Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

elaine · 05-06-09 7:06 pm

Is it remotely possible that you are wrong and that Dr. Greenleaf is right in his conclusions? Yes, of course. There are many and varied impressions that people have gained from the Bible. If one begins with the a priori assumption that it is the Word of God, both inerrant and infallible, then he will not question anything written in it. If the Bible should not be analyzed for any form of criticism then all the suppositions one brings to its reading will be confirmed. Historical, textual and other forms of criticism have all given us much more information about the Bible and its origin than was known several hundred years ago, before such inspection was begun. I have heard of Dr. Greenleaf, but do not know what is his specialty. Dr. Ehrman is one of the foremost scholars of the New Testament, having written more than a dozen books and is a chosen lecturer for The Teaching Company. As one who approaches the Bible desiring to know its history and origin, eliminating the Bible from the same type of criticism that the Homeric epics or other contemporary literature, is to declare the Bible to be exempt from all contextual study of any kind. If there is fear of what may eventually be discovered, why not allow such study? Rather than rejecting wholesale the conclusions from such studies, why not address and confront them to disprove them?

don · 05-06-09 7:09 pm

Can you state unequivocally that God wrote the Bible? This goes both ways, Elaine. Science, even historical science, knows nothing of God. It cannot rightly say one way or the other because the actions of God cannot be determined by science.

pilgrim99 · 05-06-09 7:36 pm

Elaine, I do not claim to be a scholar, and so, have no need to disprove anyone's hypothesis. I am somewhat of a student of several books of the Bible, having taught through them. It seems to me that you are misusing the term a priori, at least in reference to me, in that the term assumes knowledge which does not take experience into consideration. If I remember my Benedectine philosophy classes from 30+ years ago correctly. Speaking for myself, I was baptized into the SDA church at 13, but was not a Christian. Subsequently, I experimented with various other ism's, none satisfied. I encourage you to examine both the theological and secular works of Dr. Greenleaf. He was an acknowledged scholar as it relates to the objective examination and evaluation of evidence. He utilized his acknowledged expertise, gained in a secular realm and applied it to several theological issues. I am not the Holy Spirit, and so do not assume His role in revealing truth to you. The Truth of Jesus comes by revelation, typically resulting from someone sharing the Word of God, as revealed in the Bible. I really do wish you well, and pray that you come to a point where you engage with the actual message of the Bible. Until you do this, you are short changing yourself, for no really good reason.

elaine · 05-06-09 7:40 pm

Devon, Dr. Simon Greenleaf was a product of the nineteenth century, and much has been discovered both about the Bible and archaeology since he lived. Surely, we should consider the later discoveries, shouldn't we? Don, shouldn't we exercise humility when assuming what cannot be known for certain? Yes, the Bible depends on the belief of supernatural events from beginning to finish. Science, does not presume to answer what cannot be shown by evidence, or it would be properly called science, which is always subject to further discoveries, and is never limited to what was written thousands of years ago--or it would be superstition or alchemy. To reject out of hand, all the new findings related to the Bible in the last several hundred years is to prefer to turn the clock backward to modern findings.

