Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

[rjcash]

Start a new thread for this one. Or, read those links I provided for you and then tell me what you think of THOSE explanations. I won’t go down rabbit trails with you after you have already admonished me to stick to John 6 and to stick to the text…

1. At the Last Supper, can you show me where Jesus gives them Flesh and Blood and says, take eat?

I don’t think anyone thinks he tore off a piece of his flesh and handed it to them, or got some blood from his veins.

I think it says, “he took bread” and “he took wine”.

So just to correct you, you make the wrong comparison!!

Start a new thread for this one. Or, read those links I provided for you and then tell me what you think of THOSE explanations. I won’t go down rabbit trails with you after you have already admonished me to stick to John 6 and to stick to the text…

This is what I mean about not answering, you made the statement about offering flesh and blood in John, but that is NOT what he offered at the Last Supper.

Answer this then,

Did he say take and eat of “real flesh” and “real blood”, which is what you asked about Jn 6? At the Last Supper he “took bread”, not flesh.

I just want you to see that your question is invalid, since he also did not do that at the Last Supper.

So your asking about that in John is not valid, since he never did that anywhere. It is taught that “he took bread” and “took wine” and they transubed. Not that he offered flesh and said “take eat”.

 

[rjcash]

Originally Posted by rjcash
This also is a question to be answered.

1. Also, then can you show me in John 6 where he mentions the physical bread and physical wine? Since you keep comparing it to the Last Supper.
2. a. So let’s reverse that with the correct comparison. Can you show me in Jn 6, where he took physical bread and physical wine and said “take eat” and “take drink”?

Fishing again. But you are missing a key point…Jesus is establishing that HE is true Bread…so the TRUE Bread is present…physically…yet not given in John 6.

(Edited)

But let me make it clearer, since you like to refer to the real Last Supper, at which it is said, “and he took the bread” and he “took the wine”. These are real bread and real wine. And the church says the elements, real bread and wine HAVE to be present to transub.

So where is the real bread and real wine in Jn 6? He makes no reference to it. He rather tells them “he that eats my flesh”, with no bread and wine present. So how are they supposed to do that, since the elements are not there. He does not refer them to the Last Supper, since this is NOT for unbelievers. He tells them in the Aorist tense they can eat his flesh and drink his blood to gain eternal life, not future tense. No elements. This is said to be taken literally. Yet, these people in that point of history, were told they could have eternal life by eating his flesh and without attending the Last Supper, since that had not happened yet. And they were never told about it and unbelivers were not invited, they are forefidden from participating in communion, yet they were told they could have eternal life then.

As mentioned before, if I ask, Is the sky blue? And someone says, “The grass is green.” Well, yes an answer was provided to the question, but it is not related to the question.

That is why I am saying, your answer here is a question avoided NOT answered?

He said he IS the bread and “He that eats” in the present tense, so it could read “he that eats my flesh in the present”. You keep saying this is real presence in John 6, but he hasn’t offered it yet. But he said, He IS the bread (present tense) and “he that eats this bread” (present tense) will have eternal life. I am not sure what you call “an offer”, but these people thought it was since they said, “how can this man GIVE US” his flesh?

Did you see this, they understood it to be a real time offer?

I know that you are trying to say this is only him talking about the idea of him being in the bread, and that will not be really real and available to them until the Last Supper and not even then, but sometime after that.

But then isn’t that the same thing as saying, Jn 6 is really figurative? And at that time, they could not really “eat his flesh”. I think you are missing what the idea of literal means. He either said they could eat his flesh, in the present or it was just figurative speech?

You keep implying they COULD NOT really “eat his flesh” at that time, which would mean it is not a real offer to them at that time, for that time. This is exactly what figurative speech means!!

 

[ahs]

Rjcash, please recall that it was your suggestion to stick only with John 6, and that you have admonished me a number of times to stay with John 6 only and that other verses should be treated in separate threads. I will hold you to the same.
I may not have adequate explanations for you and have provided you SEVERAL links that not only give the Catholic teaching on this matter, but go into GREAT detail about the “why” and the “how”, explore the languages, culture, etc…that way you can rely on the explanations from actual scholars and theologians rather than just hearing from me.

