U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-12-2012, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,943,771 times
Reputation: 255

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo View Post
Humanity's understanding of truth changes over time, not truth itself.
RESPONSE:

Qualify that statement by saying "some truths" and I might agree with you. But facts remain facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2012, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,943,771 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Wrong. You are citing "precepts and doctrines of men" . . . nothing that Christ THE Word of God said or believed.
RESPONSE:

How would you know what Christ said or believed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,943,771 times
Reputation: 255
[quote=katiemygirl;23832072]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post

Of course Jesus wrote every word of the Bible. JESUS IS GOD. So is the Holy Spirit. All three are God! Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Or do you deny this too?

The Bible is inspired, God breathed. God doesn't contradict Himself, make mistakes or lie.

Jesus very clearly said if you reject His words, you reject Him and His Father. So your claim that there are contradictions in God's word is a flat out rejection of Jesus Christ. You are rejecting Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of the world.

All scripture is inspired by God. That means all of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments are God breathed. Not only is God's word inspired, it is infallible. God isn't capable of making mistakes. He is PERFECT!

Katie
RESPONSE:

We have been pointing out errors and contradictions in the Acts. Perhaps we can expand this thread to contain investigate other books of the bible.

Where did you get the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired?

I'm told that Cinderella says her story is true. Should we believe her because she says so? See the problem?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,943,771 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by katiemygirl View Post
No, God has spoken. Thus shall it be! You refuse to accept the word of God and you try to drag others down with you. When you attack the word, you reject Jesus Christ. His words, not mine. You claim to know the Bible so you should recognize that scripture and right where to look for it.
RESPONSE:

Again, how do you know Jesus words?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 08:01 PM
 
20,329 posts, read 15,701,005 times
Reputation: 7461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
There are plenty of details that are contradictory. The basis for the contradiction does not only rest upon the 'disciples' and 'apostles' issue.

That alignment does not work very well - Paul is not 'omitting' anything (see below).

First, let me preface my remarks with this point - Contradictions really are beside the point because of one very important principle in logic - Coherence does not necessitate Correspondence. The Bible could be without contradictions and still not correspond to reality.
Since you are making an issue about the supposed contradictions, they are the point. There are no contradictions.


Quote:
Second, although the 3 years problem was not my focus there can be a strong case for a contradiction regarding it. I was simply granting it in order to focus on the more obvious contradiction regarding Paul's first visit - Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18

Now onto the contradictions.

There are three issues:

1) The 3 Years Problem

The tone of Acts suggest a short time period between Paul's conversion (near Damascas) and his 1st subsequent trip to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18).
No it doesn't. Read what I say a little further down.

Quote:
*Acts suggest that Paul tried to join the disciples but they were afraid. This is precisley because of Paul's recent persucution just prior to his conversion. Why would the disciples be afraid of Paul after 3 years?
This is adequately explained here, Acts 9:26 Bible Commentary and here, Acts 9:27 Bible Commentary


Quote:
* Paul goes to great measures to seperate himself from the Church in Jerusalem in Galatians - he certainly did not try to join the fellowship. Why would Paul try to join it after three years of being in Arabia, being taught by Christ himself, and teaching in Damascus? Antioch was the center of his ministry.

*Paul is very adamant and clear, in Galatians, that he did NOT go up to Jerusalem prior to Arabia (v.17 - the very thing Acts fails to mention). Why does Paul feel it necessary to clarify this issue in such a forceful manner - even so much so as to take and oath - v.20. Who was saying otherwise? Notice that Paul contrast going up to Jerusalem first (the lie) and going to Arabia first (the truth according to Paul). Why does Paul make this distinction between the two? The simple answer is that there was some lie/rumor that Paul had gone to Jerusalem prior to going to Arabia. Acts presents that scenario (the lie) that Paul corrects - hence Acts does not mention Arabia but presents it as if Paul went there only shortly (many days) after his conversion.
Skeptics seem to think that two different accounts must include all the same details or else there is contradiction. Luke's purpose was not to give a detailed history of Paul. His account in Acts 9 concerning Paul is condensed and simply leaves out some details which Paul covers in Galatians, but which he (Paul) himself skips over in his narrative in Acts 22:16-17 in which he defends himself before the Jews. Paul completely leaves out the details of the three years between the time of his conversion to his visit to Jerusalem. If it's okay for Paul to leave out those details in one of his narratives, then it's certainly okay for Luke to skip over them.

