P
- Status
S
Seeking_God
Guest
God’s message is recorded in the Bible. It was written by holy people who were guided by the Holy Spirit. We can trust the Bible because it is God’s book. We can also be confident that it is the sure guide to Heaven. The Holy Scriptures “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15).
What about church tradition? Jesus warned us against tradition (Mark 7:1-13). He accused the Jews that they were “making the word of God of no effect through your tradition.” They should have remained faithful to the written Word. Similarly, church tradition has changed the clear teaching of the Bible. For instance, the church commends the veneration of statues even though the second commandment forbids the making of graven images and bowing down before them (Exodus 20:4).
The Midnight Cry and the Rapture of the Church
lightsource.com/ministry/love_worth_finding/
Love Worth Finding
Adrian Rogers
What about church tradition? Jesus warned us against tradition (Mark 7:1-13). He accused the Jews that they were “making the word of God of no effect through your tradition.” They should have remained faithful to the written Word. Similarly, church tradition has changed the clear teaching of the Bible. For instance, the church commends the veneration of statues even though the second commandment forbids the making of graven images and bowing down before them (Exodus 20:4).
The Midnight Cry and the Rapture of the Church
lightsource.com/ministry/love_worth_finding/
Love Worth Finding
Adrian Rogers
S
Scott1
Guest
How can you be sure?
B
BloodWashed
Guest
Every single prophecy the Bible has made has come true. All of them. There is not a single other book in the world that has that kind of track record. Not to mention, the Bible contains several scientific facts that man did not discover until thousands of years later: jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/science_is_always_behind_the%20Bible.htm
Plus, I did what it told me to as far as getting saved goes, and all the things happened that it promised would, so it’s been tested and proved.
Plus, I did what it told me to as far as getting saved goes, and all the things happened that it promised would, so it’s been tested and proved.
S
Scott1
Guest
S
Seeking_God
Guest
His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself Psalm 119:160.
The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.” Jesus’ says not one of Gods Commandments shall be changed. However the Catholic Church changed Gods Sabbath. Are we to keep the 10 Commandments or the 9 Commandments? It is the 10 Commandments not 9.
Now I ask you. How can you be sure of Church traditions?
Jesus’ Word is absolutely sufficient in itself.
People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God"(Matthew 22:29).
Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word.
So He declared to them in (Mark 7:13) “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.
The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in (Proverbs 30:5-6)
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.
Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in (Isaiah 8:20) is: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.
The principle of “sola Scriptura” is basic to accurate interpretation of Scripture. Psalm 36:9 explains, “For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light.” God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth.
The Apostle Paul said the same thing, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7).
Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture John 14:16-17, 26.
Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth “it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” I John 5:6.
The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. “The law of the LORD is perfect” Psalm 19:7. The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: Thy Word is truth.
Jesus said, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent Me” John 14:23-24. And then again. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” Matthew 24:35.
It’s called Faith in Jesus Christ. The Word of God made flesh and lived among us. In Jesus’ Name. Amen
Glory be to God
God Bless
B
BloodWashed
Guest
Amen my brother or sister, whichever you may be.
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
Does “Sola Scriptura” fulfill any prophecy? Was this doctrine/idea foretold by ancient prophets?
P
peacelight
Guest
Obviously you did not read everything about Sola Scripture. Yes faith is absolutely needed but you have to have work come along with it. You just cannot go to any scripture you want to hear to prove your claim according to your own intrepretation and what you want to hear and what you want your life to be like. Tradition and History have to be taken into account.
Where is the Reference?
Bible Christians, believers in Sola Scriptura, teach that the Bible is complete and that it is all that is needed. They teach that all answers are given by Scripture. I wish to refute that thinking by showing that there are a lot of questions brought up in Scripture that are not answered therein. So where do we go to find those answers so that we have the fullness of truth and not just some of it?
Matthew 11:21, “Woe to thee, Corozain…For if in Tyre and Sidon had been worked the miracles that have been worked in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”
What are these miracles in Corozain? Where is the reference?
Matthew 23:2, “The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses.”
Where is this ‘chair of Moses’ referenced in Scripture?
Acts 20:35, “In all things I have shown you that by so toiling you ought to help the weak and REMEMBER the Word of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
Show me the verse where Jesus said these words.
Matthew 2:23, “And He went and settled in a town called Nazareth; that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
In what verse did the prophets say this?
James 4:5, “Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit which dwells in you covets unto jealousy.””
Where does Scripture reference this?
2Timothy 3:8, “Just as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so these men also resist the truth…”
Who are Jannes and Jambres? Where is the reference? If you know, by what means did you find it?
Hebrews 11:35, “Women had their dead restored to them by resurrection. Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection.”
Who are these ‘others’, the ones searching for a better resurrection? Where is the Bible reference?
Jude 1:9, “Yet when Michael the Archangel was fiercely disputing with the devil about the body of Moses…”
Where can this ‘dispute’ be found in Holy Scripture?
Jude 1:14, “Now of these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord has come with thousands of His holy ones.’”Where is this prophecy in Scripture? Where is the reference?
