THE ATONEMENT DECEPTION, explores the Christian theological fiction that belief in Jesus is the only way to receive divine forgiveness for ones sins. Biblically, both Jews and gentiles can receive forgiveness of sins through sincere repentant confessionary prayer directed to the God of Israel. This is true at all times and in all places. There has never been a need for the so-called intercession role Jesus is supposed to play in attaining atonement. The facts speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Christian contention that Jesus died for our sins and salvation is only through Jesus. Jesus death does not bring atonement from sin nor is it in any way a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

THE ATONEMENT DECEPTION, explores the Christian theological fiction that belief in Jesus is the only way to receive divine forgiveness for one's sins. Biblically, both Jews and gentiles can receive forgiveness of sins through sincere repentant confessionary prayer directed to the God of Israel. This is true at all times and in all places. There has never been a need for the so-called intercession role Jesus is supposed to play in attaining atonement. The facts speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Christian contention that Jesus died for our sins and salvation is only through Jesus. Jesus' death does not bring atonement from sin nor is it in any way a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Born from traditional models of atonement and modern feminist and liberation theology critiques of these models, Deceiving the Devil provides a contemporary understanding of the question of human evil and the significance of the life and death of Jesus.

The idea of the long eighteenth century (1660-1832) as a period in which religious and political dissent were regarded as antecedents of the Enlightenment has recently been advanced by several scholars. The purpose of this collection is further to explore these connections between religious and political dissent in Enlightenment Britain. Addressing the many and rich connections between political and religious dissent in the long eighteenth century, the volume also acknowledges the work of Professor James E. Bradley in stimulating interest in these issues among scholars. Contributors engage directly with ideas of secularism, radicalism, religious and political dissent and their connections with the Enlightenment, or Enlightenments, together with other important themes including the connections between religious toleration and the rise of the 'enlightenments'. Contributors also address issues of modernity and the ways in which a 'modern' society can draw its inspiration from both religion and secularity, as well as engaging with the seventeenth-century idea of the synthesis of religion and politics and its evolution into a system in which religion and politics were interdependent but separate. Offering a broadly-conceived interpretation of current research from a more comprehensive perspective than is often the case, the historiographical implications of this collection are significant for the development of ideas of the nature of the Enlightenment and for the nature of religion, society and politics in the eighteenth century. By bringing together historians of politics, religion, ideas and society to engage with the central theme of the volume, the collection provides a forum for leading scholars to engage with a significant theme in British history in the 'long eighteenth century'.

Examine the evidence presented in the New Testament. It shows that the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus is not based on historic evidence. The New Testament evidence is contradictory in fundamental issues and events. Its most salient promise -- that of a return by Jesus within the lifetime of his contemporaries never occurred. Christian apologists have spent the last 2000 years devising many different and often contradictory explanations of what they allege the New Testament really means when it promises a quick return by Jesus. They cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong. When all the Christian theological myths are seen for the fantasies they are it comes down to this -- Jesus was never God's son, did not shed his blood on the cross, was not a substitute who took upon himself the punishment for the sins of others, did not die to save sinners and was not resurrected. And he is never coming back.

The author of the Gospel of Matthew sought to portray alleged events in the life of Jesus as fulfillments of biblical passages. Ample evidence has shown that there is no validity to his claims. Lukes author merely states that a virginal conception took place. Both present a story their readers can relate to from the familiar Hellenistic worldview: a god impregnates a virgin thereby sending his hybrid son into the world to do a certain task. Matthew and Luke are not the originators of the core belief that a virginal conception took place. According to the Gospels, Mary conceived as a divinely impregnated virgin betrothed to a Davidic descendant named Joseph. If there was no biological relationship between Joseph and the child Mary bore, the story presented is not pertinent to the claim that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah on the basis of Josephs lineage. That Matthew and Luke solely through Joseph trace Jesus lineage in two variant forms becomes a meaningless exercise. As it became clear that attempts to connect Jesus to David through Joseph were futile, efforts were made to make the connection through Mary by claiming one or the other genealogy was really hers. It is to no avail. This too has failed. What most Christians do now is live in a theological state of denial maintaining that there are no real problems only unbelievers quibbling over minor points. Alas! What else can Christian believers do, but hide their heads in a theological sand box and blame quibblers?

Many people focus on the similarities between Judaism and Christianity, but the religions are quite different-and it's not just because one accepts Jesus as the messiah and the other does not. The rise of Christians calling themselves messianic "Jews," the successes of Christian missionaries, Jews ingratiating themselves to Evangelical Christians because of their support for the State of Israel, the overuse of the term "Judeo-Christian," and the increasing use of Jewish rituals in Christian churches, blur the lines between Judaism and Christianity. Develop a better understanding of the irreconcilable differences between Judaism and Christianity, and where the two faiths hold mutually exclusive beliefs. You'll learn how - Their views differ regarding God, humanity, the devil, faith versus the law, the Messiah, and more; - Both faiths read the same Biblical verses but understand them so differently; and - Missionary Christians use this blurring of the lines between the two faiths, and other techniques, to convert Jews to Christianity. Real interfaith dialogue begins when those engaging in it not only speak of how they are similar, but also where they differ. Real understanding begins when the topics discussed are in areas of disagreement. Judaism and Christianity: A Contrastwill help you understand the Jewish view of these disagreements.