Tuesday, April 07, 2009

BBC unveils new 'landmark' series on Christianity

The BBC has heeded the Archbishop of Canterbury (is that a first?), and decided not to marginalise or ignore Christianity any longer. The corporation has announced that it is to produce a new 'landmark' series which will examine the origins of Christianity and the relevance of the faith in the modern world. It will be screened on BBC4 in the autumn and on BBC2 at some point afterwards .

The series, A History of Christianity, will doubtless cover a lot of the same ground as Channel 4's recent eight-part series, Christianity: A History, which was presented by a myriad of Jews, atheists and Roman Catholics (Howard Jacobson, Colin Blakemore, Ann Widdecombe, Cherie Blair) who each presented their take on a particular aspect of the faith (not one Anglican included...).

However, the BBC series is to be fronted by the most excellent and utterly superlative historian of the Church Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, Fellow of St Cross College Oxford, an Anglican and eminent biographer of His Grace (the finest ever penned). Professor MacCulloch is, unlike those who presented the Channel 4 effort, one of the world's leading experts in his field.

He will re-examine the widely-accepted theory that the faith began with St Paul's mission to Rome - instead arguing that the first Christians were 'much closer to the Middle Eastern roots' of the religion.

'Intelligent, thought-provoking and magisterial in its scope, the series will reveal how a small Jewish sect that preached humility became the biggest religion in the world," the BBC says. BBC4 controller Richard Klein added that the series demonstrates the corporation's 'commitment to landmark religious programming' and will be the 'ultimate guide to the origins of the biggest religion in the world'.

Cranmer awaits with bated breath.


Blogger John M Ward said...

Sounds promising! I wonder why the Beeb is doing this at all, and specifically right now? There must be something not (yet) public knowledge behind this.

7 April 2009 at 19:01  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Who said the age of miracles has passed!

7 April 2009 at 19:05  
Blogger Alfred the Ordinary said...

Oh goody. I can look forward to hearing, once again, (aka Channel 4) that the Reformation's main purpose was to bring about a few minor changes in the Roman religion. (Cranmer might disagree)

7 April 2009 at 19:10  
Anonymous len said...

I too await this series with interest.
This small jewish sect preached a lot more than humility, they preached Jesus Christ in the Power of the Holy Spirit.
This small jewish sect changed the world despite all attempts to smother, suppress, and exterminate them!

7 April 2009 at 19:22  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Personally I always thought the Gnostics (not those New Age wannabes) had the right idea but I could be perceived as being a little biased...

7 April 2009 at 19:30  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Who is the Editor ?

7 April 2009 at 19:32  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Voyager,

Excellent question.

BBC2 controller Janice Hadlow commissioned the series whilst she was still at BBC4. It is being made in-house by the BBC's religion and ethics team with Gillian Bancroft and Sian Salt producing and directing. Jean Claude Bragard is the executive producer.

7 April 2009 at 19:37  
Blogger Christian said...

It could be excellent. That said Prof. MacCulloch is a liberal and as such might well have very odd ideas about early Christian heresies (as many liberal 'experts' in the field do). That "Lost Christianities" can be taken as actual scholarship is a fact that gives me little confidence in most historians of early Christianity.

7 April 2009 at 19:40  
Anonymous Patrick Hamilton said...

Christianity is the Gospel of God.

God sent His Son to redeem the elect according to His grace. Christianity is rooted in the supernatural activity of God. Its spread was due to God's Spirit going forth and convicting men of the need of the Mediator.
Paul was a chosen vessel seperated in the womb to be a faithful missionary in the spread of the Gospel to the gentile world.

It will be interesting if the Prof uses the details (given by inspiration) in the book of Acts as the basis for spread of the Gospel.
Will he give it a naturalistic bent?

7 April 2009 at 20:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is MacCulloch still an Anglican or even a Christian? I thought he was an agnostic now, but could be wrong. He wasn't priested in Bristol because of his same-sex relationship.

7 April 2009 at 20:34  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Knowing Al-Beeb they'll probably call Mary a "Palestinian" and have Christ as a Palestinian Freedom Fighter.

7 April 2009 at 20:43  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

There had to be a bloody catch in it somewhere. The champion of the Church in the media has to be Gay. What is the problem today, what? I would rather he didn't bother to be honest.

7 April 2009 at 20:48  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

Are you all secret queers or something? Are there no normal friggin Christians out there that can make programmes like this? They just wont let up will they. Maybe this Church of England deserves to rot in Hell where it belongs, infested with all manner of perversion.

You can keep it. Shuv it up your homosexually stretched arses.

7 April 2009 at 20:56  
Anonymous me said...

queers queers queers, all the bloody time. Why dont they just go away somewhere in a dark corner and interfere with eachother quietly...GOD DAMMED QUEERS.

7 April 2009 at 21:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, my recollection was correct: from The Independent, 10 Oct 2003 on MacCulloch's book on the Reformation:

"This achievement is largely the result of four personal qualities, which between them have made Diarmaid MacCulloch one of the most remarkable professors of the history of the church that Oxford University has seen. The first is the one that he puts in his introduction: that his own current religious position is that of an agnostic or atheist with a background in Anglicanism, which he remembers with affection and respect. This he represents as an advantage in his work as a historian, providing an understanding of Christianity that lacks any confessional bias."

There's quite a list now of these gay ex-Anglican clergymen, ex-Christians (Professor MacCulloch, Michael Hampson, Chris Bryant MP - though he may still consider himself a Christian in name, he is a ferocious supporter of abortion, gay 'marriage' etc).

It would be too much for the BBC to get a *practicising (I mean worshipping!) Christian historian to do the job - like the Rev Professor Alistair McGrath, for example ....

7 April 2009 at 21:05  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

So Cranmer thinks this man has superlative knowledge. Nobody is more knowledgeable than Satan. Worldly wise Satan, who has all the answers in his messed up head.

There is no hope. Next there will be the gospel of quentin pink flaps. The BBC make me sick to the core....The Archbishop of Canterpink makes me equally sick to the core. I don't care what this man knows or how magisterial this programme is, it appeals to me NOT!

There is no place for queers in any church that exists in my head, and NOTHING WILL CHANGE THIS...NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!

7 April 2009 at 21:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Methinks mckinkie is just a troll... Don't feed her,

7 April 2009 at 21:41  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr McKenzie,

His Grace said that Professor MacCulloch had superlative knowledge of the history of the Church.

What the professor does in the privacy of his own bedroom has no bearing on his academic ability.

Having considered some of the above comments (which come as a revelation) His Grace has some sympathy with the view expressed by Anon 21.05.

It does appear that those who are deemed to be qualified to comment authoritatively upon the history of Christianity are either (for C4) Jews, atheists or Roman Catholics, or (for the BBC) homosexuals or Roman Catholics.

One can only wonder at the manifest shortage of straight, eloquent, qualified, erudite and intelligent worshipping Anglicans.

Why does the BBC not offer Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali a series?

7 April 2009 at 21:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One can only wonder at the manifest shortage of straight, eloquent, qualified, erudite and intelligent worshipping Anglicans."

No, they do exist - just not at the BBC, where a bright gay atheist would be perfectly at home. The BBC always goes looking for its own image in the world. That's why its programmes are so predictable.

7 April 2009 at 21:57  
Anonymous not a machine said...

i tried the channel four flavour and it feel short on number of things for me namely that it introduced some modern speculation , as we havent had enough of mary magdolene and the bone deposite boxes marked jesus.

the early church is very interesting and i shall look forward to this program perhaps then the real person who saved us will be shown.

probebly be bit brutal for some until constantine was made emporer.

i still cant get over how few people respect the bible as a record of events and facts, as well as a font of wisdom and understanding.

7 April 2009 at 22:35  
Anonymous len said...

This thing is doomed from the start, if someone wants to be gay that is there personal choice .
However, if that someone wants to then pontificate ( if that is the correct word) on christianity it just makes a mockery of the whole thing.
Perhaps this is why Jesus chose simple fishermen as his desciples, the academia were too far corrupted by this worlds system.
Christianity is not of this world,it is totally opposed to this worlds corrupt systems.

7 April 2009 at 23:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His Grace said:
Why does the BBC not offer Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali a series?

I say:
Why does the BBC not offer His Grace a series?

7 April 2009 at 23:33  
Anonymous not a machine said...

off topic your grace but it seems as though the CofE are getting a bashing for overuse of sedatives in the 70s in some of there childrens care home.

i felt the article was bit biased , but i can see that some people may wish to make a case.

the problem i had with the article is that it did not , show what non CofE homes were doing at the time , i think borstal was still invogue , so you could argue that sedatives were seen to be a better choice.

the doses do seem high , but of course we didnt think DDT was a problem then or asbestos.

seems a funny story but if injury has occured through medical ignorance then it must be looked at , i suppose the goverment must have allowed it as well .

i just hope that any victims find some peace and response

8 April 2009 at 00:32  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I think the phrase :-

- instead arguing that the first Christians were 'much closer to the Middle Eastern roots' of the religion.

says it all, they want a One World Government, they also want a One World Religion, hence the move to Meld all religions into one.

This is the Purpose of Blairs Faith foundation.

In my opinion.

8 April 2009 at 05:54  
Anonymous len said...

The motives of the European Union are questionable.Jean Monnet, known as the founding father of the E U once stated"Europes nations should be guided towards the superstate without the people understanding what is happening.This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised by having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to a federation.

8 April 2009 at 08:18  
Blogger Theo said...

I am deeply suspicious that the Beeb is capable of being honest in anything to do with Christianity. This is sure to be a hatchet job wrapped up in quasi-academic respectability.

Love to see them do a similar hatchet job on Islam, it is, after all, a much easier belief system to pick holes in!

8 April 2009 at 09:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

The BBC make a decent programme about our faith? What about its Left-liberal bias? What about its sycophantic support of every issue that is destructive of not only Christian values but also of Israel?

Oh let me guess!

A great light has fallen upon the powerful Jewish executives in the BBC that reveals, after forty years of amnesia, that if you deconstruct Christian values in Albert Square, as the BBC has done, then new values must be injected into the body politic - Left-liberal values - hostile to Christianity and indirectly to Israel (for the New Testament is a tissue of quotations from the Old).

Did that light fall prior to the farce over the Gazan charity appeal? I think so.

Let there be no mistake and mark the following inscription well:

‘This Temple of the Arts and Muses is dedicated to Almighty God by the first Governors of Broadcasting in the year 1931, Sir John Reith being Director- General. It is their prayer that good seed sown may bring forth a good harvest, that all things hostile to peace or purity may be banished from this house, and that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report, may tread the path of wisdom and uprightness.’

8 April 2009 at 09:35  
Anonymous The Pink Church said...

Blair questions Papal gay policy.

Tony Blair has questioned the Pope's attitude towards homosexuality, arguing that religious leaders must start "rethinking" the issue.

8 April 2009 at 10:00  
Anonymous Pink America said...

America caves in under Pink pressure.

8 April 2009 at 10:05  
Anonymous Queer Watch said...

Genesis 19 Condemns all homosexual behavior. Condemns rape.

Leviticus 18:22 Condemns all homosexual behavior. Condemns gay ritual sex in a Pagan temple and/or males having sex in a woman's bed.

Leviticus 20:13 Condemns all homosexual behavior. Condemns gay ritual sex in a temple and/or males having sex in a woman's bed.

Romans 1:26-27 Condemns all homosexual behavior as unnatural. Describes a group of heterosexuals who, against their basic nature, engage in same-sex behavior during ritual orgies.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death. Once truly saved, homosexuals will become heterosexuals. Male child molesters and the children they molest will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 Condemns all homosexual behavior Refers to child molesters and the children they molest.

Jude 1:7 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death. Humans who have sex with other species will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death.

Judges 19:14-29 A Levite and his concubine God condemns both homosexual behavior, & the

Christian fired for 'anti-gay' Bible verses

Man Sues Bible Publisher for Anti-Gay “Scripture Tampering”


8 April 2009 at 10:24  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Your Grace.
It seems to me that there is a plot or conspiracy afoot in the media to discredit our faith, it's hardly a new phenomena but seems to be gathering momentum apace. With so many good Christian authors & presenters available it makes one suspicious of the motives of these programme makers. However We know that Satan will TRY to suppress the truth, and that The Lord promised that We would follow Him, with all manner of evil being levelled at us by a fallen, hedonistic world, that this is now happening should strengthen our resolve.
Wait & see what the progamme brings forth, don't forget that the atheist adverts on the buses stimulated much discussion & all things work to the good for those that love the Lord, We just have to be ready to speak out & take advantage of the opportunities offered.

8 April 2009 at 11:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

The posts here are disturbing the homosexuals.

In the book of Luke; it is written:

10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

8 April 2009 at 11:12  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Excellent post Your Grace and some excellent comments. Very thought provoking.

8 April 2009 at 13:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

For the sake of your younger communicants Queer Watch is pro-homosexual. So be alert.

Queer Watch is using an old tried and tested satanic technique: combining elements of truth with falsehood in order to deceive.

Queer Watch attempts, by correlation, to link homosexuality to something else so as to project theidea that homosexuality is wrong if it is linked to some other activity. For example, rape; pagan temple etc.

It is an approach this subject which has been unknown for 2,000 years. It only emerges in the modern world to be used as an instrument to justify that which the Bible condemns.

Genesis 3 begins:

1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

The Queer Watch uses the same technique as the Serpent essentially linking the truth to a falsehood and sowing doubt: does God’s word really say that?
Queer Watch is suggesting, by linking that which is condemned with something else, that it is all right if the activity, homosexuality, is practised exclusively – divorced from the other activities Queer Watch links it too.

The ignorant or the naïve maybe tempted to use Queer Watch’s (false) rationale as a justification for partaking in homosexual activity (plesant to the eyes’). If dwelled upon it may inspire lust (‘a tree to be desired’). Finally comes the practice of blaming evrybody else but themselves and their irresponsiblity (‘she gave me’; ‘the Serpent beguiled me’).

8 April 2009 at 14:07  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"What the professor does in the privacy of his own bedroom has no bearing on his academic ability."
But it has a bearing on his academic judgement.

8 April 2009 at 14:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

Little Black Sambo said, ‘"What the professor does in the privacy of his own bedroom has no bearing on his academic ability."

Of course we would disagree. If the professor was a theologian and practised homosexuality he is at risk of teaching error or failing to teach with conviction etc.

The homosexual lifestyle is one of multiple partnerships and chaos. It has been condemned by all cultures in history – this can be inferred from the sniggering in the works of Plato, for example; just as views on other social issues can be inferred from the works of Dickens.

If I were screwing many women in the privacy of my bedroom – my doctor would want to know – my neighbours would wonder if I will infect my community. It does not stay in the bedroom.

8 April 2009 at 14:44  
Anonymous John Fisher said...

But when will an orthodox Catholic ever present a series on Christianity?

The C4 series had catholic presenters, but they were the ludicrous Cherie Blair and her risible opinions, and a strangely muted Anne Widdecombe (who seemed to argue that the Reformation was a good thing) - this is on top of the regular sub-Dan Brown anti-Vatican rants from Robert Beckford (who I suppose is some sort of evangelical).

Now we have a gay former anglican deacon who wants to question the centrality of St Paul's mission to Rome - I wonder where he's going with that one ...

I think catholics have as much reason to harrumph as you Cranmer (and don't get me started on the coverage of the Pope's comments by the Pinko BBC).

8 April 2009 at 15:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Now we have a gay former anglican deacon who wants to question the centrality of St Paul's mission to Rome...'


That brrod of vipers at the BBC; that crowd of wolves in sheeps' clothing; those white washed tombs full of dead men's bones

Is there no end to this?

8 April 2009 at 15:46  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

A little self restraint in some of the language herein might not come amiss. A passionately help opinion does not have to be expressed in terms which bring little credit upon the critic.

Whatever one's views on gay clergy it does seem extraordinary that the BBC cannot find a presenter who is - how does one put it -"mainstream"?

I wonder what Stonewall might think if there were to be a series on the history of homosexuality presented by Pope Benedict?

I suspect the answer is that the BBC does not wish to consider the possibilty of there being something called "mainstrean", for then - in a rational and scientific manner ( values they purport to espouse)- it might become necessary to quantify how large such a "mainstream" might be, which, in turn, might throw up some awkward questions for them.

8 April 2009 at 17:00  
Blogger Manfarang said...

All Gas and Gaiters returning?

9 April 2009 at 17:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I cannot believe the attitude that some of you are taking - this is 2009! First of all, the HISTORY of Christianity should be tackled by a historian, irrespective of religious belief or sexual orientation. He will analyse the facts as they appear, without bias or prejudice. Or do you all indeed want a nicely biased, fundamentalist version of the truth just to fit in with your own beliefs? The BBC has chosen one of the most eminent living Church historians to present this programme because of his scholarship, not because of his views). Secondly, he has written a book to go with it, and which will form the backbone of the programme, so I rather think he has a right to present it (as it is HIS work, and his work alone, which has allowed the BBC to create such a programme). Thirdly, the programme has been created for your enjoyment, so watch if you wish, and if not then don't bother - I am sure he will not be offended! And when you all have Doctor of Divinity degrees from the University of Oxford and several books published and recognised as the leading books - the 'bible', if you will - in their field, then feel free to comment on the show. Until that point, keep your homophobic views to yourselves. I myself am gay but would be horrified if anyone suggested that it might intefere with my work.

9 April 2009 at 17:41  
Anonymous len said...

Anonymous gay person17:41 Does not your gayness colour your opinions? colour your views? colour your outlook on life?

Most gays ( from what I have heard in the news etc) seem to be anti- christian, how can his series be impartial?
As for doctor of divinity degrees I am sure Jesus Christ and the desciples did`t find them necessary.
You are being heterophobic.

9 April 2009 at 18:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ien - thank you for replying, but I don't see what part of my blog was heterophobic - I have not said that a heterosexual would not be capable of doing such a show, I'm saying that whoever is most qualified in the field should do it (whether black, white, gay, straight, etc). The reference to the DD was just to point out that MacCulloch is the best in his field, and therefore well qualified to host this problem. I am gay, and I am a Christian, and yes being gay does colour aspects of me life - but so do all cultural and social experiences (eg your ideas may be different depending on where you live or what your job is, etc, even within one country) - so are we trying to find the archetypical Christian to present this series? You could also along the same lines argue that you wouldn't want a black or female presenter because their different cultural experience might colour their views - so are white heterosexual males in holy orders the only ones allowed to comment on Christianity? My views will ahve been coloured or (a nice way of putting it) 'informed' by all of my life experiences, which are many, as will anyone's views. So the impartiality you seek can never be found. And it is not necessary if we are examining a religion and our emotional response to it, because surely this response, which is unique in each individual, is what we ourselves want to see from the presenter? It may be different from our own but is no less valid. Furthermore, I resent your reference to 'most gays', as that is BLATANT stereotyping - it is like saying "all heteros like to shag their wives 5 times a night and beat them after 8 pints of STella in the pub" (which I am sure you would object to).

9 April 2009 at 21:20  
Anonymous len said...

How do you equate being gay with being christian?, if you are a born again christian( the only type according to Jesus ) you are a new creation born of God ( From above)
God clearly is not gay, so are you identifying with the old creation,
The part that is dead?the part that was crucified with Christ?

9 April 2009 at 22:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not saying that being gay fits entirely into the Christian ideal, but I think it is perfectly possible to be a gay Christian. To believe in and love God is that is required to be a Christian. I would also like to point out that for a very long time I did not want to be gay, I hated myself for it, and this has caused numerous problems for me over the years - I prayed to God not be gay, but nothing changed. So it's not easy, and I find it odd that someone would wish to take my faith away from me as well. I am not a born again Christian, I come from a long line of high Anglican and Roman Catholic Churchgoers (and eventually, far enough down the line, some clergy). God is not gay, nor is he straight - these terms can only be applied to humans or maybe animals. He is not asexual either. He is something that we cannot comprehend, nor are we meant to, and it is an arrogance to assume that we can know God or know what he is in any sense. And I do not believe that Genesis provides a literal account of the creation of the world, therefore I also do not believe that bible passages which argue against female clergy or homosexuality should be read literally. But all of this is irrelevant - the point is that it really does not matter whether the presenter of a HISTORY of Christianity is male, female, gay, straight, christian or not - it is the way they dig up the facts and analyse them which will count - surely we can agree on that?

9 April 2009 at 23:35  
Anonymous len said...

Anon 23:35,
I would start by saying that I haven`t got an anti-gay agenda.
I believe our old nature was judged on the cross,and God saw the only remedy for that old nature was death.
I don`t believe God is anti- gay, I believe God is totally against everything in the old nature.
But I believe all born again christians have a new spirit and they can rely on, and let that new spirit lead them.
As for they ability of anyone to do a serious programme on God, I would say to be carnally minded is to be opposed to God and I would doubt that persons impartiality.
People have put their lives at risk to preach the true gospel of Jesus Christ, would an unbeliever or unconvinced person do that?
I would not wish any person to lose their faith as long as that faith was in the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.
I wish you well in you christian walk,
God Bless, len

10 April 2009 at 09:00  
Anonymous len said...

Perhaps I should explain born again further,

Jesus talked with Nicodemus, He said" I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again.
'How can a man be born when he is old?' Nicodemus asked.'Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mothers womb to be born'!. Jesus answered! 'I tell you the truth, No one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.You should not be surprised at my saying' You must be born again'.
The phrase "Born again" literally means "born from above". Nicodemus had a real need. He needed a change of his heart- a spiritual transformation.
New birth, being born again, is an act of God whereby eternal life is imparted to the person who believes( 2 Corinthians 5:17, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter1:3, 1 John 2:29,3:9,4:7, 5:1-4,18. John1:12,13 )

10 April 2009 at 10:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The level of persecution complex exhibited by many Christians is truly amazing. Made even more so by the irony of their own persecution of anything not Christian.

Read your bible with understanding and you'll soon be an atheist.


13 February 2010 at 13:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older