Jesus the only way? (John 14.6)

[Elijah John]

Why does John's Jesus say that Jesus is the only way to the Father?

a)-Is it because, as many claim, that Jesus sacrifice is God's only provision for the forgiveness of sin?

b)-Is it because Jesus teachings are completely unique and he alone teaches the true path?

c)-Is it because Jesus sacrifice opens the door to Heaven for all who seek God, whether they realize it or not?

d)-Is it because John was reacting to Christians being expelled from the Synagoge by putting a claim on Jesus lips that (in effect) was saying "we don't need you anyway, we have Jesus"?

e) other, or a combination of the above.

Also, why do you personally believe John 14.6, (assuming that you do)

1) Have you actually tried other ways, other religous paths in an attempt to find God?

2) Because "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"?

3) Or is it because the claim seems logical, reasonable or intuitively true to you?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

The question is good. The proposed answers are too subjective. Paul's own answer to any alternative soteiorology is "Then Christ died in vain". For him, his answer is based on objectivity: whether right or wrong, he believed Jesus was raised. Thus for him (a 1st c. Jew!) this was conclusive. Just imagine the whole scenario from a 1st c. Pharisaic perspective!!

[steveb1]

I will accept Jesus's historicity only if you can list multiple references to him in the Epistles. But you can't, because they are simply not there.

Are you suggesting there are no references to Jesus Christ in the new testament letters?

The NT letters are full of references to Jesus Christ, the pre-existent heavenly Son.

BUT:

The NT letters contain zero reference to that "Son" having become a biological human being on our geophysical earth. His "incarnation" was strictly in the lower heavens, not on dirt earth.

As I explained the previous post, no Epistle makes any reference to a historical or a Gospel Jesus -

no Nativity story,

no sermon on the mount,

no baptism by John,

no wilderness temptation,

no teaching on the Law,

no teaching on the Kingdom, no parables,

no miracles, no exorcisms, no raisings of the dead,

no selection of disciples,

no wedding at Cana,

no woman at the Samaritan well, no conflicts with his own family, scribes, priests, Pharisees,

no walking on water,

no Lazarus miracle,

no triumphal entry into Jerusalem,

no mention of being a carpenter/carpenter's son, no reference to any ministry in Galilee or in Jerusalem.

Nothing at all.

Which is as absurd as someone writing a book about Scientology and not mentioning founder L. Ron Hubbard, or a book about the Gettysburg Address not mentioning Abraham Lincoln, or a book about Mormonism not mentioning Joseph Smith.

The supposedly historical Jesus of the Gospels is completely absent from the Epistles, and Christ Myth scholars have explained away most of the Epistles' supposed - and rarely appearing - "historical" material such as "James the brother of the Lord", "born of a woman under the Law", etc.

The burden of proof is on those who claim the Epistles are based on memories of, or testimonies about, a historical Jesus from Nazareth. And the Epistles do not mention him even once. They only mention their celestial "Son".

If you are going to make a case for a historical Jesus, you must either

1 Reasonably explain his total absence from the Epistles, which are Christianity's earliest sacred texts -

- or -

2 Isolate and identify real, factual historical data about the Gospel Jesus that is somehow embedded and hiding in the Epistles, but which everyone has missed for unknown reasons.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 8 by tam]

1. There is no evidence that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. There are no passages like, "Then Jesus took me aside and asked me about X", no "Then Jesus made us sit down on the hill and spoke to us", no, "Jesus rebuked us for our greedy desires to rule the Kingdom", etc. No "I" passages, no "we" passages. Nothing whatsoever to indicate that the Gospels were written by "I's" and 'We's" that were there. Moreover, the Gospels get topographical, social and historical categories confused, which native Judean disciples would surely not have done.

The claim from the gospel is itself evidence. "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down." What things are being referred to, other than these things that we just read in the gospel?

2. John the Evangelist, whoever he was, was not at the Last Supper. Supposedly the Beloved Disciple was there, but he did not write John's Gospel. The actual author/final editor-redactor refers back to an unnamed witness who some imagine to be the Beloved Disciple, and swears that the anonymous witness's testimony is true, but that claim is impossible to validate.

