The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog 332 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Reniaa wrote:

    The trinity and by extention hypostatic unions both are just explanantions read into the scriptures to help men explain scriptures that made them think Jesus is God. the mistranslation of John 1:1 being the main culprit. thats why you will find no one where in the bible the concept of 3-1.

    REPLY: That's not true. Matthew 28:19 is one of the clearest expressions of the 3 in one concept. Remember also, God is one in one sense, and three in a completely different sense, hence no contradiction. http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-4.html#19a

    a) Matthew 28:19 ----------------------------------------------------------

    The most explicit reference to the Trinity in the Gospels is Christ’s baptismal formula found at Matthew 28:19: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit …” (NAB). “This is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of the Trinitarian belief” (NAB notes, Matthew 28:19).

    Not surprisingly, the Jehovah's Witnesses don’t see it that way, stating: “Do these verses say that God, Christ and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one” (Should You Believe, Chapter 9).

    The Jehovah's Witnesses have missed the point entirely. No credible scholar claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one just because they are numerated like Tom, Dick and Harry. That’s silly. The unity of the three Persons or hypostases - the oneness of the three and singleness of essence - is indicated by the singular use of “name” by which all three Persons are referred to, not their plural “names.” If, for instance, the Son were merely a separate subordinate creature as the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach, Jesus would have them baptizing in the “names” of the Father and Son, at a minimum. But he did not. Having all the same “name” puts Father, Son and Holy Spirit on par, on an equal plane with all which this connotes.

    “Name” (Greek Onoma), “… as a noun, is used in general of the “name” by which a person or thing is called ….” It also stands “for all that a “name” implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence, etc., of everything that a name covers” (Strong and Vine’s, 178). The phrase “in the name” may represent the “authority of Christ” … or “in the power of” … or “in recognition of the authority of …. (MT 18:20; cf 28:19; …” (ibid.).

    Under either scenario a Trinitarian formula is patently obvious. If the “name” into which believers are to be baptized is that by which a person or thing is called then Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same name, that of God, and all three are called by God’s name; three Persons in unity sharing the divine essence, yet distinct. It equates the three Persons, and ascribes to them essence, power and eternity equally.

    The Jehovah's Witnesses reject the conventional application of “name” at Matthew 28:19 and argue that “name” does not mean a personal name at all, that “God” is not a name like Jehovah, but means “power or authority” (Should You Believe, Chapter 8). So, “‘baptism in the name of the holy spirit recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will” (ibid.).

    Actually, “I AM” can’t be considered a name in the conventional English sense either, but that is what Jehovah said His name is. A name can have wide application, as Isaiah attests about Jesus, whose name is “God.”

    And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6 NWT)

    Another weakness in their approach is that baptism under the Jehovah's Witnesses’ interpretation would be into three separate and unequal powers and authorities, with the Son possessing less than the Father because they believe Father and Son are not equal, since their Jesus is nothing more than a man, always inferior (Should You Believe, Chapter 7). This would conceivably require at least two separate baptisms but that would contravene Ephesians 4:5 which says that there is only “one baptism.”

    For the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Holy Spirit is only a power similar to electrical current flowing from God (Should You Believe, Chapter 8). But if that were the case, baptizing into the names of God and the Holy Spirit would be redundant, ascribing the same authority twice; it ascribes an authority and power of the Holy Spirit distinct from God, but that’s not what Jesus meant.

    The expression “in the name of” (literally, ‘into the name’), indicates a dedication or consecration to the one named. Thus Christian Baptism is a dedication or consecration to God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned here on a par with the Father, the passage clearly teaches that they are equally divine with the Father, who is obviously God. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 306)

    “From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived” (ibid., 299).

  • Spike Tassel
    Spike Tassel

    If there are indeed 3 individual Persons, none collective (as John 17:11 would suggest), then why do the Father and the Son have Personal names (even a nickname for the Father), but the Holy Spirit doesn't? Is the Holy Spirit like the child that dies before its naming ceremony?

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Reniaa wrote:

    Back to your earlier point that oneness of adam and eve can be used to back up oneness between Jesus and his father (note a total absense of holy spirit in any of the scriptures when refering to this oneness)

    REPLY: Matt 28:19 disproves your theory based upon the previous post regarding this scripture.

