Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BereanRuss
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BereanRuss said:
Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. [John 6:53]

Often when speaking with protestants, Catholics will quote this verse in an attempt prove to their separated brethren that there is something lacking within protestantism. In response protestants often try to say that Jesus was not speaking literally but was speaking figuratively. They attempt to prove this by quoting Jesus when He later in the same chapter says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” Catholics then often respond by insisting that Jesus was indeed speaking literally.

My question is, do Catholics truly believe the words of Jesus in John 6:53?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that is was Jesus’s body and blood , for He had not yet shed His blood. If it was His body and blood, what part of the body was it and where did the blood come from. It was a symbol of what was to come and a memorial, “do this in memory of Me”. Ralph
 
ralphy said:
I don’t believe that is was Jesus’s body and blood , for He had not yet shed His blood. If it was His body and blood, what part of the body was it and where did the blood come from. It was a symbol of what was to come and a memorial, “do this in memory of Me”. Ralph
Click to expand...
The Reality of the Real Presence
by Donald J. Keefe, SJ
raeshomepage.bravehost.com/notsymbolic.html

Since Christ Himself has said, “This is My Body” who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body? – St. Cyril of Jerusalem
 
Doing something in the memory of somebody else meant worship. The animal sacrifices done at the Temple, during the time of the Aaronite priesthood? That was done in the memory of God as well. Were those sacrifices symbolic, as well?
 
EphelDuath said:
Doing something in the memory of somebody else meant worship. The animal sacrifices done at the Temple, during the time of the Aaronite priesthood? That was done in the memory of God as well. Were those sacrifices symbolic, as well?
Click to expand...
Yes they were pointing to Christ and His sacrifice. Ralph
 
ralphy said:
He also said “I am the vine”, does this make Him a tree? Ralph
Click to expand...
Christ spoke in metaphors many times. Should we take it then that every single thing he ever said was allegorical, or that some things he said were absolutely literal?

Really, John 6 can’t get much more literal than that. There is not a single thing Christ ever said to suggest he wasn’t being absolutely literal about his teaching on the Eucharist.
ralphy said:
Yes they were pointing to Christ and His sacrifice. Ralph
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is that Christ is a superior sacrifice than the animals at the Temple, even though his sacrifice was only symbolic?
 
byzgirl said:
I think that you want a definitive manner in which God works. But, as shown in Scripture, what may seem contradictory, is not. God isn’t put in a box, by His own Word. He is the Living God, and His Word is the Living Word of God.
Click to expand...
I think perhaps you may have a point, however, I can’t think of any other scriptures where God contradicts Himself. If perhaps there are several other places where God contradicts Himself in the Bible, you may have a point. But if God has never contradicted Himself elsewhere, I don’t think we should make the exception here.

Can you search the Bible and post what you find back here (please include the scriptures).
 
BereanRuss said:
I think perhaps you may have a point, however, I can’t think of any other scriptures where God contradicts Himself. If perhaps there are several other places where God contradicts Himself in the Bible, you may have a point. But if God has never contradicted Himself elsewhere, I don’t think we should make the exception here.

Can you search the Bible and post what you find back here (please include the scriptures).
Click to expand...
Dear ‘BereanRuss’,

I will give some examples. I’m not stating, at all, that God contradicts Himself. As we know, that’s impossible. And where Scripture seems to do so, is due to Protestant misinterpretation and false dichotomies.

I am finding that your posts have taken on a more charitable tone. I will, seek to help explain myself clearly, so that I’m not misunderstood.

I think, actually, that we’ve already uncovered some previously. But for the sake of it, I’ll get back to you with more of these false dichotomies, in Protestant intepretations.
 
byzgirl said:
Dear ‘BereanRuss’,

Here’s one, off the top of my head:

What Scripture says: James 2:24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

What some Protestants claim: You are saved by faith ‘alone’ (sola fide).