Who are you speaking of when you refer to John the Evangelist? Because there is a John who is one of the twelve who would have been there at the last supper. Not saying that John is the disciple referred to in this book as the disciple Christ loved, who testified to those things and who wrote them down. But there certainly was a John at the last supper.

3. "Just because Matthew, Mark and Luke do not record the raising of Lazarus does not mean that they are unaware of it. (and perhaps it was not their place to tell that particular story)"

Historical studies proceed from plausibility. It is implausible and virtually impossible that Jesus's most important miracle would be promoted by only one Gospel, and that no other NT book uses it even as an example. All four Gospels refer to his baptism and miracles, and especially to his resurrection, but only one of them mentions his greatest miracle of all.

Well obviously it is possible, because that is exactly what happened. We have three gospels that do not report the story of Lazarus' being raised from the dead, and one gospel that does.

4. Quote:
<Paul himself has no awareness of a historical Jesus who selected disciples in an earthly ministry.>

"Of course he does. He mentions the apostles - some specifically by name - on numerous occasions."

No, he does not. He identifies as an "Apostle" only someone who has seen the exalted spiritual Jesus.

You ask me for evidence... but where is your evidence for this? Where does Paul identify or define an apostle in such a way? As only someone who has seen the exalted spiritual 'Jesus'?

I know that Paul says the apostles saw the risen Christ. But Paul does not say they ONLY saw the risen Christ, and never Christ as a man, in the flesh.

Paul claimed to know Cephas, James, and John. He never claimed to know that they had been historically selected by a historical Jesus. Their apostleship derived solely from their claimed experiences of the heavenly Christ - just as Paul's own apostleship did. If any "Jesus" selected the Apostles, it was the celestial Christ manifesting through visions, apparitions, and revelations, not from a historical person.

Where is your evidence for this? Your statement here is NOT supported by the text

5. "Indeed, Paul spoke about things that occurred with Christ on the night he was betrayed"

No, Paul was not relaying a historical recollection of the Last Supper received from the Jerusalem Apostles. He does not put it in the context of Jesus's supposed earthly meals: it stands on its own and he never calls it "the last supper".

On the contrary, Paul explicitly says that he had it "from a revelation from the Lord". The heavenly Lord - not from anyone who supposedly learned it from a historical Jesus.

He said that he had received this from the Lord (the risen Christ)... that is true. But what Paul received from the Lord is something that happened on the night Christ was betrayed. This is still an actual occurrence in the flesh, here on the earth, with the twelve apostles (one of whom betrayed Him... a betrayal committed by a human man, here on the earth). So this is a reference to an actual occurrence on the earth, among men.

Nor is Paul's reference to "on the night he was handed over" necessarily a reference to a historical Jesus, since the heavenly Son was conceived to have "emptied himself" and "incarnated" not on geophysical earth, but in the lower heavens, where he underwent a passion, death and resurrection, after which he ascended from the lower heavens back up to the place he had at the Father's side before his "incarnation".

The heavens were then considered to be more real than the paltry, flawed earth, which at best was only a poor imitation of the heavenly realm. The NT book of Hebrews proves this when it says that Jesus as high priest entered the heavenly city of Jerusalem and entered the heavenly Temple.

Nothing from Hebrews is proof of what you are claiming. Just because Christ entered the heavenly realm (something no one is denying) does not mean that He did not earlier come to the earth as a man, in the flesh.

Thus, the heavens were said to have cities, buildings, temples, and even soil (where Adam is buried). Paul thinks of Jesus's "incarnation" and "resurrection" as having occurred in that heavenly, "Really Real Realm". Not on dirt earth.

These are your words and your ideas. Not Paul's.


You said:

.... you must explain why none of them mention any of Jesus's teachings and deeds as mentioned in the Gospels.

You also said:

Note: it is not sufficient to claim that because the Epistles aren't biographies, of course they wouldn't contain much information on Jesus. But the brutal fact is: they contain NO information about a historical Jesus.

Paul himself references one of 'Jesus' teachings and deeds as mentioned in the gospels: at the last supper, on the night that He was betrayed. I supplied this reference in my previous post, but you simply deny it as evidence, make up some elaborate meaning that is not supported by what is written, all the while ignoring what is written.

Anyone can do that (and many people DO) and just make up their own "Jesus" and sometimes even their own religion. Obviously that does not make their claims true.

The burden of proof rests on you. I will accept Jesus's historicity only if you can list multiple references to him in the Epistles. But you can't, because they are simply not there.

What you choose to accept or not is up to you. But only one reference is required, and one has been shared with you.






Peace again to you, and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 13 by tam]

"The claim from the gospel is itself evidence. "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.""

That's the claim. It isn't documented by outside sources. It's just words in space.

"You ask me for evidence... but where is your evidence for this? Where does Paul identify or define an apostle in such a way? As only someone who has seen the exalted spiritual 'Jesus'?"

Paul's own claim to apostleship is likewise based on the divine call of Christ ( Rom 1:1 ; 1 Col 1:1 ; Galatians 1:1 Galatians 1:15 ; cf. 2 Col 1:1 ; Eph 1:1 ; Col 1:1 ; 1 Tim 1:1 ; 2 Tim 1:1 ; Titus 1:1 ). He is an apostle, "not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" ( Gal 1:1 ). His encounter with the resurrected Jesus served as the basis for his unique claim to be an "apostle to the Gentiles" ( Rom 11:13 ). Paul bases his apostleship on the grace of God, not on ecstatic gifts or the signs of an apostle ( 2 Cor. 12 ). His apostolic commission is to serve God primarily through preaching the gospel ( Rom 1:9 ; 15:19 ; 1 Col 1:17 ).

Paul uses the word "apostle" in more than one sense. At times he employs the term in the broader sense of messenger or agent ( 2 Col 8:23 ; Php 2:25 ). More often, however, Paul uses the term to refer to those who had been commissioned by the risen Lord to the apostolic task. Included in this category are the Twelve (although he never explicitly applies the title of apostle to them as a group)
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apostle/

Paul thinks he has a prophetic call from the exalted Jesus. As the above shows, Paul has no inkling that a historical Jesus had selected anyone as apostles. For Paul, apostles were those who thought that the exalted Christ had sent them into the world.

"Where is your evidence for this?"

Where's yours? If you think Paul believed in a historical Jesus, you need to demonstrate that from his letters. Which you have not done.

"He said that he had received this from the Lord (the risen Christ)... that is true. But what Paul received from the Lord is something that happened on the night Christ was betrayed."

Not what the text says. Paul says he received nothing from men, but only from the exalted Christ. That includes his "revelation" from the Lord about the Eucharist. If you think Paul learned about the Lord's Supper from human beings like the apostles, Paul contradicts you in saying that he only received it from the Lord. He is preaching a new doctrine, unknown to the apostles. Acts does not say that the Jerusalem apostles performed any kind of Eucharist, much less Paul's. It only says they worshiped in the Temple and met "for the breaking of the bread" - which was a hallowed Jewish custom. Whereas Paul's was a semi-pagan, non-Jewish innovation.

"Nothing from Hebrews is proof of what you are claiming. Just because Christ entered the heavenly realm (something no one is denying) does not mean that He did not earlier come to the earth as a man, in the flesh."

That's not what the text is proving. It proves that for the ancients, including Christians, heaven was thought to have cities, buildings, temples, and even soil - soil in which Adam was said to buried. That is why Paul thought of Jesus's death/resurrection as occurring in the real, but non-physical heavenly realm.

"Paul himself references one of 'Jesus' teachings and deeds as mentioned in the gospels: at the last supper, on the night that He was betrayed."

I do deny that as evidence because it's not evidence of anything except Paul receiving an inner revelation about a supper. A supper that the cosmic Christ performed in the heavenly realm. I already explained how Christ could be handed over, at night, in the heavenly realm, because that realm was considered to have days, nights, bad guys, demons, as well as cities and temples. Paul is making a mystical, not a historical, reference. Also, the Gospels' Last Supper narratives are taken from Paul, not vice-versa.

