The KKK nonsense is not a new ideology in Kenya!
This morning I read in a section of the media that the nonsense called KKK alliance is schemed to ultimately end up into K. How stupid?
I will tell you why this is nonsensical and why it is doomed to fail. Around 1884 after the Berlin Conference that among other things called for effective occupation of the colonies in Africa, the French colonialists in West Africa embarked on a policy called Assimilation ostensibly to unite all black people with the civilized white race with the stated intention of having the black benefit from the civilization of the white man! The policy of assimilation failed miserably and to date it is the same hang overs that the French government suffers from every time there is political instability in its former colonies. The French government always intervenes militarily with the desperate hope of telling the world that they are still in charge and that the former colonies are still part of the French.
Kenya as a country is faced with the mountainous challenge of tribalism and tribal politics. The solution is well known. Around the 1950s and immediately after independence, a few greedy political characters told Kenyans that there was need to unite the Gikuyus, embus and Merus and that through this other Kenyans would be united! This was the onset of GEMA and you and me are aware of what this union called GEMA cost this country. Other unions splinterd up such as KAMATUSA and MAA groups etc. We have always told our leaders that they are the people who exacerbate the problem before us by insisting like Mutahi Ngunyi that we cannot run away from tribalism. And now there are a few leaders who have told Kenyans that the solutions to our tribalism is to unite a few tribes against the rest then ultimately win over the other tribes who shall be left out in the first plan. That our leaders are seeking to unite kambas, kikuyus and kalenjins is selfish, useless and ultimate demonstration of hopelessness in our leaders. I have always argued that if these people were that serious then they should plan to include the Kurians and Karamojong in their KKK nonsense if they are to Kenyans. Why because if it is a matter of K then Kurians, Kisiis and Karamajongs are also qualified to join! But no one among these leaders has ever talked of this. What is so good in the former KKK that is not in the latter KKK?
I wish to inform the KKK proponents that if the French men failed to assimilate the black men and women of West Africa, then Ruto, Uhuru and Kalonzo cannot assimilate the Luos, Luhyas, Kisiis, Merus, Embus, Kurians, Mijikenda, Asians, the Whites, Masai, Boranas, Samburus, Pokots among others. We do not wish to and will never regret why we were born in these tribes. I want to state categorically that even if I were to die now and resurrect and I would choose to resurrect as a Kuria! We are sick and tired of being told that if Kalenjins and Kikuyus are not going to unite then there will be war in 2012! This is useless thinking and I wish to inform the Ruto cabal that even if there were war or not, you cannot pretend to unite tribes by setting tribes against tribe. Do not try to reap from the spoils of a war that was your own creation.
You see I have not even talked of Mau which is what these characters have been telling us is the reason they are opposed to the Prime Minister but which we now know is a vague excuse which has not stood the test of time.
In short, KKK is not news to us it was here before the proponents were born. You cannot win over the rest of Kenyans by uniting a few tribes because if anything it is the same ideology that informed the schemers of GEMA, KAMATUSA, MAA, LUME etc. All these serve to balkanize the country tribally to date!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Beggars in the streets are no less prostitutes!
Yesterday I was passing near Holy Family Basilica in the city centre and I saw a man with a huge, swollen, wet, exposed and by all standards blood-chilling wound on the lower end of his right leg that reminded the public of a rotten red ripe tomato tumbled over! The site of the wound and the watery eyes of the man nursing the wound sent chilly quivers among the passersby who after quick darted glances would like the speed of a ratel whiz a fore as though to say, 'Ghosh!' God save us!
It was not the first time I was coming across such a scene. This is common place in our city. But what made me write this article is the fact that for the first time I forbade myself from thinking with my emotions and began thinking with my head. I usually give such people any coin I have in the pockets. But yesterday I paused and asked myself this critical question. 'If these people are sick and suffering this much, why can't they go and camp at the gates of Kenyatta National Hospital and cry out so that the government doctors there can attend to them?' For those of you who are doctors you will agree with me that there is no doctor in the world who would see such a patient and fail to treat them even if that person did not have money to foot the medical bill.
This incidence made me think deep and I finally came to a conclusion that the reason why those people sit at those city corners is not really because they want to be assisted to get medical attention but because they are trading their sickness for money! To them getting better means sliding into the agony of having to lose their income. It is the wounds that give them income! Then I proceeded to think of the twilight girls of Koinange street, Museum Hills, Arngwings Kodhek Road and Westlands. I immediately drew a connection between the two categories of these human beings. The common denominator that I could find was that both the beggar who uses his/her wounded body organs to earn a living by drawing sympathy coins from the passersby and the prostitute who earns a living by exposing her lithe, tender and voluptuous thighs to ignite insatiable lust and draw coins thereof from gullible passersby could not be any different! In all occasions, both the prostitute and the beggar are not interested in getting better, that is get healed for the beggar with a wound and the emotional and physical satisfaction that comes with sexual engagement for a prostitute. The more they get their money the more they want to stay there forever. In both occasions both the prostitute and the beggar use their catchment areas as shops or workplaces from where they earn a daily income. The only difference is that whereas the beggar opens their shop in the morning at around 6.00am, the prostitute opens their shop from around 10.00pm. Of course both of them retreat to their caves every time they know their respective customer may not be available.
Someone once told me that prostitutes really do not want to have sex every time you see them in the streets. They are there because of the addiction and the allure for money. So even when having sex with one never mind about their sexual satisfaction. Just think of your own satisfaction because for them they are in business not in love. The same case will apply to the beggars with exposed wounds. They will never thank you for taking them to hospital. They will only be happy to get the money from you. So the same way you treat a prostitute should be the same way you treat a beggar if you must help any of them.
What do you say?
It was not the first time I was coming across such a scene. This is common place in our city. But what made me write this article is the fact that for the first time I forbade myself from thinking with my emotions and began thinking with my head. I usually give such people any coin I have in the pockets. But yesterday I paused and asked myself this critical question. 'If these people are sick and suffering this much, why can't they go and camp at the gates of Kenyatta National Hospital and cry out so that the government doctors there can attend to them?' For those of you who are doctors you will agree with me that there is no doctor in the world who would see such a patient and fail to treat them even if that person did not have money to foot the medical bill.
This incidence made me think deep and I finally came to a conclusion that the reason why those people sit at those city corners is not really because they want to be assisted to get medical attention but because they are trading their sickness for money! To them getting better means sliding into the agony of having to lose their income. It is the wounds that give them income! Then I proceeded to think of the twilight girls of Koinange street, Museum Hills, Arngwings Kodhek Road and Westlands. I immediately drew a connection between the two categories of these human beings. The common denominator that I could find was that both the beggar who uses his/her wounded body organs to earn a living by drawing sympathy coins from the passersby and the prostitute who earns a living by exposing her lithe, tender and voluptuous thighs to ignite insatiable lust and draw coins thereof from gullible passersby could not be any different! In all occasions, both the prostitute and the beggar are not interested in getting better, that is get healed for the beggar with a wound and the emotional and physical satisfaction that comes with sexual engagement for a prostitute. The more they get their money the more they want to stay there forever. In both occasions both the prostitute and the beggar use their catchment areas as shops or workplaces from where they earn a daily income. The only difference is that whereas the beggar opens their shop in the morning at around 6.00am, the prostitute opens their shop from around 10.00pm. Of course both of them retreat to their caves every time they know their respective customer may not be available.
Someone once told me that prostitutes really do not want to have sex every time you see them in the streets. They are there because of the addiction and the allure for money. So even when having sex with one never mind about their sexual satisfaction. Just think of your own satisfaction because for them they are in business not in love. The same case will apply to the beggars with exposed wounds. They will never thank you for taking them to hospital. They will only be happy to get the money from you. So the same way you treat a prostitute should be the same way you treat a beggar if you must help any of them.
What do you say?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Is Jesus God?
Have you ever met somebody with such personal magnetism that he/she is always the center of attention? Possibly his/her personality or intelligence---but something about him/her is enigmatic. Well, that’s the way it was two thousand years ago with Jesus Christ.
