*What The BIBLE Says about This Inauguration Day...*

I believe the interpretation he is assume is the most straightforward one: that God establishes who will into office. It is God who ordains when one leader is replaced with another. It applies to Obama succeeding Bush, Bush succeeding Clinton, and so on throughout history.

The main point is that God is sovereign.

Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,
"Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us."

He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the Lord holds them in derision.
Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying,
"As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill."

I will tell of the decree:
The LORD said to me,
"You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."
Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
(Psa 2:1-12)

and to answer your question.. now I know you are not... simple.. you can't answer the question!

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson

I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain

many are called but few are chosen.. that responciblity lies in Gods hands not mine! the only difference between you and I , Is that I made a decision to ask forgiveness and trust! ..

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson

I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain

words mean something. If I were to say I believe in God more than most other people, regardless of their religious affiliation, I would question how I'm viewing the world around me. But that's just me.

BTW If you've had direct contact with God then you don't have belief or faith, you have direct knowledge. That's a completely different topic.

I have never read this book or considered its assertions. I am looking into it even now. It does bring up some interesting thoughts (from the summaries I have read), but I came across an interesting counterargument in an Amazon review.

http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah-Conspiracy-Invent-Seco...

A couple of his points I thought were interesting to consider.

So far, no Christian document predating the fall of Jerusalem has been uncovered. Still, one must account for the narratives purported to relate stories that occurred prior to Jerusalem's fall. Paul is shown in the documents attributed to him (and that describe him) as someone who interacted with James in Jersalem and others in Judea well before the final destruction of the temple. The traditions and stories about James (said to be a brother of Jesus) show that he was the "bishop of Jerusalem." Atwill quotes the Dead Sea Scroll scholar, Robert Eisenmann, on many occasions. It is difficult to read Eisenmann and not conclude that a historical James lived in Jerusalem and that he was at odds, theologically and personally, with Paul. How does this drama play out in Atwill's scenario that Christianity was invented out of whole cloth by the Flavians after 70 C.E.? If he does not think Paul or James actually existed, he needs to provide more discussion on the matter.

As I read the official synopsis of the book, this was one question I also had: what about the other New Testament books? Was the entire New Testament a work of the Romans?

Atwill theorizes that Josephus and the gospels "play off" each other in ways that show they were written at the same time, if not by one person, then by a coordiated group of authors. Why is it not just as plausible to consider that Josephus used early materials as a "guide" to writing his history, thus "reflecting" the events and meanings of the earlier writings? Josephus was both a Roman and knowledgeable Jew who may have wanted to ridicule sects within his own faith as well as offer the possibility that his patrons, the Flavians, and Titus specifically, were the "God / Messiah" predicted by figures such as Jesus. Atwill makes a good point that after the destruction of the temple, the Flavians had access to many Jewish scribes and priests needing work.

While considering the possibility that the Bible is a satire of Josephus, could the opposite also be worth considering: that Josephus' work is a satire of the gospels?

I will continue looking into this. I do not fear to challenge my faith. If it is found to be false, then it should be rejected. However, up to this point, I have found that it has stood in spite of the scrutiny. The truth will set me free either way. :-)

Nobody knows for sure if god is real. I use to be a pounder of the book and was even a deacon. I still like the Jesus story, as interpreted by me. As you can see the pharisees spew their ignorant hate towards all whom they deem as non-believers. They seem to know our thoughts. They are the reason I left the "church" a decade ago. They continue to live for the old testament and deny the new. What they don't know is Jesus is the new testament.

If the Romans invented the Jesus I like they were damn good! If Jesus comes back as they think, once again the religious ones will kill him as the pharisees did in the old testament.

New Age propaganda....

In Christ,
Dave

"where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty." 2 Cor. 3:17

Check us out @
www.lionandlambministry.com

Best Ever Website Design:
www.USDesigns.org

All New, All Christian and Freedom Video Site:
www.lionandlambtv.com