Results 341 - 360 of 729
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: charis Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | Does Jesus' name satisfy Matt 28:19? | Acts 2:38 | charis | 22335 | ||
Dear Tim, Greetings in Jesus' name! And I apologize if I assumed too much! :-) Indeed, there is sufficient Biblical support for either baptism in the name of Jesus or baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Obedience to the command and the example, in conjunction with faith toward God will produce the fruit that God promises. I am aware that post-Bible tradition favors the Book of Matthew. I also note that the Apostle's Creed says nothing of baptism, the Athanasian Creed, while lifting up the doctrine of the Trinity, does not specify baptism, and the Nicene Creed acknowledges one baptism, but does not specify into what name. My conclusion is that Jesus desires, even commands water baptism by immersion. (by deinition) Baptism has to do with the forgiveness of sins. Baptism could be considered the New Testament 'sign of the covenant,' or the circumcision of heart as promised by Moses in Deuteronomy 30:6, commanded by the prophet in Jeremiah 4:4, and confirmed in the New Testament in Romans 2:29 and Colossians 2:11-13. Peace in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
342 | Does Jesus' name satisfy Matt 28:19? | Acts 2:38 | charis | 22318 | ||
Dear Tim, Greetings in the name of Jesus! I have to disagree with you here. The Bible does not say that the saints baptized in the Book of Acts while *saying the words* "in the name of Jesus." This is irreverent. I guess that you are trying to 'prove' that *saying the formula* "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is the true and correct way to baptize. They were baptized in the name of Jesus, exactly as our Bible says. Your argument that 'it is not recorded but it does not mean it was not done' is pretty thin logic. That could be said about virtually anything! Finally, the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not *their* name. Those are His names! I believe very much in the Triune nature of God, sometimes called the Trinity. But God is One. This is where that 'Oneness' folks say we believe in three Gods. Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
343 | Does Jesus' name satisfy Matt 28:19? | Acts 2:38 | charis | 22310 | ||
Dear Tim, Greetings in Jesus' name, and welcome to the forum! We all OOPS! :-) This was one of my first posts! After quite a bit of discussion, and some side trips to 'Jesus Only' and 'Oneness' bents, I am still trusting that the name of Jesus has a very special meaning. I have yet to be convinced away from water baptism in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and the circumcision of heart. I am not *against* baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I simply see that most of the examples we have, the actual fulfilment of the Lord's command in Matthew is baptism in the name of (the Lord) Jesus (Christ) in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. This is what they did. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
344 | Releases from tithing 10 per cent? | 2 Cor 9:7 | charis | 22287 | ||
Dear Johnny, Greetings in Jesus' name! Truly, you have a dizzying intellect! Honestly, I do not get your point. On one hand, you have said many, many times that we are not bound by the Law to pay tithes. Nevertheless, you state: "It cannot be affirmed that the Old Testament law of tithes is binding on the Christian Church, nevertheless the principle of this law remains, and is incorporated in the gospel (1Co 9:13-14); and if, as is the case, the motive that ought to prompt to liberality in the cause of religion and of the service of God be greater now than in Old Testament times, then Christians outght to go beyond the ancient Hebrew in consecrating both themselves and their substance to God. " This sounds just like asking for money, maybe even 'requiring' it! Also, these do not sound like your words. May I ask who you quote here? ' MY point was that even in the Old Testament the Lord desired that man obey from the heart, not by the letter. Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision, and before the Law. Also... "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Hebrews 10:4 NASB. This tells us that our sacrifice did not cleanse us, but God's grace. Finally, you keep using the word 'required,' but even in the Old Testament, tithes were not required for salvation, nor were you disowned from being an Israelite. Now, in Christ we are not 'required' but giving is still pleasing to God. Johnny, could you please tell me what you believe we SHOULD do concerning giving to God? Please, I beg of you, give me the short version! Don't just say, "Any amount you feel!" Also, don't tell me any more of what we should NOT do. I think I understand that we are not saved by tithing. Peace in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