Jesus’ greatness was obvious to all those who saw and heard him. But, whereas most great people simply fade into history books, Jesus of Nazareth is still the focus of numerous books and media controversy. And much of that controversy revolves around the radical claims Jesus made about himself.
As an unheralded carpenter from an obscure Galilean village in Israel, Jesus made claims that, if true, have profound implications on our lives. According to Jesus, you and I are special, part of a grand cosmic scheme, with him as the center of it all. This and other claims like it stunned everyone who heard them uttered.
It was primarily Jesus’ outrageous claims that caused him to be viewed as a crackpot by both the Roman authorities and the Jewish hierarchy. Although he was an outsider with no credentials or political powerbase, within three years, Jesus changed the world for the next 20 centuries. Other moral and religious leaders have left an impact---but nothing like that unknown carpenter from Nazareth.
What was it about Jesus Christ that made the difference? Was he merely a great man, or something more?
These questions get to the heart of who Jesus really was. Some believe he was merely a great moral teacher; others believe he was simply the leader of the world’s greatest religion. But many believe something far more. Christians believe that God has actually visited us in human form. And they believe the evidence backs that up. So who is the real Jesus? Let’s take a closer look.
As we take a deeper look at the world’s most controversial person, we begin by asking: could Jesus have been merely a great moral teacher?
Great Moral Teacher?
Almost all scholars acknowledge that Jesus was a great moral teacher. In fact, his brilliant insight into human morality is an accomplishment recognized even by those of other religions. In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner wrote, “It is universally admitted … that Christ taught the purest and sublimest ethics … which throws the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men of antiquity far into the shade.”1
Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount has been called the most superlative teaching of human ethics ever uttered by an individual. In fact, much of what we know today as “equal rights” actually is the result of Jesus’ teaching. Historian Will Durant said of Jesus that “he lived and struggled unremittingly for ‘equal rights’; in modern times he would have been sent to Siberia. ‘He that is greatest among you, let him be your servant’—this is the inversion of all political wisdom, of all sanity.”2
Some have tried to separate Jesus’ teaching on ethics from his claims about himself, believing that he was simply a great man who taught lofty moral principles. This was the approach of one of America’s Founding Fathers.
President Thomas Jefferson, ever the enlightened rationalist, sat down in the White House with two identical copies of the New Testament, a straight-edge razor, and a sheaf of octavo-size paper. Over the course of a few nights, he made quick work of cutting and pasting his own Bible, a slim volume he called “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth.” After slicing away every passage that suggested Jesus’ divine nature, Jefferson had a Jesus who was no more and no less than a good, ethical guide.3
Ironically, Jefferson’s memorable words in the Declaration of Independence were rooted in Jesus’ teaching that each person is of immense and equal importance to God, regardless of sex, race, or social status. The famous document sets forth, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …”
But the question Jefferson never addressed is: how could Jesus have been a great moral leader if he lied about being God? So perhaps he wasn’t really moral after all, but his motive was to begin a great religion. Let’s see if that explains Jesus’ greatness.
Great Religious Leader?
Did Jesus deserve the title of “great religious leader”? Surprisingly, Jesus never claimed to be a religious leader. He never got into religious politics or pushed an ambitious agenda, and he ministered almost entirely outside the established religious framework.
When one compares Jesus with the other great religious leaders, a remarkable distinction emerges. Ravi Zacharias, who grew up in a Hindu culture, has studied world religions and observed a fundamental distinction between other religious founders and Jesus Christ.
"Whatever we may make of their claims, one reality is inescapable. They are teachers who point to their teaching or show some particular way. In all of these, there emerges an instruction, a way of living. It is not Zoroaster to whom you turn; it is Zoroaster to whom you listen. It is not Buddha who delivers you; it is his Noble Truths that instruct you. It is not Mohammad who transforms you; it is the beauty of the Koran that woos you. By contrast, Jesus did not only teach or expound His message. He was identical with His message."4
The truth of Zacharias’s point is underscored by the number of times in the Gospels that Jesus’ teaching message was simply “Come to me” or “Follow me” or “Obey me.” Also, Jesus made it clear that his primary mission was to forgive sins, something only God could do.
