Has Jesus ever disclosed the name of GOD?

Page 12 of 15 [ 229 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

10 Jul 2012, 2:50 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

In regard to Pentecostal worship and music catching on - we Missouri Synod Lutherans are finding ourselves having to fend off that highly emotional music and worship so common to evangelicals. Those calling themselves "Progressives" are into that so called contemporary musical scene. But those of us who think of ourselves as the stodgy traditionalists and orthodox (who actually tend to be more tolerant) are of the opinion that such evangelical worship is a sly way to filter fundamentalist and pentecostal theology into our denomination - and I think the evidence is on our side.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ever heard the term "Worship Wars"? Many Baptists feel the same way.

You have to be careful here, because it's very tempting, and very easy to go the opposite extreme. There is nothing inherently wrong with either. The question is WHY should you have a preference either way?

I'm not sure I see how the music inherently injects fundie/pentecostal theology into any denomination. We do SOME "emotional" praise songs, and I think in our church we have maybe 3 people put their hands up out of a crowd of 300 worshipers. The vast majority of CCM seems to be coming from pentecostals and non-denoms, but all the Baptists I know are steadfast against glossolalia and prosperity gospel heresy (though pentecostals are also beginning to distance themselves from prosperity gospel). Praise and worship music is just that: Praise and worship. The relevant theology behind it is simple adoration of God and the Messiah. It's not functionally different from liturgy, just more diverse and aesthetically forward-looking. It wouldn't have caught on with so many Baptists if it had been seen as theologically threatening.

What concerns me is whether music is conducive to worship and whether the entire church body is engaged in worship. You can get the job done no matter what style you use. But you cannot lean on worship style preferences and disengage generationally. If you do that, the local congregation dies. Literally. The service becomes so self-serving that the only people left are the elderly while the younger crowd flocks to newer churches that evidently care about them.

The opposite is having a church too concerned with younger crowds and drawing them in through little more than entertainment and pop culture trends. Without leading a community to Christ, such a church, even if it's a big one, will start to experience a sort of revolving-door effect.

In the case of more traditional churches, as long as the church focuses on engaging the entire body in worship cross-generationally, there will continue to be growth within that church. It's possible to do that with liturgical worship. But it more often happens that liturgical worshipers take that for granted and alienate the younger generations. And that's when they typically flock to "progressive" churches. The few that are left are so stubborn and so snobby nobody would want to join the church. IF those churches manage to turn things around, it's because there's usually a core group of worshipers who are determined not to let hostile church members run them off.

And on that note, I have to defer to Sun Tzu: Thus, while we have heard of stupid haste in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged. for there has never been a protracted war which benefited a country.

Apply that to the "Worship Wars." Traditional worship for the sake of tradition at the expense of genuine worship is fighting a war you cannot win. Same goes for "progressive" worship. Ultimately what will happen is people who truly want to worship and feel the presence of God will either win the war or the local church will disintegrate.

I'm not sure why you'd want to fend off emotional music. Praise and adoration are inherently emotional activities. I view the role of music as a vehicle for exalted experience and expression, not suppression. That's not to say you can't do this through traditional music, but using music to restrict expression just seems backwards to me. If you just mean going to a rock concert on Sunday morning distracts you from the worship experience, then I can better understand your point of view.

The fact is, evangelical type worship is promoted by those Lutherans who lean toward the notion that believers must play an active role in their salvation, rather than trusting that God holds our fate in his hands. Accompanying that is the notion that for faith to be real, it has to be ecstatic and emotional. Now, I understand that there are denominations where such practices and beliefs are the norm, but that's just not how Lutherans believe. The emphasis is on God, Christ's sacrifice and atonement, and the word - not on us and how we feel. The fact of the matter is, my congregation had once had a member who was into the whole born again experience thing, and in time came to admit that his theology was much closer to that of a Baptist rather than a Lutheran. And wouldn't you know it, he was about the most hard right, intolerant person you'd ever have the misfortune of meeting. Thankfully he's gone, but he did certainly cause friction in our church.
By the way, for the discussion at hand regarding Disney - I can remember when many evangelicals years ago had tried to get The Wizard Of Oz, Peter Pan, and other children's classics banned from the school libraries in at least on southern state, because the good witches and and use of magic was considered a gateway into the arms of Satan. This attack on Disney for being gay friendly can be regarded as the same sort of idiocy. The fact is, Mickey Mouse is not the Devil, the Tin Woodsman is not the Anti-Christ, and the Harry Potter series is not the tome of Hell.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'd rather not comment much more on Disney if I don't have to. Even a lot of Southern Baptists question the rationale of some of those things you mentioned. Things like Oz, Peter Pan, and so on are clearly harmless, and the kinds of people raising those issues take more of a hardline than typical Southern Baptists. I think we should always be vigilant when it comes to things that may be morally objectionable. But reality checks are always good.

