Early Secular, Non Biblical Writings Regarding Christ

By Dr Nelson Price

Does Not Include The Writings Of Josephus

https://www.nelsonprice.com/early-secular-writings-regarding-christ/

""The deeds of our Savior were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived in our times."

This is an extremely interesting observation by Eusebius (260-340 AD), indicating that those who Christ raised from the dead went on to live unnaturally long earthly lives sort of like the patriarchs from Genesis. So he literallly left living proof of his miracles for several hundred years.

I wonder if there is any other evidence of this happening?

Well, there were no social security death databases in that era, but since he claimed that some of those who Christ raised from the dead were still living at the time of his writing it would be very easy to verify or refute. I wonder how much more we would know about the ancient world had the Muslims not burned the library in Alexandria.

Realitybites said:

---

Well, there were no social security death databases in that era, but since he claimed that some of those who Christ raised from the dead were still living at the time of his writing it would be very easy to verify or refute. I wonder how much more we would know about the ancient world had the Muslims not burned the library in Alexandria.

---

If you can come up with and verify those people, that would be great please let me know. That would be a very useful.

" very easy to verify or refute"

Do so, then.

Seems like you would gain a great deal of fame for your "easy" effort.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" very easy to verify or refute"

Do so, then.

Seems like you would gain a great deal of fame for your "easy" effort.

---

It would be awesome if he could do that.

Make sure to thank the Lord this Thanksgiving for his great salvation through Jesus Christ and all of the other blessings he has given you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) Can the devil or his agents do miraculous signs in order to deceive?

---

Yes, they can do tricks, but they cannot permanently heal.
When the devil and his demons perform these tricks or "miracles", they are not to draw people closer to God.

Do the Eucharistic miracles draw people closer to God? Absolutely!

Do you honestly believe that ALL the healings at Lourdes, France are from the "devil and his agents"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) Did Jesus ever tell us that miraculous signs and wonders can happen, but NOT BE FROM HIM, OR OF HIM?

---

John 12:37 - "Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him."
TexasScientist stated that he wanted God to regrow an amputated limb. What miracle do you need to believe?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your "repetition" argument for deciding when things should be taken literally was destroyed by Jesus' repetition of "feed my sheep" three times, which you obviously don't take literally. It's that simple. You're trying to "save" your argument through ad hoc explanations. This is a moving goal post argument.

---

Repetition isn't the point here. You're committing a false-equivalence fallacy and at the same time showing that you obviously don't understand that passage. They are not of the same kind. Jesus' three-fold asking of Peter, "Do you love me?", was the opportunity for Peter to redeem himself from his three-fold denial. "The Feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep," are Jesus' telling Peter to take of the Church. "Tending" and "feeding" are metaphors for governing and teaching. Peter is to lead and teach his apostles and the Church.

The repetition in John 6 only hammers home the point that Jesus was stressing as indicated by his ratcheting up his language.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you're arguing that Jesus saying "this is my body" is to be taken literally, then Jesus is also a literal door, a literal shepherd, an actual gate, and the actual temple of Jerusalem. You're picking and choosing which is literal.

---

No, we've discussed this before, but you have forgotten or chosen to not accept that NO one believed that Jesus was speaking literally when he said, "I am the gate" or "I am the vine." The same 1000's of disciples left him because that could not accept that he was speaking literally. They knew that the Bread of Life discourse was NOT Jewish hyperbole.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To answer your question, he would have to say in Scripture that the bread in every communion/Eucharist ceremony that would ever happen thereafter will become his actual flesh and blood. Which of course, he doesn't. Technically, he only said "this is my body" about that one particular loaf of bread he was holding in the Last Supper. And understanding what Jesus really meant, based on all the other times he spoke of himself symbolically in that matter, it's clear that believing his actual flesh was in that loaf is to not understanding what he meant. It would also be making Jesus asking his disciples to break the Law, which forbade the eating of blood. That would mean Jesus sinned, which of course he never did, and he could not do because then he wouldn't be the perfect sacrifice for sin; therefore it wasn't actual blood. It's all so simple. It's amazing how much your church authority has a grip on you, not allowing you to think logically for yourself.

