Make your own free website on

Back to Main Page
My thoughts are generally on subjects that have absolutely no bearing on our salvation. They are just the ramblings of a mind blessed with an insatiable curiosity. I am not a scholar, I have no translations from the original languages. I only have my Bible, my mind, my wife, and my questions. Some of the things here will likely make you question my motives. I assure you that I have no doubts about the validity of God's inspired Word, nor do I doubt any of the teachings therein. I just see and ask things that few have the nerve to see and ask. I also come up with theories and then study and inquire to test them. Some fall by the wayside, some require more study. Some are, to me at least, clearly stated.
Credits and at the bottom.
MY Thoughts On:
Dinosaurs and Evolution
The Church of Christ
Christ's Humanity
The "Imperfection" of Christ
Back to top


Gen. 1:1-2 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Now the Earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
"In the beginning..." is not time specific. That is, it does not tell us how long a period of time passed between verses 1 and 2. The N.I.V., which I use and prefer, has a footnote indicator for "...was formless..." which says that it could be "...became formless...".
This hint begs the question "If it became formless and empty ("void" in some translations), what was it before?"
If it became formless, it would have had a form of some kind previously. It couldn't logically have been something like an asteroid, because they almost always appear in random shapes and sizes, jutting out here, craters and caves there. A globe is the most logical form. In our solar system we have nine primary satellites of the Sun. Each of them is as much a globe as possible (planets have a slight bulge around their equators). They each have satellites, or moons, most of which are also globes.
If we take it as a globe, was it a fully formed planet?
Considering the mass of the Earth (which has a volume of 260 BILLION cubic miles!), it can logically be stated that it was a fully formed planet. Now, "fully formed" does not automatically mean habitable . Seven of the Sun's planets are fully formed planets with varying atmospheres. Jupiter is on that thin borderline between planet and star, Pluto is small enough that we would almost consider it a moon.
If we take it as a fully formed planet, was it habitable and inhabited?
Here our system of logically projecting backwards in time becomes shaky. The only thing we can say, and it is a stretch , is that possibly this pre-history planet was the original home of the angels.
Let me explain why I say this. We know that the angels have a completely free will. 2 Peter 2:4 states that angels have sinned.
Now, what has free will? Man. If the angels also have free will, could they not have been living souls at one time? Maybe, maybe not.
Angels are sent on missions for God. Why? If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present, what need had He for messengers? Maybe it is a reward for being "Christians" on their own world in their own time.
Just some thoughts.
Back to top


What does all of this dinosaur evidence tell us? Well, let's look.
When God created the Earth, plants, animals, and finally Man, what stage of growth were they in? Could God have created animals as infants and expect them to survive to adulthood? No. Most predators have to learn hunting from their parents. With no adults present, how could they have eaten? They couldn't.
What about Man? Were Adam and Eve adults, or children? Obviously, they were adults. They were old enough to comprehend rules (Don't eat stuff off of that tree!), and old enough to knowingly break those rules.
Also, when cast out of Eden, they had to fend for themselves. Hunting and growing food. Building shelter. Raising children. All outside the scope of a child's abilities.
If we then take it that God created adult animals and adult humans, why not an adult planet ? This is a logical extension and God is extremely logical in his dealings with Man.
An adult planet would have all the history already imbedded inside. Footprints of gigantic creatures, bones merged with the rocks, millions of years of history just waiting to be discovered.
After all, you cannot deny that the fossilized bones of extinct creatures have been found. It's too much to ask that we believe these rocks just happen to be in the shape of a skeleton, or that hundreds of years of discoveries are all one big hoax. An extinct creature has been found frozen whole (it was a Woolly Mammoth), complete with stomach contents.
There has even been discovered an extinct fish that lives in extremely deep sea waters. This may not be shocking, until you realize that the only record of this fish, prior to actually finding the body, was a fossil record. If the fossil records are all false, a hoax, a misinterpretation of evidence, then how could the real thing, supposed to have been extinct for millennia, be discovered? (Forgive me, but the name of the fish escapes me at the moment. I think it was Coleocanth . Anybody out there able to help me with that?)
Besides, evolution can be observed in action even today. Point in case: The Solenepsis Invicta is the oft-cursed fire ant that came from South America on a boat and started spreading across the U.S.A. Ants, as you all know, are community creatures. Each mound is independent and will fight any other ants in the area for domination. Well, in the few years that S. Invicta has been in the United States, they have changed their entire social structure.
They have been observed to form multi-mound communities. Each mound has its own Queen, but all of the workers will bring food to any of the mounds. No one worker is dedicated to any one mound. They each support the other mounds with their labors.
That, my friend, is EVOLUTION!
Just some thoughts.
Back to top


