Michael Licona: A Part of Bible May Have Been Lost

Evangelical Christian Michael Licona has a difficult job to do: he aspires to be a serious biblical scholar which requires that he acknowledge the reality of the Bible with it’s flaws and contradictions; yet he is also a Christian apologist with a large Christian following who expect him to affirm their conservative beliefs about the Bible and reassure them there is nothing to fear from biblical scholarship. Ultimately however, I do not think it is possible for him to have his cake and eat it. He will end up pleasing neither constituency.

He might go the way of people like James White who vociferously reject biblical scholarship in favour of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible or Licona might consistently apply a rigorous historical methodology but risk loosing his all important credibility as an evangelical apologist. A painful dilemma!

Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, Missionaries

124 replies

  1. Shalom-Salam Paul,
    I’ve been wondering, what is the classic Muslim view on the Hebrew Bible?

    Liked by 1 person

    • You should ask Muslims how much of Genesis 22 they accept as true.

      Was the son Isaac?

      Is Isaac Abraham’s “only son of his love” ?

      Other stuff, like “God will provide the lamb” and “because you have not withheld your only son, the son of your love from Me”, etc.

      Points to the future of God willing to give up His only Son to be the ransom / sacrifice for sin.

      Even the Qur’an agrees with the concept of substitutionary atonement / ransom – Surah 37:107 – “we have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”

      Ransom – Fedieh, فدیه – same root word in Arabic and Farsi (from the Arabic root, فدا ), which translates Mark 10:45

      “The Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

      The suffering servant was also prophesied in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12, which is what Jesus is referring to that He fulfilled.

      He was Messiah of Daniel 9:24-27 who after 483 years, brought an end of sin, made atonement, finished iniquity, brought in everlasting righteousness BEFORE the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD.


    • I’m a little confused. I get that Muslim’s probably have an issue with the whole Abraham/Issac thing.
      To your ‘ransom’ point. In the Hebrew Bible and Quoran it is humans being ransomed by other things (sacrfice, charity, good deeds…), the humans are never the ransom. ‘God will provide the lamb’ in context is Abraham avoiding Issac’s inquiry of the absence of the lamb, and was nonetheless exactly what happened that somehow a random ram appeared and was sacrificed in Issac’s stead. There’s no hint of any future nothing there. Shalom


    • except Isaiah 53 is about a human who is willing to serve and be a ransom for sin, and was willing to offer Himself as a guilt offering. The singular “he” in Hebrew is throughout. Isaiah 52:13 – “My Servant” will be wise and accomplish the goal . . . (act wisely so as to be successful) to 53:12.


    • Ken Jesus was not and is not a “lamb”. As you well know top scholars of Isaiah who read it in its historical and literary context conclude that the figure in 53 is a personification of Israel.

      “My servant” = Israel.

      If you were more honest Ken you would acknowledge this to be the case.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The singular ‘he’ throughout the bible when discussing israel as a whole. and especially in isiah where israel is reffered as God’s servant (ch. 41 42 and more)… chapter 53 is no different

      Liked by 2 people

    • precisely. Ken seems not have the honesty to see what is plainly there to an objective fair-minded reader.

      Liked by 1 person

    • What you need to understand ken, I had that debate with you 2000 years ago… and ever since… I’m still not convinced to leave the Only God for some mix of semi-gods and their extended family….

      Liked by 3 people

    • But the Jewish belief also includes an individual from the line of David who will be Messiah right? What do you think are the best passages from the TaNaKh that are about the Messiah?


    • of course, the Jewish bible is full of prophesis about the Messianic age. It’s hard to pick a faivorate. i should point out however, while a nice part of isiah some chapters in jerimiah zacheriah and ezekiel are all about the era of the messiah, very few of them speak of the man himself. it’s almost as its not important. it’s not about the messiah its about his times… my faivorates would be jerimiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
      the following one acually does talk about the messiah himself: And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. {2:4} And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
      i long for the day when i can look out of my window and see that nations have transformed their weaponry to argricultural instruments and when all of humanity will know the lord….

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks. It is nice to talk to an Orthodox Jew who is willing to discuss these things. So many Jewish people are secular and are unwilling to even talk about these issues with Evangelical Christians (in my limited experience). Jeremiah 31:34 (including Jer. 31:31-34) is quoted in the New Testament by Jewish writers of the NT – which shows they believed Jesus to be the fulfillment of that verse. (Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:16-17) and going back to verse 31, Jesus alludes to that as “the new covenant” in His blood in Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11 and Matthew 26 and Mark 14.

      But the word “Messiah” משיח is not used in either Jeremiah 31:31-34 nor in Isaiah 2:4

      So how do you know for sure those passages are about Messiah?

      Do you think Daniel 9:24-27 is about Messiah to come, who will make atonement for sin, and then the temple will be destroyed ( AD. 70)?

      A Jewish man named Stan Telchin, in his book, Betrayed, tells his story how he was convinced that was about Jesus of Nazareth and became a Messianic Jew. Good book; check it out.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Nice to talk to peaceful christians that won’t burn me at the stake for beleiving what i do…
      regarding that jesus fulfilled the prophesies in Jer. 31 is a little strange. a very large part of the world does not know of the lord today and this very discussion is evidence to that people still have to learn and teach. about the word “messiah” i would use that as proof to the contrary. the word appears in the bible some 40 times. now the bombshell.. not a single one in refrence to the promised kind in the end of days…. its a modern-borrowed term….
      the way we tell if a verse or chapter is messianic is from context. thats how we know that isiah 7 is not about jesus and thats how we know that a random ‘he’ in isiah 2 is talking about the messiah and a ‘he’ in 53 is talking about the servant that was mentioned in chapters 41 42 namely “my servant Jacob”
      i’m just curious was Stan Telchin raised orthodox?

