|
| |
Interpretation of Bible teachings |
|
|
|
James 5:14
|
| |
It seems that, out of a same Bible text, the Catholic church derives different teaching (interpretations) than Protestants. eg They use Jam 5:14, 15 to support their ceremony of oil anointing in illness, treating the verses as establishing the ceremony. What principles do we have to determine if it's the case? |
| |
Why is the Apocrypha not included? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
The Hebrew Bible just has our OT part, the Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha, while the Protestant Bible does not. The overriding reason for the exclusion of the Apocrypha is to say Protestants believe they're not inspired, thus not Word of God. Under this heading, various reasons are suggested, some being 1 factual fallacies (say regarding historical facts) are found, 2 they have no recognized Hebrew originals, 3 they're not in the Hebrew Bible traditionally used, 4 if they're included, the resultant "Bible" (OT) doesn't fit the descriptions in the NT |
| |
Bible differences, Christian-Catholic |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
How and why do Catholic Bibles differ from Christian (protestant) Bibles? I understand that Catholic Bibles have more books than Christian Bibles. If this is true, then why don't Christian Bibles have these books or why do Catholic Bibles have these books? Besides the books difference, what else differs from these two types of Bibles? |
| |
Bible differences, Christian-Catholic |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
The Apocrypha are interspersed among the canonical books of the Old Testament in the LXX and Vulgate, but not found in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Jewish people, who produced the Old Testament from the inspiration of God, and Protestants do not consider the Apocrypha canonical. The Roman Catholic Church received the Apocrypha as deuterocanonical at the Council of Trent in 1546. |
| |
Is Hades then Purgatory? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
So if Hades is not Hell (the lake of fire is), is Hades what Catholics consider to be Purgatory? |
| |
Is Hades then Purgatory? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I am not sure if this will answer your question, but it may help.
"Purgatory in Roman Catholic thought developed during the Middle Ages and hardened into dogma in reaction to the Protestant rejection of it. The Council of Trent (1545-63) declared that those who reject the doctrine of purgatory are 'anathema,' accursed....The doctrine can be seen as a distortion of biblical truth for several reasons: (1) Clear scriptural warrant is absent. The only possible supportive text is in the Apocrypha (II Macc. 12.43-45)." (Taken from the EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY. Walter A. Elwell (ed.). Baker Books) |
| |
What is Ash Wednesday? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
The term Ash Wednesday dates from the 14th century. It is
the first day of Lent. Now what is Lent? " . . . Date: 13th century . . . [Definition]: the 40 weekdays from Ash Wednesday to Easter observed by the Roman Catholic, Eastern, and some Protestant churches as a period of penitence and fasting." (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) |
| |
What is the sin unto death? |
|
|
|
1 John 5:16
|
| |
That is a very tough question, and although scholars have several differnt theorys, none can be considered definate, although I believe that most can be ruled out. I will present these theorys:1)Possably a specific sin requiring the death sentance(see OT on murder or dissobidiance towards parents). 2) Sins committed intentionally v. accidentaly-in other words, and accidental sin would not carry with it the sentance of death. 3) Mortal sins v. venial sins- this would be most Catholic interpretations, although the Bible clearly teaches in many places elsewhere that all sin is sin, and the penalty is death(Rom.3)4) State of habitual sin willfully chosen and persisted in-This theory has merits, as Jihn has claimed in this epistle that the true believer does not willfully sin habitually, so it would seem to be talking about non-believers.5)Apostacy 6) Mark 3-blasphemy against the Holy Spirit(accrediting the work of the Spirit to the devil) 7) My professor has this theory, and it is the one that I would go with as well-Remember the context of the passage, and that is prayer for believers, that they might escape the sin that has them entangled. The context of the book as a whole has been the hereesy of the false teachers, and John has gone to great lengths to prove that they are not in the Light, but are in fact, un-believers. Their sin is unbelief, and that sin can not be forgiven,since it is a slap in the face of a God who had spilled His blood tht they might be saved(1 John 2:2). When we see our brother committing sin, we need to pray for them, as they have the Spirit in them, and that makes them recoverable. These false teachers have not that help, and so the sin, unbelief, is indeed a sin leading to eternal death. I hope that this helps. Let me know if I can try to comment further. Sean Lillis Emmaus Bible College |
| |
What I am asking is baptism a requiement |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
I do not think I misinterpreted your question. I simply stated that looking at baptism (a mikvah - ritual bath) as some sort of requirement for salvation is viewing it in the wrong way.