We live in what is called "Linear Time", that is, Time as we experience it travels inexorably from this second to the next second to the next, and so on.
But, does another kind of Time exist? To us, no. But what about spiritual beings? What kind of Time do God and his angels (or Satan and his crew, for that matter) exist in? The answer is obvious: Non-linear Time.
In Non-linear Time, there can be no past, present, or future. There is only Now. And Now is Always. Yes, I know it makes your brain hurt, but these are my thoughts, you don't have to live with them, I do.
Eternity can only be Non-linear, however. By its very definition, Eternity has no beginning, no end. No "Line of Time", if you will. There is no logical procession one moment to the next. This is how we can understand the true meaning of omniscience. Omniscience is the knowledge of everything. How can that possibly exist in Linear Time? It can't, because all of the Tomorrows haven't happened yet, so they cannot be known.
However, in Non-linear Time, all the Tomorrows can be known, because they, too, are Now.
When we die, do our souls "step" out of Linear Time and into Eternity? We don't have the answer, but whether it be Eternity in Heaven, or Forever in Hell, it is all still Non-Linear Time.
Just some thoughts.
Back to top


What is sin? In the vernacular, it is something that is against God's commands. Intellectually, we all know and accept this definition. In discussions, we will defend this vehemently.
But do we LIVE it? In a word, NO! And I'll prove it:
Romans 13:1 states that all of the people in any type of governmental authority were put there by God Himself. Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13 both tell us to submit to these authorities.
So, did you exceed the speed limit on the way to work today? Did you fail to use your turn signals when you changed lanes?
YOU HAVE SINNED!!! Period, end of paragraph.
"But, those are little things. They really don't matter. I can drive perfectly safely at ten miles an hour over the speed limit."
So what? It is against the law, therefore deliberately doing (or not doing) these things is sin.
Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that something is right just because it is legal. Abortion is WRONG, no matter how legal or easy it is to get.
Just some thoughts.
Back to top


A Short Dissertation.
This letter is intended to explain why so many people are disinterested in the Church of Christ and its teachings. Much worry, prayer, and discussion went into the compiling of the information contained in this document.
I do not want to encourage anybody to leave the Church of Christ. If you are a member of a Church of Christ and are Spiritually satisfied, by all means, stay where you are! Regardless of the things said here, you can be a fine Christian there. There are many God-fearing, reverent Christians in the Churches of Christ.
I am 29 years old (at the time of this writing) and am in a unique position to write on this subject. I was raised exclusively in the Church of Christ.
My mother and my Grand-mother made sure that I went to church. When younger, I did not understand why I should go, but I had no choice. Now, I thank God for that lack of options. I am a Christian, married to a wonderful wife, also a Christian, and am growing with her daily. None of this would be true if it weren't for my family.
I was baptized for the remission of sins at the tender age of eleven. Until the age of 24, I followed the teachings of those in the Church of Christ without question. I started to question some of the beliefs when my then fiancée asked me about Spiritual Gifts. I replied with the standard Church of Christ response: "I do not believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have been passed down to our generation."
I accidentally came upon a scripture not long after this. The 14th chapter of the book of 1st Corinthians deals with the gifts of speaking in tongues and prophecy. The next to the last verse, 39, sums it up for me: "Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues."
I had to learn to have the scriptures ready to back up my statements. I realized that just saying it would not convince anybody.
I also realized that if what I believed contradicted the Bible, I should change my beliefs, not my interpretation. I will no longer blindly follow the teachings of anyone without study.

There were other things that bothered me. For example, Debby had been baptized by immersion for the remission of sins, just not in a Church of Christ.
Our minister at the San Pedro Church of Christ, Dan Carter, suggested that it would go better with the congregation if she were re-baptized there. I expected him to say this, but hoped that the Church had changed. I knew from experience that she would never be completely accepted by the older members because her baptism would not have been considered valid.
In all fairness, Dan did say that it was our decision, and that he was confident of her salvation if we were.
The "traditional" Church of Christ quotes Acts 2:37-38: "When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, 'Brethren, what shall we do?' Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" They then follow it with verse 41: "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."
The problem is, the older members don't follow it. They append it inside their minds and include a belief that this must be done by a member of the Church of Christ, or, in other words, a Christian.
If you didn't get that, in the minds of a large number of Church of Christ members, you must be baptized by a Christian to become a Christian. Where is that in the Bible? I challenge anybody to produce a scripture giving that qualification.
Since Debby had not been baptized in a Church of Christ, she would never be considered a Christian by some of the members at San Pedro. She and I chose to offend nobody, so Dan baptized her that day. To us, it was a token. To others, the real thing. I personally am confident that she had obeyed the Gospel earlier.

Being in the Church of Christ all of my life, I have noticed the hypocrisy prevalent in its doctrine and in its pulpits.
Hypocrisy is defined in the following way: "the professing of publicly approved qualities, beliefs, or feelings that one does not really possess."
The Church of Christ will say that repenting and being baptized is the way to salvation.
However, when a distant congregation of the Church of Christ dismissed a Wednesday night Bible class (one of the mainstays of the Church of Christ) to participate in a community-wide Thanksgiving Service held at a United Methodist Church, their Christianity is questioned.
Here is another fitting example. The pulpit minister at the Oak Hills Church of Christ, nationally known author Max Lucado, switched places with (I believe) Alan Randolph, the minister at Trinity, a "non-denominational" church. For one Sunday morning, they each taught at the other's congregation.
The Churches of Christ in San Antonio did not think much of this. Denouncing him to their congregations, they encouraged their memberships to refuse to attend Oak Hills.
What is Christian outreach? In its simplest form, it is spreading the Gospel to others. San Pedro has a great Outreach Minister in Bill Wiley. He is knowledgeable, informative, and wise.
Time for another "However."
However, San Pedro has its outreach locations in the outlying towns. La Vernia, Floresville, etc. None just across town.
Max Lucado took hold of an opportunity to teach a very large body of people. He had a larger audience at that single event than most Church of Christ ministers ever get the chance to teach. Why should we be offended by this? Because they don't believe the way we do? Aren't we supposed to teach those who don't believe the way we do?
Max teaches the Gospel. Repentance and Baptism are the way he gives for salvation. These are Scriptural. If he doesn't change his teachings, or his beliefs, I say that he should teach wherever he has the opportunity.

Probably the most well known aspect of worship and doctrine in the Church of Christ is their vehement stand against musical instruments in the worship service. Some Elders have even gone so far as to attempt to prohibit them inside the building itself, regardless of the event.
The Churches of Christ, when questioned, will say that "we have no examples in the New Testament of instrumental music being used in the First Century Church." Now, this is true. I personally have never seen any New Testament reference to instruments being used in worship . (An update is coming on this subject)
Time for yet another "However."
However, neither have I seen a command forbidding their use.
A wise friend had a very enlightening statement about this. He says that, if you look, some of the First Century congregations were poor. Perhaps they could not afford such pleasantries. Especially if they were giving all they had to those who needed it (and we do have examples of that in the New Testament).
Instrumental music can enhance a worship service, and it can also take away from it. The huge Cornerstone Church, here in San Antonio, has something like 50 pieces in their "orchestra"! I have attended there. I came away feeling as if I had just been to a concert, not a worship service. And I really like John Hagee.
I have also attended Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church, where they have one piano. It was lovely! I was able to worship my God in a way I could not at Cornerstone.
Don't get me wrong. I love the sound of unaided congregational singing. It really can be beautiful and uplifting. But, there is no scripture denying us the use of mechanical instruments.

One day, a Baptist found himself in Heaven. As he was walking around, he met an old friend, a Methodist. As they reminisced, they were joined by a Catholic.
Soon, a man walked by, gazing at the splendor of Heaven. The Baptist went to attract his attention, but was stopped by his Methodist friend.
"Don't let him know you're here." said the Methodist. "He's from the Church of Christ and we aren't supposed to be here."

This was told to me by a long-time friend of mine (15 years) who just happens to be a Presbyterian. It is a funny, but very sad statement on how the world views the Church of Christ.
The exclusivity of the Church of Christ is often carried to the extreme. I was once told by a close relative that the Bible says that we should be in the Church of Christ on Sunday mornings, not at some other church. Sunday or Wednesday evenings were fine to visit another church, but not Sunday mornings!
John 4:24 has Jesus saying "'God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.'" Why can I not worship "in spirit and in truth" anywhere I happen to be? If I am invited to church with a friend, should I hurt his feelings by saying that it would not be right for me to do so? If I am ill, or injured, can I not worship at home, or in the hospital with praise and prayer?
The Church of Christ is seen as a cult by a large number of other Bible-believing organizations, and what does the Church of Christ do about that? They encourage it! They say things like "Come to our meeting and hear the truth", but they say it in manner as if they only can teach the truth.
The way to Heaven is found in the Bible. If someone teaches the scriptural way, where they are and what they call themselves becomes irrelevant.
If someone is teaching the Bible, that person is teaching the truth.

Denomination is defined as follows: "1. a particular religious body....3. a class or kind of persons or things distinguished by a specific name."
The Church of Christ defines it this way: Any religious organization that has a governing body with authority over the congregations in a region or area. (An update is coming on this)
If you go by Webster, the Church of Christ is definitely a denomination.
They profess to be the only completely non-denominational church in existence. All others, even the non-denominational ones, are in fact, denominations. They just don't know it.
Ask a member of the Church of Christ what a denomination is and the reply will be some variant of this: "Any other church." This reflects the lack of understanding in the Churches of Christ.
I say that the First Century Churches were denominations, regardless of which definition you use. They were a "particular religious body," they were a "class or kind or persons...distinguished by a specific name" (Christians), and they did have a governing head to give them directions -- in many cases it was Paul. He wrote many letters to the various churches of the time, giving them many directions on how they should live and worship.
Just by taking on the name Christian, we become members of the most glorious denomination ever conceived. We take our guidance from Christ directly. In His words, he gives us instructions on life and salvation. If we ignore His words, we are expelled from the group.
Any who take on Christ in baptism accept His role as head, leader, and director. He is our boss.
Can anyone competently argue against that point?

Lately, the Church of Christ is, to a large degree, BORING! For the people in their late twenties and early thirties, there is no life, no Spirit in the Church of Christ. Ask yourself, why does Cornerstone have such a high percentage of younger members?
One word:
John Hagee is alive in the pulpit. When he talks, your blood flows, you learn.
Our generation can have in depth discussions on the many exploits of the Six Million Dollar Man. We know all about the Happy Days. We do not know who Donna Reed is, do not care about the Beaver , and when we were little, we never thought Father Knows Best . We were taught medicine by Quincy, M.E. , and detective work by some girls who worked for a man named Charlie. We have different needs and different desires than our parents and grand-parents. In many of the local Churches of Christ, those needs and desires are not being met.
We are encouraged to lead prayers and communion, but not asked to debate in classes. We are taught in class as we are in services. Sit quietly, and listen to the teacher. Occasionally, we are asked a question, but just as discussion starts to blossom, the teacher moves on and we are stifled. Or, we watch videos.
Church growth ought not to be measured only by the membership roles. It ought also to be gauged by the amount of lift our Spirits receive and by the way our lives expand in Christ.

The Church of Christ is also big on saying that they are the church that worships the way the First Century Church worshipped.
1 Corinthians 14 gives a detailed description of a worship service. Starting at verse 26 and going through 31, it reads: "What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation , a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two -- or at the most three -- should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged." (Emphasis added)
When was the last time anyone heard prophecy in the Church of Christ? When was the last time a Church of Christ had more than one speaker in the same service? And where is the Lord's Supper in this passage?
The First Century Church met in homes. Philemon 1:2 states that the church meets in the home of Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus. Do we meet in the home of a Church leader?
In Acts 20:7, Paul speaks for an entire day! Do you think that would be tolerated today in one of the Churches of Christ? Why, everybody would be saying "I don't like him, he talks too long. I don't want to sit here all day. Is he ever going to stop?"

I study my Bible, and I do not find the Church of Christ that I was brought up to follow. John Campbell had a good idea. What happened to it?
I wonder.
I pray that this document causes an uproar. I think we need it.

Clay Boyd Dugger
July 1996
Back to top


Christ's humanity is one of the reasons why His sacrifice on the cross is so important.
We have a very sterile view of Christ being nailed to that cross on Golgotha. We always think of God on that cross. God cannot be hurt, so it wasn't really a big deal.
We forget the MAN that hung there.
I hope to give some examples of just how human Christ really was. I probably will say some things that you will not agree with, and some things that will most likely offend you.
I will not apologize. I will just say that Christ was human as we are human.
Christ's Mind Was Human:
If you have ever lost a loved one to death, whether it be family or friend, you experienced sadness. You possibly needed to be alone for a while.
"Please, not now. I just need to be alone." Have you ever heard or said this?
Christ did.
"The King was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. John's disciples came and took his body and buried it. Then they went and told Jesus. When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place." Matt. 14: 9-13 (NIV).
One of the most important people in Jesus' life had just been killed ruthlessly. John the Baptist had prepared the way for Christ to begin His ministry of salvation. Their mothers had been very good friends for a long time.
It is even likely that the two had, in part, grown up together.
Christ had to mourn the death of John just like we must mourn the passing of our loved ones.
Did He cry? We don't know.
Did He laugh at a memory? We don't know that, either.
We do these things, so He probably did, too.
Have you ever heard or seen something that you just couldn't believe?
Have you ever said "Oh, you gotta be kidding me!"
Christ did.
"Peter said, 'Explain the parable to us.' 'Are you still so dull?' Jesus asked them." Matt. 15: 15-16 (NIV).
"Oh, you gotta be kidding me!" is a fair translation of what Jesus said. "How could they not understand? Didn't I speak clearly? Did I stutter?"
Christ was incredulous at their lack of comprehension.
Ever been amazed?
Christ was. "He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed to their lack of faith." Mark 6: 5-6 (NIV).
Christ was stunned at the absolute void of faith in His home town. He had come from there, but they would not accept anything He did or said.
Their lack of faith was so great that the accounts say that Christ "... could not do any miracles there..."! (Emphasis added)
Ever dread tomorrow? Ever not want to get up and go to work?
Christ did.
"He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, 'My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.'" Matt. 26: 37-38 (NIV).
Christ had known for a very long time the when, where, and how of His own death. Who else has had to live with that? He wanted to LIVE! He, like all other men, did not want to die. Especially not for people who would never accept and believe in Him.
Later, Jesus prayed that He be spared from this fate. He knew that would not happen, yet begged for it.
He had to die for us, but He did not want to. His soul was "...overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death."
Just some thoughts.
Back to top


In the Church of Christ, where I was brought up, the Lord's Supper is a weekly event. It is a passing of a plate of crackers (unleavened bread) and a plate of those little cups full of grape juice (fruit of the vine) to every member present. The justification for weekly occurrence is this; Acts 20:7 "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread."
In other churches, the Lord's Supper is observed once a month, or at other various intervals.
Is anything wrong with any of these examples? The answer that immediately comes to mind is "No." But look at what my readings have shown me:
Acts 2:46 says, "Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts..." When they broke bread, it was a daily thing, and they "ate". You eat a meal .
Acts 20:11 says "Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate." There again is "ate". It implies a full meal.
I Corinthians 11:17-34 is a long discourse specifically on the Lord's Supper. Verses 20-21 say "When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk." If all you rely on for your sustenance is the traditional Lord's Supper, OF COURSE you're going to remain hungry. I don't know anybody who ever complained "Man, that Lord's Supper did me in. I couldn't eat another bite." I also don't know anyone who could get drunk on grape juice. Even if a church were to serve real wine, can you imagine how many of those little bitty cups you would have to drink? If people were hoarding food, keeping it from others, that means that there would have to have been enough real food to hoard. That much food is a meal.
I personally believe that every time we put food or drink in our mouths, we ought to examine ourselves and remember the price paid on that cross on Calvary. Christ's body was given as the food by which our Spiritual Man is fed. His blood was spilled as the liquid which sustains our souls until He comes to take us up with Him to Heaven.
I also believe that the "traditional" Lord's Supper is very much on the borderline between true, unblemished worship and sin. Hebrews 13:9 states "Do not be carried away with all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods , which are of no value to those who eat them (emphasis added)." Is the Lord's Supper that is celebrated in most churches today really what Christ had in mind? Periodically, on a regular basis, with just a tad of ingredients? Or all of the time, with a meal. Remember, when Christ told us "This is my body..." and "This is my blood...", He was sitting at a table full of food .
Why does everybody translate "broke bread" as the Lord's Supper? Those two words are merely a statement of eating a meal. If you look in the New Testament, you will find that bread was the mainstay of their diet. Christ said "Man does not live by bread alone...", "I am the bread of life...", and "Give us this day our daily bread..." If bread was not very important, why would Christ have used it as example? Since Christ was the most important thing to our souls, the best way to make us understand is to compare Himself to the most important food of the day.
Even today, bread is considered important. If Christ is our bread, He will give our Spiritual Man energy. Energy to withstand Satan. Energy enough to give us eternal life.
If you take the example of Christ sustaining our Spirits as food sustains our bodies, then every meal we eat should remind us of His sacrifice.
I Corinthians 11:29 sums it up for me: "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." It says "...eats and drinks..." without mentioning any type of organized worship.
Back to top
NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that everybody else makes when reading the following section. I am not, in any way, claiming that Christ committed any sin of any kind. Please, do not translate the word "mistake" to mean "sin".


Picture these things:
A three year old Jesus playing in the dirt with his younger brother, systematically feeding him bugs.
A teenage Jesus sitting on the first chair made without Dad's help, and crushing the poorly made chair flat, falling on his rump.
A twenty-something Jesus trying to hammer a wooden peg, and smashing the daylights out of his thumb.
Do we have these exact examples in the Bible? No, of course not, but the Bible says that Jesus was completely human. Are not these typical of the average man's life experiences?
Christ was the perfect MAN , but he was not the PERFECT man. He made his share of mistakes. The ONLY difference between him and us is that he didn't let loose with a stream of vitriolic expletives when he hit that thumb. We sometimes do.
Christ was just as human as the rest of us. There was nothing special about him in that fashion. The New Testament is chock full of the examples of Christ's humanity. Why, just in Matthew alone there is 7:29, 8:14, 9:5, 12:25-28, 12:34, 14:13, 15:15-16, 17:27, 21:12-15, 22:41-46, 23:2-7, 26:37-40, and probably more.
Matthew 12:34 shows Christ's humanity when he said "You brood of vipers..." Talk about insults! You low down, dirt crawling, venomous, slimy snakes! That's what he was saying.
Christ was sarcastic in the end of the Gospel of John. In John 21:22, Christ asks "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is it to you?" What business is it of yours what I want? Now, THAT is sarcasm!
The ultimate example of how we should live once lived himself as a man, complete with all the emotions.
Back to top
Scripture quotes come from the New International Version Thompson Chain-Reference Bible, Second Improved Edition, Copyright 1992, given to me by my beloved Granny.
Dictionary definitions are from the Random House Webster's Dictionary, Ballantine Edition, Copyright 1993, provided by my gift from God, my wife Debby.
Views on the Church of Christ provided by 29 years of experience, well over half of which after I was saved.
Revelation and inspiration provided by God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Email me here