345 | Releases from tithing 10 per cent? | 2 Cor 9:7 | charis | 22263 | ||
Dear Johnny, Greetings in Jesus' name! Friend, I do NOT require tithes for membership, not do I think that tithes are required by God for salvation. I think that tithes and offerings please God, whatever your financial status. This is obvious from the teachings of Jesus. The Lord never said that we were set free from a heart to give tithes. And He never said that it was a requirement for membership or salvation. So I teach exactly that. I am not sure why you have this focus on the 'legality' of the tithe. It is not a legal thing at all! Personally, I don't think it ever was, even in the Old Testament. I won't "put you away," but this is becoming tedious. After all, you claim that you tithe! I do too! Always have, and been blessed in it, even when I was in financial ruin. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
346 | Releases from tithing 10 per cent? | 2 Cor 9:7 | charis | 22178 | ||
Dear Johnny, Greetings in the name of Jesus! I see you have been defending the position that the tithe is not required in the New Testament. But at the end of this post you are talking as if some were saying that tithing was required for salvation. I don't think anyone was implying this at all! But giving to God by supporting His church is definitely implied in the New Testament, and the best 'formula' I have ever heard that seems to be pleasing to the Lord is a tithe AND offering system. Of course this is not a requirement for salvation. In fact the worst 'curse' I have ever heard for the non-giver is to 'lose your blessing.' In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
347 | Releases from tithing 10 per cent? | 2 Cor 9:7 | charis | 22168 | ||
Dear Johnny, Greetings from Japan in Jesus' name! If we are to question the legality of the tithe, I guess that a few good lawyers on both sides could make the case go on forever! :-) My own experience, and observation of many church situation leads me to believe that most healthy churches do need a certain amount of money to keep from legal problems, and to make their assembly a reasonably comfortable affair, and to have some amount of money available for the needs of 'widows and orphans' and whatever unforseen situation that is sent their way. My calculations come out to about 10 percent of the total income of the people of the church, plus a little bit more for the things that God wants us to do that we did not put in our original calculations. Now isn't that a coincidence? :-) So, in order not to get caught up in an argument, I propose a 'consumption and participation' tax of 10 percent of each person's total income, to be collected once a week. The 'honor system' will be used, on one will check on your payment. No one will ask you for money from the pulpit, but every week there will be a time of offering that is based completely upon how you feel each time, with no compulsion or pressure. At this time you can pay your tax, if you feel like it. The leadership will do all in their power to be responsible with this money, and make ends meet. How does that sound? If the word 'tax' is unacceptable, we could use 'cover charge' or 'entrance fee' or 'membership dues.' Or, we could just use a term from the Old Testament (pre-Law, by the way!) that catches the 'intent' of God's purposes, and call it the 'tithe and offering.' :-) Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
348 | Releases from tithing 10 per cent? | 2 Cor 9:7 | charis | 22158 | ||
Dear Johnny, Greetings in Jesus' name! Great story! Does your local church need a 20 million dollar equivalent convention hall? How often do you hear about the need for funds to support this convention center? Does everyone in the church know the names and amounts of those that 'gave big?' Will you hold on to this convention center, no matter what, even if it is a drain on the entire resources of the church? My friend, I do not intend these questions to be mean or facetious! I only ask them because of foolishness and financial abuse I have witnessed in the church. My 'scenario' seems to work better, and glorify God longer, though maybe without the 'spikes' of glory. :-) Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
349 | Releases from tithing 10 per cent? | 2 Cor 9:7 | charis | 22156 | ||