    Reniaa wrote: ... because the oneness between adam and eve is not a physical one but of agreement as a married couple that become one in purpose so surely then if this is comparable, Jesus and God's oneness is also in pupose and agreement?

    REPLY: Wrong again. The simple fact that God and Jesus are one in purpose goes without saying. No one argues against that, but the oneness goes beyond this to imply a oneness of identity. The husband and wife analogy refers to spirit as can be seen at 1 Cor 6:16, 17. “… Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? For “The two,” says he, “will be one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:16, 17). I explain it this way on the web site. http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html

    The Father and I are one - (John 10: 27-30) [ Top ]

    This verse is often cited in support of the divinity of Christ, that Jesus was, and is, God. They are not two, but one. The Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to argue that it only means they are one in purpose, nothing more. They reason that at John 17:21, 22:

    Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one, and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. (Reasoning, 424)

    Actually, they do.

    First, His followers becoming collectively “one” is meant in the spiritual sense, similar to a husband and wife becoming one flesh (or a man and a prostitute), that is, one spirit, not two. “… Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? For “The two,” says he, “will be one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:16, 17).

    Secondly, the glorified believer eventually does become folded into the Trinity, which is the only means by which he or she can attain heavenly immortality. Jurgen Moltmann (1926 - ) explains it this way:

    The unity of God is the communion of persons. The missions of the Son and the Spirit have brought creation within the Trinitarian process. At the end of time, all will be folded into the Trinity. The history of salvation is the story of the inclusion of creation into the perichoretic relationship (mutual indwelling) of the persons of the Trinity. (Oxford, 1213)

    [T]he monarchy of the Father is perceived in the Trinity because everything in the history of salvation comes from him and strives towards him. To throw open the circulatory movement of the divine light and the divine relationships, and to take men and women, with the whole of creation, into the life-stream of the triune God: that is the meaning of creation, reconciliation and glorification. (Trinity and the Kingdom, 178)

    Reniaa wrote: Jesus praying for his disciples saying that they should be ONE as he and the father are One. which is only possible if this is a reference to oneness of purpose and not about substance and nature.

    REPLY:There is just too much evidence proving you wrong. ("it is only possible?") I'm not sure what else I can say except to point you to the website where the proof is overwhelming. http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20

    It is oneness in terms of nature and essence. Go ahead, read it.

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Reniaa wrote:

    An appeal to the majority vote through the ages is not a good one simply because it started a couple of hundred years after the fact. The early christians didn't believe in a trinity at all. trinity was a grown doctrine read into the bible so thats why there was a need for the nicene creed which itself didn't settle things.

    REPLY: I'm surprised at your statement given the many, many doctrinal changes the Society has made over the years as the "light has gotten brighter" for them. Why the double standard? Furthermore, major theologians have always recognized a trinitarian pattern of worship in the Bible. Here is more information on the matter: http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-4.html#17

    The Trinity in the Bible: Elemental Trinitarianism is evident throughout the Bible [ Top ]

    While the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct in stating that the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, neither is the word “monotheism” so its absence has no bearing on whether the underlying basis for Trinitarianism exists in the Bible. Careful objective study of the Bible reveals strong scriptural support for recognizing by logical necessity the existence of a triune God - not three Gods, but one God Almighty existing in three hypostasis (Persons) who share the one divine essence. Jesus Christ was sent in part to reveal and explain this threefold nature of God.

    Early theologians who strove for a deeper understanding of the doctrine, as well as those of the Middle Ages and modernists, whether Catholic, Protestant or independent, recognize in Scripture an elemental Trinitarianism (Catholic Encyclopedia, 295).

    It is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, a product of centuries’ reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - and hence an elemental Trinitarianism - went back to the period of Christian origins. Contemporary studies on the ancient Christian creeds have done much to bring this out.” (ibid., 300)

    J.N.D. Kelly attests that “[s]trictly triadic formulas and the triadic frame of mind so clearly mark at least later NT compositions, that the exegete and the historian must recognize a quasi-independent Trinitarianism coexisting with the purer and simpler forms of NT Christology” (ibid., 300). Among the earliest Christians there was “… consistent worship of God in a Trinitarian pattern and the practice of baptism into the threefold name of God” (Encyclopedia of Religion, 54).

