home
RSS
July 1st, 2010
01:49 PM ET

Gospels don't say Jesus was crucified, scholar claims

Update July 2 8:04 a.m. After this article posted Gunnar Samuelsson got in touch to stress that his research focuses specifically on the narratives of Jesus's execution in the four Gospels, not on the entire New Testament, so "Gospels" has been substituted for "Bible" in the headline.

There have been plenty of attacks on Christianity over the years, but few claims have been more surprising than one advanced by an obscure Swedish scholar this spring.

The Gospels do not say Jesus was crucified, Gunnar Samuelsson says.

In fact, he argues, in the original Greek, the ancient texts reveal only that Jesus carried "some kind of torture or execution device" to a hill where "he was suspended" and died, says Samuelsson, who is an evangelical pastor as well as a New Testament scholar.

"When we say crucifixion, we think about Mel Gibson's 'Passion.' We think about a church, nails, the crown of thorns," he says, referring to Gibson's 2004 film, "The Passion of the Christ."

"We are loaded with pictures of this well-defined punishment called crucifixion - and that is the problem," he says.

Samuelsson bases his claim on studying 900 years' worth of ancient texts in the original languages - Hebrew, Latin and Greek, which is the language of the New Testament.

He spent three years reading for 12 hours a day, he says, and he noticed that the critical word normally translated as "crucify" doesn't necessarily mean that.

"He was handed over to be 'stauroun,'" Samuelsson says of Jesus, lapsing into Biblical Greek to make his point.

At the time the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were writing their Gospels, that word simply meant "suspended," the theologian argues.

"This word is used in a much wider sense than 'crucifixion,'" he says. "It refers to hanging, to suspending vines in a vineyard," or to any type of suspension.

"He was required to carry his 'stauros' to Calvary, and they 'stauroun' him. That is all. He carried some kind of torture or execution device to Calvary and he was suspended and he died," Samuelsson says.

Not everyone is convinced by his research. Garry Wills, the author of "What Jesus Meant," "What Paul Meant," and "What the Gospels Meant," dismisses it as "silliness."

"The verb is stauresthai from stauros, cross," Wills said.

Samuelsson wants to be very clear about what he is saying and what he is not saying.

Most importantly, he says, he is not claiming Jesus was not crucified - only that the Gospels do not say he was.

"I am a pastor, a conservative evangelical pastor, a Christian," he is at pains to point out. "I do believe that Jesus died the way we thought he died. He died on the cross."

But, he insists, it is tradition that tells Christians that, not the first four books of the New Testament.

"I tried to read the text as it is, to read the word of God as it stands in our texts," he says - what he calls "reading on the lines, not reading between the lines."

Samuelsson says he didn't set out to undermine one of the most basic tenets of Christianity.

He was working on a dissertation at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden when he noticed a problem with a major book about the history of crucifixion before Jesus.

What was normally thought to be the first description of a crucifixion - by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus - wasn't a crucifixion at all, but the suspension of a corpse, Samuelsson found by reading the original Greek.

The next example in the book about crucifixion wasn't a crucifixion either, but the impaling of a hand.

Samuelsson's doctoral advisor thought his student might be on to something.

"He recommended I scan all the texts, from Homer up to the first century - 900 years of crucifixion texts," Samuelsson recalled, calling it "a huge amount of work."

But, he says, "I love ancient texts. They just consume me." So he started reading.

He found very little evidence of crucifixion as a method of execution, though he did find corpses being suspended, people being hanged from trees, and more gruesome methods of execution such as impaling people by the belly or rectum.

The same Greek word was used to refer to all the different practices, he found.

That's what led him to doubt that the Gospels specify that Jesus was crucified.

At the time they were written, "there is no word in Greek, Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew that means crucifixion in the sense that we think of it," he says.

It's only after the death of Jesus - and because of the death of Jesus - that the Greek word "stauroun" comes specifically to mean executing a person on the cross, he argues.

He admits, of course, that the most likely reason early Christians though Jesus was crucified is that, in fact, he was.

But he says his research still has significant implications for historians, linguists and the Christian faithful.