Dear Johnny, Greetings in Jesus' name! This is all well and good. Everybody should love to give. But, my friend, people are inconsistent and fickle. Can you, for a moment, look at this issue from the pastor's point of view? The people come fairly regulary, and use electricity and water and their portion of the meeting place that God has provided, but the pastor has to somehow pay for. The minister is caring for his flock, using gasoline and his time, and whatever to pray for the sick, visit relatives, preach the Gospel and help those in his church and sometimes those not in his church. All of this costs something. Unless the church is totally supported by outside sources, the pastor is responsible to have enough money to pay the bills. He has the choice: 1) to request (not require) it be given in weekly or monthly increments, at a regular, dependable pace, without constantly asking or begging for it, and be responsible with what is given, thanking the Lord for His faithfulness and provision, and maybe even do some 'tent-making' or side work to supplement the coffers, or... 2) to 'appeal' for money evey week, to tell everybody about 'pressing needs' and 'special situations' all the time, to beg from the pulpit, in newsletters and by email, often 'stretching' the truth to make their situation seem dire, or... 3) to become an outright robber, and browbeat people using every money-grabbing scheme they can think of to fill their own pockets until they get put in jail or run out of town :-) My humble opinion: 1) sounds good to me! 2) sounds burdensome to God's people, undignified, inefficient, and very stressful for pastor and sheep. It MAY work, but that is by grace, not by holy design. 3) sounds like, well, a lot of ministries these days. Theory is fine, Bible-by-the-letter is fine, fuzzy emotions are fine, but simple tithes and offerings to the Lord from a simple heart is GREAT! Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
350 | Huge Impact? | Romans | charis | 22113 | ||
Dear Joe! Greetings in the name of Jesus! Surprise! No invective response from me, my friend. I, too, attend a church that is very concerned with making the congregation "theologically-literate." We also ( I hope that it is not considered impossible :-)) attempt to be very concerned with making the congregation a "theologically-balanced" and "theologically-neutral." Maybe this is possible in a nation that has a LOT less Christian tradition and bigotry to deal with, and a LOT more anti-Christian sentiment surrounding us. Another blessing is the lack of 'Christian Pulp Fiction.' :-) Though sometimes a 'popular' book is translated into Japanese, the translation process often 'neuters' the so-called 'revelation' contained therein. The ever-so-subtle nuances, and often irrelevant anecdotes and parables lose most of the spiritual and emotional 'potency' when 'reproduced' in another tongue. It is interesting to note that this is NOT true with the Bible, and also not true with truly Spirit-led devotional works or teachings. Unfortunately, we have few of those, too :-( I also agree with you that a church needs a confession or creed, but I guess I prefer the term foundational teaching. I also prefer that this teaching be non-exclusive. By this I mean that it should not be set up so that large portions of Christianity are 'left behind' in the 'final analysis.' Does this mean that I compromise and allow 'anybody that calls themselves a Christian?' May it never be! I am very careful to Scripturally denounce obvious cults and non-Biblical teachings. I am also 'conservative' enough to beware of 'fads and fashion.' At the same time I am 'liberal' enough to make allowances for 'artistic license' to some degree. I don't want to be 'locked-in' to one traditional bent or another, except the clear traditions and attitudes of the early church as written in the Bible. (i.e. not 300 or 600 or 1400 or even 2000 years later:-)) Now these are my not-so-humble opinions, but in practice, I would say that there is probably little real difference between my walk in Christ and yours. Now, to be absolutely honest, I will say that my own personal experience in the US might very well lead me to exactly where you stand on this issue if I were there! But not where I am, and possibly not in other countries. Joe, thanks for a great response! In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
351 | Huge Impact? | Romans | charis | 22046 | ||
Dear Joe! Blessings to you in Jesus' name! Thank you very much for a great answer. I do agree that all Christians should pursue theology and doctrine, and that there is a dearth of both these days. I was misunderstanding you to (possibly) mean that there was something special or 'closer-to-God' in the pursuit of 'formal' theological training or traditional doctrinal confession. (sometimes referred to as clergy/laity segregation) Also, it has been hinted in this thread that if you do not ascribe to either typical Calvinist or Arminian theology, you are walking in compromise (or denial! :-)), and that the only two possible Godly ways of thinking were with one of these. My contributon to this thread was to state that it is possible to be a thinking person, yet not walk exclusively in either of these paths. Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