No other major religious leader ever claimed the power to forgive sins. But that is not the only claim Jesus made that separated him from the others. In The World’s Great Religions, Huston Smith observed, “Only two people ever astounded their contemporaries so much that the question they evoked was not ‘Who is he?’ but ‘What is he?’ They were Jesus and Buddha. The answers these two gave were exactly the opposite. Buddha said unequivocally that he was a mere man, not a god—almost as if he foresaw later attempts to worship him. Jesus, on the other hand, claimed … to be divine.”5
Did Jesus Claim to be God?
Clearly, from the earliest years of the church, Jesus was called Lord and regarded by most Christians as God. Yet his divinity was a doctrine that was subjected to great debate . So the question—and it is the question—is this: Did Jesus really claim to be God (the Creator), or was his divinity something invented or assumed by the New Testament authors?
Some scholars believe Jesus was such a powerful teacher and compelling personality that his disciples just assumed he was God. Or maybe they just wanted to think he was God. John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar (a fringe group skeptical of scholars with presuppositions against miracles) are among those who believe Jesus was deified in error.
Although books like The Da Vinci Code argue that Jesus’ divinity was a later doctrine of the church, evidence shows otherwise. Most Christians who accept the gospels as reliable insist that Jesus did claim deity. And that belief can be traced all the way back to Jesus’ immediate followers.
But there are those who accept Jesus as a great teacher, but are unwilling to call him God. As a deist, Thomas Jefferson had no problem accepting Jesus’ teachings on morals and ethics while denying his deity.6 But as we’ve said, and will explore further, if Jesus was not who he claimed to be, then we must examine some other alternatives, none of which would make him a great moral teacher.
Even a superficial reading of the Gospels reveals that Jesus claimed to be someone more than a prophet like Moses or Daniel. But it is the nature of those claims that concern us. Two questions are worthy of attention.
- Did Jesus actually claim to be God?
- When he said “God,” did Jesus really mean he was the Creator of the universe spoken of in the Hebrew Bible?
To address these questions, let's consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:18: “I have been given complete authority in heaven and on earth.” What does it mean that Jesus has been “given” authority?
Prior to Jesus taking on human form, we are told that he eternally coexisted with his Father, and as God he had all authority. But Philippians 2:6-11 tells us that even though Jesus had existed in the form of God, he “stripped himself” of God’s powers to be born a human being. Yet the same passage tells us that after his resurrection Jesus was restored to his former glory, and someday “every knee will bow to him as Lord.”
So, what did Jesus mean when he claimed to have complete authority in heaven and on earth? Authority” was a well-understood term in Roman-occupied Israel. At that time, Caesar was the supreme authority in the entire Roman world. His edict could instantly launch legions for war, condemn or exonerate criminals, and establish laws and rules of government. In fact, Caesar’s authority was such that he himself claimed divinity.
So, at the very least Jesus was claiming authority on a par with Caesar himself. But He didn’t just say he had more authority than the Jewish leaders or Roman rulers; Jesus was claiming to be the supreme authority in the universe. To those he spoke to, it meant that he was God. Not a god—but the God. Both their words and actions testify to the fact that they truly believed Jesus is God.
Did Jesus Claim to be the Creator?
But is it possible that Jesus was just reflecting God’s authority and was not stating that he was the actual Creator? At first glance that seems plausible. Yet Jesus’ claim to have all authority seems to make sense only if he is the Creator of the universe. The word “all” encompasses everything–including creation itself.
As we look deeper into Jesus’ own words, a pattern seems to emerge. Jesus made radical assertions about himself that, if true, unmistakably point to his deity. Here is a partial list of such statements as recorded by eyewitness accounts.
- “I am the resurrection and the life.” (John 11:25)
- “I am the light of the world.” (John 8:12)
- “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30)
- “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (Revelation 22:13).”
- “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)
- “I am the only way to the Father [God].” (John 14:6)
- “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.” (John 14:9)Once again, we must go back to context. In the Hebrew Scriptures, when Moses asked God his name at the burning bush, God answered, “I AM.” He was telling Moses that He is the only Creator, eternal and transcendent of time.
Since the time of Moses, no practicing Jew would ever refer to himself or anyone else by “I AM.” As a result, Jesus’ “I AM” claims infuriated the Jewish leaders. One time, for example, some leaders explained to Jesus why they were trying to kill him: “Because you, a mere man, have made yourself God” (John 10:33).
But the point here is not simply that such a phrase fumed the religious leaders. The point is that they knew exactly what he was saying—he was claiming to be God, the Creator of the universe. It is only this claim that would have brought the accusation of blasphemy. To read into the text that Jesus claimed to be God is clearly warranted, not simply by his words, but also by their reaction to those words.
What Kind of God?
The idea that we are all part of God, and that within us is the seed of divinity, is simply not a possible meaning for Jesus’ words and actions. Such thoughts are revisionist, foreign to his teaching, foreign to his stated beliefs, and foreign to his disciples’ understanding of his teaching.
Jesus taught that he is God in the way the Jews understood God and the way the Hebrew Scriptures portrayed God, not in the way the New Age movement understands God. Neither Jesus nor his audience had been weaned on Star Wars, and so when they spoke of God, they were not speaking of cosmic forces. It’s simply bad history to redefine what Jesus meant by the concept of God.
But if Jesus wasn’t God, are we still okay by calling him a great moral teacher? C. S. Lewis argued, “I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say.”7
In his quest for truth, Lewis knew that he could not have it both ways with the identity of Jesus. Either Jesus was who he claimed to be—God in the flesh—or his claims were false. And if they were false, Jesus could not be a great moral teacher. He would either be lying intentionally or he would be a lunatic with a God complex.
Was Jesus a Liar?
One of the best-known and most influential political works of all time was written by Niccolò Machiavelli in 1532. In his classic, The Prince, Machiavelli exalts power, success, image, and efficiency above loyalty, faith, and honesty. According to Machiavelli, lying is okay if it accomplishes a political end.
Could Jesus Christ have built his entire ministry upon a lie just to gain power, fame, or success? In fact, the Jewish opponents of Jesus were constantly trying to expose him as a fraud and liar. They would barrage him with questions in attempts to trip him up and make him contradict himself. Yet Jesus responded with remarkable consistency.
The question we must deal with is, what could possibly motivate Jesus to live his entire life as a lie? He taught that God was opposed to lying and hypocrisy, so he wouldn’t have been doing it to please his Father. He certainly didn’t lie for his followers’ benefit. (All but one were martyred.) And so we are left with only two other reasonable explanations, each of which is problematic.
Benefit
Many people have lied for personal gain. In fact, the motivation of most lies is some perceived benefit to oneself. What could Jesus have hoped to gain from lying about his identity? Power would be the most obvious answer. If people believed he was God, he would have tremendous power. (That is why many ancient leaders, such as the Caesars, claimed divine origin.)
The rub with this explanation is that Jesus shunned all attempts to move him in the direction of seated power, instead chastising those who abused such power and lived their lives pursuing it. He also chose to reach out to the outcasts (prostitutes and lepers), those without power, creating a network of people whose influence was less than zero. In a way that could only be described as bizarre, all that Jesus did and said moved diametrically in the other direction from power.
It would seem that if power was Jesus’ motivation, he would have avoided the cross at all costs. Yet, on several occasions, he told his disciples that the cross was his destiny and mission. How would dying on a Roman cross bring one power?
Death, of course, brings all things into proper focus. And while many martyrs have died for a cause they believed in, few have been willing to die for a known lie. Certainly all hopes for Jesus’ own personal gain would have ended on the cross. Yet, to his last breath, he would not relinquish his claim of being the unique Son of God. Jesus used the terms “Son of Man” and “Son of God” to identify his dual nature as both man and God (See “Did Jesus Claim to be God?”).
A Legacy
So if Jesus was above lying for personal benefit, perhaps his radical claims were falsified in order to leave a legacy. But the prospect of being beaten to a pulp and nailed to a cross would quickly dampen the enthusiasm of most would-be superstars.
Here is another haunting fact. If Jesus were to have simply dropped the claim of being God’s Son, he never would have been condemned. It was his claim to be God and his unwillingness to recant of it that got him crucified.
If enhancing his credibility and historical reputation was what motivated Jesus to lie, one must explain how a carpenter from a poor Judean village could ever anticipate the events that would catapult his name to worldwide prominence. How would he know his message would survive? Jesus’ disciples had fled and Peter had denied him. Not exactly the formula for launching a religious legacy.
Do historians believe Jesus lied? Scholars have scrutinized Jesus’ words and life to see if there is any evidence of a defect in his moral character. In fact, even the most ardent skeptics are stunned by Jesus’ moral and ethical purity. One of those was skeptic and antagonist John Stuart Mill (1806–73), the philosopher. Mill wrote of Jesus,
"About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight in the very first rank of men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast. When this pre-eminent genius is combined with the qualities of probably the greatest moral reformer and martyr to that mission who ever existed on earth, religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching upon this man as the ideal representative and guide for humanity.8"
According to historian Philip Schaff, there is no evidence, either in church history or in secular history, that Jesus lied about anything. Schaff argued, “How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could a deceitful, selfish, depraved man have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality?”9
To go with the option of liar seems to swim upstream against everything Jesus taught, lived, and died for. To most scholars, it just doesn’t make sense. Yet, to deny Jesus’ claims, one must come up with some explanation. And if Jesus’ claims are not true, and he wasn’t lying, the only option remaining is that he must have been self-deceived.
Was Jesus a Lunatic?
Albert Schweitzer, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1952 for his humanitarian efforts, had his own views about Jesus. Schweitzer concluded that insanity was behind Jesus’ claim to be God. In other words, Jesus was wrong about his claims but didn’t intentionally lie. According to this theory, Jesus was deluded into actually believing he was the Messiah.
C. S. Lewis considered this option carefully. Lewis deduced the insanity of Jesus’ claims—if they are not true. He said that someone who claimed to be God would not be a great moral teacher. “He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell.”10
Even those most skeptical of Christianity rarely question Jesus’ sanity. Social reformer William Channing (1780–1842), admittedly not a Christian, made the following observation about Jesus: “The charge of an extravagant, self-deluding enthusiasm is the last to be fastened on Jesus. Where can we find traces of it in history? Do we detect them in the calm authority of His precepts?”11
Although his own life was filled with immorality and personal skepticism, the renowned French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) acknowledged Jesus’ superior character and presence of mind. “When Plato describes his imaginary righteous man, loaded with all the punishments of guilt, yet meriting the highest rewards of virtue, he describes exactly the character of Christ. … What presence of mind. … Yes, if the life and death of Socrates are those of a philosopher, the life and death of Jesus Christ are those of a God.”12
Schaff posed the question we must ask ourselves: “Is such an intellect—thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always self-possessed—liable to a radical and most serious delusion concerning his own character and mission?”13
So, was Jesus a liar or a lunatic, or was he the Son of God? Could Jefferson have been right by labeling Jesus “only a good moral teacher” while denying him deity? Interestingly, the audience who heard Jesus—both believers and enemies—never regarded him as a mere moral teacher. Jesus produced three primary effects in the people who met him: hatred, terror, or adoration.
And today, 2,000 years later, Jesus is still the most polarizing person in our world. Yet it is not his morals, ethics, or legacy that enflames passions. The message Jesus brought to the world was that God made us for a purpose–and that purpose is wrapped up in His Son.
The claims of Jesus Christ force us to choose. As Lewis stated, we cannot put Jesus in the category of being just a great religious leader or good moral teacher. This former Oxford professor and skeptic challenges us to make up our own minds about Jesus:
"You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."14
In Mere Christianity, Lewis explains why he concluded that Jesus Christ is exactly who he claimed to be. His careful examination of the life and words of Jesus led this great literary genius to renounce his former atheism and become a committed Christian.
ENDNOTES
© 2007 B&L Publications. This article is a supplement to Y-Jesus magazine by Bright Media Foundatio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)