The baptism (mikvah) can not be done on an infant; for, it is an outward work done by faith, and how can an infant do a work of faith (or even have faith, see Romans 10:17). It is an immersion, as the word shows clearly, which in done with both those who are being baptized and those who are baptizing in the water. It is not a sprinkling of water on someone who has not professed a faith in Messiah (that is a baptism of the Roman Catholics, it is not the baptism of the Church of Yahoshua the Messiah).
Now, the Jews did the mikvah in living (running) water. That is how "John" the baptist baptized, it is how Philip (in Acts 8:36,37) baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch, and it is how may Messianiac Jews baptize today (not all). Notice, the faith of the Eunuch, that was in him, was moving him to be baptized by Philip; he did not ask Philip if being baptized was a requirement for him to be saved. So, I repeat, when a man is looking at the mikvah (baptism) as an act required to be preformed in order to be saved, that man is looking at it in the wrong light. Water baptism is a work of faith and not a "requirement", the baptism of the Spirit of Holiness of Yahoshua is a "requirement" (John 3 speaks of this very clearly, as does I Corinthians 12:13). |
| |
When is a plumb line true? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
When is a plumb line true? "And the Lord said to me, "What do you see, Amos?" And I said, "A plumb line." Then the Lord said, "Behold I am about to put a plumb line In the midst of My people Israel. I will spare them no longer."" Amos 7:8 To answer my own question, a plumb line, according to a carpenter or a plumber is true when it stops moving. It is swayed by wind (empty breath, not the Spirit) and swayed by an unsteady foundation. It seems to me that "...let God be found true, though every man be found a liar..." ROM 3:4 speaks of a plumb line working in the church today. Nobody can claim to be 'right.' Not Calvinists, Arminists, Catholics, Charismatics, not anyone. Not even Baptists :-) It is our job to stop the swinging, through rational discussion, mutual respect, a sincere desire for understanding, and conviction of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Bible is a gift from God, given to assist us in this quest, not confirm OUR thoughts or traditions. Any answer that is from God will be simple, and carry authority, Just like Jesus answered the Jews. Personal rancor, prejudice, arrogance and stubbornness do not become us, although, I must admit, it is very entertaining at times :-) Overall, I am very blessed by this forum, and honored to participate. Let us all endeavor to find 'true' by arresting the 'swings' of flesh and soul, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Love and blessings in Jesus' name.
|
| |
Is any type of contraception allowed? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Charis, your answer is excellent. It shows a great deal of knowledge and understanding -- Scriptural, biological and social -- of the subject. There's not a word of your answer that anyone could refute with Scripture.
. . . One group that has traditionally forbidden the use of any method of birth control except abstinence is the Roman Catholic Church. They have their reasons, with which I'm not actually familiar. But, along with you, I see no place where the Bible expressly prohibits the use of contraceptives.
. . . On the other hand, many Scriptures and Scriptural principles could be cited to argue against abortion, the USA's favorite form of birth control, especially abortion on demand. The first one that comes to mind is the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill," Exodus 20:13. Nor do I find any portion of Scripture condoning child abuse, of which abortion is the worst form, resulting in death. And none of the teachings of Jesus or the apostles give approval to the abuse of women. Since half of all abortion victims are girls, is this not abuse of women?
. . . Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the arguments against abortion. Thanks, Charis, for an on-target, thorough answer to the question. Keep them coming. Every day I search out Answers and Notes written by you. Your answers are always well thought out, but they are never dull. Take care.