Since Protestants are bound to Scripture and Scripture only (Sola Scriptura), they are not privileged to the answers to any of these examples which I have shown here. However, the answers are found by Catholics through tradition, and in the 7 books which Protestantism removed from the Holy Bible, and in the Apocryphal books. Catholics have the fullness of truth. They have all of the pieces of the puzzle. Protestantism has many pieces missing to their puzzle of GOD’s salvation history. As long as they cling to the false doctrine of sola scriptura, they will never see the full picture. They will never have the fullness of truth.
P
peacelight
Guest
Sola Scriptura,
The Anemic Man-made False Doctrine!
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
2Timothy 3:16-17
Those are the most common verses which non-Catholic sects use in a vain attempt to “prove” that the man made false doctrine of ‘Sola Scriptura’, or ‘Bible Only’ is Biblical. However, when these people quote Holy Scripture, they will invariably quote a verse or two entirely out of context. Before anyone even begins to discern the message of what Scripture is really trying to present, they must abide by the established rules, the main axioms of discernment of Holy Scripture, one of which is that you never take verses out of context. It is the context, the senses, and the literary genre, which must be taken into consideration for proper discernment. It is a virtual impossibility for any writer to put into words the true meaning of what he is trying to convey, without someone misconstruing and twisting his intended message. That is why having only one authority for proper discernment is of paramount importance.
“In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction.”
2Peter 3:16
No one should ever quote individual verses out of context in order to try to “prove” something other than what the author had intended to convey. When those two verses from 2Timothy 3 are put into their proper context, they do not mean at all what non-Catholics say they mean. I will prove this by suggesting that before continuing on this page, that you take this detour in order for you to put into proper context, the meaning that Saint Paul had intended for those two verses, and then please return here.
Some food for thought:
Before continuing, I would ask that ‘If all Scripture is inspired by GOD’, then why aren’t the Gospels of Peter, Paul, and Thomas included in your Bible? What answer to that question does Sola Scriptura provide?
The Anemic Man-made False Doctrine!
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
2Timothy 3:16-17
Those are the most common verses which non-Catholic sects use in a vain attempt to “prove” that the man made false doctrine of ‘Sola Scriptura’, or ‘Bible Only’ is Biblical. However, when these people quote Holy Scripture, they will invariably quote a verse or two entirely out of context. Before anyone even begins to discern the message of what Scripture is really trying to present, they must abide by the established rules, the main axioms of discernment of Holy Scripture, one of which is that you never take verses out of context. It is the context, the senses, and the literary genre, which must be taken into consideration for proper discernment. It is a virtual impossibility for any writer to put into words the true meaning of what he is trying to convey, without someone misconstruing and twisting his intended message. That is why having only one authority for proper discernment is of paramount importance.
“In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction.”
2Peter 3:16
No one should ever quote individual verses out of context in order to try to “prove” something other than what the author had intended to convey. When those two verses from 2Timothy 3 are put into their proper context, they do not mean at all what non-Catholics say they mean. I will prove this by suggesting that before continuing on this page, that you take this detour in order for you to put into proper context, the meaning that Saint Paul had intended for those two verses, and then please return here.
Some food for thought:
Before continuing, I would ask that ‘If all Scripture is inspired by GOD’, then why aren’t the Gospels of Peter, Paul, and Thomas included in your Bible? What answer to that question does Sola Scriptura provide?
P
peacelight
Guest
Now that we have those two verses in proper perspective, let us “pretend” that Sola Scriptura (from here on truncated to ‘SS’) really does exist, and that it is Biblical. Here are a few thoughts for you to ponder regarding exactly what you have with SS, but more importantly, what you do not have.
Since you have branched to the link above and now have seen the proper context, you now must realize that all you have from those two verses is the Old Testament, and with it all of the seven books rejected by the reformers.
When 2Timothy 3:16 and 17 are taken in proper context, the false doctrine of SS cannot claim the New Testament.
Consequently, SS believers are forced to make do with the Old Testament alone including the seven books rejected by Martin Luther, which they call Apocrypha. How then can the SS believer, who claims to follow the true teaching of the Bible, relate at all to the Gospels and with them the teachings of Christ?
You do not have a Holy Trinity to believe in do you? You see, the word “Trinity” cannot be found by using SS can it?
You see, the Holy Trinity was defined by the Catholic Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D… SS is lacking much more.
You cannot find that the Holy Spirit is “consubstantial” with the Father and the Son in SS.
That doctrine was not defined until the Catholic Council of Constantinople in 381. SS was no help here.
Do you believe in the “Hypostatic Union” (Jesus Christ has two natures, one human and one divine)?
If so, neither you nor I can find the “Hypostatic Union” in Scripture by using SS.
The Hypostatic Union was defined by the Catholic Council of Chalcedon in 451. SS failed us again.
The word “Bible” cannot be found in the Bible using SS can it? How do you know that the book which you call the Bible is the Bible? Does SS tell you? If so, where in the Bible is the list of inspired books within it? Why aren’t the books which I have listed above, and hundreds of others which existed at the time, included in your “Bible” simply by using SS?
The inspired books of the Bible, called the canon, were decided upon by the Catholic Church in several councils after well over three hundred of years of debate. So for the first three centuries of Christianity, there was no Bible with a New Testament, and thus no N.T. SS. These Councils were Rome 382, Hippo 393, Carthage 397, and there were later councils such as Florence 1431, and Trent 1546, reaffirming what these earlier councils had defined. It was those earlier councils which rejected the Gospels of Peter, Paul, and Thomas, and of the hundreds of other books declared to be not inspired. The very first Bible containing a New Testament and the Old Testament was St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate from 404 A.D… It has all seven of the books rejected by the reformers. Where is the canon of the Bible in SS?
