- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
To All………1 Peter 1:3…..> Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy has begotten us (AGAIN) unto a lively hope (HOW)?> BY THE RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ (FROM THE DEAD).
Now where does it say there that Jesus was Morphed back into a former preexistence life state, in fact it say our HOPE was (IN) his resurrection “FROM THE DEAD”.
Again if anyone does not see Jesus (EXACTLY) as a fellow human being one of US who GOD the Father Perfected and raised Him back to life after His death as a PURE HUMAN BEING a Son of MAN. Who became a Son of GOD . Just does not see Jesus at all nor can they relate with him on any level either. They have in there minds moved him away from themselves and by doing that He has nothing to do with them , he simply does not know them because they do not know him. This work of SEPARATION is of SATAN, It is exactly what Satan The working of the Adversarial Spirit wants, it want us to be separated from Jesus any way it can by deviding us from him and his relationship to us as a fellow Human Being.
This moving Jesus from his (EXACT) Identity with humanity is the very work of evil itself, and all who preach and teach these thing will have to give account for it in the future. Preexistences and Trinitarians all Teach this, it is fundamental in all there teaching and it is against the very Work of God (IN) Humanity , Jesus being the Firstborn from among MEN to (INHERIT) eternal life and the kingdom of God . He is the Firstborn of MANY BRETHREN> This Scripture could not say if Jesus was any different then we are. IMO
peace and love to you all…………………gene
Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2011,21:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 29 2011,14:59) Quote (Paladin @ June 28 2011,16:15) You did not “correct” my Greek, you asserted your own, and claimed victory.
Really? Then post once again how the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibits Jesus from speaking about a glory he had, then no longer had, but wants back again.Stick ONLY to the imperfect tense of “echo”, Paladin. Don't sidetrack and try to muddy the waters as you do so often.
Let's see it. I'll be waiting.
(And as you said, what we've posted remains in this thread. So if you NOW post something DIFFERENT than what you originally claimed, I'll bring up the original for all eyes to see that not only did I correct your misunderstanding of the Greek rules of grammar, but that you tried to HIDE that fact.)
The only thing on this board more childish than claiming victory you never had, is threatening a poster with “You better not change what you said or I'll expose you.”Take your stupid threats and post them over on the threat board.
For the record of what I previously posted look at threadpage 48, post #4.
I don't think I have changed it Mike.
YOU are the one who changes what you said, usually after you are proved wrong. Mostly though, you just keep repeating your error hoping the opposition will get tired and move on.
Addendum –Also threadpage 31 post #8; and threadpage 163, post #8
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 29 2011,08:34) Mike……….All your post is full of holes , first Why would Jesus be FOREORDAINED if he already existed, Why would he be manifested (brought into existence) if he already existed,
Well Gene,It seems we've discovered a BIG PART of your misunderstanding. You seem to think “manifest” means “brought into existence”. Let NETNotes set you straight:
Definition:
1) to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown,
to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way
1a) make actual and visible, realised
1b) to make known by teaching
1c) to become manifest, be made known
1d) of a person
1d1) expose to view, make manifest, to show one's self, appear
1e) to become known, to be plainly recognised, thoroughly understood
1e1) who and what one isI imagine that I would have also had a hard time believing in the pre-existence of Jesus if I too thought “manifest” meant “brought into existence”. I hope this new knowledge helps you to come over to the truth of the matter.
As far as “foreordained”, you could have already been foreordained by God to SOMEDAY be the one who gets to throttle Satan's serpent neck before he is thrown into the pit.
But the fact that you are foreordained for THIS PARTICULAR PURPOSE doesn't mean that you don't exist right now, does it? 
Let's start with these for now.
Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2011,04:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 29 2011,14:59) Quote (Paladin @ June 28 2011,16:15) You did not “correct” my Greek, you asserted your own, and claimed victory.
Really? Then post once again how the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibits Jesus from speaking about a glory he had, then no longer had, but wants back again.Stick ONLY to the imperfect tense of “echo”, Paladin. Don't sidetrack and try to muddy the waters as you do so often.
Let's see it. I'll be waiting.
(And as you said, what we've posted remains in this thread. So if you NOW post something DIFFERENT than what you originally claimed, I'll bring up the original for all eyes to see that not only did I correct your misunderstanding of the Greek rules of grammar, but that you tried to HIDE that fact.)
The only thing on this board more childish than claiming victory you never had, is threatening a poster with “You better not change what you said or I'll expose you.”Take your stupid threats and post them over on the threat board.
For the record of what I previously posted look at threadpage 48, post #4.
I don't think I have changed it Mike.