---

It actually amazing how you've been warped with anti-Catholic rhetoric. It's almost Jack Chick-level. Your "church" is less than 200 years old, and you have "figured out" what the entire world got wrong since the beginning of the Church. If my beliefs could only date back a couple hundred years, I'd want to investigate where they came from and why they were made up.

You are not understanding what transubstantiation truly is. Here are two paragraphs from the Catechism that state what we believe:
CCC 1374 - In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. This presence is called "real" - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be "real" too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.

CCC 1376 - "…that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change, the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding your first point - "salvation" and eternal life are the same. Only those who are saved have eternal life. There is only one condition for salvation, and Jesus is telling you right there - "eat his flesh". If that is literal, then it contradicts everything the bible tells us about salvation, as I listed for you in an earlier post. Therefore, it is logically obvious that the literal interpretation can't be true. This isn't difficult, but you're making it difficult because you are so indoctrinated by your church authority.

---

No. Salvation and eternal life are NOT the same in Catholic theology. Salvation "refers to being saved from sin and its consequences through Jesus Christ, as emphasized in Romans 5:12-21 and Acts 4:12. It involves repentance, faith, and baptism."

Eternal life is reward promised to those who obey God's commands and live a life of faith working through love (Galatians 5:6, Matthew 25:34-40).

That means doing his will and following him. He says to eat his flesh, and you want to disagree with him. Why would you disagree with Jesus? Don't you want to follow what he says?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not dodging anything. The church I attend or don't attend has nothing to do with the truth I'm speaking. The "church" is the entire body of believers in Jesus. It isn't an official organization. There is no line of popes. History actually shows that the early church in Rome had a fragmented authority structure. Even in Revelation, Jesus sends his message to the separate "angels" of each church, not the pope, because there wasn't one. There was no singular human leader of Jesus' church. JESUS is the leader of his church, not the guy you call "Holy Father" (blasphemy) even after Jesus told you not to.

---

"Holy Father" lol Seriously, I expected better from you on this point. The old Matthew 23:9 "argument" against the Catholic church? Come on, man? Are you just trolling with this one? You are better than this sophomoric argument. I'd expect this from someone not as well read as you. But, I'll address it …

Surely your son doesn't call you "father" or you don't celebrate Father's Day. That would go against what Jesus said. Jesus also states to call no man "rabbi" which means "teacher" or "doctor". I suppose you NEVER called someone doctor or teacher. For that would be against what Jesus said.

Now, let's look at a few verses:

Matthew 3:9 Jesus calls Abraham "father". Does your Jesus commit the hypocrisy of "Do as I say, but not as I do?"
Romans 4:16-17 St. Paul called Abraham "father" of all of us. Is Paul going against what Jesus said?
1 Cor 4:14-15 St Paul again, I have become your father in Christ.

Clearly, in Matthew 23-9, Jesus is chastising the Pharisees for seeking honorific titles like father or rabbi. He's certainly not prohibiting the use of those terms.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. The title, "Pope" was first used for the bishops in the West in the 3rd century. It was reserved for the Bishop of Rome in 440 AD. The Bishop of Rome has always been the leader of the Church. The Church can trace back the Bishop of Rome all the way back to from Francis, Benedict XVI, JPII … Sixtus, Alexander, Evaristus, Clement (mentioned in Philippians 4:3), Anacletus, Linus, and originally Peter. All 266 of them.

Can your church even go back to the 20th century to name it's leaders and founder? That was less than 25 years ago. Send me a link to your list.

My point was that he was saying that at the time he wrote, some of those who Christ raised from the dead were still around. If that were not the case, his writing would have been immediately discredited by his contemporaries. Although he lived in a pre-Islamic world, there were still a lot of Pagans and Jews who would jump at the chance to discredit Christian history between 300-400 A.D. So there's no reason not to take that observation at face value...particularly if you accept "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." (Genesis 5:5).