352 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | charis | 21989 | ||
Dear Tim, Greetings in the name of Jesus! I did not say that all doctrine and all theology are impractical and a hobby. I said that theorizing who WILL be saved and who will NOT be saved is beyond our ability to know in a practical sense, therefore a hobby. ( a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation-Webster's) That is, unless you are a seminary professor! :-) I have asked several times what practical difference this topic makes. How does it change my walk, my service to Christ and His church? It seems that the answer to this question would clarify whether it is a hobby or not. Friend, there is a difference between making and arrogant statement and being arrogant. I do not accuse you of being an arrogant person. I say that the topic is impractical, and no one, as yet, has even tried to explain the practicality of knowing whether Christ died for the world or for the elect. It is assumption to think that we KNOW the mind of God completely on ANY topic. (I might add that ALL are guilty of this once in a while!) I can remember several posts that made similar statements on both sides, though I don't know if any were directed to you, personally. Asked why I think that there is reconciliation between these two camps, I have tried to answer that the division is moot, and that pursuit of Jesus would answer both satisfactorily. This reconciliation was spoken of as impossible, and I disagree. But in order to find this reconciliation, we might have to sacrifice some of the more 'intellectual' ways of thinking, i.e. think with the heart, not with the mind. After all, it is not the issue that is irreconcilable, but the people. :-) I would imagine that you feel insulted because I touch upon something that is dear to you. I honestly do not make you my target. I am targeting a bent, a preference. I might add that MY preference has been targeted many a time. Tim, you asked me to explain! Again and again! So I did. Nothing personal or antagonistic, but I guess too blunt. :-) I am new at discussing such lofty matters, and therefore not very polished. I will work on my presentation, and my manners :-( Sorry. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
353 | "Herodians" who were they? | Matt 22:16 | charis | 21982 | ||
Dear casiv, With love in Jesus I write to you. I really don't know what your point is. I have read this post through several times, as well as your other posts. I see that you are defending yourself, but I don't know what it is you are defending. You keep promising to clarify, but you are failing to do so. The burden of clarity rests on the proclaimer. You are responsible to make yourself understood. We are not responsible to understand you. I live in Japan, and preach the Gospel. Japanese is not my native tongue. When I first came, I was not able to make myself understood, even though I WAS speaking the Japanese language. I had to pray, to study, to practice, to ask questions, to listen to others. Then I had to say simple things, and work up from there, confirming as I went that I was communicating the Gospel. After several years, my efforts, in God's grace began to bear fruit. I still study, listen, pray, and ask questions, but there is a bit more maturity than before. So it is with you. You have to communicate and bear fruit. You are trying to give us everything you have, and we don't understand. Slow down. gain a litle bit of knowledge from your audience, not just your mentor. If you have got something to say that is worth hearing, we will be a good audience. But you are responsible to communicate with us, not the other way around. As EdB has been asking, tell us a little bit about yourself. What are you basic doctrines? Are you affiliated with any major groups? If not, what does your group believe about some of the foundational teachings of Jesus? Water baptism, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the blood and the Cross, resurrection, faith, sin, eternal judgement, etc. Answer some of the questions dealing with these fundamentals with simple, concise answers, and back it up with a few pertinent Scriptures... Then we can begin to communicate. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
354 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | charis | 21979 | ||
Greetings in the name of Jesus! Friend, with all due respect and love in Christ I say this, you are proclaiming that you are right and they are wrong. You are stating that sound doctrine equals, or at least includes High Theology, a.k.a. salvation theory. I find that your version of sound doctrine contains a good deal of assumption and conjecture, and has no practical use or application. It is a hobby. I'm sorry if you disagree with that, but when you can prove to me from the Bible that this bent changes your salvation experience or your walk with Christ, then I will consider one label or another. "God so loved the world..." I believe this without having to defend the word 'world.' "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined... Who will bring a charge against God's elect?" I don't need to be a scholar to believe these words mean what they say. Because I trust God, I see no contradiction, nor do I see any reason to build upon either one of these "ideas" a theory that denies the other. It doesn't matter in my life, in my walk, in my preaching, in my fellowship, or even in my private musings. "As a man thinks, so he is..."? Is this somewhere in the Bible? (I already know that it is not! :-)) This is human philosophy. Been there, done that. "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise." 1 Corinthians 3:18 NASB. After saying all that, I guess that I have 'said my peace.' (piece? :-)) I have tried to explain that I do not believe there is a 'middle road,' only a narrow one to be close to Jesus. I do not deny thought, only impractical thought. That this grates on you is obvious, possibly even more than a 'good debate' with a Calvinist! If half of the 'High Thinkers' are wrong, what of the 'Low Thinkers' like me? Are we even more wrong? :-) I guess there are a lot of wrong people, and few right ones, as I don't know if many saints would meet the criteria of 'sound doctrine.' My 'to the death (end)' comment meant to the judgement seat of Christ, or final reward. :-) Blessings, Tim and audience! :-) In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
355 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | charis | 21875 | ||
Dear Tim, Greetings (again) in the name of Jesus! I still do not see my position as 'middle ground' or 'between' these two 'camps.' I see that these two, and many other 'camps' or bents, have removed themselves from proximity to Jesus by laying claim to those things known only by God. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways," declares the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8,9 NASB. The pursuit of 'High Theology' is theory based on the assumption that we can know God's motivation and the extent of His plan in an absolute sense. You have asked me for Scripture to prove that God is neither Calvinist or Arminian. The fact that the Bible supports both of them (approximately) equally, yet does not specifically name either of them, tells us (me) that both are part of God, but neither is ratified by God to the exclusion of the other. Brother, I find it interesting to note that earlier in this thread, we are told that one must be right and the other must be wrong. Now, some come forth saying that in the interest of preserving brotherly love, we should consider if this issue is not moot, and we are told that this antagonism is 'to the death!' (or at least the end!) I am trying to answer (to myself) which is more important, which is more edifying? "Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,..." 1 Peter 1:22 NASB Now I ask again, "Where are we exhorted to pursue the 'Higher' theology, the theory of the particulars of salvation?" I am told that it is 'natural' for men to be curious about such things. Does that mean that it is fleshly or spiritual? Frankly, it sounds a lot like the TV commercial, "YOU want to know!" Please, I am not condemning you or anyone! I am simply trying to figure out the reason for such a divisive situation in a church whose primary goal is to spread the Good News of Christ Jesus. Peace and love in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
356 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | charis | 21873 | ||
Dear Tim, and saints of the forum, Blessings in Jesus' name! Just for starters: 'For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?' 1 Corinthians 1:11-13 NASB 'For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.' 1 Corinthians 2:2-5 NASB. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
357 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | charis | 21860 | ||
Dear Tim, Greetings in Jesus' name! Brother, I appreciate your response. Please know that I do not criticize you for taking a position, nor have I observed you (purposely) mishandling Scripture. I add the paranthetical only because none of us can know the exact and perfect meaning of the Bible, some strive to do so, and some just 'feel' one way or another. From the depth of your posts, I would categorize you as a 'striver,' about the best compliment I would give anyone! :-) Are these 'strawmen?' I doubt it, my friend! Just a few hours going throught the C vs. A posts on this forum alone would clearly show that many are arrogant, dogmatic, vehement and antagonistic in their leaning toward one bent or the other. Honestly, I do not include you in this crowd! I guess it was just a 'turn of the card' that I was entering the fray by responding to you. Tim, my post was to the forum, and I am truly sorry if I sounded as if you were my target. Please accept my apologies. That said, and I pray accepted, I must say that many 'extremists or absolutists' have indeed shown forth arrogance and division. I don't know about purposeful dishonesty, but possibly zeal for or delusion in their particular bent. I would guess that you could not be categorized as such, because you admit that you stray from 'classic' Arminism. :-) That alone makes you kind of a 'Middle grounder,' yes? :-) (side note: I can't bet, but I would guess that a lot more people are 'Middle-grounders' than they would care to admit, or even realize themselves! Many call themselves one thing or another without knowing the extent of that label. Is this a possibility?) As I have stated elsewhere, my 'beef' is with: 1) the nomenclature - "I am an A (or C)," without really knowing what it means, or agreeing with the 'entire' bent. Then we would have the 'Neo' and the 'Modifed' versions. This sounds suspiciously like, "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos." 2) the bigotry and arrogance - "Just look it up in the Bible, and you will see that I am right, and you are wrong!" "Can't you READ?!" etc. 3) the division - I personally find it hard to believe that a major portion of Christianity (whicever it may be!), after abundant study of Scripture and living otherwise Christ-and-church-serving lives, will be found guilty of gross misinterpretation of the Holy Bible on that day. My brother, after we have had to hear from the both of ya'll (A and C) for all this time, please allow 'us' to say something! :-) Peace to you in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
358 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | charis | 21840 | ||
Dear Tim, Greetings, my brother, in Jesus' name! I pray that I am not included among the 'middlegrounders' that think you are putting words in God's mounth. Every post I wrote on this topic (a topic that I have carefully stayed away from until now! :-)) was directed at the 'general populace' of the forum, and never directly at you. (Except the statement that you have shown much balance in your posts) I cannot disagree with any of the Scriptures you quote! My 'beef' is toward any extra-Biblical nomenclature (A,C,XYZ), and the anti-(A,C,XYZ) exaggeration or dilution that I often see among extremists and absolutists. BTW, I still prefer 'Jesus-centric' or maybe 'Narrow-roader' to 'Middle-grounder!' :-) Blessings, dear friend, in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
359 | SAFE? | Romans | charis | 21837 | ||
Dear Hank, Greetings in Jesus' name! :-) :-) :-) My dear friend, I did know what you meant! Thus the :-) :-) :-) I have learned well to look carefully at your words, to check for alternate meanings of words (that are correct, but not necessarily popular), and to look carefully at your punctuation. Your anecdotes are lucid, and relevant! I have also learned that you haven't a mean bone in your body, so if I ever think that something is 'iffy,' I get out my salt grains, and apply much benefit of doubt, and behold! I find wit, humor and lots of grace! :-) No offense taken and no apologies necessary, as I often reply in kind! :-) Wabash Cannonball?! Maybe I could be Centerline Sam?! Fencetop Fred?! or Middleground Marvin?! :-) Though not too safe, I like it here! In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
360 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | charis | 21776 | ||
Dear Tim, Blessings in Jesus' name! You lose! (tsk, tsk, betting is unbecoming! :-)) I have spent time with each doctrine, and disagree with both on major points, and agree with both on major points. While this may seem impossible to man, I trust fully that it is possible in the grace of the Lord Jesus, with the leading of the Holy Spirit. Each bases a good deal of their belief on assumption and conjecture that the Bible is bound by human logic or feeling. I do not accept this restraint. God's way is beyond human intellect and human emotion, both of which can lead us to a path of little faith and a lot of religion. Whatever a Calvinist might say, when faith is visited upon a person, he knows that Christ's blood is applied to him. This assurance is given to all believers, and clearly stated in the Word of God. Brother, I do not make these statements lightly, or without study, thought or prayer! In fact, the sum of my effort has caused me to reject both of these extremist, absolutist doctrines. I still say that God is above and beyond either of these poles, whether you want to call that the 'middle' or not. (personally, I prefer 'Jesus-centric') Peace to you, my friend, in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [37] >> |