It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking false claims about Jehovah's Witnesses. 1-14

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



bigwhammy, honestly im surprised with you.

i found the video laughable.

he starts with an assumption that resurrection ALWAYS refers to the body and never the soul or spirit. note that NOWHERE in the bible does it say that or elude this, it is 100% pure assumption this statement that he is making and it goes in direct conflict with the thoughts of ezekial 18:4 "the soul that sinneth, it shall die."

honestly, how can i take him seriously if he cant even prove what he is saying?

not only that, but if jesus' resurrection was only his body... then that means that jesus soul didnt die! he is literally guilty of the very thing he is accusing JWs of! namely that christ has not risen!

incredible.

its also ironic that he should make this statement while useing 1 cor 15.

[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead.....
[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

so it says here in B&W that jesus was resurrected a spirit! something the professor seems to deny and feels the JWS are at fault for.

[46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
[47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
[48] As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
[49] And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
[50] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

----------------------------

he mentions the distibution of literature around the globe and even says that he personally has found that when he traveled he could see it distributed.

if an organization was preaching the gospel the way it should, wouldnt it look like this? wouldnt god's organization be evident by the sheer amount and thoroughness and zeal by which its preaching is done?

"they begin more bible studies, and make more back calls than denominational christianity is able to manage in the US"

occult? sure... whatever you say

----------------------------

he mentions JW's thinking they are the "prophet" against the church. of course!

who else is going to point out the church's hypocrisy? who else is going call them out on their bloodshed?

did not ezekial prophecy against the isrealites for the same thing?

----------------------------

talking about armageddon he says "the last time they projected this was 1975". honestly i have yet to see any article that makes that claim. i have seen an article that proposes as a possibility that something would occur then, but that is not the same as stating a date.

1975 is always used against the JW's but it is never quoted correctly.

he continues to ramble about some tract that shows the false prophecies, and talks about "lying"

"no one knows the day or the hour except the father" - this has always been the stance with JW's. they theorize, they suppose, but it is always "maybe". and if they get it wrong, they are happy to admit it and correct the mistake.

i have yet to see any church do that.

which is the false prophet? the one who gets a day wrong, or the one who teaches lies like immortality of the soul, and hellfire? seriously....

---------------------------

he quotes hebrews 4:12 which is ironic considering just how much of the "word of god" the church disregards.

"and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." i have shown on this forum time and time again that the church does not preach the gospel, neither by tongue nor by works. what does that say of their "intentions"?

--------------------------

"be sure that when you are talking to a Jehovah's witness, that you open the bible and that you have them look at the passage with you!"

LOL, that a sure way to loose patrons to the church... in fact, most Jw's wish people would do that more.

i wonder if he means 1 cor 15, LOL

--------------------------

"you and i are to bare that good news to them" - LOL

so when the JW's knock on your door (doing the work you should be doing) that is the time you preach to them - LOL

-------------------------

he doesnt "destroy" anything, he only makes a fool of himself.




posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Wow great vids, learned alot from the letter vid. All this is very interesting.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by holywar
reply to post by texastig
 

Texas, could you please try to reason... just a little bit????
Please read the whole book of John.
How does your INTERPRETATION of John 1:1 fit with the rest of the book of John?

It's not my interpretation. It says "and the Word was God"
The more I read the more I see Jesus as God.
I'm still reading the Gospel of John for you. I'll give you my conclusions when I'm done.


Originally posted by holywar
No other book (well, maybe Revelation too) reveals CLEARLY Jesus relationship with HIS FATHER.


You don't understand His dual nature.


Originally posted by holywar
Can you please explain John 17:3


Jesus's prayer was directed on behalf of the vast masses of humanity, a great majority of whom were (and are) idolaters, worshipping many gods, indeed “false” gods. It was entirely appropriate, therefore, that Christ pray that they might become acquainted with the “only true God.” As R.C.H. Lenski observed, this portion of the prayer was “directed against pagan polytheism” (The Interpretation of John, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943, p. 1122



Originally posted by holywar
Why would GREEK SPEAKING Egyptians translate John 1:1 to their native language the way they did. Please keep in mind these are Egyptians living and translating the text around the 2nd and 3rd century.


I have no idea what your talking about.


Originally posted by holywar
Have you even bothered to view the videos I posted?


I have been busy reading the Gospel of John as you wanted me to. I'll watch and let you know when I get done.

Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
texastig

Many other Christians no longer believe in the trinity, this is not exclusive to JW's.

To continue this line of thought and debate I suggest you go here.
www.belowtopsecret.com...


Then that makes the wrong. It's simple and easy to see in the Bible.

Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
You don't understand His dual nature.


Originally posted by holywar
Can you please explain John 17:3


Jesus's prayer was directed on behalf of the vast masses of humanity, a great majority of whom were (and are) idolaters, worshipping many gods, indeed “false” gods. It was entirely appropriate, therefore, that Christ pray that they might become acquainted with the “only true God.” As R.C.H. Lenski observed, this portion of the prayer was “directed against pagan polytheism” (The Interpretation of John, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943, p. 1122


so jesus was telling them to get to know jesus?

go through the chapter verse by verse, and you will see that its impossible for them to be the same

[1] These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

one person, talking to another person, not one "aspect" talking to another "aspect". if jesus was just another side of god, then there would be absolutely no need for god to glorify the son, or vice versa.

[2] As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

if jesus was god, why would he be "given" power?

[3] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

"the only true god, AND jesus christ" not the only true god, jesus christ. black and white, 2 separate people. jesus also being "sent". do you ever send yourself?

[4] I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

how is it that god is "giving" or assigning work for himself, and then patting himself on the back for accomplishing it?

[5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

"i had WITH thee" not i had AS thee.

[6] I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

"gavest me"?

[7] Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

jesus' works were FROM god, not god's

[8] For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

clearly jesus is likening himself to a messenger. if jesus was god, i guess he was delivering his own message? notice that jesus doesnt say it was his message but god's

[9] I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

so these people were god's but they were given to jesus. so they were god's and then god gave them to god?

[10] And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

so, god's peoples are god's and god's peoples are god's?

[11] And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

many use john 10:30 "I and my Father are one." to try to prove the divinity of christ, yet jesus himself shows that this is not one in a literal sense but rather in unity.

i am not god. i am human, i sin, i die and god can do none of these things. if jesus and god are one literal person, then how am i to be one with them? how am i to be one with other christians? because one means unity not sameness of person.

[12] While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

so god looked out for god's people?

[13] And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

"come I to thee". have you ever returned to yourself?

[14] I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

"your word." not MY word, YOUR

[15] I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
[16] They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
[17] Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

"thy truth" not my truth. jesus is apparently humble and doesnt take much credit. which would be very weird if he was god and deserved the credit in the first place/

[18] As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

clear comparison. jesus was "sent" just like christians are "sent". so if jesus is god, then christians are jesus?

[19] And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
[20] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
[21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

again, referencing john 10:30 we see that there are clear differences between god, jesus, and christians, and yet all three are united or "one"

[22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

"gavest" again this time showing jesus also "giving" it to christians.

[23] I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

three separate entities, god, jesus and followers. nothing and i mean nothing to elude that they are the same being

[24] Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

"given me" "be with me" "lovedst me"

separate people

[25] O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

jesus keeps emphasizing "sent me"

[26] And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

"thy name" not my name

--------------------------------------

to believe that jesus is god is to rewrite large portions of the bible. in this chapter alone, nearly every verse is a testament to jesus being a different individual from his father. even the fact that jesus was praying in the first place was a testament.

your quote from lenski doesnt at all explain this passage. there were times when jesus did pray as an example (our lords prayer in matthew is an example), but jesus' wording shows that this was not the case here. jesus was clearly talking to god on behalf of his disciples, in no way could the disciples reuse this prayer and it still make sense.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Then that makes the wrong. It's simple and easy to see in the Bible.


show me one scripture that says that god, jesus, and the holy spirit are a trinity.

if the trinity is supposed to be the core belief of every christian, that shouldnt be too hard right?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
im not a JW and even i have proven that time and time again in multiple threads

jesus is the son of god. there are scriptures that show...

- jesus praying to God (multiple times)
- god talking to jesus on three different occasions
- jesus saying that god is greater than him
- jesus being call the ¨firstborn¨of all creation
- God having no beginning (in conflict with the point above if they are the same person)
- jesus talking about doing god´s will, not his own
- jesus saying that god sent him
- jesus saying that he didnt not send himself in the same verse
- jesus being called god´s son
- the god of the OT (same as the god of the NT) being only ¨one¨
- jesus being tempted (do you honestly believe God can be tempted?)
- jesus´response to being tempted (to worship himself?)
- satan tempting jesus (why would satan even try)
- the death of jesus (can god die?)
- the resurrection of jesus (if god was dead, how did he resurrect himself?)
- jesus correcting the jews of thinking that he called himself god (why would he correct them if it was true?)
- jesus is depicted in revelation as a lamb before god.
- bible says that no man has seen god ecept the son. (yet men have seen jesus)
- the hebrew temple depicts god in the most holy, while jesus is depicted as the high priest (separate entities)
- jesus offering his blood as a sacrifice for mankinds sins (to god)


You should be a JW. Because what your believing goes against the scriptures. Do you attend a church? If you do, what's the name?
God was in Jesus reconciling the world back to Himself. God in Jesus was showing us how to get back to Him.



