owe you an apology for my intelligence remake. From your reasoned comments I have no doubts to your intelligence and your passion for your beliefs. It is because I have a similar passion that I really enjoy our conversations. You always are reasoned and polite in tour comments. When I was speaking about profanities I believe I was unclear in that what I meant was those who seem to use profanity in place of argument. Possible I have been reading the wrong blogs. Certainly your blog, while I may disagree with your point is well done and does not use the profane in place of reason. I am pretty certain that neither os us will convince the other that they are wrong but that does not mean I would want to stop our exchange of ideas. You did cause me to think about profanity and how what I may say could be taken as profane by an unbeliever. If you have taken any of my words that way please accept my apology.
        Thanks for the link you gave me as I will spend some time looking into the site. I am afraid that I spend all day on a computer at work so when I get home I limit my PC time. As the your assertion that my definition of what a Christian is and by definition a Christian church I do not feel it was a ‘No True Scotsman Fallacy’ because what I was doing was defining what I believe and I think history confirms to be the beliefs a Christian should have. That many churches add other doctrines to my list is beyond question. I once attended a church that insisted that every member believe that the gifts of speaking in tongues has ceased. These are what I call the color of the carpet doctrines, non-essential as they are not related to salvation or the nature of God/Christ. You are correct that the Christian church has done a terrible job of showing a common set of beliefs but in the essential beliefs I outlined I think that they do share all of them in common. It was when groups went off the reservation that it was needed to speak out and bring them back to the truth, this is why John wrote his Gospel to counter a heresy that Jesus was not God. This is also what the Council of Nicaea addressed. Throughout history groups have sprung up that though they claimed to follow Jesus did on fact not follow Him. I can only assume that the sect your grew up in either added to my list or in some way deviated from it. Your are correct we could and should do a better job but that is the problem with people, we always tend to mess things up.
        I am not sure how the resurrection stories are flawed. But in terms of contradictions I know of none in the New Testament in particular and the Bible as a whole. To be a contradiction you need one writer to take on side and the other to take the opposite view and say both are true. If you say it is day and I say it is night in describing the same scene then we have a contradiction. It would be as if someone took our dialog and said it was all true. The one so called contradiction that I hear repeated is the number os angels in the tomb. One account says one and another says two. What we have here is not a contradiction as bot say an angel(s) were there. What we do have is a difference in eyewitness testimony that always happens when different people are describing something. We all come at a scene from our own point of view when it happened. A good example is an accident I and three other witnessed. We were al standing in different spots and had different perspectives on what happened but all of us agreed on the vital details as to who was a fault and what happened. Yes under the street lights one thought the car was blue and the other green but we all saw the same thing. That one person only saw one angel does not mean that there was only one angel just that they only saw one. As to corroboration, they are multiple accounts, more than for any other first century event and some though not all of the events are corroborated by outside sources. We have the writings of the early church, late first century and early second century as to who wrote the gospels. As to the experts, there are experts who disagree with your experts. As to the certainty that there was one account that was copied, there is absolutely no evidence this “Q” gospel or the proto- Mark ever existed. It is a modern concoction put forth by people who refused to believe that there could have been four accounts of Jesus’ life.
        Like I said earlier, we will most likely never agree. I feel the preponderance of the evidence shows Christianity to be true and you disagree. It does not mean that we should stop trying. After all when our beliefs are challenged it makes us think and as you wrote, that is a sign of intelligence. Have a great day, David. Oh and yes I am feeling better, thanks for asking.

      • dwwork says:

        Mal, one additional thought on miracles, Babylonian Talmud writes that Jesus was guilty of practicing sorcery so something Jesus did caused the Jews to think something out of the ordinary had gone on. I think miracles might be mistaken for acts of sorcery.

    • David,

      After 14 years, do you not wonder why the god wants you to suffer?
      I know that many are passionate in their arguments, as am I. I simply choose to look for new information, new insights. There is no reason to apologize. People use profanities when angry. Even believers become profane when angry.

      If this was about convincing one another we did it wrong. I thought it was about evidence and thought. Emotions have no place in the discussion of truth.
      I want to give you a few links about the resurrection on this Easter holiday because it is important to look at situations from all perspectives.


      http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

      Now there are those that will make excuses for why there are reasons to belive in ‘Q’ and reasons to believe there are no contradictions. These are limited arguments. When taken in the whole, we have to also look at other things. Historians did not start writing about the middle east after 90ce, so why are the miracles not chronicled by writers other than those who wrote the gospels? It seems clear that they are all based on ‘Q’ which means that the entirety of the gospels are retellings of one story that has no corroberations. It’s not so much what the gospels tell but what the rest of the world does not tell. When we treat the NT as a historical document and analyze it this way there is little truth to be found there. Whether you believe it or not, the truth is that historians do not treat it as fact. It is hitorians who the believers wish to have on their side. They say that Alexander was real and so they want them to say that Jesus was real. Using all the same techniques, it is not possible to prove the resurrection or miracles. It HAS to be taken on faith. This is what makes it unbelievable.