1 Timothy 3:15: The Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth.

"What most Protestants claim: The church is an invisible, loosely connected body of believers (who agree, somewhat–but not really–on essentials)

St. Basil the Great, 365-75 AD “Of the dogmas and preaching preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force.”

What the Protestant must try to prove, and cannot, is that God somehow bypassed the Church with respect to preserving the New Testament Scripture, and that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was somehow NOT involved in deciding the books to include in the Canon. And regarding the idea of struggle, how has adopting Sola Scriptura lessened the amount of struggle Protestants engage in to discern the correct interpretation? The Church does not struggle over any extra-biblical revelation, the Church discerns the voice of the Holy Spirit and renders its judgments based on the Spirit referencing authoritative Scripture. As St. Cyril says: **Tradition is Scripture rightly interpreted. And apostolic oral tradition is not in contradiction to this.
The issue is not about what is written, it is about how someone interprets what is written. **
How can proper interpretation of the Scripture be separated from the ultimate authority of those Scriptures? Clearly improperly interpreted Scriptures do not give us the authoritative meaning of Scripture. This dichotomy is the problem with the whole Protestant approach to the Scriptures. "
Click to expand...
 
“St. Hilary of Potiers: “Scripture is not in the reading, but in the understanding”, which is repeated by Jerome. Hermeneutics was THE issue in the Arian controversy. Arius trotted out Scripture to prove his heresy, Athanasius appealed to the "rule of faith”, the deposit of the apostolic tradition, the faith of the Church handed down through the apostles to faithful men by which the Church is able to apprehend the true pattern or interpretation of the Scripture. ST. Basil used the liturgical tradition of the Church to combat the heretics who believed the Bible taught the Holy Spirit is not God. THEY appealed to "sola scriptura", Basil appealed to the “proper interpretation of the scripture as it has been expressed within the prayers and worship of the universal Church”. The rule of faith was the key to unlocking the true meaning of the Scriptures, hence the reliance upon the inner life of the Church as the guide to the right intepretation of the scripture. The Church was not an EXTERNAL authority over and above the scriptures, but the keeper and guardian of the truth deposited in the scriptures. Athanasius does not appeal to “Tradition “s”” but “Tradition”, the truth of the Scripture AND the apostolic deposit within the life of the Church seen as one body of truth, not one over the other.

**St. Irenaeus **uses the illustration of a man who has a mosaic of the king, then someone comes along and takes all the pieces out and rearranges them into another image. He still has used all the same pieces but now has a different image of a dog or a fox. Such is the heretic who uses the scriptures without the picture of the king that the Church knows. The heretic does not know the order and connection of the parts in order to reproduce the true image.St. Irenaeus appeals to the catechism and baptismal professions which were committed to believers as the rule of faith that would guide the believer into a right understanding of the scriptures within the Church. Tradition was the living breath of life by the Holy Spirit within the Church that preserved the rule of faith in the life of the Church through its sacraments, worship and prayer. Tradition was not just the handing down of inherited doctrines or a fixed core of propositions, but rather the continuous “life in truth” within the Church. Scripture without intepretation is not scripture at all, the moment it is used and intepreted it becomes alive, but it must be intepreted according to its own purposes.

The other statement that is flapping in the breeze is “what is GENUINE TRADITION” that the Protestants claim to accept? How do they discern that? Basically by what they THINK is genuine based on what they THINK the Bible teaches not by a study of the early centuries of the Church and its Fathers, martyrs, confessors and defenders.

By the average Protestant’s take on Church history the fact that there was an “infallible written record of the apostle’s teachings” did not keep the Church from going “south” into apostasy right after the last apostle died. The fact of the matter is that *even DURING the apostle’s lives people fell into error. *Living infallible teachers, dead infallible teachers, or their written records do not alone keep people from heresy. And the fact of the matter is that for the first 5 centuries of the Church there was not unanimous agreement on what constituted the canon of infallible apostolic writings. And in spite of that historical fact, the Church was still able to condemn heretics, keep and die for the faith, teach the truth and preserve the apostolic gospel.
 