. . .. JVH0212 |
| |
Enoch's prophesy in OT? |
|
|
|
Jude 1:14
|
| |
I'm pretty confident that there is no such quotation directed to Enoch in the OT. This is most likely from the Apocryphal book of Enoch. I believe there are several quotations from apocryphal books in the New Testament. If Enoch is among those books added to the extended Roman Catholic canon (and I must plead ignorance as to exactly which books are included in this extended canon), this is probably part of the reason. However, one or two quotations do not necessarily create credibility for the entire book of Enoch. Paul also quoted a Greek philosopher in reaffirming the general stereotype of the people of Crete as "liars, evil brutes and lazy gluttons," but this doesn't validate the philosopher's writings as inspired by God.
Jude seems to identify this as an actual prophecy, but that doesn't mean the entire book is inspired by God or even factual in its accounts of Enoch. The Book of Enoch was probably circulated widely among the Israelites, but they never accepted it (in entirety) as authoritative to the degree of canon. Neither did the councils that set forth our present canon, as they followed the nation of Israel regarding Old Testament canon. |
| |
Enoch's prophesy in OT? |
|
|
|
Jude 1:14
|
| |
Dear bcbloyd, 'The Book of Enoch' is not included in "The New English Bible, with the Apocrypha" and though I do not own a "Catholic Bible, with Apocrypha" I do not think it is there, either. Look at Amazon.com, there were a few good reviews that might help you. One reviewer says that Jude is using a bit of sarcasm there. Blessings in Christ Jesus. |
| |
Unmarried men pastors? |
|
|
|
1 Timothy
|
| |
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but it seems to me that the Bible recommends that church leaders be married men with one wife. The Catholic denomination permits unmarried men to be leaders, and other denominations permit women to become leaders. Are they in harmony with the Bible's teachings? |
| |
How can we influence who is saved? |
|
|
|
1 Pet 2:9
|
| |
Since I am not a hyper-Calvinist, don't ask me. Perhaps all we non-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists could get together and write 40 "what if" questions for the beleagured Calvinists to answer in their free time. Also please do not ask me to explain Roman Catholicism, the Muslim religion, the Word of Faith movement, or the mating habits of minority religions who believe(d) in polygamy. |
| |
Unmarried men pastors? |
|
|
|
1 Timothy
|
| |
Dear Dud M3, Welcome! I tend to agree with you that the Bible seems to be recommending ministers to be men with one (present?) wife. I am aware of other traditions and interpretations, but not only does this seem to be the Biblical pattern, but it makes a lot of common sense as well. One issue is the spiritual authority of a man in his own home. Another issue is that unmarried ministers, men or women have a serious, real handicap when dealing with the complications of shepherding the flock, the majority of whom will be married with children. Even married, if you are very young and without children, it makes it difficult to be taken seriously by those who are in need of counsel and spiritual help. A great deal of experience is gained by being responsible for a family of your own that will apply to your spiritual family. By saying these things, I am not trying to discount anyone from service to God, just simply stating a few practical realities. I have met Catholic priests, who last I heard, cannot be married, and though nice fellows and well-trained, I saw obvious gaps in their ability to serve God's people. (I am certain that they may have a different opinion) I have also met many women pastors and leaders, some married and some not. Overall, there seemed to be an unbalance. I don't think I could say anything further that would not be teribly misconstrued, so 'nuff said. (Again, I am certain that they might hold a different opinion!!) In my church, we have women deacons (deaconesses?), and there seems to be a real area of spiritual ministry available to them (not just menial). Again, without getting into trouble, I will just say, "It works." In my opinion, Bible teaching is the literal word, without being Pharisaical, plus a healthy dose of common sense. I am pretty certain that God is sensible. It seems that most departure from the 'married men' norm has been political, financial, and-or emotional; anything but Biblical and practical. Blessings in Jesus' name! |
| |
Unmarried men pastors? |
|
|
|
1 Timothy
|
| |