Anyway...

I have roughly the same objection you do as to pentecostal theology infiltrating that of other denominations--specifically that the emotional experience is somehow required for salvation. In an actual pentecostal church, the belief is that glossolalia is EVIDENCE of the holy spirit and, thus, one's salvation. The danger this poses is miscommunication of what it really means to be saved, which I believe to be through faith alone. If you believe that being saved necessarily means speaking in tongues (glossolalia), then it's a short step to assuming that one has to speak in tongues to be saved. That is putting faith in works to earn salvation, and most knowledgable Baptists would find this immediately objectionable. We don't object to speaking in tongues per se, since it is a Biblical practice. But if someone does speak in tongues, they should have an interpreter. Most of us also believe that speaking in tongues referred to speaking in other languages so as to be understood by Gentiles.

Same principle applies to "religious experiences," emotional, ecstatic, or otherwise. There's nothing inherently wrong with worshiping from the heart and being connected emotionally in worship. What you're talking about is the idea that salvation depends on a "religious experience," and I think you and I probably agree that it does not. I mean, if you're looking for a "religious experience," lots of religions beyond the realm of Christianity offer that. But having a "religious experience" is no guarantee that the experience itself is authentic. I'm attracted to the idea of singing and playing instruments as a "sacrifice of praise." It is a willing action that focuses upward rather than outward (i.e. just for show). Judging by the OT sacrificial practices of sacrifice, God prefers a joyful or at least a willing heart. Any other sacrifice isn't really a sacrifice at all. I do what I do because I want to, not because I'm obligated to. I'm somewhat concerned that strict liturgical adherence involves obligating the believer rather than leading them to a place where they can give willingly and fully in the act of worship. Those who understand worship as having some emotional connectedness and even ecstatic experience participate in joyfully giving their hearts to God. The focus is still on the atoning work of Christ and praise and adoration of God and Savior. We celebrate what Jesus has done, and we do so with joyful hearts. The emphasis still remains on the divine, and the experience is a consequence of worship, not a goal of it.

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Jul 2012, 4:25 pm

AngelRho wrote:

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

I remember "a" Disney boycott some years ago and my understanding was that the boycott was eventually ended.

Does that mean that Disney caved in to Southern Baptist demands? Or, did the Southern Baptists eventually get tired of looking stupid?

My understanding is that it was the former.

A google search suggests the latter.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20 ... disney.htm

I had never heard of the Gay Days, but it is apparently about homosexuals descending upon the theme park during one day per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Days_a ... sney_World

Disney doesn't sanction it, but people who are uncomfortable around homosexuals might want to stay away on that day.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,426
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Jul 2012, 4:35 pm

Southern Baptists represent most Protestants? I surely doubt many Lutherans of either the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America, or my own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod would be of that opinion. And the far right, small fry Lutheran bodies probably wouldn't, either.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Jul 2012, 4:53 pm

AngelRho wrote:

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

You mentioned Leviticus. The thing is, though, is that the OT was written by and for the Israelites/Jews. In brief, it helps Christians understand where they came from spiritually and teaches many valuable lessons. Levitical laws have varying purposes, though, from ritual purity to cultural identity to basic law-and-order. I might be tempted to let homosexuality go if it hadn't been mentioned specifically in the NT. But there it is, and I can think of three reasons why it should be avoided.

Jesus did not say a thing against homosexuals, and your NT quote is not unambiguous.

Looks pretty clear to me.

OK, so you don't believe the Bible. Fine. Then there's no point in discussing it. Moving on...

Is your New Testament quote

Ephesians 5:11-12 wrote:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

?