Since you have branched to the link above and now have seen the proper context, you now must realize that all you have from those two verses is the Old Testament, and with it all of the seven books rejected by the reformers.
When 2Timothy 3:16 and 17 are taken in proper context, the false doctrine of SS cannot claim the New Testament.
Consequently, SS believers are forced to make do with the Old Testament alone including the seven books rejected by Martin Luther, which they call Apocrypha. How then can the SS believer, who claims to follow the true teaching of the Bible, relate at all to the Gospels and with them the teachings of Christ?
You do not have a Holy Trinity to believe in do you? You see, the word “Trinity” cannot be found by using SS can it?
You see, the Holy Trinity was defined by the Catholic Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D… SS is lacking much more.
You cannot find that the Holy Spirit is “consubstantial” with the Father and the Son in SS.
That doctrine was not defined until the Catholic Council of Constantinople in 381. SS was no help here.
Do you believe in the “Hypostatic Union” (Jesus Christ has two natures, one human and one divine)?
If so, neither you nor I can find the “Hypostatic Union” in Scripture by using SS.
The Hypostatic Union was defined by the Catholic Council of Chalcedon in 451. SS failed us again.
The word “Bible” cannot be found in the Bible using SS can it? How do you know that the book which you call the Bible is the Bible? Does SS tell you? If so, where in the Bible is the list of inspired books within it? Why aren’t the books which I have listed above, and hundreds of others which existed at the time, included in your “Bible” simply by using SS?
The inspired books of the Bible, called the canon, were decided upon by the Catholic Church in several councils after well over three hundred of years of debate. So for the first three centuries of Christianity, there was no Bible with a New Testament, and thus no N.T. SS. These Councils were Rome 382, Hippo 393, Carthage 397, and there were later councils such as Florence 1431, and Trent 1546, reaffirming what these earlier councils had defined. It was those earlier councils which rejected the Gospels of Peter, Paul, and Thomas, and of the hundreds of other books declared to be not inspired. The very first Bible containing a New Testament and the Old Testament was St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate from 404 A.D… It has all seven of the books rejected by the reformers. Where is the canon of the Bible in SS?
P
peacelight
Guest
Elucidation:
Here is a summary of the facts regarding Sola Scriptura.
Here is a summary of the facts regarding Sola Scriptura.
- According to 2Timothy 3:1-17, taken in context, SS is limited to the Old Testament only, and includes all of the seven Old Testament books rejected by the reformers.
- SS does not provide the canon of inspired books within Holy Scripture.
Therefore, how does the SS believer know which books are inspired and which books are not? - SS does not provide us with a list of uninspired books such as the Gospels of Peter, Paul, and Thomas, and does not explain why those books are not in the SS believers Bible. How can the SS believer differentiate between which books are inspired and which are not?
- SS does not provide us with the word “Bible”. How then can an SS believer even use the word?
- Therefore SS believers have no way of knowing that the book which they call the Bible is the Bible.
- Since SS believers cannot show which books in the Bible are inspired,
then they have no right to even call theirs an inspired Bible. - SS does not provide us with the word “Trinity”. So why do SS believers even use the word?
- SS does not define the Holy Trinity. So why do SS believers think it even exists?
- Do you believe in “Original Sin”?
Well the words “Original Sin”, taken together, are not in the Bible, so how can you believe in it? - Do you believe in the “Incarnation”? How can you when that word is not to be found in Holy Scripture?
- Do you believe in the “Ascension”? How can you when that word is not even in your Bible?
- Do you believe in something called the “Rapture”? How can you when the word is not to be found in your Bible?
- Do you believe in “Christianity”? Well that word cannot be found in the Bible either for SS believers.
- Do “Protestants” not exist at all simply because that word cannot be found in SS?
- Where in SS are the words, ‘we are saved by faith alone’? I can find just one verse where the words “faith” and “only” are found together and there is that little word “not” before them,
“You see that by works a man is justified and not by faith only”, James 2:24. I cannot seem to find words in support of ‘faith alone’, except in Martin Luther’s German Bible, where he added the word ‘alone’ to Romans 3:28. The book of James was a thorn in Luther’s side, as it contradicted what he taught. That is the reason why he called that book “a straw epistle”, meaning it was good for burning. - The words “Sola Scriptura” do not appear anywhere in the Bible, so how can any SS believer possibly practice it? By its very name, Sola Scriptura, if it is not in the Bible, then it simply is not to be believed. I get that answer all the time from SS believers who try to tell me that “everything” is in the Bible, in spite of the fact that the Bible in no way says that. However, the Bible does say that everything is not in the Bible, which is just the exact opposite of what SS believers tell me. See John 20:30, and 21:25.
Who should I believe, what SS believers tell me, or what the Word of GOD says? - Tell me about the workings of SS at the very beginning when the Church was founded by Christ in about 30 A.D., and the first book of the New Testament, 1Thessalonians, was not written until over twenty years later? If you would read the book of Acts, you will find that the Church was growing very fast during that period. Three thousand were added in only one day in Acts 2:41, and in Acts 2:27, more were added every day. Acts 4:4 mentions five thousand more believers. How can any SS adherent explain this fabulous growth without a New Testament to guide these early believers?