Let’s recap what you and I have established together. If you disagree, please say so, and then do not follow up with another barrage of questions, but instead, let’s focus on what we disagree with.

1 - Jesus does not actually give anyone His Flesh and Blood in John 6.
2 - Jesus, in John 6 establishes the fact that He indeed is the Bread of Life…that His Flesh is true Food and His Blood is true Drink. He is being literal.
3 – I know #2 as being “the words of promise” and establishing the “Real Presence”
4 – You call #2 something different than I do.

rjcash - *You are only saying that because you are reading into the Last Supper…/…“He that eats” is PRESENT TENSE, John wrote that for a reason. *

I’m only looking at John 6. “He that eats” may be a present tense, but what do you call “…shall have…”? If you want to argue the Greek, go to the link from Catholic Encyclopedia on the Eucharist. I’ll take those explanations over yours, so refute those if you want me to find your Greek explanation credible. There is more than a present tense there in John 6. It’s also impossible to overlook the fact that “he that eats” did not get to eat right then and there, unless you look at the day before when He fed the multitude. I say, it’s because nothing was given, and you said you could not refute that based on the text. What I also say is that no one, not one person in John 6: 41-60 actually ate anything at that very moment…so no unbelievers ate anything.

rjcash - *
Well you mentioned earlier that he did not offer it, telling them they CAN eat it and have eternal life, IS an offer. He did not turn around and tell them NOT to, how is as you say they dicided not to, if it was NOT offered:?..
They sure took him as directing it to them THEN, didn’t they?*

He said that unless they eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, they would not have life in them. He is teaching them, not offering them. I am only looking at John 6, no where else right now. And yes, He directed that right at them…and they wanted to kill Him for it.

rjcash - Were the ones he was talking to face to face excluded from this statement, … “that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”

The ones He spoke to, face to face, (and even those of us who read those words today) are included in that statement. That does not change the fact that 1.) He did not give to them at that moment, and 2.) No one ate anything during that teaching. Again, only looking at the words in John 6:41-60.

rjcash - …you seem to be saying he did not really mean they could eat the bread then, when he made the offer to them, so they themselves “may not die”

Not what I am saying. I am saying that there are no where in John 6 does He actually give them His life-giving Bread. He teaches them about it and promises it to them, but does not give it. Again…only looking at John 6:41-60.

rjcash - You seem to be suggesting that since he did not say, “take eat”. That “if any man eat” does not refer to them directly…

Not what I am saying…I covered this above, and in previous posts as well. If you want to discuss Greek, I suggest the link I provided you from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the teaching of Eucharist. The author(s) of that has taken all those things into account, referencing centuries’ worth of thought on the matter.

rjcash - *So I am just trying to figure out how Jn 6 is supposed to be taken literally, if this was not a real offer…even though he said “He that eats”, which is in the present tense, which John used, not me.
*

Maybe I can put this into layman’s terms: If I show my son his tricycle and tell him, “unless you ride this, you shall not have fun…” that does not mean I will let him ride it at that moment. In fact, I may have told him just moments before (as Christ told those Jews in John 6:47) that no can have fun unless they first do their chores. He may have forgotten that I want him to do his chores, but the facts that he cannot ignore are these: 1.) He can’t have fun without that tricycle and 2.) I’m not letting him ride it right now.

rjcash - *I know that you are trying to say this is only him talking about the idea of him being in the bread…But then isn’t that the same thing as saying, Jn 6 is really figurative? *

Not what I said, not what I’m saying. He is really real, and really available…but not given in John 6.

rjcash - You keep implying they COULD NOT really “eat his flesh”…

Not what I said, not what I’m saying. I said they “did not”, not that they “could not”. Big difference there.