It is nowhere near as unambiguous as Leviticus. And, Jesus never said a damned thing about homosexuals. He did, however, go on about rich people. If you want to attack someone, then attack rich people.

AngelRho wrote:

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Jesus ended the dietary restrictions;

Nope. That wasn't until Acts 10.

Mark 7:18-19--"Are you also lacking in understanding? Don't you realize that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him? For it doesn't go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated."

Very well. I concede you that point.

However, if indeed "nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him", then what about another man's semen? Jesus did say "nothing."

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

10 Jul 2012, 5:07 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

I remember "a" Disney boycott some years ago and my understanding was that the boycott was eventually ended.

Does that mean that Disney caved in to Southern Baptist demands? Or, did the Southern Baptists eventually get tired of looking stupid?

My understanding is that it was the former.

I've seen David Stewart's stuff on the internet before. Funny guy, good for a laugh. The scary part about it is how many people will take this stuff seriously. I do have to wonder if that website is just a joke or if he really means it.

I need to take a little time to review the actual circumstances surrounding the boycott. I was about a year out of high school when that happened and I didn't even really have much of an active interest in Disney anyway. What I recall was that Disney had begun a policy of extending benefits to include not just gay employees but also their partners. According to the Stewart website there, Disney claims they didn't change any policy because of the boycott. But I believe what Disney means is they didn't change policies under pressure from the boycott--rather on their own volition. The evangelicals pushing for the boycott weren't concerned about WHY the policies were changed, just that they were changed at all. I'm not convinced that Mr. David J. Stewart--IF that's his real name--really has all his facts together or is even really interested in facts. Judging by the website, he hates Southern Baptists just as much as he hates everyone else.

ArrantPariah wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Days_at_Walt_Disney_World

Disney doesn't sanction it, but people who are uncomfortable around homosexuals might want to stay away on that day.

Yeah, I only just heard about "Gay Days" a few weeks ago. I find the idea obnoxious, but what can I really say about it? They have as much a right to express themselves openly as anyone else does, and Disney isn't exactly in any position to stop it. If you don't like gays, don't go...simple as that. But, on the other hand, evangelicals could, if they wanted to, organize a similar informal non-sanctioned protest or wage an advertising campaign leading up to a "gay day."

While the SBC position on homosexuality hasn't change, I have noticed one thing in the churches I've attended regarding the problem of homosexuality. David J. Stewart seems to think the SBC is cooling down regarding homosexuality, but I don't see it happening. I think an increasing number of SB pastors are recognizing that, while they are obligated to hold to Biblical principles including those in regard to homosexuality, unmercifully ranting and raving about it does not help reach those who are in need of repentance. If God hates the sin and loves the sinner, perhaps we should shift our own focus towards loving the sinner. Any congregation I've been a part of has rarely even hinted at the issue of homosexuality. Some of the things you've mentioned about focusing on positives versus negatives are changes that are already happening in Baptist congregations. Sure, we still have some straggling, older old-skool hellfire and damnation preachers around; but generally this is gradually becoming a thing of the past. Be careful that your charges against SBC are factual and not a result of a pervasive stereotype.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Jul 2012, 5:15 pm

I'm not sure I see the point in this dialogue.

People of faith, or of no faith, are free to hold whatever beliefs and opinions they like. No one can gainsay thought, belief and opinion, and it seems to me the height of futility to engage in a debate about the propriety of belief.

Where I do get annoyed, however, is when belief--or the lack thereof--is used as a basis for wielding a legal cudgel.

Scripture is no basis on which to outlaw same-sex marriage, adultery, idolatry, abortion or any other practice. The use of the law to regulate human behaviour should only arise from a bona fide (pun intended) need for the law to protect a public interest. Similarly, the law has no place in restricting the free exercise of religion unless it similarly threatens a legitimate public interest.

I would never presume to say to a Christian that, "scripture doesn't mean what you say it does." But I would similarly expect that Christian to say, "your family is yours to build as you see fit." Christians would likely face a great deal less confrontation in North America if their more outspoken demagogues spent more time living by the Golden Rule.