"only one reference is required, and one has been shared with you."

No, because for three times now I've shown how the reference is not evidential for establishing a historical Jesus. Moreover, multiple references are required because you claim that the Epistles are rooted in a historical Jesus. Yet they contain zero information about him whatsoever.

Worse, you have utterly failed to explain the absence from the Epistles of Jesus' sermon on the mount, his Nativity, the wedding at Cana, his conflicts with scribes, priests, and Pharisees, his parables, exorcisms, miracles, his commanding the storm/walking on the water, his various teachings, etc., etc.

You have failed to do so because none of these essential aspects of the Gospel Jesus exist in the Epistles. Parsimony indicates that the most plausible reason for Jesus's remarkable absence from the earliest Christian texts is that those texts did not have any historical Jesus to reference.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 12 by steveb1]

A few things.

How could a "Celestial Son" be crucified? Yet Jesus' "atoning" execution is the cornerstone of Paul's theology.

I don't think one has to deny the existance of an historical, flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth in order to claim to have been commisioned by the "Risen Christ". It's not an either/or, and I don't see Paul as having denied that a real, flesh and blood Jesus actually existed prior to Easter.

That is one problem I have with the "Christ myth" theory*.

I'm also and not sold on the theory that Paul's epistles came first, before the Synoptics, before Q, before the Didache. I know that seems set in stone for HJ scholars, but...

If Paul's theology contained in his Epistles came first, why did the Gospel Evangelists cast Jesus as a real, flesh and blood human being?

Mark, especially speaks as little of the "Risen Christ" as Paul does of the "pre-Easter" Jesus of Nazareth.

----

"Christ myth" theory. i e the theory that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed at all, except in the imagination of NT writers and their readership, or in subjective, mystical experience.

But never as a flesh and blood human being.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 14 by steveb1]

I take it you believe the gospels are a collection of allegories, exaggerations misunderstandings and errors and that only Paul's letters contain a truthful representation of Jesus.

What do you make of gospel accounts of flesh and blood Aposltes like Peter* eating and drinking and conversing with Jesus? Are they all in your opinion Allegories? Biblical errors? Did Mary spoken of by the villagers as being the mother of a certain Jesus exist as reported or is she an illustration?

* Paul speaks of Cephas being one of the twelve, this is usually understood to refer to the 12 close associates of Jesus that witnesses many of his miracles and heard Jesus teachings, what would you say "the twelve" witnesses (if anything)... a complex series of hundreds of visions or are the gospel accounts allegories?

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 12 by steveb1]

A few things.

How could a "Celestial Son" be crucified? Yet Jesus' "atoning" execution is the cornerstone of Paul's theology.

I don't think one has to deny the existance of an historical, flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth in order to claim to have been commisioned by the "Risen Christ". It's not an either/or, and I don't see Paul as having denied that a real, flesh and blood Jesus actually existed prior to Easter.

That is one problem I have with the "Christ myth" theory*.

I'm also and not sold on the theory that Paul's epistles came first, before the Synoptics, before Q, before the Didache. I know that seems set in stone for HJ scholars, but...

If Paul's theology contained in his Epistles came first, why did the Gospel Evangelists cast Jesus as a real, flesh and blood human being?

Mark, especially speaks as little of the "Risen Christ" as Paul does of the "pre-Easter" Jesus of Nazareth.

----
i. e the theory that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed at all, except in the imagination of NT writers and their readership, or in subjective, mystical experience.

But never as a flesh and blood human being.

I base the theory on a very stark and simple fact:

The Epistles, Christianity's earliest sacred writings, contain no mention of a historical Jesus. He is absent from the very sources where he should most be present. As I wrote in an earlier post:

As I explained the previous post, no Epistle makes any reference to a historical or a Gospel Jesus -

no Nativity story,

no sermon on the mount,

no baptism by John,

no wilderness temptation,

no teaching on the Law,

no teaching on the Kingdom, no parables,

no miracles, no exorcisms, no raisings of the dead,

no selection of disciples,

no wedding at Cana,

no woman at the Samaritan well, no conflicts with his own family, scribes, priests, Pharisees,

no walking on water,

no Lazarus miracle,

no triumphal entry into Jerusalem,

no mention of being a carpenter/carpenter's son,

no reference to any ministry in Galilee or in Jerusalem.