 

[rjcash]

rjcash - You keep implying they COULD NOT really “eat his flesh”…

Not what I said, not what I’m saying. I said they “did not”, not that they “could not”. Big difference there.

So let’s clear this up, you then seem to be saying, they could have? As did Jesus himself!

So could they or could they not eat his flesh when he offered it to them? Or were those present excluded from this offer that he made directly to them?

v. 56 “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” Isn’t this the same IS that is referred to at the Last Supper and that is always emphazied as showing it is his flesh, so take and eat. And the is, is Present Indicative tense and mood.

 

[gw3961]

Hello all,

I have a quick question . If Jesus instituted the Eucharist on the last supper, and in particular transformed the wine into his blood, why does he refer to the newly transubstantiated wine as “fruit of the vine” in Matthew 26:29? It seems to indicate that the wine is, in fact, merely wine.

Here is the reference:

Matthew 26:26-29 (New International Version)

26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

What does Jesus mean when he refers to the “fruit of the vine” which he will not drink until he drinks it in the Father’s kingdom if the wine is no longer wine but is now his Body and Blood?

Thank you all for your response ,

Aquinas4585

The concept of “transubstantiation” which Catholics hold as the explanation for Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist is based on the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accidents. At the consecration, the substance of the bread and wine (the essence, for lack of a better word) become the body and blood of Christ. However, the accidents (the taste, look, feel, texture) remain those of ordinary bread and wine.

The word “transformed” is not best fit to describe what occurs during transubstantiation. The forms of bread and wine remain, only the substance is altered.

That being said, I would venture to say that when Jesus calls the cup of his blood “the fruit of the vine”, he may be referring to the wine in its accidental form. Jesus is not denying that the wine is substantially his blood, he is simply referring to the accidents which remain.

 

[ahs]

So let’s clear this up, you then seem to be saying, they could have? As did Jesus himself!

So could they or could they not eat his flesh when he offered it to them? Or were those present excluded from this offer that he made directly to them?

Again, that’s not what I’m saying. I am saying they “did not”, and Jesus did not give at that time. I (at least me, personally) cannot presume whether or not they “could” or “could not” by reading only John 6:41-60.

But what I CAN do is examine the fact that Jesus tells them in verse 47 “…he who believes has eternal life…” and in the same discourse tells them that (in verse 53) “…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you do not have life within you”. And I can examine the fact that both those verses begin with “Amen, Amen, I say to you…” or “Truly, truly, I say to you…” Perhaps this shows me some correlation between believing and eating/drinking?

So, while I, personally, cannot presume what could or could not have happened. I can look at what is said and what is not said:

-eternal life is directly connected to belief
-eating and drinking of Christ is directly connected to eternal life
-belief is a prerequisite to eternal life
-eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ is a prerequisite to eternal life
-belief is somehow linked to eating/drinking
-His statements of Truth (who/what He is, and what must be done) are told to ALL, believers and non-believers
-no one eats or drinks of Christ at this moment
-Christs does not tell them to eat right then and there, although He IS right there for them to behold

Am I able to go a step further and see that belief is a prerequisite to eating/drinking?

The concept of “transubstantiation” which Catholics hold as the explanation for Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist is based on the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accidents. At the consecration, the substance of the bread and wine (the essence, for lack of a better word) become the body and blood of Christ. However, the accidents (the taste, look, feel, texture) remain those of ordinary bread and wine.

The word “transformed” is not best fit to describe what occurs during transubstantiation. The forms of bread and wine remain, only the substance is altered.

That being said, I would venture to say that when Jesus calls the cup of his blood “the fruit of the vine”, he may be referring to the wine in its accidental form. Jesus is not denying that the wine is substantially his blood, he is simply referring to the accidents which remain.

Thanks for refreshing the original topic. I had all but forgotten the OP.

 

[rjcash]

Rjcash, please recall that it was your suggestion to stick only with John 6, and that you have admonished me a number of times to stay with John 6 only and that other verses should be treated in separate threads. I will hold you to the same.

You are correct and we both jumped ahead a bit.

