Results 281 - 300 of 553
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | what is a sheep in john 10:1-16 | John 10:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205229 | ||
Dear Carrina, Welcome to the forum! Jesus was calling believers in Jesus sheep dear heart... The verses you are asking about are all about Jesus being the only way into belief in God in verse 1. And the warning is about a thief and robber who is seeking to steal the believers from God. Verse 2 is about Jesus being able to enter by the will of God to where the believers are and being their leader. Verse 3 is about God who is the door keeper opening the way for Jesus to come and call the believers each by name and lead them out of sin. Verse 4 is about Jesus showing the way out from sin and going ahead of the sheep in order to lead them to God. Verse 5 is about that those who believe not being able to follow a stranger to God because they will not recgonize his voice. Verse 6 is about Jesus talking in parables because the Pharisees who had rejected Jesus would be unable to understand what He said and be saved. Verse 7 is about Jesus saying He is the way to God for those who would believe. Verse 8 is about the ones who came before Jesus came to steal the believers, but the believers did not listen to them. Verse 9 is about Jesus being the only way to God and if any believe in Him they will be saved. Verse 10 is about the thief of the believer coming to kill and destroy the believer, and Jesus coming to give eternal life. Verse 11 is about Jesus being the good leader and dying for His followers. Verse 12 is about those who are leading believers for money not being the owner of the believers who sees Satan coming and leaves the believers and runs and then Satan steals the believers and scatters them away from Jesus. Verse 13 is about the one who was in it for the money running away because he never cared about the believers. Verse 14 is about Jesus being the good leader and that He knows His believers and His believers know Him. Verse 15 is about that just as God knows Jesus and Jesus knows God, Jesus dies for the believers. Verse 16 is about Jesus having other believers besides the Jews and that He must bring them to God as well as the Jews, and they will listen to Jesus and become one body of believers with one leader. Hope this helps, keep asking questions, God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
282 | Can we pray to Jesus? | John 14:14 | Tamara Brewington | 203879 | ||
The answer is yes we are to prays to Jesus as well as to Father God. See in John 14:14 where it says, "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it". | ||||||
283 | God | John 14:27 | Tamara Brewington | 203711 | ||
Psalm 1:3,4, Psalm 90:17, Proverbs 6:2-11, Psalm 102:16-18, Psalm 61:2, Psalm 69:1-3, Proverbs 25:20, Mathew 5:3-9. Try praising the Lord with out loud singing, sounds weird, but try it. Even if you end up crying with tears running down the back of your throat and snot flying, try it. I was mentally ill for a long time and I had to praise the Lord until I was vommitting on an empty stomache to get through it all. They diagnosed me as Bipolar Schizophrenic and I went through hell. I finally gave up and said Lord, I can't function anymore and threw the pills out and dedicated it to Him, three months later I was completely healed forever. Don't try this if you have not heard in your heart to do it, chemical imbalances are hard to beat. But God lives in our praises coming out of our mouths, you will find that it will be hard for the devil to operate while you are being inhabited by the Spirit of God in your praises. But the devil will fight and you will get physically ill, don't give in to your flesh trying to stop your praises, keep going until you get delivered. It may take years of praise, but God can do this, if He did for me, He can for you. | ||||||
284 | What do we learn about prayer here? | John 17:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204507 | ||
John 17:1-26 What should we take away from this passage about prayer? God Bless, hat lady |
||||||
285 | What do we learn about prayer here? | John 17:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204579 | ||
Dear Steve, Please forgive me, I am interested in knowing what others think on things that I may have learned about but didn't agree with what I learned or wanted a different take on it. And some of my questions had nothing to do with anything other than studying about something and wanting to know what someone else thinks about it. I went through the threads before asking this question... Brain teaser about nouns anyone? Bare bones outlines? An exploration into verse 1-5? I was looking for a bit more than that... Thanks anyway hat lady |
||||||
286 | Is war biblical? | John 18:36 | Tamara Brewington | 203881 | ||
Say Doc, I already had a grasp of the criteria from the Reformed position on the "just war" concept. I wanted to see some scriptures other than that of Hebrews which might suppport their position. And the reason is these men of faith in Hebrews were engaging on war at God's command. I can see the concept of there being "just wars" in the OT because God commanded it. But I am trying to find out what is the scriptural basis for a "just war", or whether these theologians just extrapolated the idea based on their observations of the unjustness of tryanical rule... Help me out Doc! Thanks Tamara | ||||||
287 | Is war biblical? | John 18:36 | Tamara Brewington | 203913 | ||
Yeah Doc, I agree that the questions posed are tough. The Romans passage was written to Christians who were going to be put to death by the Roman government. Paul knew he was proscribing obedience to an evil government, the context is clear to obey it anyway. There are other passages that tell the Christians they are called to suffering in general and specifically for Christ. Paul even said to the Romans, if he had done anything worthy of death, he would be willing to die in another passage. This Romans passage seems to be talking about internal government inside the rulership of an empire, not external government response to an opposing government. The OT is ripe with God commanding war for His own holy purposes and they were all commended for their faith in war acts. There is the concept of caring for the oppressed and standing up for the causes of the oppressed in the OT, which I have heard applied to this theory on "just war", but which the scriptures used said nothing of war. Then to complicate things one has to consider how much suffering under and unjust government is enough? Should we suffer extensively only if it is for the gospel, but not for other reasons as Christians and when do we stop turning the other cheek and for what reasons? A big problem with no "just war" would be Hitler and his program of utter world domination and destruction in which, contrary to popular belief as many or more Christians than Jews(if you believe the like of the historical forays of R.C.Sproul and one other theologian whose name I can't remember) were killed and the rest of the world's inferior were to follow. Scripture does give us a clear answer to suffer under an evil regime localy, but does not give us a clue what to do outside our borders. I am gratefull for what you presented as an answer though. Agape, Tamara | ||||||
288 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204515 | ||
John 20:21-23 What are these verses talking about? Does this mean that the apostles were being given the power by the Holy Spirit to retain or forgive sins like the Catholic priests believe? And if not what does it mean that they were to retain or forgive sins? And how does this gell with the fact that a person can ask Jesus for forgiveness of any sin except the greatest sin? A bunch of questions I know but these verses kinda shook me... God Bless hat lady |
||||||
289 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204552 | ||
Dear Val, I am trying to see your point here... That the if a person believes and unites with Christ in hearing the word and are forgiven, having recieved the Holy Spirit the apostles perhaps agree with them in Christ? And that if a person does not receive the word then the apostles retain their sins because they have rejected Christ? This rather makes a lot of sense to me... I had in mind perhaps if someone went and said Jesus did His works by the power of the devil don't forgive them. Here is what was niggling around in my brain; we know that only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. So how is that He breathes the Holy Spirit on them and gives them the power to forgive or retain the sins of any? He did do it, but then that means He gave them power He has given to no one since. Catholics believe that the laying on of hands confers the power and the authority of the apostles, starting with Peter, upon whom I will build My church, and that these powers include the forgiveness or retaining of sins. And this is why they confess to the priests and not to Jesus. I believe the apostles may actually have been given the authority to decide as you point out if someone is saved and forgiven, or that Jesus actually gave them the power under His authority to forgive or retains sins, but only to them and not to any successors. I don't know what you think about this and realize that I should be doing some foot work on this in terms of demonstrating that the Bible states that only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. But why would Jesus give them the power to do something only He could do? It is not really necessary for anyone to see if anyone forgives them other than Jesus. But the fact remains Jesus told them to go do something very specific. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