Dear BereanRuss,

Here’s some Scripture that you asked for, with commentary:

"Catholics and Protestants agree that the biblical argument for the Trinity is largely an indirect, deductive one.

But when it comes to sola Scriptura, no similarly descriptive verse can be found - not even anywhere close. I think the equivalent (if it in fact existed) would read something like:

‘Do not take heed of any written or oral traditions, as sufficient for the purposes of doctrine or action, since the written word of God in Holy Scripture is your ultimate and final authority, above any church or tradition.’

No such verse even remotely approaching this can be found (and many directly contradicting it, can be cited). Why would such a direct statement not be in the Bible, if this principle is so supremely important? Verses simply reiterating the trustworthiness and goodness of Scripture are not enough to prove this case. They are only compelling in a logically circular way: they harmonize with a sola Scriptura outlook, but they do not establish it or provide any evidence in favor of it, for they are just as harmonious with the Catholic view also.

Instead, Scripture informs us (RSV; emphases added):

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

A contradiction by Scripture? More likely a misintreptation by Protestants.
 
Still more…I can keep them coming.

"Scripture does not rule out a Church and Tradition, by which it is interpreted as well. That’s why the Church Fathers always appealed not solely to Holy Scripture, but to the history of doctrine and apostolic succession, which for them was the clincher and coup de grace, in arguments against the heretics. Groups such as the Arians, on the other hand, believed in Scripture Alone, precisely because they couldn’t trace their late-arriving doctrines back past Arius (d.c. 336). So if there is an analogy here (in terms of authority structure alone) it is as follows:

Arians--------> Protestants
Fathers-------> Catholic Church

Sola Scriptura? "The most frequently-used “proof” is 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God . . .” Again, there is no disagreement from us that Scripture is inspired. That is a non sequitur in Catholic-Protestant discussions (except where theologically liberal parties are concerned, on both sides). The official Catholic record in upholding that truth is far better than the Protestant one, I dare say. It was liberal Protestantism which gave us the legacy of Higher Criticism and scholars mercilessly tearing down the Bible (now even to the extent of asserting that it sanctions sodomy, abortion, etc.). **This verse proves nothing whatsoever in terms of sola Scriptura. **

**John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Acts 1:2-3 . . . the apostles . . . To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. {see also Luke 24:15-16,25-27} **

Contradiction in Scripture or Protestant misinterpretation?

What about Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Protestants often use Romans 10:9 to support a belief that all one has to do is ‘say a sinner’s prayer’ and accept Christ as their personal lord and savior, and that’s it. It’s in the bag.

But then the Bible also states:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Is this a contradiction? If we profess with our mouth and call Him Lord, doesn’t that guarantee that we’re in like flynn? No. It doesn’t. But that’s exactly what some Protestants will try to claim just with that one verse (Romans 10:9).

In addition, they will also ignore several other verses of Scripture that would ‘seemingly’ contradict the idea that ‘verbal profession’ is ALL one needs to gain heaven.

Mark 10:17-27 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (18) And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. (19) You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” (20) And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” (21) And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (22) Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. (23) And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” (24) And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! (25) It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” (26) And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” (27) Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”

Do you wish to proceed? Have I made my point?
 
BereanRuss said:
If the CC is that true church, shouldn’t she still believe the words of the One who founded her and not change, “Amen, amen” to “Most of the time…”, or, “The normative means…”?
Click to expand...
But see, here you go, not proofreading your own thoughts.

The Thief on the Cross did not:
a) be born of Water and Spirit.
b) eat His Body and drink His Blood.
c) Profess that Jesus Christ is Lord
d) or any of the other “you have no life’s in you unless”

And yet he joined Christ in Paradise!
 
ralphy said:
He also said “I am the vine”, does this make Him a tree? Ralph
Click to expand...
Hmmmm…

One is a clearly self-explained analogy.
One has no explanation other than literal. The figurative has absolutely no meaning.

Big difference.
 
BereanRuss said:
I think perhaps you may have a point, however, I can’t think of any other scriptures where God contradicts Himself.
Click to expand...
There is one part where God contradicts himself.

And that is the symbolic rendering of John 6:53.

The symbolic meaning of “gnawing on my flesh” is to revile and loathe someone, as is demonstrated in the Psalms.

I don’t think loathing Jesus is going to get any one of us into heaven.
 
Excellent post, ‘NotWorthy’!

It’s all about the problem of Protestant misintepretation and of their taking Scripture out of context that leads to confusion.

If you would really question a Protestant, you would find them admitting to things that are very Catholic belief. While they attempt to stick to their guns with particular verses (usually taken out of context), they must concede (reluctantly) to the truth that the Catholic Church possesses.

For example, a Protestant (while stating that ‘all one has to do is profess that Christ is Lord’)–a verbal profession (faith) is all that is needed for salvation–will admit that, Christ asked for more than faith (alone). A Protestant will twist around the idea that works are necessary, and in some traditions, will suggest that ‘works’ come about ‘coincidentally’, because they are saved (already, by a sinner’s prayer). They hint that these works are ‘automatic’…that there is no effort in them (otherwise, they think that they are empty and works of the flesh). These are the same people who will be collecting “Angel Food” and working at homeless shelters, and building homes and helping those in crisis/disaster relief, etc. All good things. All things that actually require some thought, some preparation, some actual participation. They are doing God’s work (not their own). In essence, they are ‘working’ in faith and in love. But they don’t want to suggest that you ‘need’ works to be saved. They will twist and turn in the wind to avoid Saint John’s verse which states that ‘without works, faith is dead’. No works are necessary? Is that a contradiction, or just taking things out of context from God’s plan of salvation.

If works are necessary, then (in proper context), it would follow that God requires other things (besides a loving/active faith which includes His Works). He also wants us to be baptized. There’s a verse which directly states, “Baptism now saves you”. Is that a contradiction? No. If works are necessary, and penance is necessary, and following his commandments are necessary…then faith alone is wrong. In fact, no where in Scripture does it say ‘faith alone’. That was an insertion by Martin Luther (who didn’t like the Book of James–didn’t jive with his personal interpretations).

If these things can also be ‘admitted’ as part of God’s salvation plan for us, then it’s not so hard to imagine that when Christ commanded that we ‘eat His Flesh and drink His Blood’ that He meant so. That if he commanded us to ‘be baptized in water AND Spirit’ that he meant for us to be baptized (in water and Spirit, and not separated into a symbolic ‘spiritual’ baptism of believers and a take-it-or-leave-it ‘water baptism’ which is mere symbolism. Why partake of the Body and Blood of Christ if it’s symbolic? Why such long discussion about it? Why did followers leave and Jesus not explain (no, it’s not symbolic…Jesus didn’t chase after them or call them back to say…"Hey, you know when I called myself a door and a vine…well, that’s exactly what I’m saying here.’

In a previous post, I gave a listing of verses, that convert Steven Ray listed. The questions were, ""How does one receive salvation, justification, new birth, and eternal life?Can we be saved without faith? Without God’s grace? Without repentance? Without baptism? Without the Spirit?

And it was summed up, at closing with an answer that says this:

These are all involved and necessary; not one of them can be dismissed as a means of obtaining eternal life. Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another. They are all involved in salvation and entry into the Church. The Catholic Church does not divide these various elements of salvation up; overemphasizing some while ignoring others; rather, she holds them all in their fullness."

That is a good argument for the Catholic Church’s understanding of Scripture. Indeed, it doesn’t contradict, and it doesn’t twist and turn in the wind. It stays strong and determined, as it has for 2000 plus years. Never to fail, by the promise of the Holy Spirit.
 
Originally Posted by ralphy View Post
I don’t believe that is was Jesus’s body and blood , for He had not yet shed His blood. If it was His body and blood, what part of the body was it and where did the blood come from. It was a symbol of what was to come and a memorial, “do this in memory of Me”. Ralph

Perhaps I am missing something; where in the N.T. does Jesus say:

Matthew 26:26-28
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is a symbol of my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:22-24
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is a symbol of my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:19-20
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is a symbol of my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:24-25
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is a symbol of my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:26-30
For as often as ye eat this symbol of bread, and drink this symbol of a cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this symbol of bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that symbol of bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh that symbol unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the symbol of the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
How does one eat and drink bread and wine unworthily if it is just a symbol? The only way to do this, if you believe the bread and wine are mere symbols is to eat the bread and wine while denying the cross of Christ, since the bread and wine supposedly point to the cross only, which of course no Christian does! Why were many weak and sickly…why did some people actually die for eating the bread unworthily?

We all understand the meaning of: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of …as symbolic language, or the meaning of Jesus being the Rock and the light of the world, as symbolic language; it makes perfect sense! Where is the symbolism in: unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…How are we to understand the bread as a symbol of Christ, as we do with the “door” being a symbol of Christ? :confused:

The Eucharist is truly a sacrifice…
.
As the following passages show, Christians have an altar, from which they eat. (but not the Jewish priests, who eat from their own altar) If Christians eat from their altar, it means there is a sacrifice offered there for them to eat. It is not a symbolic sacrifice, since they physically eat it. So the Eucharist is bread and wine that becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, in order that Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary (His Body and Blood) may be offered up to God, and eaten by Christians, as per Malachi 3; give it a read:

Hebrews 13:10
We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

1 Corinthians 10:16-18
I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Continued…
 
A symbolic interpretation of John 6 would have been unacceptable to the grumblers as well! This is the case because, in the Bible, symbolically “eating someone’s flesh” means “to revile” or “assault” someone, which doesn’t make sense in the context of John 6. Therefore, John 6 must be interpreted literally, since Jesus couldn’t have meant that to inherit eternal life, we would have to revile or assault Him. Below are some examples of the symbolic sense of “eating someone’s flesh”.

Psalm 27:1-2
The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.

Isaiah 9:18-21
For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke. Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm: Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Isaiah 49:26
And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

Micah 3:3
Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.

Revelation 17:6,16
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration… And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Does anyone still think after reading this, that the grumblers walked away because they thought Jesus was speaking in metaphor???
Prophesy…

Malachi 1:10-11 - Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

As a former Lutheran who has read everything vis-a-vis the early church fathers [first 300 years of Christianity] --I now understand, unequivocally why they believed in the true presence! I would suggest all grumblers to do the same; remember, these are the same people that codified and canonized the Holy Bible!

Either believe them vis-a-vis both the Eucharist and the correct inclusion/exclusion of books in the Bible, thanks to the “teaching” and “guidance” of the Holy Spirit in perpetuity…

OR

… believe that the Holy Spirit Infallibly guided Jesus’ fledgling church correctly vis-a-vis the canonization of the Bible, but failed to Infallibly teach and guide the bride of Christ, built on the apostles, vis-a-vis the Eucharist!

Which one is it???
 
byzgirl said:
They will twist and turn in the wind to avoid Saint John’s verse which states that ‘without works, faith is dead’.

I think you mean St. James

In fact, no where in Scripture does it say ‘faith alone’.

Not true, “faith alone” appears once in James 2:24 where it says, “not by faith alone.” 😉 I know what your intent was since I interpreted your post literally instead of literalistically.

That was an insertion by Martin Luther (who didn’t like the Book of James–didn’t jive with his personal interpretations).

Yes, Luther added “alone” to Romans 3:28…oops

He also originally removed James from his Bible, but later added it, though referring to it as the “epistle of straw”. Seems that Luther disagreed with the way the Bible was written.

Very good post, just thought I’d add my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top