    18) The Trinity in the Old Testament [ Top ]

    While some downplay references to the Trinity in the Old Testament, many Bible scholars find implicit evidence and foreshadowing of God’s triune nature even if the early Israelites failed to pick up on it. The fact that such evidence is limited is immaterial because the triune God was subsequently and intentionally revealed to man by and through Christ, and better understood in the centuries that followed. This progressive revelation was the Almighty’s prerogative, and reasonable in light of the polytheistic pagan nations surrounding Israel at that time. It was necessary to contrast Israel’s polytheistic, many-god worshipping neighbors with a monotheistic God rather than a triune-natured God which could be confused with tritheism, the worship of three Gods. It was Jehovah’s intent to distinguish Himself from false pagan idols.

    Though the doctrine is not developed in the Old Testament, it is implicit in the divine self-disclosure from the very beginning, …in a very rudimentary form. This is found not only in isolated passages but interwoven in the entire organism of the Old Testament Revelation. (New Bible Dictionary, 1298)

    The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT. On account of the polytheistic religions of Israel’s pagan neighbors it was necessary for the teachers of Israel to stress the oneness of God. In many places of the OT, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowing of the Trinity. The personified use of such terms as the Word of God [Ps 32(33.6] and the Spirit of God (Is 63.14) is merely by way of poetic license, though it shows that the minds of God’s people were being prepared for the concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 306)

    Early theologians saw semblances of the triune activities of God - wisdom, word and spirit - embryonic members of the Trinity, and disclosure of the Trinity in the appearance of the three men to Abraham (Genesis 18) (Oxford, 1207).

    The earliest foreshadowing is contained in the narrative of the creation, where Elohim is seen to create by means of Word and Spirit (Gn. i. 3). Here we are for the first time introduced to the Word put forth as a personal creative power, and to the Spirit as the bringer of life and order to the creation. There is revealed thus early a threefold centre of activity. God as Creator thought out the universe, expressed His thought in a Word, and made His Spirit its animating principle, thus indicating that the universe was not to have a separate existence apart from God or opposed to Him.

    It is thought that Gn. I. 26 (‘And God said, Let us make man in our image and after our likeness’) implies that a revelation of the Triune God had been given to man when first created, in as much as he was to be given the divine fellowship, but that the consciousness was afterwards lost with the loss of his original righteousness. (New Bible Dictionary, 1298)

    19) The Trinity in the New Testament [ Top ]

    a) Matthew 28:19 ----------------------------------------------------------

    The most explicit reference to the Trinity in the Gospels is Christ’s baptismal formula found at Matthew 28:19: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit …” (NAB). “This is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of the Trinitarian belief” (NAB notes, Matthew 28:19).

    Not surprisingly, the Jehovah's Witnesses don’t see it that way, stating: “Do these verses say that God, Christ and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one” (Should You Believe, Chapter 9).

    The Jehovah's Witnesses have missed the point entirely. No credible scholar claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one just because they are numerated like Tom, Dick and Harry. That’s silly. The unity of the three Persons or hypostases - the oneness of the three and singleness of essence - is indicated by the singular use of “name” by which all three Persons are referred to, not their plural “names.” If, for instance, the Son were merely a separate subordinate creature as the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach, Jesus would have them baptizing in the “names” of the Father and Son, at a minimum. But he did not. Having all the same “name” puts Father, Son and Holy Spirit on par, on an equal plane with all which this connotes.

    “Name” (Greek Onoma), “… as a noun, is used in general of the “name” by which a person or thing is called ….” It also stands “for all that a “name” implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence, etc., of everything that a name covers” (Strong and Vine’s, 178). The phrase “in the name” may represent the “authority of Christ” … or “in the power of” … or “in recognition of the authority of …. (MT 18:20; cf 28:19; …” (ibid.).

    Under either scenario a Trinitarian formula is patently obvious. If the “name” into which believers are to be baptized is that by which a person or thing is called then Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same name, that of God, and all three are called by God’s name; three Persons in unity sharing the divine essence, yet distinct. It equates the three Persons, and ascribes to them essence, power and eternity equally.

    The Jehovah's Witnesses reject the conventional application of “name” at Matthew 28:19 and argue that “name” does not mean a personal name at all, that “God” is not a name like Jehovah, but means “power or authority” (Should You Believe, Chapter 8). So, “‘baptism in the name of the holy spirit recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will” (ibid.).