YOU are the one who changes what you said, usually after you are proved wrong. Mostly though, you just keep repeating your error hoping the opposition will get tired and move on.
Hi Paladin,Here are YOUR words, from page 163:
Quote Bu John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past. And here is the claim you tried to make about this, also from page 163:
Quote [NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon] describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous.
See? Your own words proved you wrong. “IN THE PAST” is the key. True, the imperfect tense refers to a continuing action IN THE PAST, such as “she kept on asking” or “he kept on running”, etc. But it doesn't imply that action is never ending, and still continues on to this day, right? And THAT is the claim you ATTEMPTED to make, as can be seen from your own words that I bolded above.But the FACT OF THE MATTER is that Jesus WAS asking to be glorified AGAIN with the glory he “KEPT ON HAVING IN THE PAST“.
And as I showed you, even though most translations render “echo” as a simple past tense in 17:5, translating it correctly according to the imperfect tense doesn't change the context or meaning of the verse:
5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I was having alongside you before the world was.
As compared to:
5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.
In other words, your claim that Jesus couldn't have been speaking about a glory he had in the past was inaccurate.
Please own up to the fact that your claim was false, and that I have corrected you on the Greek grammar involved.
Thanks in advance,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2011,12:30) [/quote] Quote (Paladin @ June 29 2011,04:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 29 2011,14:59) Paladin,June wrote:You did not “correct” my Greek, you asserted your own, and claimed victory.
Really? Then post once again how the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibits Jesus from speaking about a glory he had, then no longer had, but wants back again.
Stick ONLY to the imperfect tense of “echo”, Paladin. Don't sidetrack and try to muddy the waters as you do so often.
Let's see it. I'll be waiting.
(And as you said, what we've posted remains in this thread.
I said no such thing. I said what is posted left a record.
Quote So if you NOW post something DIFFERENT than what you originally claimed, I'll bring up the original for all eyes to see that not only did I correct your misunderstanding of the Greek rules of grammar, but that you tried to HIDE that fact.) I think you are haveing trouble with your thought proccsses Mike, you can't even follow a train of thought through a sentence.
First of all, I do not “hide” anything, never have, never will.
If I “post something different than what I originalloy claim” it is usually because you failed to comprehend what I said the first time, so I try to put it into words you can understand.
I can tell when you do not understand what I said, by your response, and especially when you say something idiotic like
“freak Greek” or “did you mean” followed by something weird.Quote The only thing on this board more childish than claiming victory you never had, is threatening a poster with “You better not change what you said or I'll expose you.” Take your stupid threats and post them over on the threat board.
For the record of what I previously posted look at threadpage 48, post #4.
I don't think I have changed it Mike.
YOU are the one who changes what you said, usually after you are proved wrong. Mostly though, you just keep repeating your error hoping the opposition will get tired and move on.
Hi Paladin,
Here are YOUR words, from page 163:
Quote Bu John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past. And here is the claim you tried to make about this, also from page 163:
Quote [NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon] describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous.
See? Your own words proved you wrong. “IN THE PAST” is the key. True, the imperfect tense refers to a continuing action IN THE PAST, such as “she kept on asking” or “he kept on running”, etc. But it doesn't imply that action is never ending, and still continues on to this day, right? And THAT is the claim you ATTEMPTED to make, as can be seen from your own words that I bolded above.The problem you keep having Mike, is you keep translating what I post. I will restate it for you only this time I will place the emphasis where you have totally missed it:
Bu(t) John used the imperfect form of echo which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.
So you see it yet Mike? See that emphasized “IN THE PAST ” which is a reference to time prior to the present. I said nothing about glory continuing into the present. I spoke only of glory that was a continuous action IN THE PAST.
But the FACT OF THE MATTER is that Jesus WAS asking to be glorified AGAIN with the glory he “KEPT ON HAVING IN THE PAST“.
Why do you insist upon adding words to the text, Mike? Do you think Jesus did not know how to express what he really meant to say? Or do you think the new testament authors were not inspired by the Holy Spirit to write exactly what God intended for us to understand?
Jesus knew how to say “again” if he wanted to say “glorify me AGAIN;” just as he did in “John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.”[John 12:28]
But, as everyone can plainly see, John did not use παλιν δοζασω [palin doxasw]
So why do you continue to insist that is the meaning of John's remark in that verse? Or are you simply providing what you think the Holy Spirit left out? Do you feel he is inadequate to supply all of the words that go into making his message understood? Or do you think you know what his message was supposed to be, better than he does? What is your problem Mike?