elaine · 05-06-09 7:48 pm

Here is a scientist's answer to the difference between science and religion. From Adventist Today blog. Science Is “A” Way of Knowing. Is Religion Also "A" Way of Knowing? Posted April 28th, 2009 by Ervin Taylor The contemporary scientific enterprise is arguably the one element defining Western modernity which has had the greatest impact on improving the length of and quality of human life. Think antibiotics to combat infections, vaccines to prevent smallpox and polio, and proton accelerators for cancer treatment. While modern science originally emerged within the context of a specific set of cultural and economic conditions in the 16th and 17th centuries in Western Europe, its principal characteristics have been modified over many subsequent generations as various scientific specialties emerged particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries as independent, organized disciplines. Although several features of the scientific approach to the world have Judeo-Christian roots, these features have been greatly overshadowed as various scientific disciplines and institutions have expanded well beyond the specific historical environment that created the original Western scientific impulse. It is widely appreciated that the contemporary scientific world view--the often unstated assumptions that the mainline scientific community makes about the natural world--is completely and totally materialistic. It has to be. The only arguments and data of relevance in standard scientific discourse are explicitly physically-definable elements whose presence and nature can be observed, recorded, and/or detected in terms of some objectified physical form by multiple trained observers. The often complex methodologies worked out over time in the various branches of the sciences are the means by which the data produced within that world-view is gathered, evaluated, and interpreted. A concise statement of what contemporary science is all about was published in 2004 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS): "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science." Please note that the NAS statement says that science is "a" particular way of knowing. It does not say that it is the "only" way of knowing. Among many, probably the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever lived and currently live on this planet, there has existed and continues to exist a very different "way of knowing." That way has been distinguished or characterized employing a number of terms. In English, words such as "spiritual or "mystical" are often used to reference the nature of this kind of imputed knowledge. If it is systematized as the result of conscious reflection by specialists within a specific historical tradition, it sometimes is known or labeled as "theological" or "religious" knowledge. There are, of course, many versions of theological/religious knowledge--essentially as many as there are different religious traditions. As we all know, the specific knowledge which might be offered by, let us say, Hindu theology is obviously going to be very different from that advanced in most forms of Christian theology. If we limit our discussion to the nature of theological knowledge only within the Christian tradition, there still are vast differences of opinion about the validity of information imparted by, let us say, Roman Catholic theology in contrast to, for example, Baptist or Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) theology. And, even within each specific religious tradition, there can be wide differences of perspective. For example, even within the contemporary Roman Catholic communion there are the views of the current Pope as opposed to those of Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng. Among SDA theologians, there are the views of those who are adherents of the dogmas of the Adventist Theological Society (ATS) and there are the majority of Adventist theologians who do not share ATS views. Continuing to focus attention only on the Christian tradition, it is probably correct to observe that, at least among the theologians of the conservative, evangelical or fundamentalist wings of the various organizational subdivisions of Christianity, there is typically advanced the view that the ultimate source of their theological or religious knowledge is the "supernatural," including specifically the part of the supernatural with a direct connection to the Christian God. If one adheres to very conservative Christian understandings, there seems to be the tendency to believe and advocate with some enthusiasm that the source of religious information one believes to be true comes without any filtering or intermediating process totally and directly from God. For these individuals, it is probably fair to infer that they would argue that their "way of knowing" is based, in whole or in part, on communications coming from God, either in the form of direct personal impressions or in texts produced by the direct action of God. In the light of these observations, we will pose the question: Should the religious/theological knowledge existing within the SDA Christian tradition be considered "the" one and only way of coming to a knowledge of "truth" or, like science, "a" way of knowing?

don · 05-06-09 8:51 pm

To reject out of hand, all the new findings related to the Bible in the last several hundred years is to prefer to turn the clock backward to modern findings. I am quite in favor of the Bible being studied historically. But, if we use this historical study to make pronouncements about God, we leave off history and take up theology. For example consider the idea you proposed that God had nothing to do with the writing of the Bible. The historian cannot make such a statement within his craft. He simply has no way of determinining God's role, if any at all. We are all in agreement that humans wrote the Bible. Obviously, we don't agree as to God's role. It is possible to get close to agreement on many historical facts. It is much harder to agree on the theology of those historical facts. .

don · 05-06-09 9:06 pm

Should the religious/theological knowledge existing within the SDA Christian tradition be considered "the" one and only way of coming to a knowledge of "truth" or, like science, "a" way of knowing? Adventists, as other Christians, refer to the ideas found in the Bible to organize their way of knowing about God. The NT scriptures proclaim Jesus as "the" way of knowing; theologically. In our "modern" age, this is not very politically correct, but for the Christian it is both Biblically and theologically correct. Having said that, I see great opportunity in finding out more about God by studying the religions of the world. All good things come from above. I believe that all "obvious" truths available in the teachings of the many world religions are all revelations from God. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He alone brings salvation to a sin-cursed world. But, he brings sensitivity to my soul. He admires faith whereever He finds it. He predicts that the adherents of the many world religions will come to His kingdom while those who think they are right may be rejected out of hand. .

don · 05-06-09 9:19 pm

Shouldn't we exercise humility when assuming what cannot be known for certain? Yes. Humility is always becoming. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> Sometimes when a person cries "Fire!" in a burning building, it may not seem like he is being humble. . .

elaine · 05-06-09 10:11 pm

consider the idea you proposed that God had nothing to do with the writing of the Bible. The historian cannot make such a statement. The historian can assuredly say that there is no evidence that GOD wrote the Bible, as they only try to determine the authorship. I know no historian who would claim that God wrote the Bible, when it very evident that it was humans. As to the guiding factor of the Holy Spirit, that is impossible to ascertain, except by faith, which cannot be examined. The NT scriptures proclaim Jesus as "the" way of knowing; theologically. If we are followers of Jesus, is the NT writing the final word about how Christians should live, or do we return to the OT for the final word on doctrine? How should Christians discern what part of the Bible should be their guide: the Old or New Testament? If rules and practices given to the Jews in the OT are to be the Christian's guide today, why are some, but not all, beliefs of the SDA church? By what method are those decisions made, or should we use our individual interpretation?

john8verse32 · 05-06-09 10:42 pm

We are all in agreement that humans wrote the Bible. Obviously, we don't agree as to God's role. if God was not involved, and simple, uneducated, unscientific people wrote down what they thought they had heard from others.... then one could understand <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html" target="_blank">...all these potential problems...</a> but if an omniscient God actually was involved, to any degree at all, and since the writings claim that He did inspire them, why didn't he foresee the problems and make sure that his biographers who wrote the Bible got all the stories straight? is God love? or vengeful? faith? or works? Judas hung himself? or fell down and burst open? Judas bought the field? or the Sanhedren did? which cave is jacob buried in? Matts last set of 14 generations only contains 13 why are there two creation stories? why did God not warn Eve about the talking snake? Where is the dome? and the evidence for a universal flood? Was Jesus the first to be raised from the dead like John says? or should we count Lazarus, making Jesus NOT the first? should we stone to death our backtalking sons at the city gate? or should we forgive them 70 times 7? Why did Jesus have to ride two donkeys at the same time according to matt? Why does one gospel have Jesus and family escaping to Egypt after the massacre of the innoocents, while the other gospels ignore this? isn't it far easier to believe that God's involvement was far less than what we oncethoughnt? and therefore we can blame all the inconsistancies and errancies on ignorant, unsophicated people? iuncluding those commands to kill all the neighbors, but save the virgins? did God really bless Jacob by overcoming the laws of genetics while helping him cheat Uncle Laban in the spotted/stipled goat tale? did God really tell Olde Abe to butcher his own son?.... how bout the tale of Egypts kids dying? would our loving God really do that? murder the innocent kids? or is this just another of the ancient nomads ways to explain how their tribe grew, and became a great nation? and maybe God's involvement was exaggerated???

don · 05-07-09 5:10 am

As to the guiding factor of the Holy Spirit, that is impossible to ascertain, except by faith, which cannot be examined. I agree. For the Christian, the Holy Spirit is God, of course. To say that God wrote the Bible and to say that the Holy Spirit guided the writing of the Bible is essentially to say the same thing.

don · 05-07-09 5:39 am

If we are followers of Jesus, is the NT writing the final word about how Christians should live, or do we return to the OT for the final word on doctrine? If we are followers of Jesus, we should follow Jesus' lead regarding the Scriptures. He used them as authority and He spoke with authority. This should not be an either or situation. Once I am convinced that (OT) Scripture establishes that Jesus is truly the Messiah then I turn to the report of His ideas as my final say. How should Christians discern what part of the Bible should be their guide: the Old or New Testament? If rules and practices given to the Jews in the OT are to be the Christian's guide today, why are some, but not all, beliefs of the SDA church? By what method are those decisions made, or should we use our individual interpretation? Primarily, the (OT) Scripture leads me to Jesus as my Leader, my Guide. The attitude of Jesus and His apostles toward the (OT) Scriptures should be the Christian's attitude. Elaine, you are strong to point out that Jesus taught Judaism. Also, Paul pointed to (OT) Scripture as profitable for doctrine, etc. It seems to me that:<ul><li>The (OT) Scriptures reveal Jesus in type and symbols. <LI>They contain a transcript of the commandments which God wrote with His own hand. In all of human history, this record of God's action is unique. When God intervenes in the lives of His people so, it is important to study that document to learn about its Author. <LI>They reveal God's provisional will; eg. Mosaic divorce laws illustrate God stepping down off of His marriage ideals to deal with "hard-hearted" humanity. <LI>The (OT) Scriptures provide wonderful ideas re: the promises and Grace of God, especially the Psalms and the Prophets. <LI>The (OT) stories were written for our admonition so that we could learn from the past experiences of the people.</li></ul>Once we understand these things, then we can much more easily hold fast to what is good as revealed in the (OT) Scriptures. Some watching the Christian apply OT concepts to the life may say that it is a "pick and choose" affair. It only appears that way to the uninformed. There are basic principles, as I have described above, which guide the Christian. To abandon the Hebrew Scriptures as irrelevant is not correct and to do so is to abandon a large portion of the revealed will of God. .

don · 05-07-09 5:48 am

John, Some of the items you listed are rather easy to solve; others more difficult. I am assuming that this is not your personal list because you are quite intelligent and some of them you could solve yourself, if you were so inclined. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

john8verse32 · 05-07-09 11:03 am

To abandon the Hebrew Scriptures as irrelevant is not correct so do you believe the Hebrew God is the vengeful <a href="http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/gods-uncounted-and-uncountable.html" target="_blank">...mass murderer... </a>which they claimed in their writings????? the puzzle is why they claimed their God told (inspired) them to tell us about all this hate, murder, rape, pillage, genocide, lying, cheating, theft, and sexual depravity? they claim God even told them to steal the silverware as they left Egypt!!! at least, the Clintons didn't blame God when they did the same upon leaving the White House. God himself even helped Jacob CHEAT his uncle by overcoming the laws of genetics!!! ...presuming we continue to believe all the OT literally as recommended.

elaine · 05-07-09 5:47 pm

Paul pointed to (OT) Scripture as profitable for doctrine, etc. So, why are parts of the OT still taught as doctrine today, while others are ignored? How do you, personally, decide which ones are still valid? There is probably not a single Christian today who observes all of them, while there are Orthodox Jews who consider themselves to be true followers. Why are we half-Christians and half-Jews in choosing our doctrines from both Testaments? Does the OT or the NT have the last and final word? Because they definitly do not agree.

don · 05-07-09 6:14 pm

why are parts of the OT still taught as doctrine today, while others are ignored? Give us an example to discuss. .

elaine · 05-07-09 9:48 pm

Give us an example to discuss. There is not one, but many, too many to list. Are they appropriate for us today? All of these, as recorded, were ordered by God, and many were punishable by death, so it should be assumed that they were VERY important. Just read the laws given in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and note which ones Adventists still profess to be valid. Which are not applicable today, and which should still be valid?

don · 05-07-09 10:17 pm

Just read the laws given in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and note which ones Adventists still profess to be valid. Roy Gane addresses your question, Elaine, in a 21 page examination of it: <a href="http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/Gane%20Gods%20moral%20law.pdf" target="_blank">The Role of God’s Moral Law, Including Sabbath, in the “New Covenant”.</a> By Roy Gane, 2003, Andrews University Gane proposes a simple principle in deciding which Mosaic laws still should apply.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:...To summarize our discussion regarding the applicability of Old Testament law, is there a single criterion that can be used to determine whether such a law should be kept today? I propose the following rule of thumb: A biblical law should be kept to the extent that its principle can be applied unless the New Testament removes the reason for its application. See pages 9 and 10.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> .

elaine · 05-07-09 11:10 pm

Don, are you able to tell us what YOU believe without quoting someone else? Using the criteria above: A biblical law should be kept to the extent that its princple can be applied unless the NT removes the reason for its application rules out "Moses' Law" if we let Paul be the founder of Christianity. Didn't the apostles tell the Gentile Christians that they had only three things to observe: "abstain from anything polluted by idols, from fornication, and from the meat of strangled animals and from blood"? And that "It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves not to saddle you with any burden beyond these essentials"? As Christ died to free us from the Law, and we are now free to serve in the new spritual and NOT the old way of a written law." What law was written? What did Paul mean when he wrote to the Romans that "God dealt with sin by sending his own Son in a body, and in that body God condemned sin. He did this in order that the Law's just demands might be satisifed in us." And "But now the Law has come to an end with Christ, and everyone who has faith may be justified." What law could he possibly be referring to if not the Law given in the OT?

bob_2 · 05-08-09 12:10 am

Elaine, I love when you take everyone else's views, give no sources then point at others who respect others workmanship. Maybe you should try it, after you read the Bible all the way through like your bud Neal, four times, and now an atheist. That proves the point, eh???

don · 05-08-09 3:28 am

Don, are you able to tell us what YOU believe without quoting someone else? I have already. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> Elaine, you know better than to ask such a question. Didn't you give a long, long quote just recently? <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5&post=4806#POST4806" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=5&post=4806#POST4806</a> I rather like the principle that Gane sets out. If you want to review my own ideas on this read: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5&post=4815#POST4815" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=5&post=4815#POST4815</a> .

don · 05-08-09 5:23 am

The Law of God Paul talks about the Law's "just demands", <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:1-4;&version=31;" target="_blank">Romans 8:1-4</a>. Note how the Law applies to the whole world in the Christian era:<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:19-20;&version=31;" target="_blank">Romans 3:19-20</a> 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. </blockquote>It seems obvious that when Paul uses the term "Law" he does not always mean something which has ended. .

elaine · 05-08-09 2:34 pm

Now, explain how the statement you quote above, does not contradict what Paul said: ""But now the Law has come to an end with Christ, and everyone who has faith may be justified." And: but now we are rid of the Law, freed by death from our imprisonment, free to serve in the new spiritual way and not the old way of a written law. And: By confessing with your lips you are saved; there is no distinction between Jew and Greek...for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Love is the one thing that cannot hurt your neighbour; that is why it is the answer to every one of the commandments." "He is the one who has given us the qualificdations to be the adinistrators of this new covenant, which is not a covenant of written letters but of the Spirit; the written letters bring death, but the Spirit gives life....The administering of death, [is] in the written letters engraved on stones Even today, whenever Moes is read, the veil is over their minds...Now this Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." It must be evident that we are not interpreting Paul the same way. Why is that?

don · 05-08-09 3:39 pm

It must be evident that we are not interpreting Paul the same way. Why is that? This should not be that surprising. Look over all the various denominations and their assertions about the Bible and God. You and I differ on worldview, don't we? Paul upholds law and he let's go of law. Peter said that Paul is hard to understand. Paul is quite systematic but he doesn't always mean the same thing when he talks about law, or so it seems. Sometimes he seems to be declaring the Mosaic Law irrelevant to morality. At other times he says that the Law defines morality. A key phrase that I believe helps is "the righteous requirements of the law". We should all be able to agree that there are eternal principles represented even in the Mosaic law. These are the "righteous requirements". Even the "righteous requirements" need to be written on my heart rather than just on the stone, or paper. Acts 15 makes it clear to me that the Jewish legal system is not the organizing institution for the Christian. When Jesus talked about putting new wine in new wine skins, I believe he meant that a new organization was needed to manage His message. As we examine this new organization we see that the principles of the Law of God remain in tact. The Jewish legal oversight is gone. Apostolic oversight has replaced it. A biblical law should be kept to the extent that its principle can be applied unless the New Testament removes the reason for its application. As long as Gane focuses on principles, I agree with him. The Mosaic legal regulations are not to be enforced as though Christianity were Judaism. But, God infused into the Jewish system many of His values and thought processes. These divine principles remain relevant. There are some provisions which, though not legally binding on the Christian, help the Christian live for God. Another thought: the Jewish legal system is vastly different than the few items that Adventists have adopted from it. There is a whole body of laws known as the Oral Law. I believe that when Paul refers to the Law no longer for the Christian, he envisions the whole Jewish legal system which includes the Oral Law. Here we find Jesus and Paul in clear agreement. Jesus opposed the "traditions of men" and Paul opposed the Jewish legal system. When Jewish scholars discuss Jesus' attitude about the "traditions of men" they acknowledge that Jesus was speaking against their oral traditions. (Message edited by Don on May 08, 2009)

elaine · 05-08-09 6:08 pm

Don, we can agree that Paul is often obtuse; and he sometimes seems to disagree with himself. The problem seems to be that Adventists have not developed a coherent and logical basis for adopting some OT rules, while eliminating others. Nor, has a basis been given for such decisions. Should there be? Or, should we continue to muddle through which ones are applicable today and which ones are obsolete. As an aside: Watching my "bedtime" and only TV program, aside from the evening news, John Stewart was addressing the latest gay marriage ruling and that the D.C. government was considering it, also. As a Jew, he said that while Maine now allowed gay marriage, that their favorite food, lobster, was an abomination, as were the crabs and scallops from the D.C. nearby Chesapeake Bay. He showed clips of former Mayor Barry, raling against the "ungodly" folks promoting gay marriage. Then it went to an earlier video clip of the same mayor sniffing cocaine with a woman, not his wife! Abominations are in the eyes of the beholder. The humorous and sarcastic often present the illogicality of some positions much better than a lecture. The OT "abominations" would fill a small book. Which ones are we to uphold today, and if so, why?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 05-06-09 7:06 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#27 05-06-09 7:09 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#28 05-06-09 7:36 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#29 05-06-09 7:40 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#30 05-06-09 7:48 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#31 05-06-09 8:51 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#32 05-06-09 9:06 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#33 05-06-09 9:19 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#34 05-06-09 10:11 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#35 05-06-09 10:42 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#36 05-07-09 5:10 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#37 05-07-09 5:39 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#38 05-07-09 5:48 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#39 05-07-09 11:03 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#40 05-07-09 5:47 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#41 05-07-09 6:14 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#42 05-07-09 9:48 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#43 05-07-09 10:17 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#44 05-07-09 11:10 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#45 05-08-09 12:10 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#46 05-08-09 3:28 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#47 05-08-09 5:23 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#48 05-08-09 2:34 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#49 05-08-09 3:39 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#50 05-08-09 6:08 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

Board footer