      We do not have to agree to exchange ideas and information. If it was my intention to convert I would be doing it wrong. Education is the answer for everything which seems to be a problem. Education and the free exchange of ideas. It is not atheists who have dogma. While you feel the preponderance of evidence shows christianity to be correct, that lasts only as long as you remain educated as you are.

      I hope you Easter (a pagan celebration) was a good one.

      • dwwork says:

        Mal, After 14 years, do you not wonder why the god wants you to suffer?

        I do not believe God wants me to suffer. In fact most of human suffering is due to our own choices. In my case it is sometimes eating things that cause a flare up. Also, God is not a Santa Clause god who is there to grant our wishes. In the big scheme of things my colitis is a minor inconvenience. But yes at times I have asked for healing and I have taken my remission as something to be enjoyed. Besides I have learned so much about myself and others in dealing with my colitis. It has allowed others to bless me and allowed me to bless others. Paul wrote about a thorn in his side that he prayed for healing and it never came. If Paul was not healed why would I think I should be? Whatever we endure here on earth is but a short time. For all of us eternity waits in our future. If I am right it is a glorious one and if you are right, I will never know but still have had all the joy of my faith.

        I know that many are passionate in their arguments, as am I. I simply choose to look for new information, new insights. There is no reason to apologize. People use profanities when angry. Even believers become profane when angry.

        No argument here.

        If this was about convincing one another we did it wrong. I thought it was about evidence and thought. Emotions have no place in the discussion of truth.
        I want to give you a few links about the resurrection on this Easter holiday because it is important to look at situations from all perspectives.

        http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

        Thanks for the links, more on Easter below. Your first link on Easter will take some time to go through but on first glance I saw nothing new. It is an interesting graphic but too cluttered and not a good way to print it that I found. However I am always interested in new ways to present information. The link on the Gospels is appreciated. I spend all day at work on a computer so when I get home I try to limit my PC time. With family and other obligations there is just not enough time to go around. Maybe in two years when I retire.
        Now there are those that will make excuses for why there are reasons to belive in ‘Q’ and reasons to believe there are no contradictions. These are limited arguments. When taken in the whole, we have to also look at other things. Historians did not start writing about the middle east after 90ce, so why are the miracles not chronicled by writers other than those who wrote the gospels? It seems clear that they are all based on ‘Q’ which means that the entirety of the gospels are retellings of one story that has no corroberations.
        As to “Q” are any other pre gospel gospels there is just no evidence they ever existed. I believe the similarities in the Gospels can be attributed to people writing about the same events. We should expect different account of the same events to have similarities but we should also expect to have variations in some details because not everyone has the same perspective or saw the things from the same point of view or even spatially the same. As to the writings about the Middle East, most documents from the first century no longer exist in either the originals or copies so I do not fine this lack of documents surprising. That we have any copies of documents from this time is what is amazing. Add to this the fact that the Roman government set out to destroy all Christian documents along with all Christians and the fact that the New Testament survived is amazing. A more modern example is how we have only “one copy of the Quran. After Mohammed’s death the first caliph Abu Bakr (d. 634CE) had all but one version of the Quran destroyed. Even then there are still variants on this book. My point being that with a concerted effort those in power can remove writing they disagree with.
        It’s not so much what the gospels tell but what the rest of the world does not tell. When we treat the NT as a historical document and analyze it this way there is little truth to be found there. Whether you believe it or not, the truth is that historians do not treat it as fact. It is hitorians who the believers wish to have on their side. They say that Alexander was real and so they want them to say that Jesus was real. Using all the same techniques, it is not possible to prove the resurrection or miracles. It HAS to be taken on faith. This is what makes it unbelievable.
        As the saying goes the victors write history. So things that put a government in a poor light would be omitted and was during this timeframe. As to history the consensus I have found is that Jesus did exist, there is enough extra biblical proof for His mere existence. What history and archeology have never done is disprove anything in the Bible, in fact just the opposite. It was believe that the Davidic kingdom did not exist until a stone was found concerning the House of David. Then there is the census of Quirinius that everyone just knew never happened and was at best a literary devise Luke used to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. Now we find there were in fact such censuses in fact multiple ones. Now we get the argument that yes there was a census but either Jesus is not mentioned, not surprising since He was a child, or that the ones we know of were at the wrong time. Again not surprising since most documents from this time did not survive and also these censuses took years to complete. These arguments against the events in the New testament are simple arguments from silence. In this instance we have documents that mention Jesus and in the Case of the Babylonian Talmud accuse Jesus of being a sorcerer, just another word for miracle worker.

        We do not have to agree to exchange ideas and information. If it was my intention to convert I would be doing it wrong. Education is the answer for everything which seems to be a problem. Education and the free exchange of ideas. It is not atheists who have dogma. While you feel the preponderance of evidence shows christianity to be correct, that lasts only as long as you remain educated as you are.

        I agree education is the key and from my readings I am certain I am correct. Every argument brought up in your comments and those of other atheists are nothing that I have not heard before and have not seen refuted. With one exception, I did receive a comment about my resurrection series that Christianity was invented during the Flavian dynasty by Vespasian who ordered Josephus to write the New Testament sometime after 70 AD. You can find this book in the comments from the second post on the resurrection. Personally I feel I have had and continue to have a great education. Nothing I have read though has caused me to doubt my beliefs. From Flew to Hitchens to Dawkins with a lot of Gould and Asimov thrown in the atheist point of view just does not convince me. Believe me it is not because I did not try to be convinced. From my early twenties, maybe 19, till I was about 45 I was more in your camp than the Christian camp. What I found was too much opinion and not enough facts and arguments that were not persuasive. I guess I was like Lee Strobel without the book contract. I looked for confirmation of a naturalist belief system and found more holes that a good Swiss cheese. The more I read from the all-star list of atheist writers the less I found. After relooking at Christianity and putting it to the test. I found the evidence compelling. I too wanted to believe the New Testament was just a collection of just-so stories but the only arguments against them were pleas to silence.

        I hope you Easter (a pagan celebration) was a good one.

        Easter is far from a pagan holiday. I know such and argument might hold some water when it comes to the date we celebrate Christmas but Easter has always been a Christian version of the Jewish Passover. In fact the English word Easter is a modern pronunciation of the Old English word Ēastrun, -on, or -an; also Ēastru, -o; and Ēostre. It was also referred to as Pasch or Pascha. In most of the Western church the word used for this Holiday is the same word used for Passover. Easter eggs were hollowed out, painted and represent the empty tomb. And yes eggs are used by many cultures to represent new life etc. but using similar objects to represent different ideas does not necessarily mean one was taken from the other. One of the main results from the Council of Nicea was the fixing of how the date for Easter was to be celebrated. They used a similar method to the one used by the Jews with the exception of keeping Easter always on a Sunday. Yes I have heard the story that Easter came from Ishtar. In fact the first time was from an adult Sunday school teacher. However there is no basis for this belief except for as similarity to the English word, seems we always think English has always been used and I believe the amazing incredible egg. 🙂
        To answer your question I did have a great Easter. Got to spend time with my mom, my brothers and their families and then on Sunday after church I spent the day with my kids, mom, wife and grandkid’s. The weather in the Houston area was perfect. Thanks for asking and I hope your weekend was enjoyable. I will get back to you on the chart. As always have a great day, David

      • dwwork says:

        Mal, I have a correction to my last response, I wrote that Abu Bakr destroyed all but one copy of the Quran but it was upon the canonization of the Qur’an, that Uthman ibn Affan ordered the burning of all personal copies of the Qur’an. Sorry for the misinformation. David

  2. The New Testament Gospels have been dated from circa 40 AD to 90 AD. The New Testament Gospels are quoted by the early church fathers and the canon was decided long before the Nicean council.

    Thank you David and yes the Truth you shared is confirmed in the Scriptures, the Cults use the Nicean council as confirmation we are in error believing it is where our beliefs originated from instead of the early Catholic Church or God’s universal Church but not meaning the Roman Catholic Church which came later and so they seek to discredit what we believe and to also enforce their own fleshy rules and regulations.

    But as I shared with you before David, with the Holy Spirit’s confirmation in our hearts we know what is Truth and what is deception so we don’t have to be convinced or are we concerned when others disagree, they may rant and rave but we have full assurance.

    Christian Love in our Unity with Christ Jesus – Anne

  3. Sorry to hear you have not been well David, I too was ill and had to go to Hospital for a short stay, they think it was a bug but God used it for good, if wanted I will share how. Thankfully your feeling better now too, I missed you in my Morning Devotions, but I just noticed the following link has been switched off ? I just have clicked it on again, I will see if I have missed any of your Posts before you were ill.

    I have been reading a few of the comments, you have good background knowledge of the Scriptures that is shown to also be True in them. I feel sad for those who have so very little knowledge of the Scriptures in the Bible but Trust in their own and others understanding and so do not know of God’s Truth in them that prove they are as He says Himself (see below ) inspired by Him, I also have some irrefutable evidence that they were, as I’m sure David you have too.

    2Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

    In reference David to what is bad and unacceptable language, I have done what you did, refuse to allow other peoples foul words on Blogs to rob me of focusing on what is good, to be honest I cringe at some of the language used today even by the young.

    You are right David, God tells us unclean language is not acceptable and it is anything spoken which puts down what God created to be Holy and acceptable in the way He intended it to be. As an example, the Sexual act or those parts of our body that are used in Lovemaking must not be spoken of in a derogatory belittling way or in a way that brings shame on them, all good things were created by God, speaking of them in a unclean way, is saying what God calls good is evil, and we are not to do this.

    Ephesians 5:3-5 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

    Take Care David, Christian Love from both of us – Anne.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s