      Liked by 1 person

    • 40 times in TaNakh; I guess. But the Jews of NT used it – translated and used Xpristos / χριστος (Christ, anointed one) many times. Psalm 2:2 and context of only begotten Son in the rest of the Psalm, and Daniel 9:24-27 uses it about the one to come in the future, who would be the Son of God (all of Psalm 2 and Proverbs 30:4) and atonement for sin – Daniel 9:24-27 and “cut off” (died) (see also Isaiah 53:8 – “He will be cut off from the land of the living”.

      Stan Telchin describes his upbringing on pages 26-27 and says his grandfather was orthodox, (his grandfather went to synagogue twice a day), but that his father and he was not. They enjoyed the religious Jewish holidays, culture, and knew a little Hebrew from Bar-Mitzvah days; but “I had almost no concept of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I did occasionally say a prayer when I was in trouble or in pain . . . ”


    • It will take a lot of time to go through the verses and clarify how the church misrepresented them the math in Daniel doesnt’t add up to Jesus you are left with a few extra years… psalms 2 is about david God’s annointed [messiah] God describes himself as the father of solomon and his generations and thus the messiah too see 1Chronicles 17:13.
      There’s a book written in 1263 by a Jewish Spanish rabbi Nachmanodies which is a dispute he had with a christian in the presence of the christian spanish king of the time, all verses above were brought up…. he showed the flaws in each of them… as I said in the beginning, the church is not more convincing now than it was till now…
      It was obvious to me that Stan wasn’t raised orthodox, educated Jews [in Judaism, of course] don’t find the NT to be Jewish.. it is almost pagan to them… A story of an ignorant man that found Jesus is of no intrest to me..
      BTW I couldn’t reply till now for it was sabbath… the day of covenant…

      Liked by 1 person

    • So sorry for the bad Christians of the past that were cruel to Jews. That was very wrong.


    • it was a dark chapter in church history. I obviously didn’t bring it up as an attack at you… not your fault…😉


    • thanks for that mini sermon Ken. Most edifying.

      Now back to the post: do you agree with evangelical scholar Michael Licona that ‘A Part of Bible May Have Been Lost’?

      If not why not?


    • Sadly anti-Semitism is found in the New Testament which inspired bigots like Martin Luther to persecute Jewish people.

      Liked by 1 person

    • sad indeed. the hatred in the NT had the same root as Luther’s. in the beginning they both loved the jews [only ubto the lost sheep of Israel… and Luther was also very loving of the Jews in the beginning] and when they discovered that the Jews wouldn’t buy what they were selling they hated them to no end…. Sad. Reality


  2. A good question!

    A senior companion of the prophet Muhammad is reported to have said in an authentic hadith:

    Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Why do you ask the people of the scripture [ie Jews and Christians] about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah’s Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,’ to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!”

    Narrated Ubaidullah, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461.


  3. Also this:

    Volume 9, Book 92, Number 460:
    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.’ ”


    Liked by 1 person

  4. No; I think Robert Bowman and Dr. White are correct, what we have in the manuscript tradition is like having a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle with 120 pieces.

    Why not? Because the textual variant data indicates this.


    • so are you saying

      1) that there is a piece of Mark out there (presumably containing resurrection appearances)

      2) Mark ended his gospel at 16:8

      3) a part of the Bible may be lost


    • Ken,

      That doesn’t make sense; a number of scholars have now given up on trying to get back to the autographs.

      Dr Wallace mentions 2 manuscripts with the number of the beast as 616. These are viable manuscripts. One of them was found, in the 19th century and the other in 1998.

      If the 19th century one had not been found that would mean White and Bowman could not have made those comments prior to 1998!

      The truth is they are finding new manuscripts all the time and it will be naive to think no new MSS with variant viable readings will be found.

      On top of that, Licona raises a good point about Mark’s Gospel too.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Here goes YahyaSlime talking about issues that if turned against him, would bury Muhammad and his Quran for its thousands of corruptions and missing verses. This is the same coward who ran behind Yusuf Ismail’s and Ija ‘s mirts to avoid debating me on the 20th.

      Now Ken, note what Irenaeus in the 2nd century said about the variant 616:

      Although certain as to the number of the name of Antichrist, yet we should come to no rash conclusions as to the name itself, because this number is capable of being fitted to many names. Reasons for this point being reserved by the Holy Spirit. Antichrist’s reign and death.

      1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end)—I DO NOT KNOW HOW IT IS THAT SOME HAVE ERRED FOLLOWING THE ORDINARY MODE OF SPEECH, AND HAVE VITIATED THE MIDDLE NUMBER IN THE NAME, AND DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY FROM IT, SO THAT INSTEAD OF SIX DECADS THEY WILL HAVE IT THAT THERE IS BUT ONE. [I AM INCLINED TO THINK THAT THIS OCCURRED THROUGH THE FAULT OF THE CPOYISTS, AS IS WONT TO HAPPEN, SINCE NUMBERS ALSO ARE EXPRESSED BY LETTERS; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] OTHERS THEN RECEIVED THIS READING WITHOUT EXAMINATION; SOME IN THEIR SIMPLICITY, AND UPON THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY, MAKING USE OF THIS NUMBER EXPRESSING ONE DECAD; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number. Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God. But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them. Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture, Revelation 22:19 under that such a person must necessarily fall. Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.

