Claims of drug use by biblical figures surprisingly have susbtance,
says Professor Carl Ruck of Boston University!

Bennett first looked at the use of drugs in religion two years ago in his book Sex, Drugs, Violence, and the Bible. He postulates that Jesus's ministry was fuelled by mind-altering substances, that he may have used cannabis-based oils to heal eye and skin diseases and that his very name - Christ - derives from being anointed with cannabis-enriched oil.

Over the centuries drugs have been used by virtually all religions. Why not Christianity?

In ancient times cannabis was widely cultivated throughout the Middle East. It grows like a weed and provides nourishing seed, which is also a good source of fibre used to make rope.

People certainly knew of its pleasurable effects; it would have been impossible to harvest it without becoming ecstatic as the drug would be absorbed through the skin. And as long ago as 1935 a Slovakian linguist identified the plant known as "fragrant cane" in the English Bible as flowering cannabis, a link since accepted by some Jewish authorities.

Ancient people were fascinated by herbs and their healing powers and knew much more about them than we do; at least about mixing herbs to release their potency.

Ancient wines were always fortified, like the "strong wine" of the Old Testament, with herbal additives: opium, datura, belladonna, mandrake and henbane. Common incenses, such as myrrh, ambergris and frankincense are psychotropic; the easy availability and long tradition of cannabis use would have seen it included in the mixtures. Modern medicine has looked into using cannabis as a pain reliever and in treating multiple sclerosis. It may well be that ancient people knew, or believed, that cannabis had healing power.

Much of their knowledge, passed down through an oral tradition, has been lost and to some extent it is the modern prejudice against drugs that has stopped us looking for it. Revulsion against drugs and the hippie culture even led to the term "entheogen" being coined to describe a psychotropic substance used in religious rituals.

Entheogen comes from the Greek entheos (meaning "god-inspired within" and the word is now commonly employed in English and European languages to discuss sacramental foods used by shamans (mystic or visionary priests) to achieve spiritual ecstasy.

So what of the early Christians? At the time they were evolving, they had to compete with other religions of the Roman empire. The strongest of those was Mithraism, imported from Persia, which exists today as Zoroastrianism.

Its sacrament, Haoma, was virtually identical to what we know of soma, in Brahmanism. Worshipped as a god, soma was a strange plant without leaves or roots that needed little light and induced religious ecstasy. It was most likely amanita muscaria: a magic mushroom. In ancient Rome sharing the Haoma cemented the bond of brotherhood of emperors, bureaucrats and soldiers. Pagan Greek celebrations at the sanctuary of Eleusis, meanwhile, included a visionary experience for a crowd of 1,000 people, from drinking a potion made from a fungus that grows on wheat and produces an effect similar to LSD.

So, did Jesus use cannabis? I think so. The word Christ does mean "the anointed one" and Bennett contends that Christ was anointed with chrism, a cannabis-based oil, that caused his spiritual visions. The ancient recipe for this oil, recorded in Exodus, included over 9lb of flowering cannabis tops (known as kaneh-bosem in Hebrew), extracted into a hin (about 11 pints) of olive oil, with a variety of other herbs and spices. The mixture was used in anointing and fumigations that, significantly, allowed the priests and prophets to see and speak with Yahweh.

Residues of cannabis, moreover, have been detected in vessels from Judea and Egypt in a context indicating its medicinal, as well as visionary, use. Jesus is described by the apostle Mark as casting out demons and healing by the use of this holy chrism. Earlier, from the time of Moses until the later prophet Samuel, holy anointing oil was used by the shamanic Levite priesthood to receive the "revelations of the Lord". The chosen ones were drenched in this potent cannabis oil.

Early Christian documents found in Eygpt, thought to be a more accurate record than the New Testament, portray Jesus as an ecstatic rebel sage who preached enlightenment through rituals involving magical plants. Indeed, Bennett goes so far as to say that Jesus was probably not born the messiah but acquired the title when he was anointed with cannabis oil by John the Baptist. The baptism in the Jordan was probably to wash away the oil after it had done its work. The early Christians fought hard for followers in the ancient world, recognising the similarity of their own "foreign" god and his eucharistic meal to the Greek gods. Various sects and even the elite in what would eventually become the Roman Catholic church probably used the full range of available entheogens for baptism, ordination and the eucharistic meal.

What we now call the host might have been more than just bread. There are indications that early Christians shared magic mushrooms - and the spiritual visions and ecstasies they occasioned - as their eucharistic meal. A 4th-century mosaic discovered at a basilica in Aquileia in northern Italy depicts baskets of mushrooms. Why? This wasn't a restaurant. Could the "red mushrooms" have been the ritual meal?

Eating bread and sharing wine together was, and remains, at the heart of the Christian ritual. We'll never know exactly what Jesus and his disciples consumed at the Last Supper, but as they believed they were drinking the blood of Christ we must accept it was - if not actually hallucinatory - at least fortified by God.

Carl Ruck is professor of classics at Boston University

http://www.bu.edu/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,869273,00.html

Reverend,

Your threads call for my dogged responses for several reasons: (a) some people who might not have answers would wonder if there's any substance in the case you make for sex, drugs and violence; (b) the image of Jesus Christ that you are projecting is neither biblical nor historical; (c) the ideas you ensconce are clearly neither Biblical nor Christian even though you dress them up in biblical language and terminology; and (d) non-Christians and other seekers who have not read the Bible face the danger of taking your word for it and running away with the ideas you promote.

First it was the push for masturbation and sex; now it is making a case for cannabis and drugs; heaven knows what next you would be pushing for - violence and social turbulence? The one thing that is obvious in your projects is that you fastidously appeal to sources outside the Bible while pretending your ideas are based on Scripture authority. For one thing, you have shown in other threads that you don't take the Bible seriously; and in the same way, no one ought to take anything you advance seriously - because they are not based on the one Book you repudiate.

Professor Carl Ruck's thinking is awash in untenable ideologies. Let's ask a common sense question: If "Christ was anointed with chrism, a cannabis-based oil, that caused his spiritual visions", why then hasn't the Professor produced the same results as Christ Himself as recorded in the Bible? Why hasn't the Professor raised the dead, walked on water, healed the sick, fed multiplied thousands with a few loaves - by using the same cannabis and oil that he supposed Christ must have been anointed with? Besides, if it was true that cannabis was the ingredient for Jesus' visions, anyone would be able to replicate His works - and so could you. Where are your works of healing, raising the dead, and greater visions - in just the same way as Christ did? The so-called authorities (like Prof. Ruck) you appeal to in your writeups have no established evidence or credence for their postulations; they merely dream up the psychotic fictions that sound so appealing to you that often you forget this fact.

The whole system you're advertising falls flat on its face when tested in the light of Scripture. More than anything, it sounds like you're looking for just any excuse to indulge - in sex, cannabis, and __(heaven help you)__ violence, when you can find the excuse for that. As you often say, "it is the modern prejudice against drugs (or masturbation, illicit sex, _and some day_[i]violence[/i] would be on your list) that has stopped us looking for it." May I suggest to you that you're looking for real life and joy in the wrong places. Prof. Ruck and others like him have no evidence for their fancied ideas, and it's unfortunate that you're building your convictions on that sham.

A casual reader of the New Testament will not fail to notice this one indispensable fact about Jesus' ministry: He was anointed with the Holy Spirit (not with cannabis-enriched oil). This is the testimony that runs through the pages of God's word and if Prof. Carl Ruck missed that, he is sure to miss everything.

Act 10:38 - "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."