Would an Old Testament SS suffice for New covenant teaching? - SS could not possibly have worked for the first 374 years of Christianity (assuming it began in 30 A.D.), since there was no New Testament at all as we know it until 404 A.D…
- SS could have not possibly have worked for over one thousand years after the Latin Vulgate of 404, since the printing press was not invented until 1450 and all Bibles had to be laboriously copied by hand before then. It is estimated that each Bible took from ten to twenty years of a monks daily life to reproduce just one copy. A beautiful opulence abounded in those copies, as many were decorated with real gold and precious jewels. The cost for each was prohibitive. Who of the common masses could afford one?
If GOD needed SS then why did He wait over 1400 years before creating Gutenberg so that he could invent the printing press? - SS could not have worked at all with the prevalence of illiteracy running as high as 95% for so many centuries.
- The false man-made doctrine of SS does not appear anywhere in genuine historical writings before Martin Luther came along in the sixteenth century and “invented it”.
- How does the SS believer know which SS interpretation to believe since each one is his or her own pope? One teaches one thing and another teaches just the opposite. That is the main reason why there are tens of thousands of SS believer sects* in the world today, all teaching something different, and all saying “the Holy Spirit told me”. Who has the authority for the SS believer to say, “This is the one true meaning of Scripture”? The answer is that there is no authority. It is every SS believer for himself in Biblical interpretation which is forbidden by SS itself for any SS believer to do so, Acts 8:26-38, 2Peter 1:20, 2Peter 3:16.
*The World Christianity Encyclopedia, a Protestant publication. It lists 36,400 as of the middle of 2003.
P
peacelight
Guest
- If “everything is in the Bible”, so I am told by SS believers, then why do SS believers not believe and practice all of Scripture? Why do they reject large portions of it? Here are some examples of what they reject:
- The three verses I just listed which collectively say there is to be no private interpretation of Holy Scripture.
- 1Corinthians 11:2 and 2Thessalonians 2:15, which say to hold the traditions. SS believers say do not hold traditions.
- 1Timothy 3:15, does not say the bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, but it is the Church.
- John 10:16, that there shall be one fold and one shepherd, and not the tens of thousands that SS believers have formed.
- 1Corinthians 1:10, that you all say the same thing and that there be no dissensions. Well I have just shown that all of the thousands of sects teach different things, and it is dissensions which cause them to split and form even more sects.
- John chapter 6 which SS believers say is symbolic, yet the same ones say that the rest of the Bible is literal.
- Matthew 16:18 that Jesus said church and not tens of thousands of churches.
- Matthew 28:20 where Jesus Christ promised to be with His one Church every day in every century until the end of time.
- Luke 1:48, ‘Henceforth’, means from this moment on. ‘All generations’, means just that and I presume that it includes everyone who is reading this file. ‘Will’, is a command and not a suggestion. ‘Call me blessed’. In all of my extensive conversations with SS believers, not a single one has ever obeyed the command of this verse. This verse is proof positive that SS believers do not follow Holy Scripture, but pick and choose what fits their false beliefs. It is a clear violation of James 2:10,
“If someone obeys all of GOD’s laws except one, that person is guilty of breaking all of them.” - Luke 2:51, Scripture tells us that the creator of the universe was subject to a creature, His Mother, Blessed Mary, for the first 30 years of His life. Why don’t SS believers acknowledge this fact?
- Deuteronomy 4:2, 13:1, Proverbs 30:5-6, Revelation 22:18-20, ‘Do not add to or subtract from Holy Scripture’ (see #24 below).
- Deuteronomy 12:8, ‘You shall not do as we are now doing; here, everyone does what seems right for himself’.
This is yet another condemnation of individual interpretation of Holy Scripture. “If it fits my interpretation it is right for me”. - Revelation 21:8, 21:27 and 22:15, that liars will never make it into heaven.
- Romans 1:18 and 2:8, meet with wrath for those who are contentious and do not submit to the truth. Well I have shown from this lengthy list that SS believers are guilty as charged for closing their eyes and ignoring the verses I have listed in this section. They certainly do not submit to the truth of Holy Scripture. Isn’t saying that they obey Holy Scripture, while at the same time ignoring large sections of it, being hypocritical?
A verse which I have previously listed cries out to be repeated at this point:
“For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.”
James 2:10, RSV
“If someone obeys all of GOD’s laws except one, that person is guilty of breaking all of them.”
James 2:10, GW
“For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?”
- Obviously in some cases, the SS believers theme, “everything is in the Bible”, does not suffice for them, so in their teaching they add to Scripture by resorting to the use of eisegesis (eye-si JEE-sis), which is an interpretation of Scripture that expresses the individual interpreters own ideas and bias, rather than the true meaning of the text as the author had intended.
Here are some examples of SS believers use of eisegesis and how it adds to, twists, and distorts the meaning of Holy Scripture.
The eisegesis additions or changes to the true Words of GOD are shown in purple.
There are many more than I have listed here.
- Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, ‘This is a symbol of my body’.
- John 6:35, ‘I am a symbol of the bread of life’.
If the manna in the desert is symbolic of the Holy Eucharist, does an O.T. symbol ever point to another symbol in the N.T.?