Dear Dud M3, Welcome! I tend to agree with you that the Bible seems to be recommending ministers to be men with one (present?) wife. I am aware of other traditions and interpretations, but not only does this seem to be the Biblical pattern, but it makes a lot of common sense as well. One issue is the spiritual authority of a man in his own home. Another issue is that unmarried ministers, men or women have a serious, real handicap when dealing with the complications of shepherding the flock, the majority of whom will be married with children. Even married, if you are very young and without children, it makes it difficult to be taken seriously by those who are in need of counsel and spiritual help. A great deal of experience is gained by being responsible for a family of your own that will apply to your spiritual family. By saying these things, I am not trying to discount anyone from service to God, just simply stating a few practical realities. I have met Catholic priests, who last I heard, cannot be married, and though nice fellows and well-trained, I saw obvious gaps in their ability to serve God's people. (I am certain that they may have a different opinion) I have also met many women pastors and leaders, some married and some not. Overall, there seemed to be an unbalance. I don't think I could say anything further that would not be teribly misconstrued, so 'nuff said. (Again, I am certain that they might hold a different opinion!!) In my church, we have women deacons (deaconesses?), and there seems to be a real area of spiritual ministry available to them (not just menial). Again, without getting into trouble, I will just say, "It works." In my opinion, Bible teaching is the literal word, without being Pharisaical, plus a healthy dose of common sense. I am pretty certain that God is sensible. It seems that most departure from the 'married men' norm has been political, financial, and-or emotional; anything but Biblical and practical. Blessings in Jesus' name! |
| |
Unmarried men pastors? |
|
|
|
1 Timothy
|
| |
Good question. In my opinion, a spiritual leader should not be married. Especially a priest, reverend, or a pastor. In the Catholic church, a church leader cannot be married. After all, Jesus Christ did not marry and he is a perfect example of a church leader. For biblical reasons see Matthew 19:12 and also 1 CO 7:7, 7:32-35. I hope this answers your question. |
| |
Time to capitalize??? |
|
|
|
Col 3:17
|
| |
It's time to decide? It's time to capitalize? And, pray tell, who shall make those decisions? The Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Trinitarians, Unitarians, Roman Catholics, Russian Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Pentecostals, General Baptists, Southern Baptists, American Baptists? The list goes on and on. If only the solution were that simple and simplistic! We're not talking about a new format for the Yellow Pages, we're talking about the sacred and imperishable Word of God. |
| |
Define "Pope." |
|
|
|
1 Pet 2:9
|
| |
noun, from Middle English, Old English, French, Greek, Late Latin...papa, pappas, papas. When capitalized: A prelate who as bishop of Rome is head of the Roman Catholic Church. (Merriam Webster). Secondarily, one who resembles a pope (lower case), as in authority. |
| |
Where did Easter get its name? |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Yes, my friend, Easter is a pagan "holy" day. Paul told the Galatian saints that he feared them because they worshiped "days, and times, and seasons." He felt he had bestowed labor upon them in vain. The custom of the goddess Ishtar, or Eastara, can be traced all the way back to Babylonian mysticism. It came up through the false church (Roman Catholicism)and is, sadly, accepted today by many other institutions. |
| |
Best commentary on Revelation? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
Absolutely. They need to do a little research and see how the Catholics have treated other groups throughout history. That belief of theirs still exists, though hidden at this present time. |
| |
To capitalize or not to capitalize? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Philippians 2:3 (ASV 1901) "[doing] nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself;" (Note: the entire text of the ASV is available online at bible.crosswalk.com(slash)OnlineStudyBible)
. . . Dear R.V.H.: Let me begin by saying that I DO count YOU better than myself. I mean that sincerely. In no way am I above anyone else. My reply is not a personal attack on you. There is no malice in my question. Please re-read my original answer to your original question about capitalization of pronouns referring to Deity in the Bible.
. . . "Some religious literature chooses to capitalize pronouns that refer to the deity. As in the original languages, GOD'S WORD does not capitalize any pronouns (unless they begin sentences). In some cases scholars are uncertain whether pronouns in the original texts refer to God or someone else. In these cases the presence of capitalized pronouns would be misleading.". (p. xiii, GOD'S WORD, Grand Rapids: World Publishing, 1995)
. . . Let's take a look at the main points in the above quotation.