290 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204701 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, I have to agree to a point with your interpretation here as to the reason for why Jesus was saying for the disciples to go and forgive the sins of any and to go retain the sins of any. The reason is that you provided compelling evidence of how it would be possible for Jesus to say what He did. You put it in context with the rest of what scripture teaches about what it means to preach a message of reconciliation as being brougth by ambassadors of Christ who have the power to assure people that they have salvation, or to know that they don't and tell them their sins are not forgiven. Val hit on the same thing in different words and that struck me as a rather compelling representation of the function of preaching about salvation as being to present a means for the sinner to be forgiven. And in that sense the preaching would present the opportunity for sins to be forgiven by Jesus. Now that interpretation that you have given makes me wonder why Jesus would be breathing on them the Holy Spirit to make them witnesses when in fact He comes to them in Acts 1:4-8 to tell them to wait for the Holy Spirit to come to them with power so that they can to be His witnesses to do the very same thing you are telling me He was implying for them to do in John 20:22. That does not make sense... If what He was doing in John was breathing the Holy Spirit on them to anoint them and then telling them to go preach the message of recociliation in order to know for the sake of the sinner that they were saved or unsaved, why then does He tell them to wait for the Holy Spirit to come again in order to go preach that same message of reconciliation? I have asked someone before if John MaCarthur's take on John 20:22 is correct, that they did not receive the Holy Spirit, but just a pledge... The answer I received was that the Greek is saying that He blew on or blew in the Holy Spirit on or in them and that this was not a mere pledge. So now, while I can agree with your explanation of using passages which can explain the concept of how sins get forgiven I am left with a question of why Jesus wanted them to wait for something He had already done? God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
291 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204702 | ||
Dear Val, I can see how the apostles would be preaching a message resulting in forgiveness of sin and that the apostles would be merely assenting to what they observed. What I can't see is why Jesus would breathe the Holy Spirit on them to preach the message and then tell them in Acts 1 to wait for the Holy Spirit to come with power before they were to go preach the same message you are saying He was indicating for them to do in John 20:22. I agree whole heartedly with you about it being Peter's confession about Christ, but there is also that there is a play on words here with Christ saying Peter and petra and petra means foundation boulder. Peter says elsewhere that the church is built of living stones that all confess Christ. And in Ephesians it says that the church was built on the foundation of Christ and the prophets and the apostles, Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone and the rest being a building fitted together (that is composed of stones in a building). God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
292 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204727 | ||
Val I truly appreciate your insight, I believe you are very correct in your intrepretation of how the Holy Spirit was working as a seal; we get a seal of promise from the Holy Spirit upon belief, we get a seal of the Holy Spirit to work for God, we see that OT saints received seals and also lost them, we see that Christ gave the power of the Holy Spirit in a huge out pouring as prophesied in Daniel as a final sealing to do God's work. I still have to go back and study something different about how the Holy Spirit was working in Luke. I like your picture of little stones and a bigs stone. God Bless happy 4th of July to you Tamara |
||||||
293 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204728 | ||
Dear Flinky, I think that only Jesus had the power to forgive sins as a man because the Bible elsewhere says that the Pharisees were disgruntled becuase Jesus was saying He had the power to forgive sins and the author of the passages notes that only God could forgive sins. This is why they put Him to death, He kept making claims to deity. I think the concept of the message of reconciliation is the key here, that an apostle would know who was saved based on if they accepted the message, and then declaring who was saved and who was not based on that. That passage you mention where the power was given to men to forgive sins could only be applying to Jesus because other men are not God. Yeah I got a lot of inquisitiveness, but I gotta watch it doesn't make me lose my way too. Happy 4th of July to you. Tamara |
||||||
294 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204731 | ||
Dear Tim, I understand we can't answer this dogamtically as to what exactly is meant by Jesus, not by us, that He was breathing, blowing in or on the Holy Spirit on them in terms of the scope of the what the results of that was for them. What, though do you think about the fact that Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on them, or blew in the Holy Spirit on them? I highly doubt that John meant that as a figurative language denoting a pledge or else he would have used different language to describe what Jesus did. John says Jesus blew in or out, or on, the Holy Spirit on them. As a literal interpretation Jesus did not command them in that passage to receive the Holy Spirit at all, He breathed Him on or in them, He didn't command them that. What He commnaded was to retain or forgive sins. Or are you saying He didn't blow on, or in, or out, the Holy Spirit on them as the text indicates as a literal interpretation? Happy 4th of July to you and your whole family. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