    Actually, “I AM” can’t be considered a name in the conventional English sense either, but that is what Jehovah said His name is. A name can have wide application, as Isaiah attests about Jesus, whose name is “God.”

    And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6 NWT)

    Another weakness in their approach is that baptism under the Jehovah's Witnesses’ interpretation would be into three separate and unequal powers and authorities, with the Son possessing less than the Father because they believe Father and Son are not equal, since their Jesus is nothing more than a man, always inferior (Should You Believe, Chapter 7). This would conceivably require at least two separate baptisms but that would contravene Ephesians 4:5 which says that there is only “one baptism.”

    For the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Holy Spirit is only a power similar to electrical current flowing from God (Should You Believe, Chapter 8). But if that were the case, baptizing into the names of God and the Holy Spirit would be redundant, ascribing the same authority twice; it ascribes an authority and power of the Holy Spirit distinct from God, but that’s not what Jesus meant.

    The expression “in the name of” (literally, ‘into the name’), indicates a dedication or consecration to the one named. Thus Christian Baptism is a dedication or consecration to God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned here on a par with the Father, the passage clearly teaches that they are equally divine with the Father, who is obviously God. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 306)

    “From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived” (ibid., 299).

    b) 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 ----------------------------------------------- [ Top ]

    Likewise, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 does not attempt to prove equality and unity simply by listing “Spirit,” “Lord” and “God.” Rather, the three are put on a par, thus indicating their divine nature, and consequently, their omnipotence, omniscience and eternal existence. In speaking of the spiritual gifts or charisms that are bestowed upon Christians, Paul says:

    There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. (NAB)

    This passage witnesses to the doctrine of the Trinity by ascribing the various charisms, viz, gifts, ministries, and workings, to the Spirit, the Lord (the Son), and God (the Father), respectively. Since all these charisms of their very nature demand a divine source, the three Persons are put on a par, thus clearly indicating their divine nature while at the same time maintaining the distinction of Persons (Catholic Encyclopedia, 306).

    The Spirit is the donor in each instance and each gift contributes to the corporate life of the body of Christ, the Church. The one Spirit, Lord or God, is at work in the body; the embryonic Trinitarian formula is to be noted, ….” (C.S.C. Williams, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible [London: Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1964], 961) (Peake’s Commentary)

    c) 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14) ----------------------------------------------- [ Top ]

    2 Corinthians 13:13 (14) provides “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity (love) of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” “[This] is one of the clearest Trinitarian passages in the New Testament” (NAB notes 13, 11-13). What makes Paul’s “use of these terms so significant is that they appear against a strictly monotheistic background” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 306).

    This blessing is perhaps a quotation from the early Christian liturgy. The grammatical usage in this blessing, especially the subjective genitives …. gives us a basis not only for the distinction of persons, but also for their equality in as much as all the benefits are to flow from the one Godhead.” (ibid.)

    2 Corinthians 13:13(14) “not only sums up the apostolic teaching, but it interprets the deeper meaning of the Trinity in Christian experience, the saving grace of the Son as that which gives access to the love of the Father and the communion of the Spirit” (New Bible Dictionary, 1299).

    d) Romans 8:9-11------------------------------------------------------------- [ Top ]

    Romans 8:9-11 also makes a strong statement that the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ both dwell in the believer, and accordingly the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ since there is only one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), an indwelling exemplified in a true Trinitarian fashion: God is in you, Christ is in you, and the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both (in the Latin Western tradition) is in you the true believer, all existing as one principle ultimately.

    But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Sprit of God really dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. (Romans 9:8-11 RSV)

    Jehovah is the spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:17 NWT; “the Lord is the Spirit” RSV)

    “[T]here are many other implicit references, for example at Jesus’ baptism, where the Father speaks from the cloud and the Spirit descends as a dove upon the Son (Matthew 3.16-17). In Paul’s letters there are many examples of Father, Son and Spirit being closely linked in their activity. [I]n Ephesians he speaks of ‘one Spirit …one Lord … one God and Father’ (4.4-6). In 2 Corinthians he speaks of God establishing us in Christ and giving us the Spirit as a first installment (1.21-2). He said to the Galatians that ‘God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ (4.6)” (Oxford, 1208).