Quote:
Sidebar: The difference between I Kings 17 and here is that 'many days' and '3 years' is in the same verse not so with the passages we are dealing with - One is in Acts the other Galatians. You are meshing the two together precisly becuase there is a difficulty.
There is no difficulty. As shown in posts #20, 30, and 36, 'many days' can refer to a large period of time, including three years. The fact that the 'many days' of Acts is clarified as being three years in Galatians simply reflects two different writers in two different books describing the same thing in different words.


Quote:
*Acts downplays the tension between Paul and the Jerusalem Church and highlights the unity as it spread (Acts 9:31). Why? Paul thinks that there was another gospel - one of faith and works. It seems clear that Acts edited the facts to reduce the theological differences that were competing in Christianity prior to any N.T. writings which were started primarily to correct such differences. Remember no N.T writings were started until 20-25 years after the death of Christ.

Seems clear to whom? To the skeptic looking for contradictions.

Downplay - to treat as less important.

The purpose of Acts was to record church history, defend Paul's apostleship, defend the faith, and explain the orderly spread of the gospel message from the Jews to the Gentiles. Just how much attention was Luke supposed to devote to Paul's problems in Jerusalem?


Quote:
Like I said I was not trying to even argue for the above because the real problems come with the first visit.

2) The 1st Visit Problem (Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18)

*The Apostles and Disciples Issue: Acts does not mention two apostles it is just vague and says Aposltes (granted this could mean technically just two - Peter and James). The problem is that Acts states that Barnabas brought him to the apostles and Acts calls Barnabas an apostle (Acts 14:4, 14). Barnabas was part of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 4:36). So that would be at least three apostles that Paul met or saw according to Acts - not two. You might quible that Paul means two of the twelve - OK - let flesh this out.

If that is the case then how do you reconcile the fact the James (the Lord's brother Gal.1:19) was not one of the twelve. When Paul uses the word apostles he means any apostle in the broad sense not the narrow sense. Interestingly, Paul does not mention Barnabas regarding his 1st trip only the second trip. If Barnabas was there on the 1st trip (as Acts says)why did not Paul mention him and why is he not included in the term 'apostles?' Acts cannot mean that Barnasbas was just taking Paul to two of the Twelve since James was not one of the Twelve. Acts sugests that Paul was brought by Barnabas to more than just Peter and James.

As far as the term disciples are concerned Paul says that he only saw James and Peter - he makes no mention of meeting any of the disciples which would certainly be the case when trying to join them as Acts suggests.

Acts has 1) Paul meet the disciples which become afraid (Seeing and Fearing), as aresult 2) Barnabas takes him to the Apostles.

Galatians has 1) Paul unknown by face to the churches of Judea (Gal.1:22) and only sees Peter and James, and 2) No Barnabas. The disclpes only heard of Paul's conversion and rejoiced at it (Gal.1:23-24) (Hearing and Rejoicing).
You again imagine there to be contradiction between what Acts says and what Galatians says when in fact they complement each other. Barnabas isn't mentioned in Gal 1:18-19 but is mentioned in Acts 9:27. Barnabas is not included as one of the apostles with which Paul became acquainted in Jerusalem because apparently Barnabas and Paul were already acquainted. Therefore, the unnamed apostles in Acts 9:27 are Peter and James as mentioned in Gal 1:18-19

Quote:
Completely different tone between Seeing and Fearing and Hearing and Rejoicing.

*In Acts Paul was 'coming in and going out' and 'disputing with the Hellenists.' Nothing like this is even hinted at in Galatians. Paul says he was only there 15 days with Peter. Acts makes it sound as if Paul came there to join them and stayed awile, going in and out, disputing with people, preaching and fellowshiping with them - all is well in Jerusalem no tension here (Acts 9:31).
No tension? Is that why the Hellenistic Jews were attempting to put Paul to death (Acts 9:29)? Did they want to kill Paul because there was no tension and all was well? Really???

And no, Acts does not make it seem that Paul was there any longer than the 15 days mentioned in Galatians.

And again, why do you assume that all the details mentioned in either Acts 9 or Gal 1 have to be mentioned in the other book?

Quote:
Paul has a completely different tone - unkown by face to the churches, confered only with Peter (even though he met James), stayed there a short time, and corrects lies about the very trip itself.
No. Unknown by sight to the churches at Judea (Gal 1:22). Paul had moved about freely in Jerusalem during his brief visit but had not gone down into Judea. But that is explained here. Galatians 1:22 Bible Commentary

Paul did not correct lies about the trip. He took an oath attesting to the truth of the things he had written. Galatians 1:20 Bible Commentary

Quote:
It is very clear this is not reconcilable. Paul's face, according to Acts, seems to have gotten around quite a bit on that 1st Journey.
There is nothing that needs to be reconciled. These things have all been addressed and explained by commentators.

Quote:
Sidebar: It is also interesting that Acts sides with the Hebrews not the Hellenist (Liberal Jews who thought some compromises were alright with the Greco-Roman culture and had differences with regard to the application of Jewish Law). Acts tries to have Paul side with Jerusalem against the Hellenist - once again highlighting unity not tension. There are many clues like this throughout.
Acts doesn't try to do anything. It presents an historical account of what happened.

Quote:
3) The 2nd Visit Problem (Acts 11 and Galatian 2)

Once again this is not the main problem but it still is a problem.

*Titus is absent in the Acts narrative. Titus also has probelms with some compeling him to be circumcised (more tension) and Paul lays into them and even contrast this compulsion with his gospel - that is after 14 years the Jerusalem Church was still preaching another Gospel. Note this false gospel is not a pagan teaching it is a aberrant Christian teaching. This is the struggles Paul had with this sect of Christianity in Jerusalem that Acts seems to downplay.

*Paul says that he went up by revelation not a prophecy from Agabus. Paul does not mention any relief only that he went and communicated what he thought was the gospel (Gal.2:2). Was Acts 11 14 years later from 9:26?

*Paul explicitly says 'Then (Next) after 14 years I went up again...' Barns is completely wrong when he says that Paul just omittied this relief visit. There is no room for a visit between Gal 1:18 and 2:1. There is a strict chronology with the terminology that Paul uses not to mention the seriousness of his tone in laying out the trips he has made to Jerusalem in order to correct those lies - there is no room for an omission. The only omission is, as Metzger points out, the word 'again' is missing in some witnesses and subscibes this to scribal error or scribal uncertainty. Yeah, I would think so seeing that 'again' in directly in reference to 1:18 (the 1st trip). Seeing such a problem it is no wonder some scribes removed it.

*No mention of the Feast days and Mark in Galatians as in Acts 12:3, 25).

There is plenty more but frankly I am tired.

The musings and Scriptural gyrations that people have done to try to reconcile this is sad.

Acts seems clear on downplaying the problems between Antioch and Jerusalem. As such it promotes a vision of the Church that is far from the facts of Paul's letters - A Church of Unity - not one with a different gospel. So much is made of this unity that God even strikes down any disunity and deception with death (Ananias and Sapphira).

The very question and ambiguity regarding these sections is even more telling when Paul explicitly deals with these travels to Jerusalem in such a strict, forceful, correcting, and chronological manner that it is obvious that Acts seems to fudge the facts and fits the lie category nicely.

The main concern for me is the first visit but the other two only add to the overall problem.

Anyway, with such a powerful God you would think inspiration would not have such ambiguity.
Barnes takes the position that the Jerusalem visit by Paul in Galatians 2 is the trip mentioned in Acts 15 and that Paul in Gal 2 didn't mention the earlier visit which is mentioned in Acts 11.

It seems that scholars are divided over and that there is much debate over which trip is in view in Gal 2. The Bible Knowledge Commentary takes the position that the trip is view is the one mentioned in Acts 11.

That Titus is not mentioned in the Acts account is simply an omission of a detail. That does not mean contradiction.

Your belief that the omission of full details in two different accounts of a particuliar event means contradiction is wrong.

Acts is not fudging anything. Luke in Acts chose certain details to include and others to exclude, as did Paul. The same thing is true with the four gospels in which there are some details which are common to all four gospels while there are some details which are unique to each gospel. That is not contradiction, and it is not fudging the facts.

I don't think there is any point in going any further with this. If it is your intention to attempt to discredit the Bible, you aren't going to listen to anything that theologians and commentators have to say on the matter.

And it wasn't my intention to spend even this much time on this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2012, 10:30 PM
 
5,508 posts, read 4,415,902 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
This is adequately explained here, Acts 9:26 Bible Commentary and here, Acts 9:27 Bible Commentary
No it is not adequatly explained. Fail.

Quote:
Skeptics seem to think that two different accounts must include all the same details or else there is contradiction. Luke's purpose was not to give a detailed history of Paul. His account in Acts 9 concerning Paul is condensed and simply leaves out some details which Paul covers in Galatians, but which he (Paul) himself skips over in his narrative in Acts 22:16-17 in which he defends himself before the Jews. Paul completely leaves out the details of the three years between the time of his conversion to his visit to Jerusalem. If it's okay for Paul to leave out those details in one of his narratives, then it's certainly okay for Luke to skip over them.
His purpose Acts 22 was completely at odds with what he was doing in Galatians (which begs a question itself) - you fail to realize the tone of Paul's point and detailed chronology in combating a lie regarding his visits, relationship, and dealings with the Jerusalem Chruch - it not the same thing nor is in the same tone. Thr eason Paul is so adamant is because those deatails are very important to his arguement - Acts 9 does not seem to think so.

Quote:
There is no difficulty. As shown in posts #20, 30, and 36, 'many days' can refer to a large period of time, including three years. The fact that the 'many days' of Acts is clarified as being three years in Galatians simply reflects two different writers in two different books describing the same thing in different words.
Or not. Why is this omission the very thing that Paul uses to correct the wrong info about those trips? So much so as to take an oath - seems pretty significant just to omit it.

Quote:
Seems clear to whom? To the skeptic looking for contradictions.
To the reasonable, unbiased, and non-dissonanced person.

Quote:
Downplay - to treat as less important.
Exactly! And yet it was this non omission by Paul, because of its importance, that leads to dicrepencies in the number of trips Paul takes to Jerusalem not to mention the many other details I am pointing out. Interesting!

Quote:
The purpose of Acts was to record church history, defend Paul's apostleship, defend the faith, and explain the orderly spread of the gospel message from the Jews to the Gentiles. Just how much attention was Luke supposed to devote to Paul's problems in Jerusalem?
As much as he wants as long as it does not create discrepancies as this.

Quote:
You again imagine there to be contradiction between what Acts says and what Galatians says when in fact they complement each other. Barnabas isn't mentioned in Gal 1:18-19 but is mentioned in Acts 9:27. Barnabas is not included as one of the apostles with which Paul became acquainted in Jerusalem because apparently Barnabas and Paul were already acquainted. Therefore, the unnamed apostles in Acts 9:27 are Peter and James as mentioned in Gal 1:18-19
You fail to realize what is being said. You further just guess by using the word 'apparently' when no where is that the Sciptural case. Barnabas is part of the Jerusalem Church and does not go to Antioch until aftert his 1st visit. Nice try. If Paul passingly says he saw James (and he is an apostle not of the Twelve) then why not Barnabas the one who took him to Peter and James? Acts refers to Barnabas as an apostle. You have no answer.

Quote:
No tension? Is that why the Hellenistic Jews were attempting to put Paul to death (Acts 9:29)? Did they want to kill Paul because there was no tension and all was well? Really???
You completely misunderstood the point. The point was that the Jerusalem church sided with the Hebrews more than the Hellenists and Paul's disputing with them was a point they could use to shore-up the narrative that Paul and the Jerusalem church were in unity and not in tension. Not so.

Quote:
And no, Acts does not make it seem that Paul was there any longer than the 15 days mentioned in Galatians.
Really, so you think when Paul says he was not known by face to the churches in Judea after he left Jerusalem and Acts saying that he went in and out among them and disputed with Hellinists that this is all smooth as butter - Gottcha! And this is just a few points.

Quote:
And again, why do you assume that all the details mentioned in either Acts 9 or Gal 1 have to be mentioned in the other book?
I do not assume that - just do not let there be any discrepencies when doing so. Does not look like they pulled that off.

Quote:
No. Unknown by sight to the churches at Judea (Gal 1:22). Paul had moved about freely in Jerusalem during his brief visit but had not gone down into Judea. But that is explained here. Galatians 1:22 Bible Commentary
Uhm! Jerusalem is in Judea. Besides, Paul says that he confered with no one except Peter and that he only saw James. He did not meet any other disciples or apostles, nor did he try to join them and fellowship with them, nor did he go a preach. The tone of Galatians is completely different than this. Paul's purpose was to go and see Peter nothing else like Acts describes.

Quote:
Paul did not correct lies about the trip. He took an oath attesting to the truth of the things he had written. Galatians 1:20 Bible Commentary
It is not often that you get someone taking an oath and when yo do it is over something serious. Why would Paul be so inclined to explicitly outline his trips to Jeruslaem making numerical and other details. Sounds pretty trivial if there was no rumor or lie. In fact the trivialness of the issue is what you and Acts try to make it out to be - even to the point that you can omit it as if it is disgardable information. If it was that trivial why does Paul treat in such manner? One of Paul's points is that he did not need to go to Jerusalem to meet with those who seemed to be pillars. Yet Acts displays the fact that Paul tried to join them and was going in and out among them. This is 180 degrees from the tone in Galatians. Paul had no desire to be in and among them - he went there to confer with Peter regarding the gospel precisely because of the diffrent gospel mentioned in Gal.1:6. The link between verse 6 and 18 is clear - his gospel had nothing to do with Jerusalem (whether they had it right or not) - hence the trip. Although we see that they did have a works oriented gospel by compeling certain laws to be kept.