. . . 1) Some religious literature chooses to capitalize pronouns that refer to the deity. Some do not.
. . . 2) The Scriptures "in the original languages" do not capitalize any pronouns. If the original manuscripts did not capitalize pronouns, and those Scriptures have endured until now, then WHY does anyone today feel that pronouns referring to the Deity MUST be capitalized?
. . . 3) "In some cases scholars are uncertain whether pronouns in the original texts refer to God or someone else." If SCHOLARS -- those who have learned Hebrew and Greek and have studied the Bible IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES -- if they are in some cases uncertain, is there not some arrogance in the assumption that the rest of us could just take a red pencil and go merrily through the Bible, capitalizing as the mood struck us? (Perhaps you have studied Greek and Hebrew at seminary level. If you have, then more power to you.)
. . . 4) "In these cases the PRESENCE of capitalized pronouns would be misleading." If, on the other hand, the ABSENCE of capitalized pronouns is misleading, then blame God. For that is how the Bible was written in the original languages. The argument that the original manuscripts (as well as certain English translations including, but not limited to, the King James) are somehow misleading sounds to me like criticism of the Author of the book. (I am not writing the Bible. I can capitalize in my personal writing whenever I want to. That is not the issue here.)
. . . My point is: Since you apparently do not understand my original reply, quoted above, then you could continue to ask questions about the lack of capitalization of pronouns until the Rapture, but any answer would be meaningless to you. That is, if you cannot grasp the concept that "In some cases scholars are uncertain whether pronouns in the original texts refer to God or someone else. In these cases the presence of capitalized pronouns would be misleading."
. . . Again, WHO is going to make those decisions? Sincere laymen, Catholics, Protestants, Charismatics, non-Charismatics, liturgical churches, non-liturgical churches, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christian scientists?
. . . If only the solution to the problem of capitalization were as simple and simplistic as you imply they are! I'm not against capitalization. I'm just against every Thomas, Richard and Henry with a red pencil tampering with the Bible. |
| |
It is a general argument among believers |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
My understanding is that this is primarily an argument between the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of Christianity. I believe there was once a Papal decree regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. I may be mistaken in this, but the staunchness with which the view is consistently defended leads me to think otherwise. If I'm mistaken in this, someone please correct me quickly and publicly. I don't know of any other reason whatsoever for interpreting away the existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters here or elsewhere.
(I'm just coming back to the list after leaving to consider how to be more careful not to offend unnecessarily, and I'm already setting myself up to offend any Catholic brothers and sisters on the list. However, I felt this question merited an answer.)
Since the Pope is considered incapable of error when speaking in his capacity of making doctrinal declarations, such a decree can not be reversed without compromising the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Such doctrines become foundational as a part of any future Roman Catholic systematic theology. As a result, Roman Catholics who affirm the Scriptures need to bring a different reading to anything indicating that Mary and Joseph ever had sexual relations. This creates a number of problems for them or anyone else who agrees with this view.
1) Let me give several examples of problematic issues? What about direct references to Jesus' brothers and sisters (as you pointed out)? Well, there must be an alternate explanation searched out and explained. Cousins is the only potentially defensible possiblity that fits with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity (although it requires consistent rejection of the most obvious and natural readings of several texts); therefore, it is embraced. 2) What about the guidelines for husbands and wives not to deprive one another of sexual relations (1 Cor 7:3-5)? I have no idea what is done to make Mary exempt from this command as Joseph's wife (Matthew 1:24). 3) Doesn't Matthew 1:24-25 indicate that Joseph and Mary pursued normal marital relations after Jesus was born? Roman Catholics (and anyone else who comes to this verse assuming the perpetual virginity of Mary) must interpret this to be an odd way of introducing their sexual abstention as an ongoing (rather than a temporary) condition. I have heard Roman Catholic apologists compare the use of "until" in Matthew 1:25 to Luke 20:43 and Acts 2:45 (to the Son being at the right hand of the Father "until" the Father has made his enemies into his footstool). |
| |
can we pray for people after they died |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Praying for the dead is, unless I am much mistaken, largely a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. I know of no Scripture that either espouses the practice or specifically condemns it. (But see Hebrews 9:27) Being a Protestant, I'd never engaged in the practice nor given it a second thought until, in 1989, we lost our youngest son in a car accident. In what may well have been a presumptuous prayer, I asked God to be good to our son and to take care of him. My heart was broken, I was devastated, and I felt then and feel still that somehow God heard and understood. After all, who but He knows better the agony of losing a Son? |
| |
How about common sense? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Dear gentlemen,
I have found your discourse extremely interesting. Allow me to add a view items in favor of common sense. I too, believe that children are among the greatest gifts which our Lord has bestowed upon us. I also feel that there is no situation in which abortion is anything less than the murder of one of the greatest gifts from the Lord. However, I believe that the original question dealt with what the Bible said in terms of birth control. I will make the assumption that this is referring to artificial birth control such as a physical or hormonal method rather than "natural birth control" of abstaining during "fertile periods".