295 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204769 | ||
Dear Flinky, In Mathew 9:6-8 there is definitely a literary device in which Mathew speaks of how the divinty of God has been conferred to men in the person of the Son of Man, Jesus the man, not to all men in the form of other men. We all know it was not a good thing for the Pharisees to say that Jesus was a blasphemer and that it was a positve testimony of Jesus ability to forgive sin, I did not say otherwise. I said the Pharisees were disgruntled which they were and that the reason they ended up putting Jesus to death, becuase of His repeated claims to deity, like the forgiveness of sins. Which we see, according to the Bible, only Jesus had the power to do;Luke 5:20-24 Jesus forgives the sins of the same paralyzed man and the Pharisees say, only God has the power to forgive sins. Then Jesus says so that you may now that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, etc. Jesus never tells them they are wrong, He says to them see I have the authority to forgive sins, meaning He was God. You said; thus any man given authority to forgive sin would be doing so in the Person of Christ. Men are not a substitute for Christ forgiving other men in His name, there is only one sacrificial subsititute for sins and He is Jesus. The only thing men have the power to do as mere men and not God, is to be witnesses of whether or not God has forgiven the sins of men. That is why I got shook up about John 20:22,23, men, nowhere in the Bible have the divine power of God to forgiven sins because they have not completed the holy sacrifice that Jesus did complete by shedding His blood for sins. There is only one advocate with the Father, and He is Jesus Christ, I John 2:2, no other person from earth is the advocate, only Jesus. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
296 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204770 | ||
Continuation to Flinky; In James where you have what you like to call the presbyters, which we like to call the elders, there is that the elders pray and Jesus effects the healing and forgiveness of sins, not the elders, they don't effect anything, they don't have the power. I have read church history on this thing and what I found out is that this idea of the presbyters being priests was a leap taken by a certain church or churches that has no basis in scripture. In I Timothy we have the word Bishop or overseer, and then we have the word Deacon or minister. The qualifications are crystal clear each is to the husband of one wife, not given to wine, etc. Where Paul says elsewhere that he wishes other men would live even as he does, that it celibate, he also says let each man be called to that which God has disposed his calling to be and that not every man has been called as he has. He never said that you had to be celibate to be a presbyter, a Bishop, or a Deacon. Peter and the some of other apostles had wives, Paul said, is it that only Peter and the others may take along with them wives, and not we? There is no evidence that you have to be celibate to be a presbyter. But the history of certain churches shows that celibacy has been imposed. The title of presbyter, or elder being changed to priest is the invention of a church or churches and may be the Latin for presbyter, but it is not the Greek for presbyter. The apostles, the deacons, the overseers and elders, the ministers, the pastor teachers; these are all words that can be found in the Greek to be referring to those who were said by Paul to be over the flock, but the word priest is never used to refer to those over the flock. It is used of the Sanhedrin and the of those from Solomon's temple, but not the church. When Paul addresses those at Ephesus in farewell, he mentions the elders and the bishops as being overseeing the flock as shepherds, but no priests. The church at that time had no such heirarchy as is seen to day in the churches. Paul never says the elders were under the bishops because that is not how the church functioned. There was a mulitipicity of leadership in the churches with a bunch of elders and a buch of bishops who as a group oversaw the whole flock they were all together in charge of. There were no arch-bishops, there was no reason for there to be on as a group of men ran the churches together. There were no priests because Jesus is the only high priest of our confession as Hebrews teaches. There was no pope, that is an invention of certain churches. Peter was never a pope; he was an apostle a founding father of the church. The power of the apostles is not transferable by the laying on of hands. You are either called to be an apostle by Jesus while you walked with Him while He was alive, or you saw Him on the Damascus road as the risen Lord and you were called by Him to be an apsotle, or you are not on the same level with the same office as the apostles. It is not transferable. There was a laying on of hands by the apostles to pray over the servants of tables men of faith, it was not a transference of power to do the works of an apostle. Jesus said He would build the church on the rock, Peter, but