Quote:
There is nothing that needs to be reconciled. These things have all been addressed and explained by commentators.
They have all tried to explain them. Certainly you have not reconciled anything by quoting them.

Quote:
Barnes takes the position that the Jerusalem visit by Paul in Galatians 2 is the trip mentioned in Acts 15 and that Paul in Gal 2 didn't mention the earlier visit which is mentioned in Acts 11.
Paul leaves no room for another visit in Galatians -Hello! There is strict Chronology in Galatians as I have shown you before. Paul wrote in this way and was so adamant in his tone because of people like you and Barnes who just make crap up to solve problems. Paul went once after 3 years then a second time 14 years later - Geeezzz!

Quote:
It seems that scholars are divided over and that there is much debate over which trip is in view in Gal 2. The Bible Knowledge Commentary takes the position that the trip is view is the one mentioned in Acts 11.
There are a number of views precisley because it does not jive. Not one of them works no matter how you organize all the trips that Acts says Paul made to Jerusalm with Galatians.

Quote:
That Titus is not mentioned in the Acts account is simply an omission of a detail. That does not mean contradiction.
Never said it did it is once peice, of many, in the larger puzzle or one more nail in the coffin.

Quote:
Your belief that the omission of full details in two different accounts of a particuliar event means contradiction is wrong.
Strawman - see above.

Quote:
Acts is not fudging anything. Luke in Acts chose certain details to include and others to exclude, as did Paul. The same thing is true with the four gospels in which there are some details which are common to all four gospels while there are some details which are unique to each gospel. That is not contradiction, and it is not fudging the facts.

I don't think there is any point in going any further with this. If it is your intention to attempt to discredit the Bible, you aren't going to listen to anything that theologians and commentators have to say on the matter.

And it wasn't my intention to spend even this much time on this thread.
I have read the theologians and commentators they fail to deal with all the problems and have shollow shortsighted or frankly just inventive solutions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:56 AM
 
15,077 posts, read 7,577,283 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
YThis thread is simply proof that we humans are fallible . . . which is why the infallibility doctrine is so ludicrous.
Just thought this was worth repeating.

Acknowledging that the authors of the bible were fallible human beings is NOT calling God fallible. When did Paul or any other biblical author become synonymous with God? And, too, why is it necessary to discard everything someone wrote simply because they were fallible human beings. With any other book we read, we feel free to agree with what rings true and dismiss what doesn't ... but with the bible it has to be all or nothing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 08:04 AM
 
15,077 posts, read 7,577,283 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Mystic, who says I do not search my heart or conscience? How would you know and why would judge such a thing?

Take the plank out of your own eye before trying to pull the speck out of mine.

Like I said I would be violating my conscience if I believed the Bible to be the revealed word of God as it states and also your take on it.

By the way I should have been more clear in the last paragraph of my last post - I did not mean that you had stupid intepretations but that your view of the ancients were likened to this.
I'm trying to understand why this is. How would it violate your conscience to accept that the authors of the bible interpreted the inspirations they had from or about God according to their culture, religious practices and the understanding about the physical world that was common to the time they lived in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Italy
6,387 posts, read 5,119,569 times
Reputation: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmalltownKSgirl View Post
Don't be silly. Of course we have discernment for what is true. You have so little confidence in the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is indeed present. So why the divisions? Is it not because there is the flesh that would divide us?
The Spirit is meek and very low. It is not prideful or boastful. It encourages us to good works.
Is this what we are seeing today?

We must try the spirits. If we see Christ within us, and feel and experience Him within us, then we are on the right path. Aisi.


Blessings,
brian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,943,771 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo View Post
Just thought this was worth repeating.

Acknowledging that the authors of the bible were fallible human beings is NOT calling God fallible. When did Paul or any other biblical author become synonymous with God? And, too, why is it necessary to discard everything someone wrote simply because they were fallible human beings. With any other book we read, we feel free to agree with what rings true and dismiss what doesn't ... but with the bible it has to be all or nothing?
RESPONSE:

Sorry. If the writers of the Bible were actually divinely inspired, they themselves would not make errors.

"Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture." (PD)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top