There's also another detail from church history that is lost to many, and that is the close chronological relationship of Christ raising Lazarus from the dead and the entry into Jerusalem and the crucifixion.

February to
Late March 30 A.D.

Resurrection of Lazarus

Jesus and his disciples, while traveling south, are a day's journey from Judea. A messenger sent from Mary and Martha, Lazarus' sisters, informs the Lord that their brother is gravely ill. He then states the following.

Quote:

---

This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it (John 11:4).

---

Christ, instead of rushing to Bethany to heal Lazarus (or simply commanding his healing), makes the unusual choice to stay where he is located an additional two full days (John 11:6). When he and his disciples finally arrive in Bethany Lazarus has been dead and buried for four days (verses 17 and 39)! A large group of mourners, many from nearby Jerusalem, are gathered in the city to comfort and console Mary and Martha.

After the Lord talks with the two sisters he is lead to where their brother is buried. After he has the stone sealing the tomb moved aside, he commands, "Lazarus, come forth!" (John 11:43). Lazarus then comes out of the tomb still wrapped in grave clothes which are quickly removed.

What Will the Romans Think?

Some who witness the raising of Lazarus run to the Pharisees in Jerusalem to inform them of Jesus' miracle. A group of Jewish religious leaders then quickly convene a meeting (John 11:46 - 47). Instead of rejoicing over this incredibly rare miracle and display of God's power, they complain that it will jeopardize their relationship with the Romans!

Quote:

---

What shall we do? For this Man does many miracles. If we allow Him to continue in this manner, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away from us both this place and the nation (John 11:47 - 48).

---

The Temple's High Priest, in the middle of the discussion, unknowingly predicts the Lord's death when he states the following to those gathered.

Quote:

---

You have no understanding, nor consider that it is better for us that one man die for the people, than that the whole nation should perish (John 11:49 - 50).

---

Those gathered in the meeting agree that they must find a way to put Jesus to death (John 11:53).

Raising the dead was as big a deal then as it would be today, and Lazarus (well into the decomposition phase) was the biggest one of all.

I hope you all had a wonderful Sunday and went to Church to worship our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ

My Testimony - Or How I Became A Christian Without Ever Setting Foot In A Church

I thought some of you may find this interesting.

I grew up in an era before TV and before the internet in a home where my parents were nominal followers of an eastern religion. Growing up in such a setting you are generally aware that Christmas is a thing and is associated with Santa Claus, reindeer, people giving presents to each other, time off from school, and occasionally you hear something about a fellow named Jesus.

I distinctly remember a time at school in 6th grade when a friend of mine named John showed me a bookmark that his (SBC) church had produced listing the ten commandments, which I read. I told him "Hey, these are really good ideas. Your church should print more of these and hand them out." thinking that the ten commandments were something his church had invented.

In high school, I ended up doing a project on ancient Rome. My project partner handed me a little Gideons New Testament (first time I had even seen a Bible) and suggested reading Romans for some background. So i went home and did. Read the whole thing. Went back to the first page and read half of Matthew.

The next day I went to school and told him that I wanted to become a Christian. He handed me off to a friend who happened to go to the same church that my other friend went to many years before.

...and so began the 35 years I spent as a Southern Baptist.

1st Corinthians 3:6

Did you read this first post? What are your thoughts on it?

Realitybites said:

---

My Testimony - Or How I Became A Christian Without Ever Setting Foot In A Church

I thought some of you may find this interesting.

I grew up in an era before TV and before the internet in a home where my parents were nominal followers of an eastern religion. Growing up in such a setting you are generally aware that Christmas is a thing and is associated with Santa Claus, reindeer, people giving presents to each other, time off from school, and occasionally you hear something about a fellow named Jesus.

I distinctly remember a time at school in 6th grade when a friend of mine named John showed me a bookmark that his (SBC) church had produced listing the ten commandments, which I read. I told him "Hey, these are really good ideas. Your church should print more of these and hand them out." thinking that the ten commandments were something his church had invented.

In high school, I ended up doing a project on ancient Rome. My project partner handed me a little Gideons New Testament (first time I had even seen a Bible) and suggested reading Romans for some background. So i went home and did. Read the whole thing. Went back to the first page and read half of Matthew.

The next day I went to school and told him that I wanted to become a Christian. He handed me off to a friend who happened to go to the same church that my other friend went to many years before.

...and so began the 35 years I spent as a Southern Baptist.

1st Corinthians 3:6

---

The Lord is good. So happy for you to come to Him. That should be the passion of every true believer, to lead souls to His great Salvation. Go out abd keep sharing your Testimony and the Gospel. Thank you for your testimony.

Explains how Jesus went to the heart of the Earth.

https://www.lesfeldick.org/mp3/54-3-3.mp3

Lol

joseywales said:

---

Lol

---

Did you listen to it? He went there after He died for the three days He was dead. His Soul & Spirit were there in Paradise and Preached.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Did you listen to it? He went there after He died for the three days He was dead. His Soul & Spirit were there in Paradise and Preached.

---

That he did.

The Harrowing of Hades.

It is pure myth, it is so obvious that all man's religions are myth. Go study how any of today's religions began, centuries of hand me down beliefs turn into the main two today. And why do you think you have a spirit when every other mammal you say does not. You are a mere mammal with an ancient ape ancestor and share DNA with two other human branches. That is fact not myth. I was a Christian for many years while I was uneducated and nieve. It is so obvious, but hard to see with faith blinders on and brainwashing from a young age. Won't tell anyone what to do with your bodies that includes your brain, however it is insane what people will believe without any unbiased evidence

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Did you listen to it? He went there after He died for the three days He was dead. His Soul & Spirit were there in Paradise and Preached.

---

That he did.

The Harrowing of Hades.

---

Interesting Meme.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!!!

joseywales said:

---

And why do you think you have a spirit when every other mammal you say does not. You are a mere mammal with an ancient ape ancestor and share DNA with two other human branches.

---

Actually, Christians don't believe this. Every living being has a soul.

Humans have Rational souls.
Animals have Sensitive souls.
Plants have Vegetative souls.

joseywales said:

---

..., however it is insane what people will believe without any unbiased evidence

---

Is the creation of the universe ex nihilo not evidence enough for you? What more evidence would you require to believe in a God/Prime Being/Uncaused-cause?

It is thought that man is unique from the animals in that inky man has an immortal soul that goes on after death. I don't tend to agree with this position, but Scripture doesn't really confirm one way or the other. What Biblical evidence do you have of your position?

joseywales said:

---

It is pure myth, it is so obvious that all man's religions are myth. Go study how any of today's religions began, centuries of hand me down beliefs turn into the main two today. And why do you think you have a spirit when every other mammal you say does not. You are a mere mammal with an ancient ape ancestor and share DNA with two other human branches. That is fact not myth. I was a Christian for many years while I was uneducated and nieve. It is so obvious, but hard to see with faith blinders on and brainwashing from a young age. Won't tell anyone what to do with your bodies that includes your brain, however it is insane what people will believe without any unbiased evidence

---

Pure Myth? It is so obvious that Christianity is true. The hundreds of Prophecies in the Bible that were predicted hundreds of years before they happened and came true? Jesus being born in Bethlehem, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, rejected, killed as the Bible said He would? The death and resurrection of Jesus? His miracles? The Historical Writings that affirm Jesus Christ and His Life? This is NOT merely a "Hand me down" religion, but it should be handed down to children since it is true and backed by the evidence. Not an ancestor of Apes, not a fact, THAT is a myth that is NOT supported by the evidence. The brainwashing is done by Evolutionists at a young age to prime kids not to believe in the true and living God of the Bible. It worked on you. The evidence is on the side of Christians, NOT Atheists or Evolutionists.

Josey has had some life experiences that have negatively colored his world..

Instead of leaning into Christ, he has fallen away..

4th and Inches said:

---

Josey has had some life experiences that have negatively colored his world..

Instead of leaning into Christ, he has fallen away..

---

I am very sorry for his bad life experiences. I have also had many bad life experiences, but God taught me to lean into Him rather than away from Him. I used to push God away, but when I began seeking the Lord again, He showed up and He has always been there for me when I have needed Him. GOD is Real. He is True! He is the reason I am here, not because of me, but because of His faithfulness.

It's extremely important to me. In 2001, I had an experience with the Lord, God of the Bible. I had visited a Church and was deciding whether to go back there or not. I decided that I would NOT go back to that Church, started to roll over and go to sleep. At that exact second, I felt the Holy Spirit, slowly come through my wall and hover over my chest. He looked into my eyes (It was Jesus) and He said "I want you to go back to that Church". I went back there and they Discipled me in the Foundational Doctrines of the Faith. God was preparing me for this ministry that I do now. I am not special, I am just an ordinary guy, but God uses ordinary people to accomplish His will. I have a passion for the Gospel and to answer questions and discuss this topic with people.

And how does the holy spirit touch the hundreds of thousands of parents whose innocent children die each day in this world..most people's perspective is so narrow and I was the same way for the 35 years of being a Christian. Then I learned I have an ancient ape ancestor and was just an ordinary mammal only with a more developed brain. Then I studied for years the ancient history surrounding my faith, not the Bible or apologist but actual historical fact. I Then realized that my faith was a creation of man and most of my Christian beliefs were unoriginal and had been handed down through centuries. So I now know without a doubt, there may be a God but not a personal one. Funny how we give our experinces at times and attribute it to God etc when in fact it is just our own self delusion. There is zero evidence for a soul and montains of evidence that religion is man-made. And then I learned about how all religion got here today, by murders of innocents, wars that wiped other faiths off the planet and the brainwashing of young children which still goes on today.

joseywales said:

---

And how does the holy spirit touch the hundreds of thousands of parents whose innocent children die each day in this world..most people's perspective is so narrow and I was the same way for the 35 years of being a Christian. Then I learned I have an ancient ape ancestor and was just an ordinary mammal only with a more developed brain. Then I studied for years the ancient history surrounding my faith, not the Bible or apologist but actual historical fact. I Then realized that my faith was a creation of man and most of my Christian beliefs were unoriginal and had been handed down through centuries. So I now know without a doubt, there may be a God but not a personal one. Funny how we give our experinces at times and attribute it to God etc when in fact it is just our own self delusion. There is zero evidence for a soul and montains of evidence that religion is man-made. And then I learned about how all religion got here today, by murders of innocents, wars that wiped other faiths off the planet and the brainwashing of young children which still goes on today.

---

Wow. It's amazing that researching for 35 years has led you in the complete opposite direction that it has led me in the last 53 years. The evidence for the God of the Bible is overwhelming. There is no evidence that we evolve from apes. There are no transitional fossils. You have been tricked by artists drawings that are extrapolated from one or two three bones from an animal. And 99% of the animal is unknown yet they draw a completed animal a fictitious species to fool you and you fell for it. It is also shocking to me that you would believe that God is not a personal God because he certainly is. He's been very personal to me. He has been there for me when I have needed him. He has comforted me and he has spoken to me audibly and in my spirit. The events in the world around me coincided with what He said to me. There is no doubt in my mind that He is real. As far as they're being no evidence for the existence of the Soul that baffles me that you would say that as well because near death experiences are very clear evidence that we go on after physical death.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) Can the devil or his agents do miraculous signs in order to deceive?

---

Yes, they can do tricks, but they cannot permanently heal.
When the devil and his demons perform these tricks or "miracles", they are not to draw people closer to God.

Do the Eucharistic miracles draw people closer to God? Absolutely!

Do you honestly believe that ALL the healings at Lourdes, France are from the "devil and his agents"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) Did Jesus ever tell us that miraculous signs and wonders can happen, but NOT BE FROM HIM, OR OF HIM?

---

John 12:37 - "Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him."
TexasScientist stated that he wanted God to regrow an amputated limb. What miracle do you need to believe?

---

The Eucharistic "miracles" can be tricks from the devil, or just plain tricks/deception from man. If Eucharistic "miracles" draw people closer to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, then no, they are not drawing people closer to God, they are drawing them closer to idolatry and heresy, which is what Satan wants.

The healings at Lourdes may all be actual miracles from God. Or some may be, and some not. Or, all are not. True healings are from God, yes. But we don't know if these are true healings or if they are demonic counterfeits. Regardless, what matters isn't whether miracles actually happen or not - we all know God can perform them. We have to discern what their fruits are. If their fruits promote a belief that is anti-biblical, then we know they are tricks from Satan.

The answer to question #2, which you didn't answer, is YES. Jesus specifically told us that there will be miraculous signs and wonders from false prophets and the antichrist (Matthew 24:24, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, Revelation 13:3). When this happens, are you going to believe them? Ask yourself your own question - what miracle would you need from them to believe??

Quote:

---

"Holy Father" lol Seriously, I expected better from you on this point. The old Matthew 23:9 "argument" against the Catholic church? Come on, man? Are you just trolling with this one? You are better than this sophomoric argument. I'd expect this from someone not as well read as you. But, I'll address it …

Surely your son doesn't call you "father" or you don't celebrate Father's Day. That would go against what Jesus said. Jesus also states to call no man "rabbi" which means "teacher" or "doctor". I suppose you NEVER called someone doctor or teacher. For that would be against what Jesus said.

Now, let's look at a few verses:

Matthew 3:9 Jesus calls Abraham "father". Does your Jesus commit the hypocrisy of "Do as I say, but not as I do?"
Romans 4:16-17 St. Paul called Abraham "father" of all of us. Is Paul going against what Jesus said?
1 Cor 4:14-15 St Paul again, I have become your father in Christ.

Clearly, in Matthew 23-9, Jesus is chastising the Pharisees for seeking honorific titles like father or rabbi. He's certainly not prohibiting the use of those terms.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. The title, "Pope" was first used for the bishops in the West in the 3rd century. It was reserved for the Bishop of Rome in 440 AD. The Bishop of Rome has always been the leader of the Church. The Church can trace back the Bishop of Rome all the way back to from Francis, Benedict XVI, JPII … Sixtus, Alexander, Evaristus, Clement (mentioned in Philippians 4:3), Anacletus, Linus, and originally Peter. All 266 of them.

Can your church even go back to the 20th century to name it's leaders and founder? That was less than 25 years ago. Send me a link to your list.

---

Do you truly, honestly not know the difference between calling your dad "father" and calling your religious leader "HOLY FATHER"???!!!

It is ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDING how blinded and deceived you are by Roman Catholicism. It is actually quite alarming, and quite heartbreaking, to be honest.

4th and Inches said:

---

Josey has had some life experiences that have negatively colored his world..

Instead of leaning into Christ, he has fallen away..

---

We all have experiences, both good and bad.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

Actually all of chapter 11 is relevant.

Like Josey, I came to a fork in the road where I realized that Russell Moore's SBC (and evangelicalism and protestantism* more broadly) as well as Roman Catholicism had not preserved the faith once delivered to the saints. It is unsettling to re-evaluate something you have been committed to for decades with time and treasure.

Unlike him, I went looking for the original.

* - I give confessional Lutherans bonus points for trying. If you live somewhere that doesn't have a parish of the Churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, Serbia, Russia, etc you would do well to seek out a confessional Lutheran (not ELCA) parish that still has the Divine Service. As their service is rooted in the pre-tridentine mass, they actually get closer to the church of the first millenium than post-Vatican II Roman Catholicsm.

Which theological background are you espoused to? Personally I am a dispensationalist.

Do you talk to yourself a lot?