So going back to the first two questions about the text.

1. What physical structure did the text say the discourse in v. 41-60 take place in?

You answered, “the synagogue”.

1. What city does the text say the discourse in v. 41-60 took place in?

You answered, “Capharnaum”.

And of course since v. 60 says, “These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.”, then your observations here are of course correct. Why, because that is what is in the text? Absolutely clear.

Now about some simple questions concerning who he addressed.

In v. 26-40 Who does the text say he is talking to here? Check v. 24.

In Jn. 6:26 “Jesus answered them, and said”.

1. Who is it referring to when it says “them”?

You will see then in v. 41 it changes to someone else he addresses.

1. In v 41-60 who does the text say he is talking to?

a. In v. 42 “And they said” - who is the they?

b. v. 43 “and said to them” “Murmur not among yourselves.” - who is the “to them” and “yourselves”?

c. v. 44-48 Who is he speaking to there, which is the same as the “yourselves” in v. 43.

d. v. 49-52 “Your fathers” - When he says “Your fathers, who is he speaking to?

e. v. 54-59 “Then Jesus said to them” – Who is the “to them” he is speaking to in these verses.

And at the end of the section in v. 60 “These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.”, as you rightly observed this took place in the City of Capharnaum, in the synagogue.

If you find that there is only one answer to a – e, then you can just supply that one answer. But just be clear that is what you are doing.

These should only take a few minutes and I do ask that you answer only from the text.

You will see these are straight forward from the text and no trick questions included.

Nor are interpretations needed, just facts about the text!

As noted before you are always free to make comments, just can you do that after answering the questions directly and to the point.

Thanks again for what you have already provided.

 

[ahs]

You are correct and we both jumped ahead a bit.

So going back to the first two questions about the text.

1. What physical structure did the text say the discourse in v. 41-60 take place in?

You answered, “the synagogue”.

1. What city does the text say the discourse in v. 41-60 took place in?

You answered, “Capharnaum”.

And of course since v. 60 says, “These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.”, then your observations here are of course correct. Why, because that is what is in the text? Absolutely clear.

I’ve been more than generous answering you questions for several posts now. Your turn to answer questions.

1 - Who is Jesus talking to in verse 47 when He says, “Amen, Amen, I say to you whoever believes has eternal life.”

2 - Who is Jesus talking to in verse 57 when He says, “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”

3 - Can you show me beyond any doubt that there is no link between belief and eating/drinking…as Jesus says that both are directly linked to eternal life?

 

[rjcash]

I’ve been more than generous answering you questions for several posts now. Your turn to answer questions.

1 - Who is Jesus talking to in verse 47 when He says, “Amen, Amen, I say to you whoever believes has eternal life.”

In v. 47 He says… “I say to you” these are the same ones in v. 41 he directly addresses, John’s phrase for this group is, “the Jews”, which is clearly stated in v. 41…

2 - Who is Jesus talking to in verse 57 when He says, “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”

Again He says… “I say to you” these are the same ones in v. 41 he directly addresses, John’s phrase for this group is, “the Jews”, which is clearly stated in v. 41.

**The verses supporting my observation are:

"41 The Jews therefore murmured at him……

43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them:"

When John states in v. 43 “to them” that Jesus is ansering, it refers back to v. 41 “The Jews”, which is who John says Jesus directly answers.**

3 - Can you show me beyond any doubt that there is no link between belief and eating/drinking…as Jesus says that both are directly linked to eternal life

That is not an observation about the text, since you did not provide any text to observe, concerning # 3.

Not dodging, but as I mentioned "you are correct, let’s get back to simple observations about what is directly stated in the text.

Your turn, please!

 

[NeedImprovement]

… I think this thread has evolved into one of the best “visuals” I’ve ever been given of a skipping CD .