If you think so, then what is the purpose of typology? - John 6:51 ‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is only a symbol of my flesh’.
- John 6:57, ‘and I live because of the Father, so he who eats a symbol of me will live because of me’.
Does a symbol of something have the powers of that something? - 1Corinthians 11:29, ‘For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, could not possibly eat and drink judgment upon himself, for how could a mere symbol harm anyone’?
P
peacelight
Guest
- Psalms 127:1, ‘Unless the Lord builds tens of thousands of houses, those who build it labor in vain’.
- Matthew 16:18, ‘You are Peter, an insignificant little pebble, and upon this insignificant little pebble I will build my tens of thousands of different churchES and all of them will be teaching something different’.
Do you really think they will all fit on that one insignificant little pebble? - Revelation 1:11, ‘What thou seest write in a book, and send to the seven Protestant churches…’.
- Matthew 16:19, ‘I will give every SS believer the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven’.
(Since we all know that each SS believer is his or her own authority, and thus is his or her very own pope, it would not make sense for them to be so unless each one had his or her very own set of keys as well.) - Matthew 28:20, ‘I am with you until you apostatize after the last Apostle has died, and then I will move to another church’.
Note! The identity of this, “another church”, is unknown since no SS believer can name it or its founder. Also the date of this monumental and greatest universe shaking event since the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is unknown. To add to this lack of historical evidence, there is not one single supporting genuine historical document of proof that it ever happened.
Just imagine, an event of this magnitude and it goes unreported and unrecorded! Where were the scribes of the day?
If you will read Ephesians 1:23 you will find that the Church which Jesus founded is His Body and He is its Head. How could His Body go into apostasy and be separated from His Head? - Ephesians 5:23, ‘Just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself not the Savior of His Body’.
After all, how could He be the Savior of His Body if it (His Church) fell into apostasy? - Matthew 16:19, ‘…and the gates of hell will prevail against my one and only Church’.
- Ephesians 3:21, ‘to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus until the day when the Church goes into apostasy’.
- Acts 1:20, ‘And , his ministry do not let another take, for everyone knows there is no such thing as Apostolic Succession’.
*2Timothy 2:2, ‘…and the things that you have heard from me through many witnesses, do not commend to trustworthy men, for they may be competent in turn to teach others. This will assure that there will be no such thing as Apostolic Succession’. - Matthew 18:17, ‘and if he refuses to hear them, appeal to the bible’.
- John 10:16, ‘and there shall be tens of thousands of folds…’.
- 1Corinthians 1:10, ‘I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you disagree and that there be many dissensions among you, but that you be not united in the same mind and the same judgment’.
- 1Corinthians 1:13, ‘Has Christ been divided up? No, not at all, I see no divisions here’.
- Luke 11:17, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to fruition, and house will rise upon house, by the tens of thousands’.
(Oops! Do I see a conflict here with the verse listed immediately above this one?) - John 16:13, ‘When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will teach something different to each of the tens of thousands of sects’.
- Ephesians 3:10, ‘in order that through tens of thousands of different denominations all teaching something contrary to each other, that there be made known to the Principalities and the Powers in the heavens the manifold wisdom of GOD’.
- 2Peter 1:20, ‘This then you must understand first of all, that all prophecy of Scripture is only to be made by private interpretation’.
- Acts 8:32, ‘I need no one to show me since we are each guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret it for ourselves’.
If that be the case, then why do not all of the tens of thousands of sects teach the same thing?
Is there a different Spirit for each sect, or one Spirit teaching something different to each?
P
peacelight
Guest
- Acts 5:32, ‘And we are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom GOD has given to all SS believers regardless if they obey him or not’.
Do those who ‘obey Him’ ignore large parts of His Word, and read into His Word (eisegesis) things that simply are not there? Doesn’t this verse really mean that those who do not obey Him are not guided by the Holy Spirit? - Romans 3:28, ‘For we hold that a man is justified by faith alone apart from works of the law’.
- Romans 13:2, ‘Therefore he who resists the authority resists the ordinance of GOD; and they that resist bring on themselves condemnation except for Martin Luther and the other reformers and their followers’.
- Hebrews 13:17, ‘Obey your superiors and be subject to them, however, Martin Luther and the other reformers are exempted’.
- Matthew 22:39, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself except if he be Catholic’.
*1Corinthians 10:32, ‘Do not be a stumbling block to Jews and Greeks, but be sure that you are one to the Church of GOD’.
*1Corinthians 15:9, ‘For I am the greatest of the Apostles, and am worthy to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of GOD’. - Philippians 2:12, ‘There is no need to work out your salvation with fear and trembling for we are already saved’.
- James 2:24, ‘You see that not by works a man is justified, but by faith only’.
- James 2:26, ‘For just as the body without the spirit is dead, faith without works is assured salvation for all SS believers’.
- And finally, we close exactly where we began with 2Timothy 3:16-17, ‘All scripture is inspired by God, past, present, and future, meaning any and all of that which has not even been written yet, and used exclusively for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for all-inclusive training in righteousness, that the man of God may be totally complete, fully equipped with faith alone’.
2Timothy 2:16-17 taken verbatim, and out of context as SS believers always do, conveys the false message that anyone can write a book (after all a book is scripture) and then declare it as being inspired by GOD.
“In these epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction.”
2Peter 3:16
“Thou shalt not rewrite Holy Scripture in order to fit thy own beliefs and biases. Instead, thou shalt conform thy teachings, and confine thy beliefs to the inspired Word of GOD, with nothing added, and with nothing taken away.”
See Deut 4:2, 11:32, 13:1, Psa 12:7, 33:4, 50:16-17, 107:10-11, 119:57, 139-140,
Prov 5:7, 30:5-6, Eccl 3:14, Jer 23:36, Gal 1:8-9, 1Pet 1:24-25, 2Pet 3:15-16, Rev 22:18-20.
I just love Proverbs 30:6 don’t you?
GOD, in His Infinite Wisdom, would never have given us one inerrant book,
without first giving us one authorized and infallible interpreter for it.
However, GOD did first give us one authorized infallible interpreter for it. He gave us His Church.
“Have I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Galatians 4:16
Source : CTreasureChest
P
peacelight
Guest
P
peacelight
Guest
1 Corinthians 10:4
Paul shows how Christian sacraments—baptism and the Eucharist—were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: “Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (v.3; cf. John 6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: “All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4).
The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness. In a further development, another Tradition, given by Philo, even equates this rock with preexistent Wisdom: “For the flinty rock is the Wisdom of God, which he marked off highest and chiefest from his powers, and from which he satisfies the thirsty souls that love God.”
It seems that Paul is drawing on this Tradition, but he elevates it to even a higher level. Christ himself was the Rock who provided for the people of Israel, which in turn makes their rebellion all the more heinous (1 Cor. 10:5ff.). Paul does not hesitate to draw on stock oral Tradition to illustrate and enhance his presentation of the gospel. The details provided in these Traditions preserved under the Old Covenant shed fresh light on the preparation that God made through Israel for the building of his Church and on the characteristics of the Christian sacraments.
Paul shows how Christian sacraments—baptism and the Eucharist—were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: “Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (v.3; cf. John 6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: “All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4).
The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness. In a further development, another Tradition, given by Philo, even equates this rock with preexistent Wisdom: “For the flinty rock is the Wisdom of God, which he marked off highest and chiefest from his powers, and from which he satisfies the thirsty souls that love God.”
It seems that Paul is drawing on this Tradition, but he elevates it to even a higher level. Christ himself was the Rock who provided for the people of Israel, which in turn makes their rebellion all the more heinous (1 Cor. 10:5ff.). Paul does not hesitate to draw on stock oral Tradition to illustrate and enhance his presentation of the gospel. The details provided in these Traditions preserved under the Old Covenant shed fresh light on the preparation that God made through Israel for the building of his Church and on the characteristics of the Christian sacraments.
P
peacelight
Guest
1 Peter 3:19
In his first epistle Peter tells of Christ’s journey to the netherworld during which “he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3:19). There is a growing scholarly consensus that the interpretive key to this verse is found in Genesis 6:1-7, in which “the sons of God” cohabited with “the daughters of men” and produced ghastly offspring. According to ancient interpretation, these “sons of God” were actually rebellious angels who sinned by mating with human women.
It appears likely that this is Peter’s view as well. “For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until judgment…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial” (2 Pet. 2:4, 9). Note the close link to Noah and Geneses 6. Compare too Jude 6, which says that “the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day…” These references are evidence that Peter has this traditional interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 in mind when he writes of Christ’s preaching “to the spirits in prison.”
Additional background is found in the extra-biblical book of 1 Enoch. In this work, which was popular both in ancient Jewish and early Christian circles, the righteous man Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) goes at God’s command to the place where these sinful angels are imprisoned and proclaims their impending judgment and punishment for their sin.
The parallel to Peter’s epistle is too close to dismiss. It seems possible that Peter views Enoch as a “type” of Christ and that in 1 Peter 3:19 he portrays Christ as a “second Enoch,” who goes to the spirit world and proclaims the final downfall of these evil spirits (compare Col. 2:15). Peter’s source for this analogy is Tradition, not Scripture.
This example is significant because it highlights one of the important functions that Tradition still plays for us. As is all too clear from the divisions within Christendom, Scripture may be interpreted in many different ways. Sometimes the Traditions passed on in the Catholic Church provide the interpretive key to certain passages. This was important in the early Church, because heretics of all stripes appealed to the Bible in support of their doctrine.
It is simply false to suppose that the early Church relied on sola scriptura to defend Christian orthodoxy. “There is no reason to infer,” says J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines, “that the primitive Church regarded the apostolic testimony as confined to written documents emanating from, or attributed to, the apostles.” Rather, the early Church Fathers argued that the interpretations of the heretics were not in line with the “rule of faith,” that is, the deposit of Tradition passed on by the apostles to the bishops of the Catholic Church and preserved through an unbroken lineage.
A specific application of this is the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The data of the New Testament concerning the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are ambiguous by themselves, although I would argue that the biblical evidence leans toward the Catholic interpretation. But we have additional help in the form of the Traditions preserved in the early Church which say that Mary remained a virgin and bore no other children besides Jesus. So Tradition can sometimes serve as arbiter and interpreter in cases where the meaning of Scripture is unclear.
In his first epistle Peter tells of Christ’s journey to the netherworld during which “he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3:19). There is a growing scholarly consensus that the interpretive key to this verse is found in Genesis 6:1-7, in which “the sons of God” cohabited with “the daughters of men” and produced ghastly offspring. According to ancient interpretation, these “sons of God” were actually rebellious angels who sinned by mating with human women.
It appears likely that this is Peter’s view as well. “For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until judgment…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial” (2 Pet. 2:4, 9). Note the close link to Noah and Geneses 6. Compare too Jude 6, which says that “the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day…” These references are evidence that Peter has this traditional interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 in mind when he writes of Christ’s preaching “to the spirits in prison.”
Additional background is found in the extra-biblical book of 1 Enoch. In this work, which was popular both in ancient Jewish and early Christian circles, the righteous man Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) goes at God’s command to the place where these sinful angels are imprisoned and proclaims their impending judgment and punishment for their sin.
The parallel to Peter’s epistle is too close to dismiss. It seems possible that Peter views Enoch as a “type” of Christ and that in 1 Peter 3:19 he portrays Christ as a “second Enoch,” who goes to the spirit world and proclaims the final downfall of these evil spirits (compare Col. 2:15). Peter’s source for this analogy is Tradition, not Scripture.
This example is significant because it highlights one of the important functions that Tradition still plays for us. As is all too clear from the divisions within Christendom, Scripture may be interpreted in many different ways. Sometimes the Traditions passed on in the Catholic Church provide the interpretive key to certain passages. This was important in the early Church, because heretics of all stripes appealed to the Bible in support of their doctrine.
It is simply false to suppose that the early Church relied on sola scriptura to defend Christian orthodoxy. “There is no reason to infer,” says J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines, “that the primitive Church regarded the apostolic testimony as confined to written documents emanating from, or attributed to, the apostles.” Rather, the early Church Fathers argued that the interpretations of the heretics were not in line with the “rule of faith,” that is, the deposit of Tradition passed on by the apostles to the bishops of the Catholic Church and preserved through an unbroken lineage.
A specific application of this is the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The data of the New Testament concerning the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are ambiguous by themselves, although I would argue that the biblical evidence leans toward the Catholic interpretation. But we have additional help in the form of the Traditions preserved in the early Church which say that Mary remained a virgin and bore no other children besides Jesus. So Tradition can sometimes serve as arbiter and interpreter in cases where the meaning of Scripture is unclear.
P
peacelight
Guest
Jude 9
Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: “When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’” (Jude 9).
As H. Willmering says in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, “This incident is not mentioned in Scripture, but may have been a Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle.” Some versions of the story circulating in ancient Judaism depict Satan trying to intervene as Michael buries the body. Several of the Church Fathers know of another version in which Moses’ body is assumed into heaven after his death. Jude draws on this oral Tradition to highlight the incredible arrogance of the heretics he opposes; even Michael the archangel did not take it on himself to rebuke Satan, and yet these men have no scruples in reviling celestial beings.
This text provides another example of a New Testament author tapping oral Tradition to expound Christian doctrine—in this case an issue of behavior. In addition, this text relates well to a Catholic dogma that troubles many non-Catholics—the bodily Assumption of Mary. There is no explicit biblical evidence for Mary’s Assumption (although see Rev. 12:1-6), but Jude not only provides us with a third biblical example of the bodily assumption of one of God’s special servants (see also Gen. 5:24, 2 Kgs. 2:11), he shows that oral Tradition can be the ground on which belief in such a dogma may be based.
Jude 14-15
This one’s a real show-stopper, perhaps the best example of all. St. Jude speaks of the rebellious upstarts of his day, saying, “It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.’”
This statement may also be found in the non-Scriptural book of 1 Enoch (1:9); but Jude’s use of it does not really say anything about the inspiration of 1 Enoch. Rather, he asserts that the saying itself actually hales from the venerable Enoch, whose righteous life is mentioned in Genesis 4-5.
Here is a tradition, a prophetic revelation, which was passed on orally for millennia before being captured first in a non-inspired written document (1 Enoch) and then in an inspired document (Jude). Did the writers of the New Testament ever regard oral tradition as divine revelation? This example more than any other shows that the answer to that is a resounding, Yes!
Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: “When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’” (Jude 9).
As H. Willmering says in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, “This incident is not mentioned in Scripture, but may have been a Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle.” Some versions of the story circulating in ancient Judaism depict Satan trying to intervene as Michael buries the body. Several of the Church Fathers know of another version in which Moses’ body is assumed into heaven after his death. Jude draws on this oral Tradition to highlight the incredible arrogance of the heretics he opposes; even Michael the archangel did not take it on himself to rebuke Satan, and yet these men have no scruples in reviling celestial beings.
This text provides another example of a New Testament author tapping oral Tradition to expound Christian doctrine—in this case an issue of behavior. In addition, this text relates well to a Catholic dogma that troubles many non-Catholics—the bodily Assumption of Mary. There is no explicit biblical evidence for Mary’s Assumption (although see Rev. 12:1-6), but Jude not only provides us with a third biblical example of the bodily assumption of one of God’s special servants (see also Gen. 5:24, 2 Kgs. 2:11), he shows that oral Tradition can be the ground on which belief in such a dogma may be based.
Jude 14-15
This one’s a real show-stopper, perhaps the best example of all. St. Jude speaks of the rebellious upstarts of his day, saying, “It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.’”
This statement may also be found in the non-Scriptural book of 1 Enoch (1:9); but Jude’s use of it does not really say anything about the inspiration of 1 Enoch. Rather, he asserts that the saying itself actually hales from the venerable Enoch, whose righteous life is mentioned in Genesis 4-5.
Here is a tradition, a prophetic revelation, which was passed on orally for millennia before being captured first in a non-inspired written document (1 Enoch) and then in an inspired document (Jude). Did the writers of the New Testament ever regard oral tradition as divine revelation? This example more than any other shows that the answer to that is a resounding, Yes!
P
peacelight
Guest
Other Examples
There are a number of other examples in the New Testament in which the writer likely draws on oral tradition, but not so clearly in support of any doctrine. For instance, Paul dips into rabbinic tradition to supply the names, Jannes and Jambres, of the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharoah’s court (2 Tim. 3:8). In the Old Testament, these individuals are anonymous (Ex. 7:8ff.). James tells us that because of Elijah’s prayer there was no rain in Israel for three years (Jas. 5:17), but the Old Testament account of Elijah’s altercation with King Ahab says nothing of him praying (1 Kgs. 17).
It is rabbinic tradition that characterizes Elijah as the quintessential man of prayer. And even the Golden Rule, “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12) was anticipated by Jewish oral Tradition. Rabbi Hillel taught, “What you do not like should be done to you, do not to your fellow; this is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary.”
Conclusion
Likely there are many more examples of the use of oral Tradition in the New Testament. Reference works such as Alfred Edersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, John Lightfoot’s Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, and Strack and Billerbeck’s magisterial Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Misrasch contain a wealth of parallels between rabbinic tradition and the New Testament writings. One notoriously difficult impediment to such a study is determining which traditions pre-date the New Testament and which are exclusively post-apostolic; such decisions must be left to experts and range well beyond my own abilities. Nevertheless, I believe that the passages that I cited demonstrate that the New Testament authors drew on oral Tradition as they expounded the Christian faith. This fact spells real trouble for any Christian who asserts that we must find all of our doctrine in written Scripture. We know that the apostles did not teach the doctrine of sola scriptura explicitly in Scripture, and we know through their use of oral Tradition that they did not intend to teach it implicitly by their example either. The conclusion is that they simply did not hold to a principle of sola scriptura—and neither should we.
Catholics need not be shy about this issue. The Protestant reformers taught that sola scriptura—Scripture alone—is our authority in matters of faith and morals. But this doctrine is unbiblical. The Catholic Church teaches that Christian doctrine is sola Verbum Dei—from the Word of God alone—and this is what the Bible actually says about itself. The teaching of the Bible and of the Church is that God’s Word comes to us both through the writings of the prophets and apostles and through the oral Traditions that they handed on, and these are preserved by the Church through the leading of the Holy Spirit. The burden of proof is on any Christian who believes otherwise.
by David Palm, a convert, freelances from Waukegan, Illinois.
There are a number of other examples in the New Testament in which the writer likely draws on oral tradition, but not so clearly in support of any doctrine. For instance, Paul dips into rabbinic tradition to supply the names, Jannes and Jambres, of the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharoah’s court (2 Tim. 3:8). In the Old Testament, these individuals are anonymous (Ex. 7:8ff.). James tells us that because of Elijah’s prayer there was no rain in Israel for three years (Jas. 5:17), but the Old Testament account of Elijah’s altercation with King Ahab says nothing of him praying (1 Kgs. 17).
It is rabbinic tradition that characterizes Elijah as the quintessential man of prayer. And even the Golden Rule, “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12) was anticipated by Jewish oral Tradition. Rabbi Hillel taught, “What you do not like should be done to you, do not to your fellow; this is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary.”
Conclusion
Likely there are many more examples of the use of oral Tradition in the New Testament. Reference works such as Alfred Edersheim’s The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, John Lightfoot’s Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, and Strack and Billerbeck’s magisterial Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Misrasch contain a wealth of parallels between rabbinic tradition and the New Testament writings. One notoriously difficult impediment to such a study is determining which traditions pre-date the New Testament and which are exclusively post-apostolic; such decisions must be left to experts and range well beyond my own abilities. Nevertheless, I believe that the passages that I cited demonstrate that the New Testament authors drew on oral Tradition as they expounded the Christian faith. This fact spells real trouble for any Christian who asserts that we must find all of our doctrine in written Scripture. We know that the apostles did not teach the doctrine of sola scriptura explicitly in Scripture, and we know through their use of oral Tradition that they did not intend to teach it implicitly by their example either. The conclusion is that they simply did not hold to a principle of sola scriptura—and neither should we.
Catholics need not be shy about this issue. The Protestant reformers taught that sola scriptura—Scripture alone—is our authority in matters of faith and morals. But this doctrine is unbiblical. The Catholic Church teaches that Christian doctrine is sola Verbum Dei—from the Word of God alone—and this is what the Bible actually says about itself. The teaching of the Bible and of the Church is that God’s Word comes to us both through the writings of the prophets and apostles and through the oral Traditions that they handed on, and these are preserved by the Church through the leading of the Holy Spirit. The burden of proof is on any Christian who believes otherwise.
by David Palm, a convert, freelances from Waukegan, Illinois.
- Status