      2. These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], AND GO BACK TO THE TRUE NUMBER OF THE NAME, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. BUT, KNOWING THE SURE NUMBER DECLARED BY SCRIPTURE, THAT IS, SIX HUNDRED SIXTY SIX, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. This, too, the apostle affirms: “When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them.” 1 Thessalonians 5:3 And Jeremiah does not merely point out his sudden coming, but he even indicates the tribe from which he shall come, where he says, “We shall hear the voice of his swift horses from Dan; the whole earth shall be moved by the voice of the neighing of his galloping horses: he shall also come and devour the earth, and the fullness thereof, the city also, and they that dwell therein.” Jeremiah 8:16 This, too, is the reason that this tribe is not reckoned in the Apocalypse along with those which are saved. Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 30: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm

      Here we see that the variant 616 is nothing new, since Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of the Apostle John, spoke about saying that this was a corruption of what the original reading said. And yet Wallace pretends he has stumbled upon something new and unknown by the early church fathers, and the disciples of the Apostles.

      Irenaus’ witness shows that the early church knew AND PRESERVED the original wording of Scripture, and therefore in God’s providence there IS NOTHING LOST.

      In the next post I am going to quote Irenaeus and others who cite the longer ending of Mark AS PART OF WHAT MARK ORIGINALLY WROTE.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, the 616 variant has been known about for a long time. Thanks for the Irenaeus reference. It is discussed in Philip Comfort’s book on all the significant textual variants in the Greek NT, “New Testament Text and Translation Commentary”. It is interesting that many think it entered through Latin, because Nero Caesar in Latin is 616, but in Hebrew, it comes out to 666.


    • Here I will quote from Irenaeus who is a witness to the longer ending of Mark 16:19-20. Enjoy!

      5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God. Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in the spirit and power of Elias, Luke 1:17 Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God. For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. ALSO, TOWARDS THE CONCLUSION OF HIS GOSPEL, MARK SAYS: So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God; Mark 16:19 confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool. Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein. (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 10: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm)

      Irenaeus, who was a disciple of the Apostle John’s disciple Polycarp, claims Mark wrote the longer ending.

      So much for the assertions of Licona and Wallace. I have more early witnesses but I think this suffices to silence and muzzle YahyaSlime. Now watch as a turn the tables against him by showing how much of the Quran is lost and missing.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks. I mentioned the quote from Irenaeus earlier (see earlier in the com box, but scroll down), quoting Mark 16:19 and gave the reference at the ccel.org early church fathers reference.


  5. There are true things in Mark 16:9-20 that are basically repeated in Matthew 28, Luke 24 and Acts chapter 1. So we have everything.


  6. All,

    That’s why I can’t accept the teaching of the inerrancy of the Bible. It is most certainly not inerrant,and is full of myths and other tall tales. I’m sure that really marginalizes me right up there with my Unitarian leanings, but after you have read some Robert Price, Randal Helms and Dick (Richard) Carrier it’s hard to ignore their arguments, at least some of them that is.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dr. White debated Robert Price and answered him well.

      Richard Carrier has recently revealed his evil character by his cheating on his wife. His atheism destroys moral and ethical values.

      I was not impressed at all with a debate I listened to him several years ago. (vs. William Lane Craig)

      I thought Craig won that debate, although Dr. White would have been better.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ken,

      I wouldn’t mind seeing that debate with White, never knew they debated. Carrier as I like to call him Dick, not only cheated on his wife but just recently was involved in a sexual harassment issue with a female from the Skeptic movement. I agree with you about the guy being bankrupt in the moral/ethical department. I thought Williams Lane Craig won that debate as well, but I do agree that there is some substances to the Skepticsl arguments ( Craig Blomberg is set to release an over 600 page book on the Historical reliability of the New Testement FYI sometime in September I think) Anyhow, I will definitely check out that White/Price debate.

      Happy Friday


  7. I did. Even if there is a another ending of Mark, that has some of 16:9-20; it is all in Matthew 28; Luke 24; and Acts chapter 1.

    Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 in his “Against Heresies” – and that is part of the textual variant apparatus at bottom of critical editions of Greek NT.

    “So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.”
    Mark 16:19

    in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, 10, 5


    • so you believe that Mark ended his gospel abruptly at 16:8.

      I think it more likely its ending has been lost. Those 2nd century scribes who invented their longer and shorter endings to Mark clearly thought so too.

      Licona is right to bring this up as a real possibility. If so your Bible has a bit missing and your doctrine of biblical inerrancy is shattered.


  8. but if the elements from Mark 16:9-20 that are true are repeated in Matthew, Luke, and Acts 1, and the quote from Irenaeus; that means we actually have all of it.


  9. Inerrancy is not shattered at all.


  10. The textual data and the repeated parts in Matthew, Luke, and Acts 1 show that no doctrine is affected; therefore the doctrine of Inerrancy is not affected.

    The doctrine of Inerrancy takes into account textual variation, copyist errors, etc.

    So, it is not affected, since the doctrine says if another ending of Mark is found, and it is discovered that all of its parts are the same content as in Matthew 28; Luke 24 and Acts 1, then the doctrine is not affected, and that is what the doctrine actually says.