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Reniaa wrote:

    Why do the Scriptures teach that Jesus came to show the Father to us and do not teach that Jesus came to show the Triune God to us?

    REPLY: If you look at all of the evidence taken together, he did. And the Bible does not consist solely of what Jesus taught. Writers other than those who wrote the Gospels go into great detail about things not covered by Christ, other rules of behavior not mentioned, deeper explanations on a deeper intellectual level beyond parables, through the Spirit of truth which served to help elaborate many of the details. Understanding the Trinity was meant to be a process.

    Reniaa wrote: and why did Jesus say, "Father... this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent" instead of "Father... this is eternal life, that they may know Us, the only true God."?

    REPLY: well, because it was Jesus the creature, who was not the Almighty, who was saying this. Jesus the creature (the man of the God-man equation) would never have referred to himself as the Almighty Father.

    Reniaa wrote: and finally why would any one believe Jesus can be two 'wills' or God 'three natures' when it is never described biblically?

    REPLY: I already answered that one in detail if you took the time to read the prior posts. It looks like you are arguing that God does not have a will and Jesus did not have a will, but that is silly. Not every single thing or theory or doctrine is described with specificity in the Bible. That is where analysis, logical deduction etc. comes in handy. The concept of "theocracy" or "monotheism" is not described in the Bible but the JWs believe in those concepts, don't they? Jesus did many things that were not described in the Bible, but that doesn't mean he did not do them, does it?

    Now, what you and your friends need to do is reconcile your idea that Jesus was just a man and nothing more with all of the evidence that proves you wrong which you can find right here: http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20

    JD II

  • Spike Tassel
    Spike Tassel

    the canned sermons continue DROWNING OUT whatever discussion COULD HAVE taken place or even, perhaps, whatever discussion DID TAKE PLACE

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Spike wrote:

    If there are indeed 3 individual Persons, none collective (as John 17:11 would suggest), then why do the Father and the Son have Personal names (even a nickname for the Father), but the Holy Spirit doesn't? Is the Holy Spirit like the child that dies before its naming ceremony?

    REPLY:

    The Jehovah's Witnesses reason that “[t]he Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father - Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit” (Reasoning, 407). The weakness in this argument lies in the fact that Scripture does not disclose the personal name of the pre-incarnate Word either (John 1:1) and since Jesus is not an archangel, the Word’s name cannot be Michael as they claim (see section 46 ). In line with the Jehovah's Witnesses’ logic the Word was not a Spirit person either because we don’t know His name (based on their assumption that the Word is completely separate from God), but we know that to be untrue. Neither are we told all of the personal names of all angelic spirit and demonic forces but that does not establish their impersonal natures or prove they don’t exist.

    From http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-8.html#38

    JD II

  • Spike Tassel
    Spike Tassel

    No, the holy spirit is INDEED a COLLECTIVE person, as John 17:11 clearly shows.

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Spike wrote:

    "canned sermons are NOT acceptable as debate, they show that the canned sermon person is NOT listening, is NOT interested in COMMON GROUND, is as UNLOVING as a BULLDOZER."

    REPLY: Oh, come on, Spike. Just because I thought out the answers to questions before hand doesn't make them canned sermons. If you are afraid of what I have written, prove it wrong! People quote other people's material all the time. I wrote this out myself. Why single me out? Prove me wrong instead. By deleting my posts you are proving me right because you know that I speak the truth and the Society is wrong in virtually everything they teach. Besides, all you did with the "Holy Spirit doesn't have a name" argument above is lift it out of the Rasoning book. That is canned to say the least. So let's be fair, objective and adults about this argument. As the moderator you have a lot of power. Try not to abuse it.

    JD II

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Spike wrote:

    the canned sermons continue DROWNING OUT whatever discussion COULD HAVE taken place or even, perhaps, whatever discussion DID TAKE PLACE

    REPLY: I don't know how you can say that given how long this thread is. Skip over the difficult parts if it bothers you. No one is forcing you to read it. By censoring us unnecessarily you are acting just like the Society, but this is not the Society. If I'm wrong, prove it, please. These "canned sermons" are directly on point. These issues are complex and deep, and can't be answered with tweets.

    JD II

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit