Here's something to mull over :"As for the extra-biblical historicity of Jesus, there is absolutely no reliable contemporary evidence that he ever even existed. He made no impression on any historian of the first century. If Jesus existed or if the spectacular events in the gospels really happened, they would have been noted by many writers — including Philo of Alexandria (who wrote extensively about Judea during the alleged time of Jesus), Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Justus of Tiberius, and over thirty others. [8], [17] None of these men referred to Jesus or the fantastical biblical events."----Mark Thomas
I'm totally undecided on this matter, so I will turn it over to those whose knowledge on this subject far exceeds mine & those who feel passionately either way on this subject.
Feedback ?
1. The Jewish historian, Josephus, mentions Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews
2. The non-redacted Babylonian Talmud mentions Jesus, albeit unfavorably
Jews were an insular people. What happened in the Jewish community might not have made it to the outside world. Jesus was Jewish, and acted within an almost exclusively Jewish milieu. So the sources most likely to note his existence would be Jewish rather than Roman.
It is well-known that Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. (Except for Jews for Jesus, of course.) Hence, it would be highly unlikely for Jewish historians &c to note Jesus' historical existence if it had no basis in fact.
"The earliest extra-biblical supposed references to Jesus or Christ are in one paragraph and one sentence in the writings (about 93 CE) attributed to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (who also wrote about Hercules). Here are the supposed references, in his Jewish Antiquities:
18.3.3 — “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
20.9.1 — “...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...”
The sentence is far too brief to mean much. The phrase "who was called Christ" is awkward and was likely inserted by a transcriber. Plus, a few lines later Josephus refers to Jesus, the son of Damneus. This is likely the Jesus referred to in the sentence. [17] The paragraph looks like just about everything a Christian could hope for, to prove that Jesus actually existed. Unfortunately, it's an obvious latter insertion — almost certainly created by “church historian” Eusebius, who first referred to it shortly before Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. We know this for several reasons:
Despite the fact that Josephus' writings were widely read, no Christian or scholar before Eusebius refers to it, especially not the Christian scholar Origen, whose library Eusebius used. [8], [17]
Origen even wrote that Josephus did not believe in Jesus Christ. [8]
If the pious Jew Josephus had truly thought that Jesus was the Messiah, he would have become a Christian.
It's unlikely that Josephus would have referred to the accusing Jews as “the principal men among us.”
There never was a “tribe of Christians.”
Copies of Josephus' works existed, that lacked either reference to Jesus. [8]
The style of the text is radically different from the rest of his writings.
The text is completely out of context with the paragraphs around it, and interrupts their story line. The next paragraph begins, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." This refers to the previous paragraph, where Pilate had his soldiers massacre a large crowd of Jews in Jerusalem.
Josephus wrote extensively about many minor people of the time. A single paragraph and sentence for the Messiah is impossible.
With these two spurious references removed from Josephus' writings, he becomes strong negative evidence for Jesus. If Jesus had existed, Josephus would have written extensively about him. "------Mark Thomas
Lastly, JG, do you consider the non-redacted Babylonian Talmud as an emprical/historical document ?
-- Modified on 12/27/2011 12:40:46 PM
I think it reasonable to surmise that later Christian transcribers polluted Josephus' actual words. I would surmise that in their original form they do refer to the historical Jesus, and that such statements as "who was called the Christ" were added later by Christian transcribers. I think this is a reasonable view. This is also reasonable when you consider the treatment Christian scholars gave to other religions, as in the Prose Edda's treatment of the pre-Christian religion of Northern Europe.
The Talmud is likewise iffy because its original references to Jesus were less than flattering, and hence were censored by order of the Pope.
Even so, those censored passages were written hundreds of years after Christ and hence were more likely to reflect the animosity between Jews and Christians than anything historically accurate.
But there are also additional writings known as the Gospels. There were many divergent copies of these found, enough to indicate what I would consider a high likelihood of Jesus' historical existence though not enough to state that the four gospels in the Bible are automatically accurate.
or, as in your harsher description, "automatically accurate".
We seem to be dancing around "the leap of faith issue", which even I'm not judgmental enough to knock.
-- Modified on 12/27/2011 3:25:45 PM
You have "knocked" the leap of faith issue on numerous occasions, as have I.
I don't really have an opinion as to whether or not "Jesus" actually existed. Quite frankly, I don't suppose I really care. What I do care about are the two billion plus people who not only believe he existed, but are willing to set the whole world ablaze over a silly argument about which version of the fairy tale about him is the "true fucking path"
Whether or not Jesus ever existed has no real effect on my life. Having the entire fucking planet go up in smoke has a definite effect on my life. lol
That means I'm engaged in Atheistic proselytizing, which, IMO, is just as repugnant as Religious proselytizing.
HOWEVER, as someone who considers himself an empiricist I consider the CONCEPT of "leap of faith" to be ridiculous.
Dude, each to their own; 'Ive been a steady hobbyist for nearly 30 years, which certainly doesn't give me the right to judge someone's religious values, just as long as they don't try to shove it down my throat.
-- Modified on 12/27/2011 1:16:53 PM
By written documents, carvings, etc.
Some aspects of that history are likely untrue, such as his lineage from Aphrodite as would be derived from the Aeneid.
But ... do YOU read Latin? Did YOU find the writings? How do you KNOW with certainty Augustus existed?
There is a leap of faith based upon your trust in the word of third persons. That's all. The only question is the distance of the leap.
Have you personally traced your lineage all the way back to Israel? If not, then you are taking your heritage for granted as a leap of faith based on the word of others. Even if you DID do all that tracing, have you done the genetic testing to rule out rapes and infidelity in your lineage? The results of people doing that testing have been pretty shocking because few can go back more than four generations without such an event showing up.
Leaps of faith cannot be automatically abandoned because to do so would be to leave us unable to function.
You can find untrue things in Julius Caesar's writings about his various campaigns, or at least, they are untrue if we automatically assume the supernatural to be untrue.
The fact that writings contain inaccuracies doesn't mean they are wholly non-factual. I'm Sure Bill Clinton's autobiography will contain a mix of fact and fiction.
Again, we cannot depend upon absolute accuracy in order to act. Perfection will always elude us. All we are looking for is enough information to be well-informed and reasonably apply our own judgment.
Any writings that describe that ?
THAT is the bane of my contentions.
Lastly, ignore the crazed mrnotrouble; I would NEVER knock anyone's religious beliefs, just as long as they don't try to cram their values down my throat.
-- Modified on 12/27/2011 1:37:59 PM
to JG. At the same time co-opting GaG's line.
I NEVER tried to cram any of my beliefs down your throat and yet you tried to mock me as a "Crazed Closet Bible Thumper". You really gonna try to sell us that you've never mocked religiuos beliefs as "fairy tales"?
What exactly can you PROVE as "fairy tale"?
PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, as you mentioned below, what does the genocides of the vile Stalin & Mao have to do with any of this ?!
Lastly,WHY so hot under the collar?! & WTF does any of this have to do with you ?! MAN-----you must be the most paranoid/egocentric person that I've ever encountered.
Did I mention Stalin or Mao in this thread? PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't be such a wuss. For a gangster you've got pretty thin skin.
You love to mock and hector. I'm just feeding you some of your own shit.
Chow down, Fredo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg8jODlrka0
-- Modified on 12/27/2011 2:21:40 PM
I think the picture below is of "Mock & Hector" which must also be the primary source of your "facts".
"you seem unable to recognize any good religion does. Not headline stuff but rather daily, small stuff. The stuff which holds societies together"--------mrnotrouble
& you're calling ME a "thinskinned wuss" ? 
-----------LMFAO !
... rather than the miracles attributed to him in the Gospels.
For the historical Jesus, I believe he existed, and I believe the Gospels (including the many that were not included in the official Bible such as The Gospel of the Hebrews), combined with Josephus, are enough to say he existed. Keep in mind that all of these early writers, that is, those prior to Paul, were Jewish people who had converted to Christianity. (Or, more properly, continued with a new version of Judaism that took into account Jesus as the Messiah. Christianity is just a sect of Judaism.) It isn't until Paul (Acts 10) that Christianity becomes spread among non-Jews.
As to whether or not Jesus performed miracles ...
Well ...
Let me put it this way: I see no difference between believing the story of the loaves and fishes as opposed to a one-day supply of oil burning for eight days instead. The same underlying principles are involved. It is easier to believe that Jesus raised the dead (Lazarus) than Israel wrestling the angel of God to a tie.
Basically, I have no idea. But such a discussion is beyond the context of the OP and fortunately I don't need an answer. (*grin*)
( if true ), was written SIXTY years after his crucifixion ! Might not that also call into question the accuracy of his account ?
The modern day equivalent of this would be if historical accounts of the Korean war were just written this year.
Something to think about.
-- Modified on 12/27/2011 7:42:11 PM
... while I have no doubt that an account written today of the Korean War would get a LOT of particular wrong, I'm quite certain that the EXISTENCE of the Korean War would be reported correctly.
Furthermore, even though the oldest known sources are from 50-60 years after Jesus' birth, those are the oldest KNOWN sources. There is enough repetition in other documents that many scholars believe that older documents existed at one time, but we are simply unable to find them. Keep in mind we're talking 2,000 years ago, and writing on organic materials such as parchment that can be easily destroyed outside of the most perfect of conditions.
Given the much shorter life expentancies of people living in those days, 60 years would effectively be a longer time than today. That might be 3 generations of people back then.
I don't know very much about this whole history, but I recall seeing in a flick that Jesus was just rebranding a Messiah from different religions. If John has any insight on this, I'd love to hear it.
BTW, it's good to have you back posting here more often, John.
As an interesting aside, life expectancies shortened with the introduction of agriculture and novel foods such as grains into the human diet. Before that, we lived longer, had fewer health problems, etc. Recommended reading: The Paleo Solution
It's true that a game of telephone with more participants would introduce more inaccuracies, but given that the first writings about Jesus may have been as early as 50AD, it might not have made much difference.
And that would introduce inaccuracies and distortions, but it is a bit of a stretch to think that it would make so much difference as to mistake the difference between existence and non-existence. Inserting an extra generation would certainly blur recollection of the details of the cause of WWII -- especially given competing revisionist viewpoints -- but it wouldn't make up WWII out of whole cloth.
Glad to be back!
It is now argued that Jesus was born between 1AD and 33AD. There is a lot of documentation and study for around 33 AD as the birth of Jesus.
of course a Muslim prophet, but a prophet of GOD nonetheless.
Despite what you may have think, Robin Hood never existed, merely a product of folklore/ballads, despite the fact this fictional character interacted with real characters ( IE, King Richard ). All this was a predecessor of the historical novel, a literary genre that mixed fictional characters with real life historical figures & events.
One of the most famous of this genre was by former Civil War Hero & New Mexico Governor Lew Wallace, the novel "Ben-Hur, a Tale of the Christ" (1880 ),which was subsequently filmed as the famous 1959 movie.
The Jew Ben Hur, was a fictional character of Ancient Judea, whose story contained such real life characters as Emperor Tiberius, Pontius Pilate & most importantly, Jesus Christ.
Using these two examples, let's extrapolate further ;could it be possible that Jesus Christ was an example of a folklore/predecessor of historical novel, a fictional character that intermingled with real life historical figures ( Pilate, King Herod ? )
This is just something I'm throwing out there. As to whether Jesus existed or not, I have no clue.
-- Modified on 12/27/2011 7:41:05 PM
You have no clue as to whether you believe Jesus existed or not??? That sounds like such a confusing state of affairs!
which is a lot more than I can say about people who simply "believe" without having any facts in evidence, and that goes for the atheists as well.
I don't have a fucking clue either if the man that Christians claim to be the "Son of God" ever existed either, it's really not that confusing, I also don't know the meaning of life, or how the universe began. Guess what? neither do you. lmao
whether the historical Jesus existed or not. He said: "As to whether I believe Jesus existed or not, I have no clue." The structure of his sentence makes it appear that he has no clue as to what he believes; which is whether there was a historical Jesus or not, in opposed to not having a clue as to whether there was a historical Jesus.
Pri is the one who is supposed to be the Chief of the Spelling Police. I don't like it when he does it. It doesn't suit you any better.
You know exactly what the fuck he meant. Have you been taking "obtuse lessons" from Willy Wonka?
GaG. I'm speechless. That's the nicest thing you've ever said about me. lol.
is indicative of a friendly ribbing! Lighten up!
Most people are unaware of the breadth and scope of Robin Hood literature out there and yet those many ballads, poems, stories and so forth have never been linked to a historical person. I agree that Robin Hood literature post 1700 AD is uniformly of the form of the historical novel in which a fictional character mingles with known historical characters.
But there are a few things that argue against this in the case of Jesus. For one thing, there is a great deal of uniformity in the stories between the Gospels, whereas Robin Hood is variously portrayed as a commoner, a displaced Earl, etc. When you consider how much the story of Robin Hood morphed in just a couple of hundred years, the LACK of such morphing with regard to writings of Jesus is pretty impressive.
If you look at the language of the Gospels, they aren't much like stories either, and a great deal of effort goes into tracing Jesus' lineage all the way back to the Abrahamic patriarchs.
I WILL grant you that if we are willing to consider the Tanakh to also be of the stripe of something made up of whole cloth, that the Gospels simply follow along that rubric. But it is my position that in order to deny the historical validity of Jesus on the basis of Jewish religious writings (which is what the earliest writings of Jesus were) being fabrications, then the basis of Judaism has to join Jesus in the dung-heap.
However, the language of the Talmud indicates that successive generations of Jewish scholars took the writings of the Tanakh seriously and as anything but novels.
They could well have been deluded, but that would be a tall point to address in order to deny the historical existence of Jesus.
PROOF that JESUS is real without using religion
Did Jesus Exist?
thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
In this section, we will examine 1st and 2nd century sources which verify Jesus
as an actual man of history (not a compilation of pagan myths as some critics
allege). Each of the following sections offer their own advantages: the
non-Christian sources are important as they had nothing to gain by their
admissions. On the other hand, the Christian witness had everything to lose-
many paying for their testimony with their lives.
The outline we will be following for this discussion is as follows:
1) Secular Sources (Documentary)
2) Secular Sources (Commentary)
3) Jewish Sources (Non-Christian)
4) Extra-Biblical Sources (Christian)
5) Answering Common Skeptic Questions Concerning Jesus' existence
6) Conclusion
http://vimeo.com/10976448
http://vimeo.com/10976448
Quote:
sin to speak against one marrying different race
Exhibit A: Moses Marries a Black Woman
Aaron and Miriam’s Racial Discrimination Against Moses’ Wife: Numbers 12:1-16 – Moses’ brother Aaron and their sister Miriam spoke against Moses because of the ethnic identity of his wife. His wife was a Cushite, which means she was from the land of Cush (Num 12:1). The people were descendants of the son of Ham: Cush (see Genesis 10:6). The land of Cush is “south of Egypt, also called Nubia, which includes part of Sudan.”1 The word “Cush” in the Hebrew language of the original biblical text is simply translated “Ethiopia” by modern biblical scholars (Ex: NASB, Ezek. 29:10), though it is not equivalent to modern Ethiopia. The people who lived there were tall with “colored,” smooth skin (cf. Isaiah 18:2, 7; Jeremiah 13:23). In other words, Aaron and his sister Midian spoke against Moses because he married, in modern lingo, a “black” Ethiopian woman.
If ever there was an opportune time for God to teach against interracial marriages and turn this narrative into a parable of sorts—this was it. God could have taught Moses and the rest of the people of Israel a lesson by punishing Moses or at least speaking out against his marrying a woman of another race. However, instead of God pronouncing judgment on Moses for marrying this black woman, and thereby vindicating Miriam and Aaron, God instead struck Miriam with leprosy. The narrative presents the incident as God’s way of teaching a lesson to both Aaron and his sister Miriam for speaking out against Moses. Therefore, Aaron confessed his racial slanders against Moses as “sin” (Num 12:11) and begged that Moses not account their sin to them. Moses cried out on their behalf to God, asking God to heal Miriam of the leprosy. God was merciful to heal her, but He told Moses that she would have to bear her shame by being banished outside the camp for a week (Num 12:14-15).
Conclusion – In answering the question, “What does God think about interracial marriages?” biblically, we must say not only that God has never forbidden such marriages—and did not speak out against the most prominent OT saint for marrying a black Ethiopian woman—but we must also say that He considers it a “sin” to speak against anyone for marrying someone of a different race.2
http://theophilogue.wordpress.com/2006/10/02/exhibit-a-moses-marries-a-black-woman/
Non Biblical evidence as proof for Jesus Christ (1,2,3,4 of 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqlFkGaDV_M&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qUcXXbde4w&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGb3pOq8ihc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=147714&boardID=39&page=
Now THERE'S a reason to be a hardcore atheist------LOL !
Lastly, Tranny boy, have you met Xiao-----?----
"You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4 for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. "
And what of Ezra chapters 9 & 10, the whole of which are dedicated to this issue. Quotes with a few things left out for brevity:
(Ezra 9)
1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. ... 10 And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, 11 Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. 12 Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
(Ezra 10)
... and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. 3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, *and such as are born of them*, ... and let it be done according to the law. 4 Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it. ... 9 Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. ... 10 And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken trange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. 11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. ... 19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.
As for Moses having been married to a black woman, this is not at all certain from the Bible. The Cushites were descendants of Cush. Cush was the son of Ham, who was the son of Noah. There is no reason to suppose that the descendants of Noah who, 3500 years ago, were inhabiting Ethiopia, were anything like those who inhabit Ethiopia today. Most certainly, a Cushite would have been a straight descendant from Noah.
If you want a religion that favors interracial unions without having to do mental gymnastics, it would be best not to choose one whose God was obsessed with racial purity from his earliest admonitions to Abraham and Isaac to take wives from among their own people, warning Jacob not to marry a Canaanite, etc. Deuteronomy even conveyed that God *intended* to separate the descendants of Adam from other races: "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel."
If you want a religion that favors interracial unions, the Old Testament/ Tanakh is the last place you should look. The New Testament is perhaps a bit more friendly to the concept, but only with an extremely liberal interpretation of Acts.
I would recommend Wicca. Wicca favors interracial marriage without need of mental gymnastics.
His posts, and any responses he might make to you are simply a "copy and paste" of the thoughts of others. On the rare times he tries to pen his own words the results look like someone wrote the post in crayon. Xfean is the only poster that makes liorr and AF look downright eloquent in comparison.
I know you look for the best in people and seem willing to give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt, but in the case of TrannyBoy, you might as well be talking to a chimpanzee pounding indiscriminately on a keyboard. It's possible that an intelligent thought may emerge, but if it does, it's purely by accident.
... but you're likely right. (*sigh*)
Indeed, I am a benefit of the doubt kind of guy. Let's see if he surprises us? If not, not much was lost.
sin to speak against one marrying different race
Exhibit A: Moses Marries a Black Woman
Aaron and Miriam’s Racial Discrimination Against Moses’ Wife: Numbers 12:1-16 – Moses’ brother Aaron and their sister Miriam spoke against Moses because of the ethnic identity of his wife. His wife was a Cushite, which means she was from the land of Cush (Num 12:1). The people were descendants of the son of Ham: Cush (see Genesis 10:6). The land of Cush is “south of Egypt, also called Nubia, which includes part of Sudan.”1 The word “Cush” in the Hebrew language of the original biblical text is simply translated “Ethiopia” by modern biblical scholars (Ex: NASB, Ezek. 29:10), though it is not equivalent to modern Ethiopia. The people who lived there were tall with “colored,” smooth skin (cf. Isaiah 18:2, 7; Jeremiah 13:23). In other words, Aaron and his sister Midian spoke against Moses because he married, in modern lingo, a “black” Ethiopian woman.
If ever there was an opportune time for God to teach against interracial marriages and turn this narrative into a parable of sorts—this was it. God could have taught Moses and the rest of the people of Israel a lesson by punishing Moses or at least speaking out against his marrying a woman of another race. However, instead of God pronouncing judgment on Moses for marrying this black woman, and thereby vindicating Miriam and Aaron, God instead struck Miriam with leprosy. The narrative presents the incident as God’s way of teaching a lesson to both Aaron and his sister Miriam for speaking out against Moses. Therefore, Aaron confessed his racial slanders against Moses as “sin” (Num 12:11) and begged that Moses not account their sin to them. Moses cried out on their behalf to God, asking God to heal Miriam of the leprosy. God was merciful to heal her, but He told Moses that she would have to bear her shame by being banished outside the camp for a week (Num 12:14-15).
Conclusion – In answering the question, “What does God think about interracial marriages?” biblically, we must say not only that God has never forbidden such marriages—and did not speak out against the most prominent OT saint for marrying a black Ethiopian woman—but we must also say that He considers it a “sin” to speak against anyone for marrying someone of a different race.2
http://theophilogue.wordpress.com/2006/10/02/exhibit-a-moses-marries-a-black-woman/
I have already disputed this on sound scriptural basis.
Come see me when you can have an original thought.
The only "sentence" written by Trannyboy in this post is the equivalent of being written in crayon.
"sin to speak against one marrying different race"
No capitalization, no punctuation, and appears to be written by a ten year old.
This of course is followed by a unacknowledged copy and paste. In the past I believe you have inadvertently given xfean credit for actually writing the thoughts he "borrows" from others.
Hint, if it is written in proper English, compete with good grammar and punctuation, and it comes on a Xfean post, it is almost certainly a copy and paste. Trannyboy is unfortunately too stupid to pen his own thoughts. I know this is harsh (well maybe not harsh by "my" standards), but it is most certainly true.
I'm happy to see you all can discuss this issue. I don't involve myself in debate of this nature. As a Christian it isnt my obligation to defend the existence of anyone or the Scriptures. Only to share them.
Good for you all! Anyone learn anything? lol
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."