the Bible teaches and Jesus elsewhere teaches the only Jesus is the chief corner stone on which the church is built, everybody else is a smaller rock in that building. He meant that He would build the church on the confession of Peter, which Peter had just done, the church. And like Peter the church is built on all of our confessions of Christ. The church history is rife with additions to the original model of church governance as the traditions of men. No man has more authority than scripture to do anything, or to decide anything, the scripture is the final authority on earth given to men by which to practice Christianity. Following the traditions of addition of some of the churches does not confer any state of grace, or forgiveness of sins, or the body and blood of Christ, or the Holy Spirit. All of these things are conferred soley by the triune sovereign God head. Yeah I have read lots of church history and the church is not the primary element of Christianity either, the Bible is, and Jesus is, but the church was never given the power by Jesus to be the basis for faith, and being in a church does not have the power to forgive your sins or tell you that you have been saved. Believing in Jesus is the only way to be saved and asking Him and Him alone to forgive sins is the only way to be forgiven of sins, men do not have the power to do either of these things. They can only assent that Jesus has done them. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
297 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204771 | ||
Continuation to Flinky; In James where you have what you like to call the presbyters, which we like to call the elders, there is that the elders pray and Jesus effects the healing and forgiveness of sins, not the elders, they don't effect anything, they don't have the power. I have read church history on this thing and what I found out is that this idea of the presbyters being priests was a leap taken by a certain church or churches that has no basis in scripture. In I Timothy we have the word Bishop or overseer, and then we have the word Deacon or minister. The qualifications are crystal clear each is to the husband of one wife, not given to wine, etc. Where Paul says elsewhere that he wishes other men would live even as he does, that it celibate, he also says let each man be called to that which God has disposed his calling to be and that not every man has been called as he has. He never said that you had to be celibate to be a presbyter, a Bishop, or a Deacon. Peter and the some of other apostles had wives, Paul said, is it that only Peter and the others may take along with them wives, and not we? There is no evidence that you have to be celibate to be a presbyter. But the history of certain churches shows that celibacy has been imposed. The title of presbyter, or elder being changed to priest is the invention of a church or churches and may be the Latin for presbyter, but it is not the Greek for presbyter. The apostles, the deacons, the overseers and elders, the ministers, the pastor teachers; these are all words that can be found in the Greek to be referring to those who were said by Paul to be over the flock, but the word priest is never used to refer to those over the flock. It is used of the Sanhedrin and the of those from Solomon's temple, but not the church. When Paul addresses those at Ephesus in farewell, he mentions the elders and the bishops as being overseeing the flock as shepherds, but no priests. The church at that time had no such heirarchy as is seen to day in the churches. Paul never says the elders were under the bishops because that is not how the church functioned. There was a mulitipicity of leadership in the churches with a bunch of elders and a buch of bishops who as a group oversaw the whole flock they were all together in charge of. There were no arch-bishops, there was no reason for there to be on as a group of men ran the churches together. There were no priests because Jesus is the only high priest of our confession as Hebrews teaches. There was no pope, that is an invention of certain churches. Peter was never a pope; he was an apostle a founding father of the church. The power of the apostles is not transferable by the laying on of hands. You are either called to be an apostle by Jesus while you walked with Him while He was alive, or you saw Him on the Damascus road as the risen Lord and you were called by Him to be an apsotle, or you are not on the same level with the same office as the apostles. It is not transferable. There was a laying on of hands by the apostles to pray over the servants of tables men of faith, it was not a transference of power to do the works of an apostle. Jesus said He would build the church on the rock, Peter, but the Bible teaches and Jesus elsewhere teaches the only Jesus is the chief corner stone on which the church is built, everybody else is a smaller rock in that building. He meant that He would build the church on the confession of Peter, which Peter had just done, the church. And like Peter the church is built on all of our confessions of Christ. The church history is rife with additions to the original model of church governance as the traditions of men. No man has more authority than scripture to do anything, or to decide anything, the scripture is the final authority on earth given to men by which to practice Christianity. Following the traditions of addition of some of the churches does not confer any state of grace, or forgiveness of sins, or the body and blood of Christ, or the Holy Spirit. All of these things are conferred soley by the triune sovereign God head. Yeah I have read lots of church history and the church is not the primary element of Christianity either, the Bible is, and Jesus is, but the church was never given the power by Jesus to be the basis for faith, and being in a church does not have the power to forgive your sins or tell you that you have been saved. Believing in Jesus is the only way to be saved and asking Him and Him alone to forgive sins is the only way to be forgiven of sins, men do not have the power to do either of these things. They can only assent that Jesus has done them. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
298 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204772 | ||
Point taken Val, I should have said commission. God bless, thanks Tamara |
||||||
299 | any difference between Jesus and Christ? | John 20:31 | Tamara Brewington | 203705 | ||
Your question was unclear, somehow I think that the obvious answer is not quite what you are looking for. Christ is the Greek word for the Jewish word that means Messiah, although the Hebrew word for Messiah is not used in the Old Testament. The concept is there in Isaiah and other prophetic writings which speak of the one who will come and set up his kingdom on earth as the deliverer, which is the Jewish Messiah. There are two prophecies in Isaiah giving this Messiah a name, "Immanuel" meaning,God with us which is what Jesus became, God with us. The name Jesus is Greek for Iesous in Hebrew and is just a common name. Is this what you needed to know? Or were you asking if Jesus was actually the Christ, the Messiah who was promised to come? If that was your question, yes, and here is why, there are 350 prophecies from the Old Testament that came true in the New Testatment concerning the birth place, exact birth year, circumstances of birth, circumstances of life ministry (miracles), circumstances of manner and method of trial and death and resurrection from the dead of Jesus proving that He was the Christ Messiah. So yes in that sense there is a correlation between Jesus and the Christ and there is no difference between them they are one person. | ||||||
300 | Why can't I speak in tongues yet ? | Acts | Tamara Brewington | 204270 | ||
The first group of people the Holy Spirit fell on at Pentecost in Acts 2 on the Jews gathered at Jerusalem who were disciples of Jesus and they were speaking in other languages to other Jews the great deeds of God. In the end of the chapter a great many of these Jew from other countries believed after Peter the apostle preached to them and they were baptized and they also recieved the Holy Spirit. That is the fist group to be included in the church. Then the second group of people the Holy Spirit fell on was in Acts 10:34-48 Peter goes to Cornelius a Gentile and he and all of his household heard the gospel and even before they got baptized in the Holy Spirit fell on them, they spoke in tongues and then they got baptized. The third group of people who got brought in were the Samaritans in Acts 8:4-18 who received the Holy Spirit after believing in the gospel and being baptized. The fourth group of people that got brought in whom the Holy Spirit fell on where those who had the baptism of John and once Paul had them baptized the Holy Spirit fell on them and they spoke in tonuges. So there was a reason people were having the Holy Spirit fall on them in this way and in some instances speaking in tongues. God was brining the four major groups into the church. After these groups; the Jews to whom the promises belonged, the Samaritans who worshipped the right God the wrong way, all the pagans the Gentiles, and those who had received the repentance and baptism of John were brought into the church, you don't find the Holy Spirit falling on people in the Bible making them speak in tongues quite like you do in Acts. In Acts people had tongues of fire fall on them and they spoke in real languages as evidence that the Holy Spirit had included a group. In I Corinthians it says in 12:4-7 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. Speaking in tongues is not the only evidence, nor does it have to be the first evidence that the Holy Spirit is working. What if God did not give you the gift of tongues? What if He gave you a different gift? You can tary till the cows come home, but you can't decide for God which gift He will give to you. Your words may be limited for a reason, you may have been a different gift! Read Romans 12:1-8 and you will see that once you present your body as a living sacrifice it becomes possible through the renewing of your mind to prove what the will of God is... You can know with certainty what your gift realy is over time by doing this. Read on through verses 3-8 about the gifts being exersised. It takes time to discover what your gift is don't rush God and decide what it should be. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Next > Last [28] >> |