http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/13/bakker.brown.commentary/index.html
While I have no issue or argument with Jay's right to have his own version of Christianity, and in fact find his stated version to be more benign and less insulting than many other versions, it's clear that his is NOT the biblical version of Christianity.
I concur with this comment posted on the above link...
>Tim Shank, Pemberville, Ohio
>I would like to know if the writers of this article ever sat
>down and read the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of
>Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John from
>the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last verse of each book?
>It is quite clear the writers are erroneous in their
>understanding of Jesus birth, life, and death, and the
>purpose for which He came.
JB
While I have no issue or argument with Jay's right to have his own version of Christianity, and in fact find his stated version to be more benign and less insulting than many other versions, it's clear that his is NOT the biblical version of Christianity.
I concur with this comment posted on the above link...
>Tim Shank, Pemberville, Ohio
>I would like to know if the writers of this article ever sat
>down and read the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of
>Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John from
>the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last verse of each book?
>It is quite clear the writers are erroneous in their
>understanding of Jesus birth, life, and death, and the
>purpose for which He came.
JB