The historical and Biblical Jesus is neither a sex pervert nor a cannabis hippie. And before you go about trying to advocate the third recommendation in Prof. Ruck's lollygag philosophy, please understand that you will not find Jesus represented as an icon of extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles. If otherwise, you'd need more than a professor's psychotic fancies or postulations that have no clear historical antecedents.

could people stop looking for some evidence to judge jesus, let him do his job as a son of God accept it the way he has done it and stop faking things. if anyone thinks he might use cannabis then go head and try yours cos personally i don't wonna know. the person that came with this idea is just trying to underate jesus deeds. really stop searching cos 99% of mad scientists was as a result of trying to find out God's secret so u can't succesfully reveal what is not suppose to be revealed.

teju oso:

could people stop looking for some evidence to judge jesus,

The sad fact is that there is no evidence for most of what they postulate - unless they fabricate the 'evidence', which is what they often do.

na wa o; pls come and establish a church in Nigeria.

otokx:

na wa o; please come and establish a church in Nigeria.

Have you visited the kinkychurch website? There are lots of Nigerians and Ghanaians who have applied as members - see the gallery and the baptism pictures (warning: if you're very sensitive to viewing gross pictures, this is not a good recommendation for you as there are explicit nude 'baptism' there - if the Rev. hasn't taken them off already!). Methinks that the applicant members are being lured by the offer of money!

Why would I have removed the baptism pictures?
Why does nudity offend you?
Why do you call a naked person Gross?
Why does baptism offend you?
What makes you think that people join because of money?

I am afraid you are not correct on all counts. I find you attitude very childish and narrow minded! Of course there has to always be an ulterior motive.

All our members join of their own free will. Most of them are tired and angry with being told from birth to death that they are miserable sinners.

Our church makes arefreshing change :-)

Reverend:

Why would I have removed the baptism pictures?
Why does nudity offend you?
Why do you call a naked person Gross?
Why does baptism offend you?
What makes you think that people join because of money?

I am afraid you are not correct on all counts. I find you attitude very childish and narrow minded! Of course there has to always be an ulterior motive.

All our members join of their own free will. Most of them are tired and angry with being told from birth to death that they are miserable sinners.

Our church makes arefreshing change :-)

1. Why would I have removed the baptism pictures?

I did not assert that you would have removed the pictures; but my inference is borne out of the fact that you have a track record of making changes on your website whenever you discover you've been checkmated - here today, gone tomorrow. Examples are when you changed the words in kmab.34.1 removing 'his sins' and 'his holy jism flowed onto her'); and Judas' question to Jesus as to why the latter would allow Mary Magdaline to rub his private parts. If you could be trusted, why the changes?

2. Why does nudity offend you?

When you promote nudity in the naked baptismal rites and subject people to exposures on the internet for millions to view, that is an infringement on their rights and human dignity. You may counter that none of them complains or protests; but they would not want to do so where they have been brainwashed. I guarantee you that if they knew the Biblical implications of what you are doing to them, they would have ceased being members. If they were properly told that they were not giving their bodies and souls to God, but rather to a man who wants them as 'game' for his kinky appetite, would anyone of them in their sane minds remain in your system? What are the children in your Sunday School services to think about the nude exposures that you subject their parents to under the guise of baptismal rites? What are decent people to think of you concerning the fact that any one of those children could go to your site and view the nudes of adult members of your church? How come everyone has to agree with your reasoning that nudity is not offensive; and those who disagree are immdediately written off by your carping of narrow mindedness?

Second, you make everything sound like it's only evangelical Christians that are opposed to immoral nude exposures. Most political institutions that are non-religious in structure have pursued laws to check the trend of such indecency based on previous evidence of the dangers of viewing nudity in various forms and media. You could check out the following links or do an online search yourself about what some governments and agencies are saying:

    Australian Institute of Criminology http://www.crime-research.org/articles/1236/
    Obscenity Crimes - Morality in Media, Inc. http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/helppornproblems.cfm
    Researchers at the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center:
http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/news/newsMarch2003.cfm
    Crimes Against Children Research Center http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/projects/internet_survey.html
                 
The message is clear: exposure to nudity can be dangerous and past evidence show that some people have engaged in sex crimes  through viewing nudity. Need I mention the recent case of 61-year-old Gary Glitter (aka Paul Francis Gadd) who was served a 3 year jail term in Vietnam for child pornography that stemmed from such nudity games? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4769164.stm 


3. Why do you call a naked person  Gross?

I did not call a naked person gross - that's your imagination. It was the nude pictures themselves being exposed on the internet that I referred to as 'gross'. I think it is rather unwise for you and the kinkychurch to expose members' nudity in such a manner for all the world to see. What is even more, it was not Christian baptism that members were given. Your baptismal rites stipulates that applicant members strip to the nude, oil themselves, and in full view expose their nudity to a camera. Is that what Jesus recommended in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16?


4. Why does baptism offend you?

Where did I state that baptism offends me? How is it that you read ulterior meanings into my replies and then turn round and accuse me of your own misdemeanor? Christian baptism does not offend me - I was baptised soon after receiving the biblical Jesus Christ as my Saviour. You just could not call your kinky ritual a Christian baptism as it bears no resemblance to what the apostles taught in the Bible.


5. What makes you think that people join because of money?

Would anyone in their right mind who reads the Bible fall prey to your lewd and pretentious 'Christianity'? It is likely that some people in Africa in the face of dire economic needs would give anything to receive financial help. This is just a conjecture, and I'm ready to admit that I am flatly wrong in assuming that is one possible reason why people from Africa become members of your kinkychurch. However, in a country like Nigeria where it's almost impossible today to get a decent job and make a responsible earning, who would fault the idea that some people take the chance of becoming members as the prerequisite for being offered Scholarships of up to $50, 000USD and Anti 419 charity  of up to $10,000USD? (Do the mental maths in conversion rates to naira!). Is it not clearly stated that these offers are available to church members only? "Applications are invited from church members only. Non members can apply for grants and financial support, but will be required to complete full membership before payment is received" is cleraly stated on your website: http://kinkymarymagdelinechurch.cjb.net/ .

You don't need to twist God's word to arrive at your deceptive spirituality in order to 'make a refreshing change'. The Bible provides me with more reasons in Jesus Christ than I could number in order to live a refreshing life to the full. I'm not alone - millions more who have trusted in the real Jesus Christ know that refreshing life and do not miss anything in not exposing their boobs and ___ on the internet through your kinky website.

@Reverend:
Reverend, i've a question for you. is it you talking or the garri you've been drinking morning, afternoon,night for the past 72 hours?

GET A LIFE

What do we do about this? Is it worth debating? You may concentrate on your church Reverend. God bless the works of your hands.

TYPOP,

Em. . . I definitely hope you didn't mean to say that. I don't want to question whether or not you're a Christian, but if you've read Reverend's ideas and works, you'd be a bit slow to wish him God's blessings. What would you say about someone whose website calls Jesus a sinner? See here for past discussion: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-7656.96.html and navigate the thread.

If someone who claims to be a Christian is found to be a vendor of false doctrines to the extent of insinuating that Jesus was a sinner, what would you make of the following verse? -

"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." (2 John 9-11).

Just an observation.

I have a REALLY strong feeling this Reverend is one of the prophets talked about in Matt 24:11 which goes "And many FALSE prophets will arise and lead many astray"First it was masturbation now its cannabis.You just want an excuse to sin and just so you dont go down alone u had to drag people along with you.The idea of your "kinky church" is as weird,bizzare,eccentric,sexually abnormal and perverse as the word kinky means.May God help us o,the end time sure is near.Meanwhile may God bless Bari_kade and Choice A for all their posts,they have said it all.At least the impact of your perverse doctrines on Nairaland will be reduced greatly.Now its Jesus took cannabis,i wonder what will come next from the Kinky Reverend.

TYPOP:

What do we do about this? Is it worth debating? You may concentrate on your church Reverend. God bless the works of your hands.

@welborn

I am right. Read what I posted well. The Lord will bless (not him) but the works of his hands. So if they are good, he gets more goodies, and if bad, abundance of evils will come to him.

@Revrend

This is not a curse ok? It depends on what you want. What you want is what you do.

TYPOP: 'I am right. Read what I posted well. The Lord will bless (not him) but the works of his hands. So if they are good, he gets more goodies, and if bad, abundance of evils will come to him.'

What do you mean "not him but the works of his hands"? The Bible does not separate between the two - a man is determined before God by what he does - if God blesses the works of your hands, it is the same as God blessing you. God judges a man based on what he does. How could God bless what is clearly evil doctrines by your summation that the Lord will bless the works of his hands? What Reverend is teaching is wrong - clearly evil, from the Biblical point o view. So, don't even start to play on semantics.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." - Matt. 16:27.

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." - Eph. 5:11

"Concerning the works of men, by the word of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer." - Psa. 17:4

@welborn

Well, no hassles. I agree with you that the bible did not separate between a man and his works.
It depends on how you view it. If your work is bad, that is a curse. If your work is good, that is a good prayer. You sure know this passage now "[b]Rom 12:14 [/b]Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. "
Thats why I blessed.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. However, there's a difference between someone persecuting you and someone bringing a false doctrine. Neither Jesus nor the apotles asked us to bless false teachers - they said to reject them and not share in their work either by blessing or encouraging them - anyone blessing a false teacher is also partaking of his evil works. If you ever wonder about the attitudes of the apostles with regards to false teachers and their docrines, this is an example of a Scripture:

"As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." (Gal.1:9).

I'm not stating things too far in saying that Reverend's teachings are evil: he clearly insinuated that Jesus Christ was a sinner and a sex pervert. What does that mean to you? That is not something that deserves a blessing - it deserves the anathema by Biblical standards.

@Welborn

I am not taking sides with him. I know he is an anti-christ. I saw his church's site. That is like a soft porn site. I don't take sides with him. Though I think you are also right. I am not supposed to be soft on him. Thank you. I'll take care next time.

TYPOP,

You're such a gentleman, and I apologise if my responses were a bit hard - I didn't mean it so. Thanks for being human.

What is reverends website?

What ever its not about what Jesus did or did not do , but about what he preached.
Did he and John the Baptist not have different reputations
Were people then not calling him a drunkard that was eating with sinners?
Jesus said he came to help the sick  not so
But i must say that website i ddon'tunderstand what it has to do with religion.

Softee:


What is reverends website?

Check it out here: http://kinkymarymagdelinechurch.cjb.net

Of course, a lot of changes have been made on the website, but if you see the discussions in the following link, you'll get the gist: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-7656.96.html .

mamaput:

What ever its not about what Jesus did or did not do , but about what he preached.

The Christian faith is based on what Jesus both did and preached:

"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1). "And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people." (Matt. 9:35). "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." (Acts 10:38).

mamaput:

Did he and John the Baptist not have different reputations
Were people then not calling him a drunkard that was eating with sinners?

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. (Matt.11:18-19)

The fact that Jesus and John the Baptist have different reputations among people does not mean that their ministries were opposed to each other - if that's what you meant. John was sent as a forerunner to bear witness of Jesus as:

(a) the Light of the world (John 1:6-9)
(b) the One who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).
(c) and the Son of God who baptizes with the Holy Ghost (John 1:33-34).

If people called Jesus a drunkard, does that mean He was actually a drunkard? Read the scriptures and see that you have misunderstood the contexts. Jesus was not a drunkard - people only accused Him of being such; and that's why He said "Wisdom is justified of her children" - no wise person would suppose that the accusation of the people was justified.

mamaput:

Jesus said he came to help the sick not so
But i must say that website i ddon'tunderstand what it has to do with religion.

Reverend Kinky's website does not give a true picture of what Christianity is. Believers in Jesus Christ don't live their lives the way Reverend kinky believes.

I don't know my bible so off head but I know that Jesus himself was tempted several times.
I am not saying that Jesus and john had different things to say, but they did not have the same approach to the same topices.
But he did say do what i say and don't do as i do.

Every one translates the bible the way the like at the end of the day its all about believing that Jesus is the son of god.
He came to save our souls and not our sex life. at least we can agree on that.
But on reading the bible did not god himself admit mistakes.?
Like when he got so annoyed and flooded the earth. Did he not promise not to do so again.?

mamaput:

I don't know my bible so off head but I know that Jesus himself was tempted several times.

