Blainer wrote:
> The best I can say about your book is that
> it will go down with all the rest of the weapons
> raised up against Mormonism. (:>)
That is not likely as long as the Church has these papyri fragments which
show how Joseph wrongly reconstructed images and falsely attributed the
works
No way for you to know about the book. Your nose up up Joe boys butt.
Blainer) That's about where I am at. I already know about Mormonism.
The best I can say about your book is that it will go down with all the
rest of the weapons raised up against Mormonism. (:>)
Blainer) That's about where I am at. I already know about Mormonism.
The best I can say about your book is that it will go down with all the
rest of the weapons raised up against Mormonism. (:>)
The following is of pertinance here. This is a revelation given
independantly of Joseph Smith to a
Glenn wrote:
> Ok, DavidM, you can now see what I am talking
> about. NO way, are Mormons going to study
> anything factual.
I admit it is very disappointing that he will not read this book.
Nevertheless, if DaveH is here only to learn about non-Mormon faith in
Christ, I am perfectly willing to o
Ok, DavidM, you can now she what I am talking about. NO way, are Mormons going to study anything factual.
David Miller wrote:
> What about you, DaveH? Will you take me up on this offer?
DAVEH: As I've explained before, I am not in TT to learn about Mormonism. (There are many other forums I
David Miller wrote:
> What about you, DaveH? Will you take me up on this offer?
DAVEH: As I've explained before, I am not in TT to learn about Mormonism. (There are
many other forums I can join to learn such, if I should desire to do so.) My interest
here is to learn about Protestantism.
Blainer wrote:
> I can't believe you would make such a statement
> based on this book. It seems to me there are many
> possibilities that would explain all this. I personally
> have seen expositions that show every conclusion
> drawn by the author of this book is wrong, and
> obviously based upon
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:17:23 -0400 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Blainer wrote:
> > You make this sound so absolute!! In
> > actuality, the papyrus you refer to was
> > only a fragment--not the entire papyrus.
>
> Actually, not *A* fragment, but rather a total of twelve fragmen
Blainer wrote:
> You make this sound so absolute!! In
> actuality, the papyrus you refer to was
> only a fragment--not the entire papyrus.
Actually, not *A* fragment, but rather a total of twelve fragments if we
include one fragment from Joseph Smith's Alphabet and Grammar material.
Scholars ha
Here we go again with a yes but qualified. I even get a yes but qualified on my definition of Jesus Christ, God's son, second person of the Trinity.
Blainer) I would have nothing against reading it it if 1) I could get it
free of charge, and 2), I had time to read it. (:>)
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:27:49 -0400 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> I'm reading a book right now called, "...by his own hand upon
> papyrus" by
> Charles M. Larson. You can get it at www.Amazon.com, specifically
> at
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962096326/qid=10
I'm reading a book right now called, "...by his own hand upon papyrus" by
Charles M. Larson. You can get it at www.Amazon.com, specifically at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962096326/qid=1035216077/sr=8
-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-4103182-7246458?v=glance&n=507846
The book is a fascinating
12 matches
Mail list logo