To begin with the obvious, birth control as we know it was not available during biblical times and thus it could not be mentiones in the bible. However, if we look at this from a cultural perspective we are looking at two totally different things. In Biblical times, society was set up as a farming culture. Thus, with the addition of more children, the farmer would prosper more as there would be more people to till the land. Today, in our industrial-based society, more children mean more mouths to feed and I mean that very literally. For example. the Vatican has decreed that artificial birth control methods should not be used as they prevent God's children from being born(my words). In many South American countries where the populations of Catholics are extremely high, most couples do not use birht control. Many children are born and there is no food and very little clean water for them. They are so poor that much of the food they eat is collected daily from garbage dumps. Thus, many of these children die early in life because the socio-economic culture cannot support their life.
Sorry I offer no Scripture, but to be honest, I do not know any passages which deal with this matter since we are not talking about murder(abortion) but rather the prevention of a pregnancy.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Peace
|
| |
what is the best inter. of the bible |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I have found one English version of the Bible to be virtually incomprehensible. This is in no way intended as a put-down of the Roman Catholic Church, but the wording of the Confraternity Edition of the New Testament leaves me bewildered. On the other hand, anyone who can read the KJV with understanding could comprehend the old Douay-Rheims Catholic version of the Bible. I neither recommend nor not recommend this version; I merely point it out. |
| |
Unmarried men pastors? |
|
|
|
1 Timothy
|
| |
Wow, this question got some interesting and enthusiastic responses! Good question, remember the great apostle Paul was not married, so there is certainly no restriction on unmarried men being pastors. A previous answer used our Lord Jesus as an example, but that, in my view, is inappropriate, we are His children for Him to marry one of us would be unusual. Also, He will have a bride (the church) and He came to redeem her (kinsman redeemer; see Ruth), so one could say that our Lords future bride was the motivating force behind His leading.
Women seem to be restricted from such service according to I Tim 2:9-15, but there are differing opinions on the interpretation of those verses. I believe Paul encourages any male leader with a need, to get married (I Tim, Titus), thereby, avoiding temptation. But, Paul also states that he wishes all men/women were as he is, or single, to focus completely on the Lord. (I Cor 7:7) I do see a problem with the catholic practice of unmarried priest, Paul states clearly that if a person has a desire for sexual relations s/he should get married "rather than burn!" with sin (I Cor 7:9) When these men burn with passion and yet cannot get married it could cause all sorts of sexual problems with the priesthood.
Which raises another question, why is it that we are asked to "overcome" all sins of the flesh, with the exception of sexual lust? If we have this desire we should satisfy it in a Biblical manner (marriage; one woman), but still it is treated differently than other lusts of the flesh!
Great question! Let me know any other thoughts! GOD bless!! |
| |
Are Catholics saved because of religion? |
|
|
|
Not Specified
|
| |
Are Catholics saved? My room mate is a very religious person, but I know that Jesus spoke against this to the Pharasies. I asked her if she had a personal relationship with Jesus and she hesitated. I told her that I would pray for her salvation, because when you are saved you know it. Thanks . |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