Okay, same could be said of me - I don't know everything in the Bible nor could I quote everything in it. We learn daily, and the Forum is a nice place to add to knowledge.

Jesus faced many temptations - direct from the Devil (Matt. 4:1-11), indirectly through His disciples (Matt. 16:21-23) as well as His opposers (Matt. 22:16-22). In all things, the Bible says He was tempted but found without sin - He did not yield to a single temptation and is the only One without sin (Heb.4:15).

mamaput:

I am not saying that Jesus and john had different things to say, but they did not have the same approach to the same topices.

Maybe John the Baptist and Jesus had different approaches to the same issues - but 'different approaches' are not the same as 'contradictions'. They never argued or disagreed. It was all the same consistent Gospel we see them both engaged in - John the Baptist as the forerunner and announcer; Jesus Christ the Perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2). Infact, John the Baptist said clearly that He must decrease while Jesus should increase because the latter was the Saviour and should have the pre-eminence (John 3:30).

mamaput:

But he did say do what i say and don't do as i do.

Nope - Jesus never said that. If He did, please I'd like you to fetch it out for me in any translation of the Bible you come across. Perhaps you meant to quote Matt. 23:1-3 - "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.". Jesus was referring to the works of the srcibes and the Pharisees when He warned that we should not be hypocrites like them - only hypocrites talk about their religion and fail to obey what they preach. If that wasn't what you wanted to reference, then please kindly quote the verse in your next reply where it was written that Jesus said, "do what i say and don't do as i do."

mamaput:

Every one translates the bible the way the like at the end of the day its all about believing that Jesus is the son of god.       He came to save our souls and not our sex life. at least we can agree on that.
But on reading the bible did not god himself admit mistakes.?
Like when he got so annoyed and flooded the earth. Did he not promise not to do so again.?

God did not admit to mistakes by flooding the earth in His anger in Genesis 6-7. He clearly gave His reasons there for His judgement - the whole earth had become wicked (Gen. 6:5) The Hebrew word translated as 'repented' in Gen. 6:6,7 is nawkham and has the sense of 'sighing with pity'. I could sigh with pity at someone without feeling I made a mistake in that person's life. Colloquially, we could angrily say to someone who's annoying: "I pity you!" So, the sense of the word 'repented/repenteth' in Gen. 6:6-7 does not mean God admitted to a mistake.

[[another example:  Another English word that has a different meaning today from the KJV translation is 'suffer' in Mat 19:14 - "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Of course, Jesus did not mean that we should subject children to cruelty in order to bring them to Him; the Greek word is 'aphiemi' and means 'to send forth. . .to let'.]].

There was sufficient time and warnings given for repentance, but the people drove on in mad and desparate wickedness until God's patience ran out on them. When He promised not to judge the earth by a flood ever again (Gen. 9:11), it does not mean that judgement will not come - the future judgement will be by fire, not by flood (2 Pet.3:7).

Perhaps it would help to carefully read the Bible yourself before you arrive at any interpretations. Most times the opinions of people are flawed when they haven't checked out their facts before drawing conclusions.

mamaput:

. . . . But he did say do what i say and don't do as i do. . . .

@mamaput
Jesus did not just say that. You have to prove it.

@welborn
you are right. Hit it right on. (I didn't read all anyway).

You guys can use a computer bible. I like e-sword. For me, it is still the best (please this is not to start another argument). Get it at http://esword.net/

TYPOP,

esword is a HR - highly recommended! (Perhaps quicker to access here: http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html ). I use it for my online studies as well as ESV - English Standard Version (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/browse/). Thanks for sharing the wisdom. 

welborn, thanks for your answers    - I gained especially from the way you outlined Jesus' temptations.

@mlks_baby
Anytime.

Reverend's website is sick

urgh!!

It's more of soft porn to me.

Softee:

Reverend's website is sick

what did you expect when something is named "[b]kinky[/b]marymagdelinechurch"