It's not a matter of Paul/the Epistles denying a historical Jesus. It's a matter of them never having any idea that there had been such a person. Had they known of a historical Jesus, their letters would be peppered throughout with references to his life, ministry, and teachings - especially when such citations from "the real Jesus" would have been infinitely helpful in settling various early church problems. But all of that vital data is missing from the Epistles, which is why I call it "a silence that screams".

Imagine a book about Scientology that never once mentions founder L. Ron Hubbard. Imagine a book about the Mormons that never mentions Joseph Smith, imagine a book about the Gettysburg Address that never mentions Abraham Lincoln. There you have the gist of the entire problem of a historical Jesus's absence from Paul and the Epistles.

"How could a "Celestial Son" be crucified? Yet Jesus' "atoning" execution is the cornerstone of Paul's theology"

Many ancient gods and heroes were said to have undergone passions, deaths, (including hanging and impalement) and victorious resurrections in the heavens. The heavens were considered to be more real than earth. Moreover, they were also said to contain cities, buildings, temples, landscapes and even soil (where Adam was believed to be buried). The book of Hebrews attests to this idea when it says that as high priest Jesus went to the heavenly city of the heavenly Jerusalem and entered the heavenly Temple. Thus a heavenly being could descend to the lower, demon-infested lower heaven, suffer, be crucified, die, and rise again back to the highest heaven from which he originally came.

"If Paul's theology contained in his Epistles came first, why did the Gospel Evangelists cast Jesus as a real, flesh and blood human being?"

Mark wrote the first known Gospel. He was consciously engaging in a process called euhemerization, namely, the literal "fleshing out" of a previously archetypal being or figure, a practice in which many ancient writers were involving themselves at the time. Mark - quite honestly, and conforming to this well-known practice, without trying to fool anyone - took the celestial Christ and used that formerly mystical image as a mannequin which Mark "dressed" as a historical human being. Mark decided to have his Jesus function as a prophecy-fulfilling model, which is why nearly every Markan passage is a retelling of some story or figure from the Hebrew Bible. All the tropes are there, a series of Jewish Bible traits carefully applied to the human model of Jesus that Mark was composing.

"Mark, especially speaks as little of the "Risen Christ" as Paul does of the "pre-Easter" Jesus of Nazareth."

Mark is inventing a "historical" Jesus, so of course he would not talk about the resurrection until he had inserted it into its "proper" place after Jesus's crucifixion. But Mark is just as motivated by resurrection belief as was Paul, which is why Mark places resurrection predictions on Jesus's lips, and in fact is why he calls his Gospel the Good News of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 14 by steveb1]

I take it you believe the gospels are a collection of allegories, exaggerations misunderstandings and errors and that only Paul's letters contain a truthful representation of Jesus.

What do you make of gospel accounts of flesh and blood Aposltes like Peter* eating and drinking and conversing with Jesus? Are they all in your opinion Allegories? Biblical errors? Did Mary spoken of by the villagers as being the mother of a certain Jesus exist as reported or is she an illustration?

* Paul speaks of Cephas being one of the twelve, this is usually understood to refer to the 12 close associates of Jesus that witnesses many of his miracles and heard Jesus teachings, what would you say "the twelve" witnesses (if anything)... a complex series of hundreds of visions or are the gospel accounts allegories?

"I take it you believe the gospels are a collection of allegories, exaggerations misunderstandings and errors and that only Paul's letters contain a truthful representation of Jesus."

As forms of literature, the Gospels are deliberately created parables - stories about what it would look like if the celestial Jesus became a human being on the geophysical earth. Stories to inspire Christian lives. They are not lies. They are not forgeries. They are not deceptions. They are not hoaxes.