_________________
--James

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Jul 2012, 6:56 pm

AngelRho wrote:

I need to take a little time to review the actual circumstances surrounding the boycott. I was about a year out of high school when that happened and I didn't even really have much of an active interest in Disney anyway. What I recall was that Disney had begun a policy of extending benefits to include not just gay employees but also their partners. According to the Stewart website there, Disney claims they didn't change any policy because of the boycott. But I believe what Disney means is they didn't change policies under pressure from the boycott--rather on their own volition. The evangelicals pushing for the boycott weren't concerned about WHY the policies were changed, just that they were changed at all.

Was that what was getting Southern Baptists so inflamed in their pants? Disney extending benefits to partners of gay employees? This doesn't have anything to do with Southern Baptists. If Disney wants to do this, it can. No law against it.

Apparently, Disney not only continues to extend benefits to partners of gay employees, but permits homosexual partners to have theme weddings at its parks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02286.html

So much for the effectiveness of the Southern Baptist boycott. The Southern Baptists just got tired of it, and decided to focus their ire elsewhere. Like, public schools, for example

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8318263/

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Jul 2012, 6:57 pm

visagrunt wrote:

I would never presume to say to a Christian that, "scripture doesn't mean what you say it does."

Why not? No interest in the Bible?

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Jul 2012, 7:34 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

I would never presume to say to a Christian that, "scripture doesn't mean what you say it does."

Why not? No interest in the Bible?

No, I just try to be respectful of other people's opinions. I don't always succeed, of course, but I like to believe that there is merit in the effort.

_________________
--James

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

10 Jul 2012, 8:24 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

No law against Baptists opposing it, either. I suspect there were other issues in addition to that as well.

ArrantPariah wrote:

Apparently, Disney not only continues to extend benefits to partners of gay employees, but permits homosexual partners to have theme weddings at its parks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02286.html

So much for the effectiveness of the Southern Baptist boycott. The Southern Baptists just got tired of it, and decided to focus their ire elsewhere. Like, public schools, for example

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8318263/

Well, I read up on the end of the boycott, and from what I gather Baptists agreed on a few things in the way of ending the boycott. For one, church members got the message, which was not to blindly trust anyone purporting to provide family-friendly services and products to not also advance things that Christians might find morally objectionable. By that point, churchgoers ought to be well-informed enough to make their own decision to support their activities by giving them money. Second, there was a big leadership shakeup at Disney, which also prompted the decision to end the boycott.

And, of course, there is the fact that it had gone on for 8 years.

Don't get me started on public schools. I worked in public schools for 3 years. There are places where the public schools are top notch. I'm aware of that. The Mississippi Delta is not one of those areas. I'm not putting my kids through that nightmare. I also know parents that despise the private schools just as much--with good reason--and prefer to homeschool. One of my newest students is home schooled and is supplementing her curriculum by taking non-credit classes at the extension campus where I teach. There is a "Christian School" we considered for our children, but the apparent lack of morals is so abysmal we might as well send them to public school. The local Catholic School really is a good one and really is way above par compared with local public schools and highly competitive with the other affluent private school in the area. Had our circumstances been better, we'd probably prefer the public schools...but not HERE.

Mississippi isn't really the kind of place where you'll see a lot of pro-homosexuality, pro-abortion, or anti-Christian sentiment being taught in the classroom or tried in the courts. The kinds of problems you see here are more often driven by a culture of poverty in rural areas and played out in public school classrooms. You also have inept community leaders as superintendents and school board members who pat themselves on the back for a job well done while the test scores earn them the labels of "failing schools." Yeah...mishun uhkumplisht.

But it's not pure religious motivation...it's concern for my children's physical well-being and making sure they are prepared for life beyond high school.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

10 Jul 2012, 8:33 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Jesus did not say a thing against homosexuals, and your NT quote is not unambiguous.

Looks pretty clear to me.

OK, so you don't believe the Bible. Fine. Then there's no point in discussing it. Moving on...

Is your New Testament quote

Ephesians 5:11-12 wrote:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

No, I had 1 Corinthians 6:7-10 in mind:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God's kingdom.

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

]

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Jesus ended the dietary restrictions;

Nope. That wasn't until Acts 10.

Very well. I concede you that point.

About time. :lol:

ArrantPariah wrote:

[However, if indeed "nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him", then what about another man's semen? Jesus did say "nothing."