Originally posted by miriam0566how are they lying when they clearly agree with the bible?


They say one thing, then say another, then they go back again to the first thing they said.

Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
OK, I was able to get to 3:50 on the first video.
This is ridiculous and this man needs to pray for his own salvation.
He is a lost soul, as far as I can see. To base your salvation on what kind of body Jesus had after he was raised from the dead is very hollow and he will not be raised his own self if he puts his trust in a mandatory physical body. The Bible says that the physical body does not enter heaven. If he expects to go to heaven in his physical body he is sorely mistaken.


The Bible says the physical body will be raised and transformed into a glorified physical body. There's is no Christianity with out the physical resurrection. The tomb was empty so indeed it was his physical body.



"And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead." (Jn 20:5-9)


Ignore the bible to your own peril...



" Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1 Co 15:12-14)


What you are advocating is what the gnostics believed ~ Christ was a spirit with no physical body. He rose in the flesh. Thomas even put his hand in the wound. I would abandon that position because the Bible has name for those who deny he came in the flesh...



"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 Jn 7)



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
A question for any Jehovah's Witness:


You believe and base many of your main doctrinal teachings on the fact that Christ returned in 1914, is that correct?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
John 3:28 αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς μοι μαρτυρεῖτε ὅτι εἶπον ἐγὼ / ὅτι· οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστός, ἀλλ' ὅτι ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου. 
You yourselves testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ,' but, 'I have been sent before him.'
John 14:9 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· τοσοῦτον / τοσούτῳ χρόνον / χρόνῳ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα· πῶς σὺ λέγεις· δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα; 
Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, 'Show us the Father?'
so these are bad translations?


Ego Eimi means "I am"
In Greek, the words recorded in John 8:58 are "'prin abraam genesthai ego eimi." Literally, this is "Before Abraham was existing, I am." "Ego eimi" is literally, "I am." This is the present tense. To say "I have been" is to use the perfect tense. In Greek, his would have been "aemane." But Jesus didn't use it here. He used the present tense, "ego eimi" which is "I am."

There are places, however, in the New Testament where the Greek present tense of 'ego eimi', "I am", can be translated into the English perfect tense, "I have been." An example of this is John 14:9 where Jesus says, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me..." In this verse, "Have I been" is originally the Greek present tense, 'ego eimi'. But here, Jesus was answering the statement in verse 8, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Since in English it is awkward to say, "I am with you so long and you still don't know me....?", it is then rendered as, "Have I been with you so long and you have not come to know me....?" The translation of the Greek present into the English perfect tense is perfectly justifiable here because it doesn't make sense in English. But is it the case with John 8:58? Must it be translated as "I have been"? No. There is no linguistic requirement to translate it as "I have been" particularly when you notice that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus after he said, "ego eimi."


Originally posted by miriam0566
you still didnt answer my question, why would the disciples need a sign of his presence?


Jesus’s disciples were interested in future developments. When Jesus pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, they asked Him when that would happen and what would be the sign of His coming.
Fortunately they turned to Jesus who provides correct answers.

Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by texastig
 

The Bible says that every eye shall see Him.
Jesus isn't Michael.
The time of the Gentiles hasn't ended.
Your arguments seem to fall aprt when you are not just quoting someone else.
What is this "time of the Gentiles " and what does it have to do with Jesus returning or Michael?


I posted a quote from the watchtower. Have you been following what is going on?
Everyone is trying to figure out what the jw's mean when they said that.

Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
oh come now, you mean to tell me your not an "expert" of all things JW? im sure you already know the scriptures. and im sure you already are familiar with the events of 1914.


I've read their false stuff and I've debated them many many many times before.


Originally posted by miriam0566
the "blood thing" was a commandment handed to noah. it was not only part of the mosaic law.


As part of this doctrinal shift, the Watchtower organization warned that accepting a blood transfusion could prevent them from living eternally in God's new world, the hope held by members: "It may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but that at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian."[69]
69. Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God, published by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1961, p. 54

No one is going to loose their eternal life getting a blood transfusion. That's the most ridiculous doctrine they have. By them not letting their members get blood transfusions, the jw's have sent people to their deaths.


Originally posted by miriam0566
if you receive a free invitation to a party, does it automatically mean you are at the party? no, you have to actually GO to the party.
god's grace is free, IF you accept it. its not something to be mocked


When someone really accepts Christ, they are immediately saved. God meets us where we are at. We don't have to goto the party.


Originally posted by miriam0566
jesus died for those that put faith in him. (john 3:16)

Wrong. Jesus died for everyone(john 3:16). Everyone who believes in Him receives eternal life.


Originally posted by miriam0566
those that put faith in god learn and each the truth (john 4:23,24)
those who put faith in god love one another (john 13:34,35)
those with faith back their faith with works (james 2: 18-20)
those with works follow jesus' command to preach (matt 28:19,20)

so yeah, if you as a christian were doing all these things then logically you would become a JW. no need to get all mad about it.


That doesn't mean you are a jw.

Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
A question for any Jehovah's Witness:
You believe and base many of your main doctrinal teachings on the fact that Christ returned in 1914, is that correct?
I am a Seventh Day Adventist so I know some of this stuff that they borrowed from us.
Daniel 8:14 "And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."
Those days were considered to represent years and if you calculate it out from the proclamation of Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem you get 1844.
Apparently the JW's added another 70 years to get 1914.
Well, we did not and just went with the original.
We did not notice Jesus reigning on earth so that could not be the correct interpretation. A man in the Millerite movement had a vision that what happened was Jesus, as High Priest in the heavenly Temple, entered the most holy place at that time, which corresponds with the cleansing of the temple that happens on the day of atonement.
The verse in Daniel was about, "then the temple will be cleansed".
So that seemed reasonable enough of an interpretation.
I guess the JW's decided to stretch it out but it is still based on the same basic concept of Jesus reigning from a remote location.

[edit on 19-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Jehovah's Witness is a dangerous cult and not Christianity. Cult Expert Dr Walter Martin of Christian Research Institute destroys JW with the Bible and historical truth. It's just Russell's watchtower occultism - don't confuse it with Jesus Christ's true church.


Bigwhammy, that is awesome!!! Walter Martin is awesome and he slams the jw's for their false doctrines.
Keep posting that great stuff.
Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 

I posted a quote from the watchtower. Have you been following what is going on?
Everyone is trying to figure out what the jw's mean when they said that.
I guess I missed that. I still think it does not make any sense.




[edit on 19-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 
OK, I was able to get to 3:50 on the first video.
This is ridiculous and this man needs to pray for his own salvation.
He is a lost soul, as far as I can see. To base your salvation on what kind of body Jesus had after he was raised from the dead is very hollow and he will not be raised his own self if he puts his trust in a mandatory physical body. The Bible says that the physical body does not enter heaven. If he expects to go to heaven in his physical body he is sorely mistaken.


jmdewey60, Walter never said anything about basing your salvation on what kind of body Jesus had. Walter said that if Jesus wasn't resurrected then our faith is nothing. Can you watch it again to see?
Thanks,
TT



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


No one is going to loose their eternal life getting a blood transfusion. That's the most ridiculous doctrine they have. By them not letting their members get blood transfusions, the jw's have sent people to their deaths.
I for one is thankful for their work for the sanctity of blood. These are the people who allow us to have religious wavers to not be legally required to take vaccinations by the state.
Do you know how many hemophiliacs died from tainted blood products that were knowingly sent out with AIDS and Hepatitis?
How about all the people who died from bad vaccinations?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




Those days were considered to represent years and if you calculate it out from the proclamation of Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem you get 1844.


Why years? These are 2,300 evenings/mornings, which refers to 2,300 total units or days. DAYS not years.


"And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”" (Da 8:14)


The prophecy was precise in identifying the time as that of Antiochus’ persecution - the abomination of desolation- , ca. Sept. 6, 171 b.c. to Dec. 25, 165/4 b.c. After his death, Jews celebrated the cleansing of their holy place in the Feast of Lights, or Hanukkah, in celebration of the restoration led by Judas Maccabeus. It was fulfilled to the letter.



Apparently the JW's added another 70 years to get 1914. Well, we did not and just went with the original. We did not notice Jesus reigning on earth so that could not be the correct interpretation.


at least your side admits it. I would love to hear from a JW on this.



[edit on 6/19/2009 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


jmdewey60, Walter never said anything about basing your salvation on what kind of body Jesus had. Walter said that if Jesus wasn't resurrected then our faith is nothing. Can you watch it again to see?
Thanks,
TT
Sure sounded like it to me. He said it was the very center of the doctrine of salvation and if we do not believe Jesus had an ordinary physical body after being resurrected, then we are lost.
What does that mean to you?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Straw man much? He never said:


an ordinary physical body



I addressed your unscritptural assault on Biblical Christianity here



[edit on 6/19/2009 by Bigwhammy]




top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join