You keep mouthing off about keeping only to what the scriptures say. But it is obvious by now to everybody, that is only a figure of speech with you. But of course, if you
“corrected my Greek” as you claim, you would be forced to add some Greek to it, to get it to say what you believe it means, wouldn't you Mike?Paladin………You have accurately produced the truth of this scripture brother. We know Jesus had his glory afforded him before he ever came into existence and this glory is exactly what he was speaking about, by saying the Glory I had with you before the world began. But when people have a preconceived Idea of a Preexistence Jesus they apply that a a past existent glory. Simply another perversion of the word of God the trinitarians and preexistences believe.
Peace and love to you and yours Paladin…………………………………………………gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2011,12:07) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 29 2011,08:34) Mike……….All your post is full of holes , first Why would Jesus be FOREORDAINED if he already existed, Why would he be manifested (brought into existence) if he already existed,
Well Gene,It seems we've discovered a BIG PART of your misunderstanding. You seem to think “manifest” means “brought into existence”. Let NETNotes set you straight:
Definition:
1) to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown,
to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way
1a) make actual and visible, realised
1b) to make known by teaching
1c) to become manifest, be made known
1d) of a person
1d1) expose to view, make manifest, to show one's self, appear
1e) to become known, to be plainly recognised, thoroughly understood
1e1) who and what one isI imagine that I would have also had a hard time believing in the pre-existence of Jesus if I too thought “manifest” meant “brought into existence”. I hope this new knowledge helps you to come over to the truth of the matter.
As far as “foreordained”, you could have already been foreordained by God to SOMEDAY be the one who gets to throttle Satan's serpent neck before he is thrown into the pit.
But the fact that you are foreordained for THIS PARTICULAR PURPOSE doesn't mean that you don't exist right now, does it? Let's start with these for now.
Mike…………first let me say your Netnotes is nothing more then another Trinitarian and preexistence wed site who change all kind of scriptures to meet there and your dogmas. Hardly a good choice to believe in. IMO , secondly it is evident you are not even believing most of what the definitions you gave says.TO MAKE (ACTUAL) AND (VISIBLE) REALIZED.
Jesus was foreordained (BUT) was made actual and visible when he came into his existence at his berth on earth as another ADAM a fellow human being. Perfected and then resurected after his death to eternal life which he never had before his existence on earth , because he never preexisted before his berth on earth , he was just prophesied or FOREORDAINED to come into existence before the world was ever made, He was in the Plane and Will of GOD from the start.
peace and love……………………………………..gene
Quote (Paladin @ June 30 2011,07:00) But of course, if you
“corrected my Greek” as you claim, you would be forced to add some Greek to it, to get it to say what you believe it means, wouldn't you Mike?
I DID correct your Greek, for YOUR claim was that Jesus couldn't have been speaking about a glory he once had but has no longer.1. WAS THAT YOUR CLAIM, PALADIN?
2. DID I SHOW THAT CLAIM TO BE FALSE?
As for the word “again”, it's common sense to anyone who doesn't have a personal agenda that “glorify me NOW with the glory I HAD” implies “glorify me AGAIN”.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 30 2011,08:22) Paladin………You have accurately produced the truth of this scripture brother. We know Jesus had his glory afforded him before he ever came into existence and this glory is exactly what he was speaking about, by saying the Glory I had with you before the world began. But when people have a preconceived Idea of a Preexistence Jesus they apply that a a past existent glory. Simply another perversion of the word of God the trinitarians and preexistences believe. Peace and love to you and yours Paladin…………………………………………………gene
You've gotten it backwards, Gene.It is WE who can read, “the glory I HAD” and understand those simple words to be speaking of a glory Jesus HAD.
It is YOU who have to comically pretend that Jesus did not really HAVE the glory he clearly said he HAD.
Now, which one of us is rewriting the simple words, “the glory I HAD”?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 30 2011,08:46) Mike…………first let me say your Netnotes is nothing more then another Trinitarian and preexistence wed site who change all kind of scriptures to meet there and your dogmas. Hardly a good choice to believe in. IMO , secondly it is evident you are not even believing most of what the definitions you gave says. TO MAKE (ACTUAL) AND (VISIBLE) REALIZED.
Jesus was foreordained (BUT) was made actual and visible when he came into his existence at his berth on earth
Okay.In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.
So God's love for us didn't ever exist until He sent His Son?
“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
So Jesus is the one who BROUGHT God's Name INTO EXISTENCE?
After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and He manifested Himself in this way.
So Jesus CREATED HIMSELF AGAIN for the disciples? I wasn't aware that he CREATED HIMSELF the first time.
Gene, this is the realization of your true goals. It is abundantly clear that you are not after truth, for you've already made up your own truth. And you will let no person nor any scripture stand in the way of that truth you've made up.
I clearly showed you the DEFINITION of “manifest”, and you pretend that you are STILL right about it.
Do a word check in the KJV for “manifest”, Gene. See how many times that word is used to describe something that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE.
The word refers to something that DOES exist being made so that WE can now see that thing that already DID exist. Such as an invisible angel being made manifest to us – which means we're now able to SEE that angel who already DID EXIST – even when we couldn't yet SEE him.
Gene, read t8's signature at the bottom of his posts. “An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest”.
I have shown you the truth. Will you cease to be mistaken about “manifest”, or will you cease to be honest about it?
Quote (Istari @ June 29 2011,18:47) What does the word 'Manifest' mean?
Manifest is a word that has changed over time, originally meaning to expose, reveal, or express.In modern time, it is used with reference to ghostly apparitions, as “He saw a manifestation of his late uncle.”
Scripture use however, maintains a meaning of making known, something about something or someone; to express knowledge about a person or concept or thing.
God was manifested in many ways; through the miracles performed, through the invisible things of the world, through the preachings of Jesus [“He hath declared him”] and through God's own ways of showing his truths to unrighteous men –
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is MANIFEST in them; for God hath SHEWED it unto them. -[Rom 1:18]Notice it does not say “manifested to them” but “manifested in them. Paul references this manifestation of the rightesouness of God as “the just recompense” of their deeds.
When men live wickedly, and nature punishes them, it should be evident that it is God's work, not nature's. Though he may use nature and the things of the natural world with natural consequences to make his point, it still should be obvious there is a power greater than man, and more complex than nature. Even the Insurance industry has a category of disaster referenced as “an act of God.”
God is manifested to flesh in many ways, and by many applications of declaration, whether by Jesus, or apostels, or men of God.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2011,13:20) Hi Ed, Paladin won't agree, and he knows why.
But if he does, it is to be a one question and one answer within a post that is 250 words or less……………and only for me and Paladin.
Is there supposed to be some kind of shame attatched to failure to respond to a debate challenge?Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2011,13:20) Quote (Paladin @ June 30 2011,07:00) But of course, if you
“corrected my Greek” as you claim, you would be forced to add some Greek to it, to get it to say what you believe it means, wouldn't you Mike?I DID correct your Greek, for YOUR claim was that Jesus couldn't have been speaking about a glory he once had but has no longer.
You couldn't even read my post, how do you think you
“corrected” my Greek? On threadpage 177 post #4Quote Here are YOUR words, from page 163:
Quote
Bu John used the imperfect form of echo, which constitutes an action occuring without discontinuity in the past.And here is the claim you tried to make about this, also from page 163:
Quote
[NOTE: Imperfect Indicative [eixon] describes a continuing action occuring in the past. If in fact, Jesus had prior glory, and now does not, but asks to have it again, the tense would not be “imperfect” for the “imperfect” references action that was continuous.See? Your own words proved you wrong. “IN THE PAST” is the key. True, the imperfect tense refers to a continuing action IN THE PAST, such as “she kept on asking” or “he kept on running”, etc. But it doesn't imply that action is never ending, and still continues on to this day, right? And THAT is the claim you ATTEMPTED to make, as can be seen from your own words that I bolded above.
How does your statement that the imperfect tense refers to a continuing action in the past, correct my statement that the imperfect tense refers to a continuing action in the past?
Quote As for the word “again”, it's common sense to anyone who doesn't have a personal agenda that “glorify me NOW with the glory I HAD” implies “glorify me AGAIN”. Evidently you even have that backwards. It seems clear to the only one on the board that does have an aggenda. YOU!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2011,13:48) Do a word check in the KJV for “manifest”, Gene. See how many times that word is used to describe something that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE. The word refers to something that DOES exist being made so that WE can now see that thing that already DID exist. Such as an invisible angel being made manifest to us – which means we're now able to SEE that angel who already DID EXIST – even when we couldn't yet SEE him.
Mike…….If it was just a matter of the word by it self that could mean as you say many different ways. However it is not (IN) the sentence Peter said that way now is it? . Peter says it this way Jesus was “FOREORDAINED” (but) WAS “MANIFESTED” in our time.Now please take notice (IF YOU CAN) what was Jesus before his “manifestation”, he was a (FOREORDAINED) PERSON , now do you see there the words PREEXISTING PERSON there.
Yes you and the rest of the preexistences and trinitarians do see the word preexistence there too, just as you see the word Jesus in John 1:1, but they really are not there now are they.
So who is denying the truth and as you quote T8 , it seems to apply more to you and T8 himself. IMO
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 02 2011,01:21) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 01 2011,13:48) Do a word check in the KJV for “manifest”, Gene. See how many times that word is used to describe something that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE. The word refers to something that DOES exist being made so that WE can now see that thing that already DID exist. Such as an invisible angel being made manifest to us – which means we're now able to SEE that angel who already DID EXIST – even when we couldn't yet SEE him.
Mike…….If it was just a matter of the word by it self that could mean as you say many different ways. However it is not (IN) the sentence Peter said that way now is it? . Peter says it this way Jesus was “FOREORDAINED” (but) WAS “MANIFESTED” in our time.
Now please take notice (IF YOU CAN) what was Jesus before his “manifestation”, he was a (FOREORDAINED) PERSON , now do you see there the words PREEXISTING PERSON there.
Yes you and the rest of the preexistences and trinitarians do see the word preexistence there too, just as you see the word Jesus in John 1:1, but they really are not there now are they.
So who is denying the truth and as you quote T8 , it seems to apply more to you and T8 himself. IMO
Gene; The reason people believe in pre-existant Jesus, is because they do not comprehend the depth and scope of the Covenant between God and man.
The perception in thousands of denominations is that there is a covenant between God and his son on one hand, and Abraham and his descendants on the other hand.
One expression of this understanding I found online is found
Here.If Jesus is understood to be “on the one hand” as with the Father, he would have to be pre-existant. But it is a violation of most of scripture to take that position.
This is what I found, in part –
Quote
The Everlasting Covenant
A covenant is a legal agreement, a contract between two or more parties. The Everlasting Covenant is an agreement between JEHOVAH the God of Israel and His followers.(And further down the page I found this…)
1. PARTIES TO THE EVERLASTING COVENANT
The parties to the Everlasting Covenant are as follows:
JEHOVAH the Almighty God of Israel and His Son on the one hand And all true believers who choose to accept JEHOVAH'S terms of salvation on the other.This is a basic misunderstanding, as scripture has always presented us, not with Jesus being the author of the covenant on the Father's side, but rather Jesus as being the recipient of the covenant as the promised seed of Abraham.
Orthodox Christianity places Jesus on the wrong side of the covenant.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, “And to seeds,” as of many; but as of one, “And to thy seed,” which is Christ.
Jesus Christ was never a co-sponsor with “God-as-promisor” part of the covenant, but was always in the “seed of Abraham as promisee” part of the covenant. He was the recipient, not the donor.
This is why there was never any necessity for a pre-existant Jesus, he was totally ineffective prior to the fulfillment of the promise “to Abraham and to his seed as of one, which is Christ.
And his efficacy was never as the author of the covenant, but was always as the author of our salvation, through his offer of himself as sacrifice.
It was by this means he became qualified to be the mediator of the covenant, rather than the co-author.
It is one of the most important docgtrines of scripture, that Jesus be comprehended as the recipient of the covenant of Abraham, rather than the author and co-sponsor with the Father.
Quote (Paladin @ July 01 2011,20:38) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2011,13:20) Hi Ed, Paladin won't agree, and he knows why.
But if he does, it is to be a one question and one answer within a post that is 250 words or less……………and only for me and Paladin.
Is there supposed to be some kind of shame attatched to failure to respond to a debate challenge?
Hi Paladin,Once again you and me see eye to eye. (Click on this link)
He was already a defeated foe here. (Last Post on this Link)Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 03 2011,00:36) Quote (Paladin @ July 01 2011,20:38) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2011,13:20) Hi Ed, Paladin won't agree, and he knows why.
But if he does, it is to be a one question and one answer within a post that is 250 words or less……………and only for me and Paladin.
Is there supposed to be some kind of shame attatched to failure to respond to a debate challenge?
Hi Paladin,Once again you and me see eye to eye. (Click on this link)
He was already a defeated foe here. (Last Post on this Link)Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
My only point was that I see no shame in ignoring a debate challenge. Some sometimes think there is. Usually it takes place when their challenge is not picked up, resulting in a debate.Hi Paladin,
You didn't click on either of the links I provided; did you?
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 03 2011,01:06) Hi Paladin, You didn't click on either of the links I provided; did you?
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Sure did.Not my fight.
Quote (Paladin @ July 03 2011,01:32) Quote (Ed J @ July 03 2011,01:06) Hi Paladin, You didn't click on either of the links I provided; did you?
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Sure did.
Hi Paladin,Great! …I thought you hadn't by the way you answered.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