On the contrary, the Gospels seem at base to be a specific form of creative writing called euhemerization, in which an author reifies, solidifies, concretizes a formerly purely celestial being into a human being. The Gospels did that with the heavenly Jesus in order to create texts that could function as teaching devices for Christians. The Gospels are not "true " - i.e., "factual" -historically, but they are true allegorically and parabolically and spiritually.

"What do you make of gospel accounts of flesh and blood Aposltes like Peter* eating and drinking and conversing with Jesus? Are they all in your opinion Allegories? Biblical errors? Did Mary spoken of by the villagers as being the mother of a certain Jesus exist as reported or is she an illustration?"

It's all well-intended illustration. There is no outside documentation that Jesus existed, or that he had worldly conversations on this earth with the disciples. And none of the Gospels are, or claim to be, eyewitness accounts.

"Paul speaks of Cephas being one of the twelve, this is usually understood to refer to the 12 close associates of Jesus that witnesses many of his miracles and heard Jesus teachings, what would you say "the twelve" witnesses (if anything)... a complex series of hundreds of visions or are the gospel accounts allegories?"

The historicist assumption is indeed that the Twelve had been intimate associates with a historical Jesus, but that idea is only found in the Gospels. It is not found in Christianity's earliest sacred texts, namely, Paul and the Epistles, which have no awareness of a historical Jesus who had selected disciples at the Jordan river where John was baptizing, or alternately on the Sea of Galilee where just a few words from Jesus supposedly caused the disciples to abandon their boats and nets in order to "come, follow me".

The invitation, "Come, follow me" - according to the Epistles, was issued only from the pre-existent heavenly Son, not from a historical Galilean carpenter-sage. Apostleship was conceived by the Apostles and Paul himself to be a prophetic calling from the Risen One, received internally via visions, apparitions, and revelations.

No historical Jesus was involved in the creation/selection of Apostles, any more than a physical YHWH or physical Holy Spirit was required to make revelations to Old Testament prophets and holy people. Revelation straight from heaven without any material intermediaries is an ancient biblical concept, and was a belief held by the earliest Christian writers.

Paul himself records two-way conversations he was having with Jesus. And the only Jesus he speaks with is the heavenly Christ. Not with the resuscitated corpse of a historical man which came out of a tomb on Easter morning. So, if Paul and the disciples/Apostles were conversing with Jesus, the Jesus with whom they were conversing was a transcendent spirit entity - Paul says that the Lord is a life-sparking or "vivifying" Spirit - not a risen corpse.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by steveb1]

Interesting, since there are so called "christians" that openly adopt your view for the gospel of John, its no surprise to me that there are non Christians that do so for all four gospels in their entirely.

Thanks for sharing,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[tam]

Peace again to you steve (and to you all),



From one of the epistles (which you say do not mention the events recorded in the gospels):


We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord [Jesus] Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying,

"This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 2Peter 1:16-18


This is a direct reference back to the transfiguration as recorded in the gospels, and a direct quote of the words they heard God speak from the clouds about His Son, who was standing there with some of His apostles, including Peter.



And there is this:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,... Romans 1:1-3


Paul is clearly aware that Christ had an earthly life.



These are in addition to Paul's direct reference to the night Christ was betrayed. It does not matter from whom he received that information - from men and/or from Christ - he is directly referring back to an event that occurred on the night Christ was betrayed, as recorded in the gospels.



**


The gospels record the events and words of Christ from His ministry on the earth (and some record things about his birth and genealogy as well). The letters (epistles) are written to specific people or congregations concerning matters or teachings that were pertinent to them as they continued to come and/or grow in the faith. Then Revelation is something that WAS given (to John, to share with others) by the Spirit (Christ, as the Spirit) But you will note that John (of Patmos) clearly identifies this AS a revelation he received in the spirit. The gospels are not identified as anything other than what others witnessed.

And none of the Gospels are, or claim to be, eyewitness accounts.

The gospel attributed to "John" claims to be an eyewitness account. Luke claims to have written according to what eyewitnesses passed down. Some of the epistles refer to those who were eyewitnesses of these things; including when describing the transfiguration, above, by Peter. He clearly states that they were NOT following cleverly devised stories but were in fact eyewitnesses of these things.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy