Results 21 - 40 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217299 | ||
Tim, (quick note for now.) In regards to "a" I will return to answer. I've been meditating on this some more and have an idea that needs to be tested. Pluss I'm short on time. In regards to "b", Vs. 16-17 are not the same as vs. 14. Maybe an outline of Paul's flow in argument, as I understand it, would help. I'll put one together later when I have time. And "c". Eph 2:15 is a whole different connected discussion, but in short, I believe the "wall" spoken of is traditional laws taught that separated Gentiles and Jews from communion together (which is why Paul uses “dogma” again). These are not found in the actual Law of God. One can not find Gentiles removed from God's people because they are not physical Israel (Ruth is a perfect example.) The “ger [stranger] who sojourns with you” was not an Israelite but considered a full member and equally responsible towards the Law and had equal access to the Temple. Some have said the "wall" was the wall that Gentiles could not pass in the Temple, but the Greek word is different from that found in the Temple notice. I thought you did some research on "dogma" in the past and found one reference in a Jewish writing not included in the cannon, but maybe it was someone else or a different word? MJH I look forward to seeing what you come up with. |
||||||
22 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217264 | ||
Thanks John, I do understand that you stand by the "moral law" which is found within the Mosaic Law. But you do say you believe the "ceremonial law" is "nailed to the cross" and that is also a part of the Mosaic Law. In that view, you are placing a "part" (though not all) of the Mosaic Law on the same grounds as philosophy "according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." This is my main problem with your view of Col 2:14. No part, not even one small command from God can be placed in the flow of Paul’s argument in-as-much-as nailing it to the cross. Let me try to explain more clearly. Let us assume that God said through Paul, “You are no longer bound by nor required to participate in the ceremonial laws such as food, festivals, Sabbath, new moons.” Now, I think such a statement would violate the very law spoken of (Deut. 12:32), but I realize you don’t share that understanding. So lets assume he does this…cuts out and removes certain commands found in the covenant. Okay, fine. We stop following those commands. But, (and this is my point), would God ever have His Spirit speak through Paul and say, “That part of the law is based on human tradition and empty philosophies of this world?” Would he ever declare that these parts of the law are “against you?” Or, the same as “the elemental spirits of this world?” May it never be! If I were you, and I once was in thought, I’d say Paul was speaking against empty teachings (whether from Jews or Greeks it makes not difference) which are opposed to God’s Law which is the Law of Christ. Stop looking to this world for “special knowledge and spiritual esoteric encounters.” Jesus lived in a fleshly body and died and rose again in a fleshly body. He put to death these empty principles and triumphed over them by the cross. Therefore, since you were called to live a special king of life within God’s Kingdom, stop judging one another on disputable matters. One follows the Sabbath and one does not. Live in unity and remain in Jesus, but by all means stay away from those empty teachings based on human dogma. Does that make since? That at least holds God’s teaching found in Deuteronomy with respect, while still providing an option that God’s Law can be divided up into parts, some we follow, and some we do not. Eagerly looking forward to your response. This is helping me think these passages out again in some more depth. MJH |
||||||
23 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217257 | ||
John, You asked for an explanation of Peter's hypocrisy and so I delivered. Of course I know you won’t agree so if by your question you meant, "Tell me something that will convince." Then that I can not do. I can only explain what the Text meant to the original readers and therefore to us today. I did spend a good deal of time explaining Col. 2, and was a bit disappointed with the dismissive response. I say this because it truly does perplex me how the correct understanding can not be obvious to everyone who reads it. Even should you feel the way you do about “ceremonial” laws, there is no reason to force that into this Text and make it say God’s Law is nailed to the cross. I have in the past hesitated to say this, but I personally believe it is heretical to make Col. 2:14 claim to nail the Mosaic Law to the cross and to put any part of God’s Law in the same camp as hollow worldly wisdom. Some of my understandings of the specifics of Col. 2 may need adjustments, but this error in interpretation simply can not be over looked by the mainstream church. MJH -intended with all due respect. |
||||||
24 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217247 | ||
Holding to the view that God's Law, or any part of it, is in mind when Paul speaks of "nailing IT to the cross" is the most gross error in hermanutics imaginable. MJH |
||||||
25 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217246 | ||
I think the Text exlpains this as clear as needs be said without ambiguity. The only way to find confusion is when one needs to find things where none exist. MJH |
||||||
26 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217245 | ||
Thanks for placing that in context. MJH |
||||||
27 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217238 | ||
You said, “he is referring to ‘those of the circumcision’” Actually this phrase is not in Colossians. The only mention of circumcision is in regards to being "cut off from your sinful nature." He continues his argument that we are cut off from the empty philosophy and basic principles of "this world." MJH |
||||||
28 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217237 | ||
Note 2 of 2 Col. 2:16-17 is placed within this argument and deserves its own paragraph. Verse 18 should not be attached to this section. There are three options to understanding vs. 16 and 17. 1) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because you ARE NOT following these laws: food, new moons, festivals, and Sabbath. 2) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because you ARE following these laws: … 3) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because of THE WAY in which you are following these laws. If there are other options, please let me know. These are the only three I can think up. The majority opinion is option 1. I can not conceive of how one arrives at this position as it is contrary to Scripture and does not fit the flow of the argument. Why would Paul spend such time demonstrating that the teachings and philosophies of this world based on human commands and false humility were defeated at the cross and then connect God’s Laws with those teachings. It’s a non sequitur. Further more, if Paul tells the church in Colosse to not let others (presumably Jewish bothers) judge them for not following the festivals because they are a “mere” shadow, then why does he in Acts 20:16 strive to arrive in Jerusalem to observe Passover, and why in 1 Corinthians 5:8 does he command the church to “keep the feast” of Passover? Option 2 may be attractive, but is unlikely as well. Of those within the community, it would be odd that some were following these commands of God and others were not. These commands listed, after all, were quite simple and non-offensive. While circumcision would be a major obstacle, even if it were not so connected with “works of the law”, these commands are rather assumed and easily implemented. Furthermore, to be judged because you WERE keeping some of God’s Laws is strange. Why would some in the church be accusative towards others for simply following God’s Laws even if they were deemed to be optional? Why would I accuse my parents for attending church twice on Sunday when clearly that is optional? I’d no more tell them they were wrong than to tell the members in Colosse that they should not follow God’s Laws. Option 3 is the most likely. After all we have ample evidence within Scripture that how one lives out these commands is a large inter-community debate. Imagine in your city all the different denominations. The chance of them agreeing enough to meet in one church is self-evident. They don’t now because of their differences. Now imagine members of these churches all being in one hostile location where there were so few that only one church could be formed. All of them in one body may agree to certain basics, but HOW to do it would be unique. When forced into a community like Colosse you don’t have a choice to divide into separate groups. Add to this that there are attacks both from outside and from within. You have people trying to spread obvious destructive false teachings. When we are fighting against these empty philosophies of men, are we going to waist our time judging one another on exactly how to observe good commands? “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by … how you observe.” If Paul meant to say, “Stop following the identity laws.” he could have said that clearly. Also, vs. 17 makes clear that these very things: food, festivals, new moon, and Sabbath, are shadows of Messiah. Earlier we see Paul stressing that Jesus had and has a genuine fleshly body. That body casts a shadow, and metaphorically these specific commands are a reflection of Him. They point to Him and help reveal Him. They certainly do not detract from him as if that would be possible. Therefore since we died with Christ, we have also died to those basic principles of THIS world. We ought not to have anything to do with those empty teachings which in reality are sin which lead to death. We died with Christ when we identified with him, and we therefore are no longer subject to the rules that lead to death. We are free to follow the Law of Righteousness as the Spirit, who writes the Torah on our heart, enables us. Since then (Col 3:1) you not only died with Christ by also have been raised to life with Christ, set your hearts on things above, not on earthly things. Death has been defeated and the sin that leads to death no longer has dominion over you. Finally, “He has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son.” Col. 1:13. Which Kingdom’s rules will we follow? MJH PS – Col 2 honestly doesn’t seem like an issue for me as much as it would be for you. I think it’s a strong argument for continuity just the way Paul wrote it. In truth, it should be you who tries to explain your views on this passage, something I’d like to read. |
||||||
29 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217236 | ||
What does he mean by saying not to judge in regard to food or new moons or Sabbath days? Note 1 of 2 Colossians 2:16-17 When addressing this question, we should try to see the full view of Paul’s argument. Again, I am short on space, and a full commentary would be nice, but I believe the simple Text can be looked at to find the truth of what Paul is teaching. No need to bring in any historical context or first century theology to solidify. Of course, these may be helpful to buttress our case, but they are simply addendums. (Such as Gnostic teachings that emerge in the second century.) Some theological background which I bring to this Text of which I believe Paul also brings. The Law of God given at Sinai is His Law for all ages even before the creation of the world. God is not a man that He should change, nor a man that He should be unfaithful. While that Law of God is expressed differently in different situations, its Truth is indivisible and complete. Paul in Colossians is warning against falling into hollow philosophies based on traditions and teachings of men. That is his main point in this section. He most assuredly is not teaching against the true Law of God found in Scripture. I do believe that we see the seeds of Gnostic thought being confronted. Col 1:22, says, “…in His fleshly body…” Why use the double words to stress that his body was fleshly unless there were questions about this? Furthermore, Paul states in Col 2:2, “[I want you to have] the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Such a statement makes since when compared to Gnostic beliefs and teachings. Does this mean we must assume Gnosticism? No. Many historians believe it anachronistic to apply Gnostic teachings to Paul’s day, yet, it’s certainly something along those lines to which Paul is combating. It is clear, without disagreement that Paul is warning against hollow and deceptive philosophy. He is not teaching against any part of God’s Law. If he were, he could have stated such clearly, but instead we see him continually throughout this section referring to man made philosophy, hollow and deceptive wisdom, basic principles of this world destined to perish, and regulations that are against us. None of that sounds remotely close to God’s Law. Furthermore, several passages in Deut. and the rest of Scripture, make it clear that no one can remove or add to the Commandment of God. Paul couldn’t cancel anything if he desired to. Col 2:14 is speaking specifically of “dogma” which is never, not once, associated directly with God’s Law. Some nefarious translations actually put “Mosaic Law” in this verse, and I believe this to be of such great error to be deemed heretical in line with Marcion. (Do I put clear enough emphases on that?) (Extra Biblical sources have used the term “dogma” when referring to teaching related to God’s Law that opposing sectarians didn’t agree with, but not ever a direct reference to God’s Law.) The Col 2:14 is specifically teaching that the rules and teachings of this world’s kingdom are nailed to the cross. It is the teachings of this word’s kingdom; the kingdom of death and darkness that rules this world which is contrary to the Kingdom of life, and light, and God. Death is the ultimate end to which this world’s rules lead. Jesus “canceled out the certificate of debt.” When the resurrection of Jesus occurs, he makes a mockery of those very powers and authorities (vs. 15) by defeating death. It would be asinine to presume that Jesus’ death and resurrection made a mockery of God’s Law! Col. 2:16-17 is placed within this argument and deserves its own paragraph. Verse 18 should not be attached to this section. There are three options to understanding vs. 16 and 17. 1) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because you ARE NOT following these laws: food, new moons, festivals, and Sabbath. 2) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because you ARE following these laws: … 3) Therefore…don’t let anyone judge you because of THE WAY in which you are following these laws. If there are other options, please let me know. These are the only three I can think up. CONTINUTED |
||||||
30 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217235 | ||
Just what does Paul mean by Peter's hypocrisy? Galatians 2:11-16 This answer will be succinct when in actuality an excurses on table fellowship in the first century would be helpful and a complete commentary on Galatians would be most helpful. Unfortunately, we are stuck with dealing with things on a piece by piece level. When Peter comes to Antioch, it is after his Acts 10 experience. He clearly knows that eating with Gentile believers is permitted and that Gentiles are included in the family of God through Faith and not through a proselyte conversion ritual. Paul and Peter have already discussed with those in Jerusalem that Paul would go to the Gentiles, not requiring them to go through the ritual of conversion, and Peter to the Jews. While in Antioch, Peter finds no problem with eating with Gentile believers as one would expect from Acts 10-11. However, when certain men come from James, Peter reverts back to his pre-Acts 10 days. While he most assuredly still held to the post Acts 10 understanding, he lived in front of the Gentiles the way he believed prior to Acts 10. He would not associate with Gentiles in the covenant act of eating together. His actions toward the Gentiles would be tantamount to saying, “You really are not FULL covenant members with us.” That is contrary to the very Gospel Paul preached. Peter treated the Gentile believers as if they were “sinners”, ie. not “in the group.” Since Peter was to go to the Jews, he probably felt that he was justified in drawing back in order to keep good company with those to whom he was sent. While it’s permissible in some areas of interpretation to say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” This clearly is not permissible when non-negotiable issues arise. When Paul states that he was a “Jew to the Jews … and to those without Law as without Law” 1 Cor 9:20-21. He is not saying that he became a hedonist, or a law-breaker to win those people. He became like them in-as-much-as he could while remaining true to the Law of Christ. Peter’s actions on the other hand violated the very essence of the Promise of God to bless the nations; the Good News. Even though Acts 10-11 convinced the Apostles that Gentiles were not to be considered as unclean but full members of the family of God through Faith, not all Jewish Believers in Jesus appreciated this or accepted it outright. Such deeply held convictions, as false as they may be, are not easily confronted; I can say this with experience ;-) When Paul tells Peter he, “Lived like a Gentile.” He is not saying that Peter abandoned any part of the Law as a Gentile pagan would, but rather that he ate with, lived among, and accepted the Gentile as an equal. Before the men from James arrived, Peter lived as though there were no distinctions between the Jew and Gentile (as far as the Gospel is concerned). They were one community. Now with the men from James, he lives as though there are two communities, and “never the twain shall meet.” MJH |
||||||
31 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217234 | ||
John, The following links attached to this note are my answer. I tired to keep them short and deleted a lot. I hope I didn't delete things needing to be explained, but the forum just isn't the best place to include excursions and footnotes and the like. I felt personally, that both of these questions were rather simple to answer, the hardest part being how to word the answer simply and clearly, something I don't think I accomplished all that well in this short time. Certainly these notes are not the end of the discussion, but rather an over arching answer to the question. I’d be more than happy to discuss specifics more in depth should you desire. MJH |
||||||
32 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217133 | ||
John, I'd be very glad to. I'm off to work and may be delayed a couple days, but I've written on both so should be quick enough when I get back. MJH |
||||||
33 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217119 | ||
John, Comments well received and I agree that one must be very careful when looking outside the actual Text to support a view. First, one must support their view from the Received Greek first (or Hebrew if we are in the Old Testament). The literal meaning of the words, as received, are paramount. That is an essential part of Hermeneutics and can never be violated. Second, the Text must be viewed both in the context of the book itself (its structure, genre, etc.) AND it must be viewed in the context of all other Scripture. One Text can not contradict another, of course. Bringing in historical evidence from outside the Text (such as Greek culture, Josephus, Dead Sea Scrolls, Archeology, et. al.) should be done with the utmost caution. Especially when one uses such historical data to help support a view that is not aliened with the traditional interpretation held over a long period of time. Of course, tradition isn’t a good way to prove what the Text means either, but if one attempts to overturn even a small understanding of the Text as held by the majority over the majority of the time, that person must be in the position of needing to supply the burden of proof. In light of the post you are responding to, I have gone to great lengths to follow this through to see if the evidence is solid. After all, the whole premise of the argument rests on this historical data. Not that it contradicts the literal meaning of the words (at least I don’t think so) and it fits very good in light of other Scripture and I believe I can show with a very high degree of confidence that my view is accurate, I do recognize that still I am the one needing the burden of proof. God bless, MJH |
||||||
34 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217118 | ||
Yes, I may have confussed post from another thread and thought it was on this one. I can't find evidence to support my charge. And yes I see this is on the home page still. I again confussed this thread with another. All this confussion ... maybe I don't know what I'm talking about in other areas too? :-) MJH |
||||||
35 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217117 | ||
Tim, Okay, I guess it's been over a year so I can discuss this again. There were two things you mentioned. 1) the way of the slave is the Mosaic law; 2) Paul [never says]...we are still subject to the Law. 2 first: It is true that Paul does not say, "..but you should still obey the commandment of God given through Moses." Here is a bad analogy, but the best I can come up with. We do not say now that we have a new president, "Attention all US Citizens: you still have free speech, and it's still illegal to (fill in the blank)." We don't say that because it's self evident (or should be.) Same in Paul’s day, the only Scriptures they had were the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. In these there was taught a clear "way" to live as well as judges/elders to help them live that way best they could in their specific situation. I will admit that Paul's letter to the Galatians is quick and to the point. I also believe that others in his day also came away with your thoughts on the Law too. "Is Paul saying we should stop obeying the Law?" (Acts 21 shows Jewish Christians who think Paul was teaching this, but Luke makes it clear that these were false charges.) Of course he couldn't say that and remain true to God's Word. I think that when he wrote Romans, he went to much greater lengths to explain himself on this issue. In Rom. 3:31, "Then is the Law annulled through faith? Let it not be! But we establish Law." And since you know Greek, you can confirm that "establish" here can be read, "make stand more firm." Here is the closest place where we see Paul saying that we still obey the Law. I know it’s a big book, but space is short so indulge me :-) 1) The slave is the Mosaic Law? Paul uses a great analogy in Galatians that strikes at the heart of his “adversaries.” They claimed to be “children of Abraham.” But Paul turns their argument around on them and claims they are not the children of Sarah, but Hagar. Why? Abraham received the covenant promise of the seed, but he had no children. Gen 12, and then Gen 15 we clearly see God promise, without condition, to bless Abraham and his seed and the nations. But Abraham didn’t have children. He attempts to cause the Promise to come true in his own strength and ability by taking Hagar. The son of the slave women is the son of “works salvation.” After this, while Abraham believes he has solved the conundrum, God returns and says, No! Not Ishmael, but a son from Sarah. It was Isaac who was the son of the Promise, and that was not by works (of Abraham) but by Faith. Therefore, the attempt to enter the covenant of Promise by works of Law is equal to Hagar the slave women. Enter into the Promise by Faith is Sarah. Also, circumcision was the covenant of the Promise, not the Mosaic Law. I believe circumcision was a reminder that the Promised Seed (and therefore eternal salvation) would come not by man’s strength or ability, but by God. Therefore the very organ used to attempt to secure the promise by works is cut. Yet, in Paul’s day this very sing of the Promise was misconstrued to mean just the opposite. In the end, the Sarah and Hagar comparison to the Law is not to toss out the Law as God’s Way, but to show salvation is not obtained by works. MJH PS-I too enjoy the conversation. I’ve learned so much as a result of this forum over the years. |
||||||
36 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217091 | ||
Tim, In short. Galatians was written to churches that existed in the first century when the predominate belief among Jewish (believers in Jesus and non-believers) was that Gentiles could not enter the covenant or get saved unless they went through certain processes and adhered to a particular set of rules (halacha - how to walk out the commands). This "process" was punctuated by the ritual of circumcision and was often (as can clearly be seen in Paul’s letters among other non-Biblical writings) called "circumcision" for short. "Works of the Law" was what the primary argument centered on. The Qumran Texts confirm the use of this term as a sectarian set of rules required by the group for admittance (all others outside the group were generally referred to as "sinners") Those rules were certainly related to the Law, but were focused on a particular interpretation. None of this changes the words or textual Hermeneutic, it simply enlightens the letter with the issues that were surrounding this community. If Paul allowed this view to stand, the Gospel would be no Gospel. There is no “way” into the presence of God, there is no way of salvation through obedience to The Law or any interpretation of the Law. The Abrahamic story is a perfect narrative to help explain this. Yet, to claim, since “getting into” the covenant family of God is apart from the Law, that this means that God’s Law is void or is cut up (taking out certain laws) is a huge hermeneutic leap. Being “under the law” or better said, “under the condemnation of the law” is wholly different than living within the Righteous decrees of the King and being a member of that Kingdom with its rules. I hesitate to even through my thoughts into this again. I decided to do so because the thread doesn’t appear in the home page anyway. This is a huge discussion and forum posts are generally to short and jumbled to address it well. I personally feel that people approach this issue from a theological perspective and then fit the Texts to meet that understanding. Far too many didactic texts need to be “explained away” to argue that God’s Law is divided into categories and then dismissed. And a final note: if people are offended or feel they are judged by a persons view that the whole of the Law still applies to Christians, then that’s their issue, not the person who holds to that view. I know you didn’t say you felt “judged”, but others have. |
||||||
37 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | MJH | 217086 | ||
Rakpak, Welcome to the forum. You are not alone. MJH |
||||||
38 | has the church preaching remaind faithfu | OT general | MJH | 216644 | ||
Ptr, A few thoughts: 1) Your statement about the condition of the Church could have been said by God’s people in nearly anytime during the last 2000 years. The "True Church" is strong and well (Elijah also thought he was the only one left; yet, there were 7000 who did not bow to Baal.) Also, your view of the church is primarily based on your personal experience while the Church universal is advancing all over the globe. You said, “When we insist on maintaining a standard of biblical truth and Godly holiness, we are often faced with ridicules.” This has always been and always will be the case. Get used to it. But don’t let it cause you to become bitter, but rather allow love to rule the day. 2) You are making some erroneous statements about the religious state at the time of John the Baptizer. The Pharisees were not the powerful rich elite. They did not have staggering growth of numbers (they discouraged Gentile converts and grew their faith mostly through child birth.) The Sadducees ruled the day and the money and the Pharisees worked with them only by necessity (Sadducees controlled the Temple and the Sanhedrin.) The Pharisee was much closer to the people of the land, particularly in Galilee where Jesus did most of his teaching, and not all Pharisees are depicted negatively in the Gospels and Acts. 3) Classifying all "seminary graduates of our day" in one category is undeniably wrong. Making a categorical statement reflects anger in your heart towards individuals who may have wronged you; rather than a faceless "group." When we direct our bitterness towards a group, we misappropriate our disgust and furthermore are unable to reconcile adequately; all of which harms us, not the group. 4) I'd suggest living your life with a "Christ-like spirit, Godly lifestyle, and maintain your faith in this age." This will prove your own words to be wrong, because you are a part of the Church, and when you stand strong on what is right, the Church is strengthened. |
||||||
39 | Paul’s missionary work | Acts 9:15 | MJH | 216524 | ||
Since this question has come up maybe 100 times over such a long period of time, maybe the real project is to ask all over the internet to see what responses you get? How could one question possibly be asked this often this consistantly? MJH |
||||||
40 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216445 | ||
BradK, Within Messianic Judaism there is a major issue that needs the prayers of all of the Church, not just those within this movement. There is a push, and it may be too far to stop, to "convert" Gentiles through circumcision to become "Jewish" so they can fully participate in the faith rather than only be those who are "supporting" Israel. This error, as you have stated, is straight out of Galatia, and I'd covet your prayers concerning this. We are all ONE body, Jews and Gentiles, as we stand God by Faith in Jesus Christ alone. The very thing Paul fought against is at the heart of what it causing injury to a part of the Body of Christ, and whether we agree with all they say and do, they are most certainly Believers and when one part hurts we all hurt. Most of you know where I stand on many of these issues particularly concerning the Law and our relationship to it. If you've been here long enough, you've seen me stumble awkwardly through a new understanding (new for me.) Yet, in the midst of this journey, I've found many who are following pretend leaders; people who purport to know things they do not; people who pretend to understand languages and history but lack the training necessary. These people ride the tide of supposed popularity, but end up dried out on the shore when the tide returns. To most, this fringe area of Christianity does not even show up on the radar, but it's there and it's growing and it needs the prayers of all Christians to be led by God's Spirit to the right places by the right leaders. With great respect, MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [17] >> |