That...doesn't even deserve a response. *facepalm* :wall:

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

10 Jul 2012, 9:39 pm

AngelRho wrote:

That is one where the various translations, and possibly the original Greek, are ambiguous. You selected one translation that came out the way you wanted. You also possess the obvious advantage of knowing at least some Biblical Greek. Hopefully you're not going to try to pull one over on me.

King James Version wrote:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

"Effeminate" and "male prostitute" are not exactly the same thing. I have a brother-in-law who is homosexual and VERY effeminate, but not, as far as I know, a male prostitute. There are, by the way, male prostitutes who rent themselves to women.

"Abusers of themselves with mankind" I've seen interpreted (primarily by Catholics) as a prohibition against masturbation. "Homosexuals" might be a more reasonable interpretation, but you do have some ambiguity that doesn't exist in Leviticus.

Also, even in your translation, Lesbians would get a pass.

This passage would appear to contradict your earlier assertion that everyone, no matter how good or bad, who believes in Jesus will be admitted into Heaven. Now, we have a list of people who won't.

kxmode
Supporting Member

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)

10 Jul 2012, 10:11 pm

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

10 Jul 2012, 10:41 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

King James Version wrote:

The word for "homosexual" is ἀρσενοκοῖται, transliterated "arsenokoites." It's not ambiguous as you suggest.

Romans 1:26 adresses lesbianism. They don't get a free pass in the Bible, either.

ArrantPariah wrote:

This passage would appear to contradict your earlier assertion that everyone, no matter how good or bad, who believes in Jesus will be admitted into Heaven. Now, we have a list of people who won't.

Are we referring to repentant sinners or the unrepentant? Those who follow after Christ desire a change from unrighteousness to righteousness, a reversal of spiritual circumstance. Christ was accused of hanging with sinners, but the point that the religious leaders missed was that Christ was calling these people to abandon their sin and follow Him.

Something else on the topic of homosexuality that we evangelicals tend to miss is when the Bible mentions that homosexuals have no place in the kingdom of God, it is addressing the unrepentant who actively and continually engage in homosexual behavior. The Bible is silent on orientation or predisposition, and I believe this is a source of confusion for those who haven't taken the time to understand it. It is possible, for example, to recognize a tendency as an unwanted one and to seek help in learning to live with it in such a way that does not interfere with maintaining a scripturally consistent lifestyle by giving in to behavior one is predisposed to. Orientation is not a sin. Following it to its conclusion is. We already discussed the relationship of Mark 7:19 and the cancellation of dietary laws--however, dietary laws established cultural identity, so a Jewish Christian would probably still want to keep them as part of their heritage. There are legit reasons why someone would want to keep the dietary laws, though salvation is not dependent on those reasons. But read the rest of that passage:

Then He said, "What comes out of a person--that defiles him. For from within, out of people's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, lewdness, stinginess, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. All these things come from within and defile a person."

A person can have a homosexual orientation or predisposition, or "unwanted same-sex attraction" as I like to refer to it, and they've done nothing wrong. It is the desire to act on those predispositions and follow-through, "What comes out of a person," that is the issue. It might be the best course of action for someone with an unwanted attraction to practice abstinence. If we evangelicals are guilty of anything towards homosexuals, it is not taking the time to understand homosexuality and how it could be a believer might find himself having to suffer in silence because of unwanted SSA.

But compassion and understanding do not mean that we are obligated in any way to compromise on the issue that homosexual expression is sinful behavior.

Vladimir

10 Jul 2012, 10:44 pm

Russians like me call god bog. When Addressing God (for example in prayers) We say bozhe. Most Russian believers are Christians, So we specifically believe in Jesus Christ and we call him Iisus.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Jul 2012, 10:46 pm

Vladimir wrote:

Russians like me call god bog. When Addressing God (for example in prayers) We say bozhe. Most Russian believers are Christians, So we specifically believe in Jesus Christ and we call him Iisus.

You are aware that Iisus is a Zhid? Da?

ruveyn

Page 12 of 15 [ 229 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Jump to:

Has Jesus ever disclosed the name of GOD? Post Reply New Topic

Has Jesus ever disclosed the name of GOD?