    • the doctrine of the inerrancy of the bible says that the Bible is without error, but if we do not for sure have the complete Bible in our possession, then the doctrine is worthless.


  11. “without error in the original manuscripts” and if the original of Mark either stopped at 16:8 or what was original is embedded within Matthew 28, Luke 24, and Acts 1, then the doctrine is not affected.


    • So if Mark did complete his gospel beyond verse 8 but it has been lost – we do not have an inerrant bible today


    • Paul,

      I would disagree with you on that. For we may have an incomplete Bible and yet the parts we do possess could be inerrant in all that is recorded. The problem though from that perspective would be, why didn’t God preserve his word intact?

      Either way, we (Christians) would have two horns of a dilemma to deal with, at least that’s how I see it.


    • Just to clarify:

      If Mark originally wrote a gospel containing 17 chapters and subsequently all the verses beyond 16:8 were lost, then to say that today we have the original inerrant Bible is false. Part of the Bible is missing. We only have a mutilated Bible. Ken thinks that saying nothing doctrinal is effected is impossible to quantify. We simply do not know what the missing verses taught.

      So the evangelical preoccupation with inerrancy is pointless.


    • This is just speculation so please no one flip out on me. Lol

      I have often wondered to myself if someone smuggled those verse about handling venomous snakes and drinking poison into the ending of Mark who wasn’t a Christian? Some one attempting to be malicious and destroy followers of Jesus. I realize the can of worms that could potential open up. But, I have wondered about it.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Paul Williams wrote: (above, in response to Mozer G. about Isaiah 52-53, 41 and 42)

    precisely. Ken seems not have the honesty to see what is plainly there to an objective fair-minded reader.

    I have the honestly to see that SOME JEWS in the first century (Jesus of Nazareth, Mark, Matthew, John, Paul, writer of Hebrews, Peter) understood that Isaiah 52-53 was about the Messiah and His atonement and the He was fulfillment of that and like a lamb who was a ransom / substitutionary sacrifice for sin.

    I do see that other Jews rejected that in history.

    Will you be honest and acknowledging that some Jews did follow Jesus and believe He was the crucified and risen Messiah and Son of God, and fulfillment of OT passages.


    • I will acknowledge that there were 12 jews [not the most learned, fishermen…] that saw him as a teacher and maybe a prophet. the following hardly grew substantially by the jews… it was paul and peter who took it to the gentile pagans where it spread….

      Liked by 2 people

    • they saw Him as the messiah and the Son of God who died for sins, atoned for sin – fulfillment of Daniel 9; Isaiah 53, Daniel 7:13-14; Psalm 2, Psalm 110:1 and Proverbs 30:4 (Whose Son is He? of the Almighty) (and many other OT passages)


    • an historical critical approach to all those passages would not produce those readings


    • I will take the living faith of the first century Jews who quoted and understood those passages as fulfillments in Jesus of Nazareth in the NT – I will take them and their living faith over the skeptical higher criticism started and promoted by atheists and agnostics in the 1700s until today; with their anti-supernatural presuppositions any day.

      As a Muslim, you should not take their anti-supernatural presuppositions in your analysis of the OT nor NT.


    • Ken, do you have the honesty to understand that:

      “The singular ‘he’ is used in the Bible when discussing Israel as a whole. and especially in Isaiah where Israel is referred as God’s “servant” (ch. 41 42 and more)… chapter 53 is no different”

      as explained above by Mozer


    • Williams’, do you have the honesty to understand that:

      Since “the singular ‘he’ is used in the Bible when discussing Israel as a whole. and especially in Isaiah where Israel is referred as God’s “servant” (ch. 41 42 and more)… chapter 53 is no different”, this proves that Isaiah 53 is prophesying the death of Jesus as a vicarious sacrifice for sin SINCE JESUS IS A PART OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL!.

      Let me break this down for you.

      A. Isaiah 53 is speaking of Israel as whole, i.e. the entire nation, suffering as a guilt offering for the sins of the nations.

      B. Jesus is a member of the nation of Israel.

      C. Therefore, Jesus as a member of the nation of Israel fulfills Isaiah 53 by dying on the cross as a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of the world.


      Time for you to put down your Quran since it has damaged your ability to reason and think objectively and honestly.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Isaiah 53 is speaking of Israel as whole”

      Thank you for refuting Ken and agreeing with me Sam! Good to hear we agree on something significant😉

      The passage, of course, says nothing about an individual Messiah dying for sins. Israel is in exile in Babylon. That is the context.

      You are reading INTO the text what is not there.

      you talk of my ‘damaged ability to reason and think objectively and honestly.’ yet this conclusion is share by most Old Testament scholars in the English speaking world who practice the historical critical method. I am in good company🙂


    • Williams, thank you for again illustrating how the Quran damages a person’s integrity and ability to be consistent and honest in the way they deal with reality.

      To begin with, I showed how even your interpretation confirms and vindicates Ken. So let’ see if you have the temerity to actually address a point instead of tap dancing around it.

      Do you believe Jesus is a member of the nation of israel?

      If you do (which you must), then how does your interpretation (more like butchering) of Isaiah 53 rule him out WHEN HE IS AN ISRAELITE, AND THEREFORE ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHOSE DEATH MAKES ATONEMENT FOR SINS?