For starters, "if my observations are correct, every book on the history of Jesus will need to be rewritten," as will the standard dictionaries of Biblical Greek, he says.

More profoundly, his research "ought to make Christians a bit more humble," he says.

"We fight against each other," he reflects, but "the theological stances that keep churches apart are founded on things that we find between the lines.

"We have put a lot of things in the Bible that weren't there in the beginning that keep us apart. We need to get down on our knees as Christians together and read the Bible."

- Newsdesk editor, The CNN Wire

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Christianity • Jesus

soundoff (1,530 Responses)
  1. BIlly 17

    How can he ignore passages like john 20 where Thomas touches where the nails were in Jesus's hand?

    July 23, 2010 at 7:43 am |
  2. Billy Sichone

    Which Bible does this writer refer to? Both Old and New Testament talk about the crucifixion. Any way, as always, even in Biblical times, skeptics existed. Refer to Josephus' writings about Jesus Christ, may help.

    July 19, 2010 at 12:52 pm |
  3. hidhir Razak

    Such technicalities should not stop anyone from being a good, kind person, something I believe all religions of the world teach us to do =)

    July 19, 2010 at 10:38 am |
  4. surferjoe22

    Hey Scholar,
    The flat earth society is also taking applications.

    July 19, 2010 at 10:05 am |
  5. das

    That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah. but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up unto himself; and Allah is Exalted in power, Wise. (Qur'an An-Nisa : 157-158)

    July 19, 2010 at 4:52 am |
  6. Dr. J.Jeyaseelan Kanagaraj

    If I am correct in understanding Samuelson, he bases his argument that 'stouroun' means simply "to suspend" rather than "to crucify" from the texts which are only 900 years old. He is not bothered to look into the first-century documents which are the earliest witnesses for Jesus and for what he did. He is wrong to say that the NT was originally written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. It was originally written in Koine Greek which was the official language at that time. Perhaps the translations must have come later into other languages. One cannot argue and conclude anything from the later texts.

    Samuelsson bases his argument only on one verse, that too found in one of the Gospels. He does not seem to be aware that Paul wrote much earlier than the Gospel writers. Paul often speaks of Jesus' victory on the cross, of his atoning sacrifice for human sins meaning "crucifixion", of the message of the cross which is folly to those who perish, but the power to those who are saved by faith in the death of Christ on the cross, etc.

    Even if we follow him to the Gospels, why didn't he write anything about the thieves who were crucified with him? Were they also merely suspended? The scholar does not understand the Gospel texts against the background of the Greco-Roman world of Jesus' time.

    July 13, 2010 at 11:16 pm |
    • Ronnie shakespeare

      I came acoss this debate with Jehovah witnesses: was Jesus crucified on a cross. They also pointed out a scripture where it says it was a Tree: I studied the Greek word on Tree. It can mean: {1} Tree {2} piece of wood. {3} two piece's wood. Then i studied Roman crucifixtion on wikapedia. The upright pole was already at the place of execution: Because it was too heavy to carry being 300lb in weight. When a person is going to be executed. He i made to carry a piece of wood.
      It is the cross beam which is 100lb in weight. Scriptures say Jesus carried something; I have come to the conclusion that Jesus did not carry a whole cross. So Jesus carried his torture stick which was the cross beam to the place of execution.
      So Jesus was Crucified on a CROSS.

      August 22, 2010 at 2:03 pm |
  7. Bob12345

    The books Matthew, Mark and Luke indicate that "Simon" carried the cross behind Jesus. Only John says Jesus carried the cross from the Pretorium to Calvary....Any thoughts??

    July 9, 2010 at 2:27 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      The cross was too heavy for a man [Jesus] almost beaten to death so they pulled Simon out of the crowd and enlisted him to help carry the cross. They did not want Jesus to die carrying the cross; they wanted to crucify Him and make Him suffer the greatest pain they knew of to put Jesus through.

      July 9, 2010 at 3:39 pm |
    • geraldh

      Simple rules of logic applied:

      If Joe and Bob rode their bikes to Missouri.
      Did Joe ride his bike to Missouri? Yep.
      Did Bob ride his bike to Missourie? Yep

      In the passages you site, Both simon and Jesus carried the cross together for at least part of the time. There is no contradiction because both of them carried it.

      July 9, 2010 at 4:41 pm |
  8. Albert in Washington

    Thanks to all of you for your comments. I can't remember when I sat and read so many different views, even though I know there are many many people who have views different than mine. Except that the Bible may or may not be changed to exclude the term crucify/crucifixtion, it will not change my faith in the fact that Yeshua/Jesus died a horrible death, for my sins and yours, and the manner of death does not take away from what he did for us all. If you do not believe that his died for your sins, God help you, and He will if you ask.

    July 8, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
  9. Daniel Chamberlayne

    I wish people would READ what the bible says...anything that has to do with Jesus Christ is in the bible.

    So with that in mind, lets read what the bible says and use some common sense instead of what a scholar wrote....

    In the bible book of Luke ....it states that suffocation would be in minutes if on a stake but within hours if upon an outstretched cross even as Luke 23:44 and Matthew 27:45-46 say it was. Matthew 27:37 says "They put up above His head the charge against Him, which read, ‘This is Jesus the King of the Jews." If his hands had been stretched upward and nailed on a stake, Matthew would have said the charge was put above his hands, but instead Matthew clear says the charge was put "above his head." The Greek word "stauros" in the original Greek New Testament language can mean either cross or stake, but never just mean stake.

    See how easy that was.....not difficult at all !!!

    Daniel Chamberlayne

    Author- The Kingdom Hall No More

    July 8, 2010 at 6:25 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Thank you, Daniel, we should be able to move on now. But I suppose there will always be heresy because man thinks he is more learned than the Author.

      July 8, 2010 at 7:00 am |
  10. gerald

    Where'd ya go peace. I was just getting started.

    July 7, 2010 at 11:09 pm |
    • Daniel Chamberlayne

      Take a look on how the scripture from Matthew 27:37 is worded from different bible translations

      New International Version (©1984)
      Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

      New Living Translation (©2007)
      A sign was fastened above Jesus' head, announcing the charge against him. It read: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."

      English Standard Version (©2001)
      And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.”

      New American Standard Bible (©1995)
      And above His head they put up the charge against Him which read, "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS."

      International Standard Version (©2008)
      Above his head they placed the charge against him. It read, "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews."

      GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
      They placed a written accusation above his head. It read, "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews."

      King James Bible
      And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

      American King James Version
      And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

      American Standard Version
      And they set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

      Bible in Basic English
      And they put up over his head the statement of his crime in writing, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

      Douay-Rheims Bible
      And they put over his head his cause written: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

      Darby Bible Translation
      And they set up over his head his accusation written: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.

      English Revised Version
      And they set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

      Webster's Bible Translation
      And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

      Weymouth New Testament
      Over His head they placed a written statement of the charge against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

      World English Bible
      They set up over his head the accusation against him written, "THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS."

      Young's Literal Translation
      and they put up over his head, his accusation written, 'This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.'

      Again,.....if Jesus Christ was put upon a stake, where could the sign hang on ...you know...the sign that said, "The is Jesus the King of the Jews" ...where would it hang on ??.....could a sign that long hang on a stake along with his hands???

      If everyone that posted a comment on here would put there hands up above there head, the nails would go enter your hands on a piece of wood or a stake ....now where would the sign hang at ? ....and if there was a sign, it would be above your HANDS not your HEAD !!.......try it out and see if you get the same results !!

      Daniel Chamberlayne

      Author- The Kingdom Hall No More

      July 8, 2010 at 7:21 am |
    • Eric

      gerald – Thanks for all your hard work. I wonder if Gunnar mentions that ["above his head (not hands)"] in his thesis?

      Do you suppose CNN will ever get us Samuelsson's thesis so we can read it ourselves?

      July 8, 2010 at 9:16 am |
    • gerald

      Thank you daniel. Credit where credit is due.

      Eric, I am sure they won't. He is hoping to make money off the souls he damages by the doudt he casts. He will likely sell it to the cronies of the Jesus seminar who nary a good word about the Bible will hear.

      July 8, 2010 at 4:42 pm |
  11. gerald

    Is it a fact that it is unproven? Or is that your personal opinion?

    July 6, 2010 at 8:21 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Gerald,
      Science has done a great job of leading us into knowing there is God.

      We have learned that matter/molecules cannot make themselves. We know that cells can spit/change/grow but they cannot make themselves. We know that there are things so small that our eye cannot see them but somethings can be seen with help. We know that some things cannot be seen even with help--thought, dreams, ideas, knowing, logic, etc. Everything I mentioned is reality. God is not matter, He cannot be seen even with help, unless He chooses to show Himself to someone. God, by His creation, has proved all that we cannot prove on our own. We should be happy with this fact instead of trying to disprove the Truth, wouldn’t you agree?! Isn’t it amazing that the most important things that we treasure are invisible to the eye but not to the heart? [An example: would you rather give up your arms or your thinking?]

      July 7, 2010 at 7:36 am |
    • geraldh

      Oh I definitely agree CM. This post was in response to peace2all.. The view that nature happened without an intelligence far above ours is, well, whacked.

      July 7, 2010 at 7:44 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Those were wonderful commentaries to peace2you.
      If anyone is bored with life or says ‘is that all there is?’ has not looked beyond his own thoughts. Many need to expand their minds and if they did that they would come to be grateful and finally thank God, the Creator of all.

      July 7, 2010 at 10:17 am |
  12. Scott

    Someday we will all stand before the resurrected Christ and give an account. I don't think we will have any doubts concerning His cross then.

    July 6, 2010 at 5:27 pm |
    • peace2all

      Scott....Very insightfull.......I guess we will find out then won't we. But in the meantime, please refrain from making statements concerning the unprovable as if it is fact...

      Thanks for playing though....

      July 6, 2010 at 5:30 pm |
    • gerald

      Peace, is it a fact that it is unproven or an opinion. Atheists like to state that the truth that God exists is a fairy tail and cannot be proven. Yet in a court of law I wonder how it would hold up? Noone sees the murderer at the scene, yet his gun with his fingerprints are found there. He is found guilty? Injustice because it is not "fact" i.e. noone saw him do it. That would be fat. But the evidence is sufficient to convict him as fact. The evidence is quite sufficient to prove that there is one God who is the creator of all as fact. I don't even need to use the scriptures but they do tell me this and I look at nature and quite agree when Romans says that those who do not draw this conclusion are "without excuse".

      July 6, 2010 at 8:26 pm |
    • peace2all

      @gerald....."The evidence is quite sufficient to (prove) that there is one god who is the creator of all as fact." O.K.....please state said evidence that (proves)....etc..etc....god is the creator of all as (fact)."

      Let me know when you get evidence that (proves as fact).........Because ...THERE IS NONE....and you know it if you are being intellectually honest here since you tried to use an absolutely absurd 'murder law trial.' analogy...

      And....as for your bible(scriptures)...."I don't even need to use the (scriptures), but they do tell me...."

      The fact is that you believe all of the delusional ramblings of the bible...which includes, but is not limited to murder, slavery, mysogeny, god killing people at will......and don't even try to use the NT arguement.....you'll find just as much delusional crud in there too.

      Your belief in such obscene writings.....tells me you ..."have no- excuse" .....

      Good attempt though....thanks for playing...

      July 7, 2010 at 1:50 am |
    • gerald

      Peace,

      Where do I begin? One need only turn on a nature program and see the intricacies of the cuddle fish, whose young spit out an acid to get out of their shell (wow cuddle fish are smart if they came up with that solution) or the snake the contorts it's its body in to a winged shape so that it can glide safely to the earth from a tree, over 100 yards, or the ant whose jaws have the strength of 300 times it's body weight and be in awe and yet these three creatures I bring up are only a small part of the incredible universe that has mathematical equations, scientific formulas and physical properties beyond our imaginations and abilities to completely understand. Further the life I mention is not even a microfraction of the abundance of life on earth. One can pick up a shovel full of dirt and he is picking up tons of life, yet look accross the countryside and there are trillions of individual lives and thousands of species. Yet oddly enough man cannot come up with one concreate example of a species to species evolution. (I fully accept interspecies evolution). THe amount of intelligence that it would take to create and guide (even if species to species evolution were a significant factor) life to where it is today is incredible. The creator of it all exists in silence like the creator of the white house. We do not see the builders standing next to it but we know that the builders existed. You can mock my belief in scripture all you want. I don't need it to prove there is a God, a being so far beyond our intelligence as to make us less than the ants in comparison. No I am fine with my statement but could write a hundred books expounding on this proof and still not be done.

      July 7, 2010 at 8:48 am |
    • gerald

      peace2all? The animosity in your post regarding scriptures shows that you don't really want peace with Christians. You want to mock what they believe. You don't believe that the slavery and killing etc. in the old testament happened? I certainly do. Slavery, other than indentured servitude, which needs the economic context of the times to understand, and slavery of those captured in war, has no indication of any approval in scripture. Death is a part of life for all. Do you disagree that we should have killed germans in WWII in order to win that war and protect the world from great evil? Do you not believe the evil of sodom and gomorah was great? There was great evil in every group that was killed in scripture at God's command. He is the author of life and he can take it if he chooses. Now go find out what true peace is all about.

      July 7, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  13. Poppy

    Human beings wrote the books of the Bible. Human beings over the centuries have decided which books would be omitted from the Bible. Human beings created the many translations of the Bible. Anyone who believes that the Bible is the absolute and perfect word of God certainly does have a lot of faith in the perfection of human beings.

    July 6, 2010 at 3:46 pm |
    • geraldh

      God is incapable of inspiring human beings? God is incapable of guiding them in their writings and in their translations such that what comes out is what he intended it to be? God could not guild those who discerned which books were in the Bible? I am sure your problem with this is that you don't like what the choose? God does not speak to men? What kind of a god do you believe in Poppy? I would say a god that you desire to personally create for yourself, rather than a God who desired to reveal himself and how he loves us through the sending of his son to die on the cross for our sins and rising from the dead in order to give us the hope of a resurrection. Your god sounds pretty powerless to me.

      July 6, 2010 at 4:04 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Poppy,
      Why do you trust human beings in their scientific skills but have no faith in human beings in their literary skills?

      July 7, 2010 at 8:17 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Poppy,
      The Catholic Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit placed the inspired Books of the Bible together. For hundreds of years before this happened however the Church lived by Tradition as Jesus Christ had told the Apostles the Truths they needed to know and what they were to preserve [this is Tradition]. Jesus Christ also told them that He would leave them [resurrection] but would send the Holy Spirit to be with them always and He would lead them into all the fullness of Truth. He also said that His Church which He founded on St. Peter would prevail to the end and that He would be with them always.
      Now you mentioned that anyone who believes that the Bible is the absolute and perfect word of God must have a lot of faith in the perfection of human beings…….well, you are only partly right…...we have a lot of faith in the Truth because we find we can trust the promises of Jesus Christ. Human beings are just instruments…..we can either make beautiful music or produce sour notes………it is up to us and our freewill. The Bible is our music book! Now, I know you are right in that human beings have ripped out many pages, changed words, added/subtracted words, but there is still the full Bible available to us……just do your research and you will find it. Then sing to your heart’s content!
      By the way, the Catholic Church is still here after two thousand years……….thanks to the Holy Spirit. There is not one other institution that has come even close to surviving that long….thank you, Holy Spirit for your promises.

      July 8, 2010 at 10:50 pm |
  14. sting

    Remember that the Bible was written by man, and the interpretations of words, phrases, actions, are just that, interpretations. Some will say that god inspired the writings in the bible. Each generation adds their two cents to the meanings and words in the bible, and conflicting accounts (from people who weren't there, et cetera), and interpretations by individual religions to meet their own views of religion, make the bible just another fiction book. what each of us feel in their own bodies (churches) is the true testament of individual beliefs, and not what someone else wants us to believe.

    July 6, 2010 at 3:31 pm |
  15. neil

    This blog should be renamed the Undermine Belief Blog

    July 6, 2010 at 3:02 pm |
  16. neil

    "the theological stances that keep churches apart are founded on things that we find between the lines.

    "We have put a lot of things in the Bible that weren't there in the beginning that keep us apart. We need to get down on our knees as Christians together and read the Bible."
    We should get on our knees and pray as Catholics

    July 6, 2010 at 2:59 pm |
    • Toby

      There is another alternative; you could stop the self-debasement, humiliation, and fear and stand up, face the world on its natural terms, and stop pretending to know things that you simply could not know.

      July 6, 2010 at 3:55 pm |
    • Conqui

      Toby, that's a good summary of some of Jesus' teachings.

      July 6, 2010 at 9:26 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Neil,
      What theological things ‘between the lines’ are you suggesting are keeping the churches apart? Who has put things in the Bible that weren’t there in the beginning? Are you speaking of the heresies that some seem to hold to?

      Many speak of 'getting down on bended knee' but isn’t that just a phrase to some?

      Yes, it is a good thing to read the Bible together, as you say, but let’s not forget if we come to a bump in the road we should not go running off and starting up another ecclesial community just because there is disagreement on the meaning of the verse, etc….the Catholic Church put the Books of the Bible under one cover and each Book was chosen because the Church recognized Herself in the scriptures-and so if questions arise as to the proper meaning of a word, a verse, a Book,-ask the Church for the True meaning.

      July 7, 2010 at 12:13 am |
  17. Wally

    Isn't the important point that He died to save humanity from its sins? Does it so much matter whether it was a cross, a pole, or some other human contrived instrument of death?

    July 6, 2010 at 2:56 pm |
    • Conqui

      Well, it apparently does matter to those who want to hold onto fantasies rather than examine anything new. OH MY GOSH, if Jesus died in a way other than on a literal cross just like all the paintings, which other beliefs about Christianity will I have to think about?

      July 6, 2010 at 9:23 pm |
  18. Conqui

    If you look at the Greek texts for Paul's letters, you will discover that he used the exact same words that Samuelsson says are improperly translated. 1 Corinth 2:1 often is translated into English to include "nailed to a cross", whereas, in fact, it is the Greek word for "suspended" (per Samuelsson) in the base text, nothing resembling any Greek word for "nail" or anything like it is anywhere to be found in that verse. Ditto for Philippians 2 and other places in Paul's letters which are mistranslated into English as "crucified" or something similar. Paul does, however, make frequent reference to J's death and what it means. Samuelsson's point is about the manner of death, and cautioning us that various mythologies about the text may color our thinking in ways not intended by the original authors. I would think it is more important to understand what Jesus and those who wrote about Him actually said, than it is to insist that our imaginations or mistaken beliefs are the only so-called truth.

    July 6, 2010 at 2:18 pm |
  19. NJ Bob

    This is all really entertaining. Yes, he was crucified. No, he wasn't! Yes, he was!! Who cares?? It makes no sense to get so worked up arguing about a myth. And Santa's Rudolph has a red nose. No, he doesn't !! Yes, he does! We could also debate how warm Goldilocks likes her porridge.

    July 6, 2010 at 2:00 pm |
    • gerald

      That people defend their positions and debate, does not mean they are all worked up. I am not in the slightest worked up.

      July 6, 2010 at 2:07 pm |
  20. CatholicMom

    The risen Jesus, the One with universal power, gave His Apostles a mission that is universal. They are to make disciples of all nations, Baptizing them so that all may become a living member of Christ’s body with Him the Head. Once we are Baptized we also have a part in this apostolic mission. If a person is prompted to think beyond himself then this blogging is a blessing………..

    July 6, 2010 at 1:18 pm |
    • Shrike

      Your a fine example of a catholic marionette – bravo

      July 6, 2010 at 1:29 pm |
    • gerald

      Ad hom at its finest when one cannot equal the opponent.

      July 6, 2010 at 1:42 pm |
    • peace2all

      @CatholicMom......So...we meet again....

      I have to say, even for you CM, your answer to Eric G's question made absolutely no sense whatsoever....

      I

      July 6, 2010 at 2:13 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.