This thread was only about a month shy of being 2 years old just before … uch:

… Then, there was a practical suggestion offered back on page 3 that went like this (highlights mine)

RJcash, I know that you refuse to see the Eucharist in John 6, but my friend, the Church has clearly seen the Eucharist in John 6, from the very 1st century. Bishops, who were disciples of the Apostle John (Ignatius), who spent extended periods of time with the Apostle John, saw the Eucharist very clearly in John 6. This teaching of the Church is the most consistent of any our teachings. To me, its a non-negotiable.

So, I’m really not concerned with what you see or don’t see mentioned. But I tell you what… break your comments on John 6 out and start a new thread. I don’t have much time right now to rebut you, but I will over the weekend.

It looks like everybody is having a good time now and I don’t want to ruin anyone’s fun - even if it is a little deficient in respect for our Lord’s True Presence in the Blessed Sacrament ,but,

@ rjcash : Next time you want to resurrect an old thread, perhaps you could , as NotWorthy had suggested, consider starting a new one instead ; that is, if you can find a way of boiling down your questions into a thread title. . This is also what the moderators would encourage us to do , according to this “sticky” notice posted at the top of the Traditional Catholicism forums : Resurrecting Old Threads . I guess you never saw it.

 

[NeedImprovement]

That being said , here is something I believe you really should consider Luvtosew (rjcash: please try to curb your enthusiasm and stay out of this one) :

Luvtosew:

You were originally saying that you only received Christ’s Body and Blood “symbolically” , actually , back then I believe you were saying “flesh and blood” . At post # 46 you decided to comment on a post I’d made geared for Catholics…not a problem - fine so far.

But a little later after post # 71 when I’d replied

It doesn’t appear you’re yet able to work with the correct definition of transubstantiation , so as I pointed out in the previous post , any of your reasoning regarding transubstantiation remains unsubstantiated …

God bless. I wish you well.

… you then began to say you received Christ’s Body. Blood, Soul and Divinity * spiritually* .
"Luvtosew:

… so I do believe when I take the host I am receiving Jesus’s body, blood, soul and devinity spiritually by symbols of bread and wine …

Now, those words appear very nice on the surface but I didn’t see how anyone could come to that conclusion : That in Holy Communion they receive “Christ’s Body, Blood, **Soul **and Divinity symbolically.”

So in post # 185 I asked if you could explain how you saw the symbols of Christ’s Soul and of His Divinity in the consecrated bread and wine when you receive them “symbolically” in Holy Communion :

Then perhaps you could describe for us how the (appearances of) bread and wine are symbols of Christ’s Soul and Divinity … how do you arrive at believing that ? …

… You were never able to answer it , even though you continue to say (post # 329):

…What do I mean in the spiritual sense, that we spirtually receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, in faith and spiritually, not in a physical body sense.

What you’re saying doesn’t make sense Luvtosew (I’m not suggesting you don’t mean it. * ) A lot of people can be confused when they try to “understand” Holy Communion … according to some of our greatest theologians not even the Angels can understand It) :

Body and Blood are not “spiritual” .Soul is spiritual, and I’m sure it could be argued that Divinity is spiritual referring to John 4:24, and even going as far back Exodus there are references to God’s Spirit - even in Genesis. We define death as the separation of the soul from the body.

The other thing you were saying is that you receive God’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity symbolically in communion. When you say this, you are saying “God isn’t really there personally.” A symbol is only something which represents, indicates or points to someone or something - it is not that person or thing ; unless you are speaking of the Sacraments, which are “in a class by themselves” because they “not only symbolize a revealed truth but actually confer what they signify.”

So for you to claim you receive Christ’s Soul and Divinity symbolically in Holy Communion doesnt flow from any logic. because there are no direct signs for this.

On the other hand when the Church considers Our Blessed Lord’s Body and Blood truly present in the consecrated bread and wine and it is from this that they reason wherever Christ’s Body and Blood is, so also His soul and Divinity must be.

Although the Blessed Eucharist is also a great mystery which can never be fully “explained” , what you profess to believe doesn’t make any rational sense if it is thought all the way through.

I think a lot of it comes from your being caught up on this idea of eating Jesus’ flesh being a type od cannibalism.

It may possibly be one of the reasons why Christ chose that the *accidents *of bread and wine remain (all the physical properties which our senses perceive) - so we don’t get caught up on that very thing.

Try reducing that to a very imperfect example of what we eat every day :

I love chicken . I like it fried, breaded, roasted, poached . But if I look on my plate and see this feathered clucking creature start running around on it (or even if it isn’t “running around” ) , I can guarantee you the furthest thing from my hand is going to be a fork. ))

Maybe reflect on it and pray on it a bit Luvtosew. Jesus is there live and in person in Holy Communion and He wishes to take our personal relationship with Him to a deeper more personal level - something much more intimate than symbolic.*

 

[ahs]

1 - Who is Jesus talking to in verse 47 when He says, “Amen, Amen, I say to you whoever believes has eternal life.”

In v. 47 He says… “I say to you” these are the same ones in v. 41 he directly addresses, John’s phrase for this group is, “the Jews”, which is clearly stated in v. 41…

2 - Who is Jesus talking to in verse 57 when He says, “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”

Again He says… “I say to you” these are the same ones in v. 41 he directly addresses, John’s phrase for this group is, “the Jews”, which is clearly stated in v. 41.

3 - Can you show me beyond any doubt that there is no link between belief and eating/drinking…as Jesus says that both are directly linked to eternal life

That is not an observation about the text, since you did not provide any text to observe, concerning # 3.

Not dodging, but as I mentioned "you are correct, let’s get back to simple observations about what is directly stated in the text.

Your turn, please!

Actually, this is where I leave the thread. Necessarily, this is where you and I must part (on this particular topic anyway), because we are now at a point, in my 3rd question, where it becomes necessary to rely on Christ’s Church to explain what this teaching means, because the text, as you have noted, is not as clear cut as we’d like it to be.

The only way to continue our discussion would be for you to show me, beyond any doubt, that the Bible is the SOLE rule of Faith (I know…different topic), or for you to accept that Christ left His Church on earth as an Authority to not only decide which books would be included in the Bible, but how to correctly understand them. Since we don’t agree here, any further questions will, by nature, devolve into noting more than “debate points”, at least as far as I can see it. And I’d rahter find Truth than try to win a debate.

So I will leave you with the links I had provided that you can study, and find what the Church really does teach and why (etc…). I will also leave you with a summary of what you and I found out together so far regarding only John 6:41-60:

-eternal life is directly connected to belief
-eating and drinking of Christ is directly connected to eternal life
-belief is a prerequisite to eternal life
-eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ is a prerequisite to eternal life
-belief is somehow linked to eating/drinking
-His statements of Truth (who/what He is, and what must be done) are told to ALL, believers and non-believers
-no one eats or drinks of Christ at this moment
-Christs does not tell them to eat right then and there, although He IS right there for them to behold
-Christ is speaking literally

How does all this fit together? The answer is in these:

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

See 1 Cor 11:23-30; Jn 6:35-71; Mt 26:26ff; Mk 14:22ff; Lk 22:17ff; 1 Cor 10:16; Ex 12:8, 46; Jn 1:29; 1 Cor 5:7; Jn 4:31-34, and many more…

See the teachings of the very first Christians such as Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc… (their writings are referenced in the Catholic Encyclopedia (NewAdvent) link and I believe you can even click a hyper-link to their actual writings.

Also see these paragraphs from the Catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3W.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3X.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3Y.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3Z.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P43.HTM

Brief Summary
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM

God bless you on your journey for Truth. Let us pray for one another that the Holy Spirit will guide us, open our hearts and minds, and grant us understanding of His Word.
In Christ,
ahs

 

[NeedImprovement]

• A request for cooperation in not re-opening old threads is also posted as a “sticky” notice at the top of the Sacred Scripture forums … Scroll down to number 10 if you wish to read it :

Consolidated “stickies” for the Sacred Scripture forum : READ THESE FIRST

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)