      Moreover, let me allow Rabbi Tovia Singer refute your lie about this being about Israel’s captivity in Babylon by quoting his very article on Isaiah 52 that you yourself posted here (https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/06/22/who-is-gods-suffering-servant-the-rabbinic-interpretation-of-isaiah-53/) for all to read (much appreciated by the way since Singer’s article helped me provide more proof that Muhammad was a false prophet):


      In rabbinic thought, all of God’s faithful, gentiles included (Zechariah 13:8-9), endure suffering on behalf of God (Isaiah 40:2; Zechariah 1:15). Thus, Jewish leaders of the past, such as Moses12 and Jeremiah,13) Rabbi Akiva,14 as well as future eschatological figures, SUCH AS THE MESSIAH BEN JOSEPH AND THE MESSIAH BEN DAVID, are held up in rabbinic literature as individuals who exemplify the “servant” who willingly suffers on behalf of Heaven.

      Therefore, when the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a) describes the predicament of the messiah as he is waiting to be summoned by God, the rabbis cast him as:

      “sitting among other paupers, all of them afflicted with disease. Yet, while all the rest of them tie and untie their bandages all at once, the messiah changes his bandages one at a time, lest he is summoned for the redemption at a moment’s notice.”

      While this story may be understood allegorically, its jarring message is clear: THE MESSIAH, like other afflicted members of Israel, ENDURES THE AGONY AND TRIALS ASSIGNED TO THE FAITHFUL. However, unlike the other suffering saints who completely remove all their bandages before patiently replacing them with a fresh dressing, the messiah must methodically replace each bandage, one at a time. In other words, the messiah does not suffer more or less than other servants of God. Rather, according to the Talmud, the messiah is different from other men of God because he must be ready at a moment’s notice to usher in the deliverance of his beleaguered people. Because he is prepared to be summoned for the redemption at all times, he is never in a predicament where his bandages are fully removed.

      When Isaiah speaks of the suffering remnant of Israel, THE MESSIANIC KING IS, THEREFORE, INCLUDED. THE FINAL HEIR OF DAVID’S THRONE IS AN INTEGRAL MEMBER OF THE PIOUS OF ISRAEL. This is, according to rabbinic interpretation, the pshat, or the plain meaning of the text in Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12. Therefore, when both ancient and modern rabbinic commentators expound on the clear meaning of the text, they ascribe the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 to the nation of Israel.

      In order to shed much needed light on the famed Servant Songs, numerous rabbinic commentators hold up Jewish heroes as a paradigm of Isaiah 53’s “servant.” Accordingly, while on one hand the Talmud, Zohar, and other ancient rabbinic texts state explicitly that the “servant” of Isaiah 53 refers to the faithful of corporate Jewry,16 the same sources frequently point to renowned saints of Israel as an archetype of the Suffering Servant. These virtuous individuals include saints such as Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, THE MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH AND DAVID – each of them embodies perfect examples of God’s servant, the righteous remnant of Israel.

      Bear in mind that the rabbinic commentary on Isaiah 53 is not dualistic or multilateral. Meaning, the sages of old did not suggest that Isaiah 53 refers to either the righteous remnant of Israel, Moses, Jeremiah, or an anointed leader. Rather, the servant in all four Servant Songs are the faithful descendants of Abraham. Isaiah 53 attests to an unprecedented worldwide repentance of all of mankind – a redemptive achievement accomplished by no other saint in history. THEREFORE, RABBINIC COMMENTATORS TEND TO LIFT UP THE MESSIAH’S NAME MORE FREQUENTLY THAN THE NAMES OF OTHER FAITHFUL SERVANTS OF GOD…

      The Midrash, however, illuminates a most profound, yet often overlooked central theme of Isaiah 53; never before in history has any servant of God brought about the mass repentance of the gentiles. Whereas the patriarch Abraham redeemed only 70 souls in Haran, THE FUTURE SCION OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID WILL USHER IN AN UNPRECEDENTED EPOCH, where gentile kings of nations will repent, as vividly described in the fourth Servant Song. In other words, THE MESSIAH WILL BRING ABOUT AN AGE WHEN THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE OF ISAIAH 53 WILL MATERIALIZE – the worldwide repentance of the gentiles. Whereas Moses drew only a single nation from Egypt into the service of God, the messianic king will redeem the other nations as well…

      Consequently, although various rabbinic literature highlights numerous Biblical saints whose lives exemplify the Suffering Servant of Israel in Isaiah 53, THE FUTURE MESSIAH IS HELD UP MORE FREQUENTLY AND PROMINENTLY THAN ANY OTHER PIOUS JEW IN THIS STARTLING CONTEXT; for the future anointed Davidic king will usher in this dramatic epoch in which the gentiles will repent, as outlined in Isaiah 53. In other words, the stunning narrative of the fourth Servant Song WILL BE MADE POSSIBLE BY THE REIGN OF THE MESSIAH, THE FOREMOST MEMBER OF GOD’S SUFFERING SERVANT, Israel. ONLY THE MESSIAH WILL ACCOMPLISH THIS GLOBAL ACHIEVEMENT IN THE FINAL REDEMPTION, WHICH NEITHER ABRAHAM, MOSES, OR JEREMIAH WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH. Only the messianic age will spawn worldwide repentance of the nations. Therefore, the rabbis teach,

      “My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly – he will be higher than Abraham, more exalted than Moses, loftier than the angels.”17


      With the foregoing in perspective we can now sum up the claims of the rabbi and the implications they have on the supposed prophethood of Muhammad:

      1. The Messiah is included within (and in fact is the ultimate fulfillment of) Isaiah 53’s prophecy of Yahweh’s Servant suffering vicariously for the sins of others in order to bring about the redemption and healing of all the nations.
      2. The rabbis upheld the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 more frequently than any other interpretation.
      3. Both Christianity and Islam teach that Jesus is the Messiah of God (cf. Luke 2:7-12, 25-32; Q. 3:45).
      4. The NT writings apply the prophecy of Isaiah 53 to the Lord Jesus to explain the atoning significance of his crucifixion and death.

      Compare Isaiah 53 with the NT depiction of the earthly life, death, resurrection and heavenly ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Matthew 8:16-17; 26:26-28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:37; John 1:29, 36; 12:38; Acts 8:29-35; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 2:21-25).

      5. The Quran, on the other hand, denies the atoning death of the Lord Jesus.
      6. The Quran, therefore, contradicts both the rabbinic and Christian understanding of the Messiah’s having to suffer vicariously in order to bring about the perfect fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 53.
      7. As such, the Quran cannot be the word of God and Muhammad could not have been a true prophet of God.

      In other words, Williams has no choice but to accept that, according to the very rabbi that he appealed to in order to undermine the Christian exegesis of Isaiah 53, Muhammad stands condemned as a false prophet and an antichrist for denying the atoning and salvific death of the Messiah as announced beforehand by God’s true prophet Isaiah!
      Now what was that about Isaiah 53 not being about the Messiah! OUCH!

      Ken stands vindicated, and Muhammad stands condemned as a false prophet.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Simeon, a first century Jewish man waiting for the Messiah and the redemption of Israel, saw in that baby the fulfillment of Isaiah 42 in Luke 2:25-32, quoting from Isaiah 42:6.

    And the Jewish apostles saw in Isaiah 49:6 a command to them to tell the nations about the light and the Messiah and the good news of His person and work. (quoted in Acts 13:46-47). “Thus the Lord commanded us . . . I have placed you as a light to the Gentiles . . . “


  14. Also, Paul Williams,
    your constant mis-handling of Luke’s gospel is blown apart by these truths. (Quoting Isaiah 42 and 49 as fulfillments by Jesus of Nazareth and the apostles preaching to the Gentile nations.)
    Luke in the Gospel of Luke and Acts destroys your take on his gospel.


    • Ken

      do you understand what is entailed in an historical critical approach to all those passages (Daniel 9; Isaiah 53, Daniel 7:13-14; Psalm 2, Psalm 110:1 and Proverbs 30:4)?

      I get the impression you are completely unfamiliar with it.


    • I will take the living faith of the first century Jews who quoted and understood those passages as fulfillments in Jesus of Nazareth in the NT – I will take them and their living faith over the skeptical higher criticism started and promoted by atheists and agnostics in the 1700s until today; with their anti-supernatural presuppositions any day.

      As a Muslim, you should not take their anti-supernatural presuppositions in your analysis of the OT nor NT.


    • Leading evangelical scholars like FF Bruce and Richard Bauckham do not share your scepticism about the historical critical approach.

      Biblical criticism asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey.

      Apply that to Isaiah chapters 41, 42 and 53 and see what result you get.


  15. We had to read Bauer, Schleirmacher, Bultmann, etc. in seminary. Yes, I am familiar with those guys and the modern scholars who follow them, like Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels, etc.


  16. Paul,
    I even have purchased more books based on debating with you on those perspectives. (debating with you off and on for the past 5 years or so) I purchased Raymond Brown, Ehrman, Geza Vermes, and even Reza Aslan ( I was interested in his book because he is Iranian and claims to be a former Christian). I am quite familiar yes.

    We started debating in August of 2011 – see the comboxes here.



    • so? A donkey can carry loads of distinguished tomes on its back. Does not mean the donkey is learned.


    • Bruce and Bauckham are good scholars and don’t take the step that you took and completely un-believe the NT. So Bauckham thinks 2 Peter was not written by Peter and that John was redacted. He still thinks John is based on his eyewitness testimony ( I have read Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Bauckham); and He also thinks Jesus is claiming to be God in Mark 10. ” a wonderful double entendre”
      Remember that? We have hashed out lots of these things before over the past 5 years.



    • So a “good scholar” can deny the inerrancy of the bible and believe 2 Peter tells a falsehood in claiming to be by apostle Peter?!


    • I disagree with Bauckham on 2 Peter; but he still thinks it based on Peter’s thought and oral testimony. He still believes in the Deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, the Trinity. You can’t use him as on your side, because he still believes John and 2 Peter are true, just redacted a little by a later disciple of those 2.


    • Conservative Christian scholar R Bauckham says 2 Peter is not by the apostle Peter. Nearly all experts agree with him. I do too having examined the evidence myself.

      Many in the early church rejected it as a forgery – see Eusebius.

      2 Peter claims to be eye-witness testimony (1:18). If it is a forgery then this is false testimony ie a lie.

      It is seriously damaging to the credibility of the Bible.


    • Eusebius did not reject 2 Peter; rather, he just said that it was “disputed’ (anti-legomena )= spoken against” by some of the churches.


    • You are wrong Ken.

      This is what he wrote in his Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 3.—The Epistles of the Apostles.

      1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.
      2. The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them.
      3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.
      4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders.



    • Yes, and Eusebius also wrote this, a little later. Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, 25.
      3. Among the disputed writings ( τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων = Ton (the) anti-legomenon = the ones that are spoken against ) which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.


      “which are nevertheless recognized by many” – shows they were not outright rejected by all, but were doubted by SOME.


    • But the donkey cannot read; I have read them. Who is exuding an arrogant attitude by your constant repeat of an attitude of “only the liberal critical scholars” are intelligent and learned; the conservatives scholars are dim-wits” That is the attitude you portray and insult with comments like that about “donkeys”, etc.


    • But like a donkey who has seen this knowledge yet has learnt nothing from it. A scandal really.

      I just cited two distinguished CONSERVATIVE scholars but you ignore what I wrote. Why do i bother?


  17. both Bruce (died a few years ago) and Bauckham still believe in the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the cross and the atonement and resurrection, etc.

    Just because they think a disciple of John and Peter wrote the final edition of their essential and truthful eyewitness testimony, gives no reason to go as far as you do and discount the whole thing.


    • How can you trust a book that tells lies about who authored it?


    • I don’t agree with them on that; but my point is even though they held the view that there were other redactors (I don’t think Bruce held that view); Bauckham still believes both Gospel of John and 2 Peter were written by a disciple of each of them.

      I think Jude, the half brother of Jesus, wrote 2 Peter for Peter, Peter dictated it to him, before his death. This accounts for some of the similarity in content and style in their letters.


    • It means that even your favourite most trusted conservative evangelical scholars admit by force of evidence that the Bible contains false testimony as to eye-witness accounts and authorship. It is a major blow to its credibility as a sacred text.

      Eusebius rejected it too as did many other ancient witnesses. But it slipped into the canon because many ordinary folk liked it apparently.

      He writes:

      “Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders.”


  18. Yes, and Eusebius also wrote this, a little later. Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, 25.

    3. Among the disputed writings ( τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων = Ton (the) anti-legomenon = the ones that are spoken against ) which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.


    “which are nevertheless recognized by many” – shows they were not outright rejected by all, but were doubted by SOME.


    • “Some” = presumably uneducated Christians.

      But Eusebius himself said

      “Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders.”

      So there is only one ie 1 Peter he accepts as genuine. The other is a fake as nearly all modern experts have concluded too.


    • But Eusebius also acknowledges that 2 Peter is “nevertheless recognized by many”.
      recognized by many


    • “some” was referring to those that disputed 2 Peter. Don’t you mean that they are the ones who are educated and intelligent?


  19. So?

    But Eusebius was himself a historian (remember most could not read or write to form an educated view) who said:

    “Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders.”

    So there is only one ie 1 Peter he accepts as genuine. The other is a fake as nearly all modern experts have concluded too.

    Except the fundamentalists of course🙂


  20. The best thing Mike can do is stay true to himself regardless of what the people on either side might say. Many in this world have travelled that path of isolation where they fit into no set standard, including myself. Not an easy road but it’s bearable.

    By the way, Mozer G. I don’t know if you’ve ever read the New Testament but if you ever get round I suggest you read all of Romans 11. It completely destroys the mainstream Christian view of replacement theology or suppression, that God is no longer with the Jews and that Christians are the new Jews or the new Israel. It’s a reminder from Paul that the Jews have not been rejected by God and are still in fact part of His covenant. I think anyone, whether Muslim, Christian or Jew can relate to the whole story Israel in some way, it’s not something unique to just one faith. From what I’ve seen many Jews have a negative view of Christianity mainly due to the actions of Christians, and this puts them off from ever opening the New Testament. But if you read it carefully you’ll see that nothing is really taken away from Judaism. Yes, Jesus and his disciples including Paul criticised aspects of Jewish life yet despite that they all lived and died as Jews, they didn’t turn away from their religion. The gospels show that Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and died a Jew. His love for his people is evident all across.

    That’s not me trying to evangelise you by the way, since I take Romans 11 at face value I believe “all of Israel will be saved”, and I think when Paul says all of Israel he is talking about the remnant of Jews that God promised to keep who stay true to His teachings such as yourself.


    Liked by 1 person

  21. Eusebius as a careful historian acknowledged that 2 Peter was “recognized by many” and “disputed by some”.

    Many is more than some.

    Most of the Christians of that day accepted 2 Peter as God-breathed and authoritative.



  22. Ken, what do you make of the lost letters of Paul?

    Licona seems to think there is a possibility if one of them is found then it *may* be considered to be be added to the canon. He talks about the Epistle to Laodicea


    • Licona mentions the letter to the Laodiceans (mentioned in Colossians 4:16, though Licona does not say which of the “Prison Epistles” mentions it.) and he mentions the dominant view is that the letter to the Ephesians that we have today was a circular letter that he wrote and copies and sent to different churches, replacing the words “at Ephesus” with “at Laodicea”. I have known about that for years, since seminary in 1983-1988.

      That makes sense to me.

      Not a major shock at all. You are acting as if this is something that would cause someone to want to become a Muslim. Strange connection.


  23. The textual variant evidence also comports with that view that Ephesians was a general circular letter where the destination was changed according to where it was to be sent.


  24. This Englishman scholar passed away today. Alec Motyer. He was 91.
    An excellent little message from John 1:12

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Regarding Isaiah 53,and taking it as referring to the Jewish people,and not any individual,it poses a real problem for Judaism.

    In Isaiah 53 an innocent group of Jews is made to suffer for sinners,for bad persons.

    According to Judaism,the OT,if the Jews are holy and follow Mosaic Law(like in Isaiah 53) then in the OT God

    promises them economic well-being,and freedom from their enemies.

    But God punishing a group of holy Jews in Isaiah 53 for the sins of others,makes God self-contradict.

    And a liar,since he breaks his covenant promise with the Jews.


    • According to the scholars, Isaiah is a composite work. The first 29 chapters are probably by Isaiah himself. Chapter 53 is not by the prophet but by an unknown scribe writing much later. The Bible as a whole is a library of books composed by many different authors who often have different or even contradictory views.


  26. Paul,

    It is very hypocritical of you to attack inerrancy based on a possible longer ending in Mark, all the while knowing that your own Islamic sources record parts of the Quran being lost.

    If you think that Christian doctrine is shattered by a possible longer ending of Mark, then can you please explain why Islamic doctrine is not also shattered by sources and records demonstrating that parts of the Quran were lost?

    Samuel Green is correct- These types of ‘problems’ Christians scholars face are because we have an abundance of evidence to deal with, actually a good thing.

    Sadly, early Muslims decided to destroy all other Quranic material so we have much less historical confidence in its preservation.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Dr. James White vs. Robert Price


  28. Hello Paul:

    You said:

    ”According to the scholars, Isaiah is a composite work. The first 29 chapters are probably by Isaiah himself. Chapter 53 is not by the prophet but by an unknown scribe writing much later. The Bible as a whole is a library of books composed by many different authors who often have different or even contradictory views.

    That is what I find fascinating

    about Isaiah 53is,as far as I know,the only part of the OT where there is the a of an innocent servant(the good Jews or 1 person)

    to be punished for the sins of evil people. No other Jewish writer,in the OT or elsewhere,ever had such an idea.

    I see it as of the Jews where faithful copyists of the essencethe books they thought were holy.


    • Sam,

      I know you disdain us Unitarians and sometimes the feeling is mutual on my part ( unfortunately and regrettably) at times. But why the name calling? Honestly? Couldn’t a well substantive post speak for itself? I know you are sincere and probably mean well, but dude, you sure come off dickish every single time you post on Pauls blog!

      You got a ton of knowledge, even if we disagree and you know we do! But still, how much more effective could you be if only you weren’t so dickish in your post?

      I honestly would like to hear your opinion and point of view but to often you just seem like your motivated to humiliate and OUCH someone…

      Let’s say I’m wrong Sam (about the nature of God) and let’s just say Sam,that you have the perfect argument or at least your ability to communicate the correct view of Gods nature would/could sway me, would you really want to hamper someone from potentially coming to a correct view of Christ just cause you need to try and humiliate someone and expose their ignorance. FYI, that method wouldn’t work on someone like me.

      Yahya Slime? Did the dude kill your cat or something? If you believe you have the truth would you rather wish Yahya be saved or do you secretly wish he burn in hell for all eternity?

      It’s an honest question.

      Take care/Stay blessed

      Liked by 1 person

  29. Perhaps Isaiah 53 helped Jewish rabbis explain the Holocaust,Elie Wiesel wrote,in ”Night”, about his time in Auschwitz,he said one time 3 holy rabbis,at night,put God on trial.

    In the end they almost pronounced him guilty,the verdict was ”He owes us something’‘.


    The question was whether God had broken his covenant with the Jews,to protect them is they obeyed Mosaic Law.

    That there were enough holy Jews and so there was no justification for God letting millions be killed by Hitler.

    So God was guilty of breaking his promise.

    Other rabbis would say the Jews as a whole had at the time abandoned Mosaic Law,and so God lifted his protection,and the result was a genocide.

    The there is the idea,nowhere found I think in the OT,that the explanation of the Holocaust,was a time of purification,

    to obtain a greater good(the restoration of the Jewish state in 1947).


  30. Greetings Biblical:

    Thanks for the comment:


    Glad to see you back over here posting (I wondered what happened to you..lol)

    Take care/stay blessed”

    Lately I have been talking to a Latter-Day Saint missionary(I dont call them Mormons,since they dont like it)

    They dont believe in the Trinity,

    they accept the Bible has errors,and they believe Joseph Smith,in the 1820s,was given a new revelation,the Book of Mormon,which complements the Bible.

    What REALLY astonished me,was her exposition of the message of Jesus:

    He is the Savior,Messiah,foretold in prophecies,

    who died as an Atonement for the sins of others,died,resurrected,

    ascended to heaven,one must have faith in Jesus.

    Practically the same,essential faith,of the Evangelicals,in fact,of all the

    There is an Evangelical youtuber called Melissa Dougherty who dislikes the Jehovah’s Witnesses,in that she is very bigoted,

    but who likes the LDS(Mormons) people a lot.In fact she says she believes:

    “There are saved New Agers(she used to be one) and Mormons”.

    I believe there are saved LSDs also,plus saved JWs(both groups dont believe in the Trinity).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Richard,

      Do you have your own blog? I’d love to chop it up with you over different spiritual things. Regardless, nice to see you back.

      Take care/stay blessed


  31. Hi Biblicalmonotheist:

    Thanks for the question,I haven’t been back for I think 2 days to this blog,no,no,I don’t have a blog,but I would love for the Pope to have one,

    in English,Russian,Hindi,Arabic,French,Spanish,Portuguese,Chinese,Indonesian,Persian,
    Japanese ,German and Italian

    with articles but where different points of view are expressed.
    It would have Millions of Readers.


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

%d bloggers like this: