Gospel or NT, which one?

[Ali]

Hi Dillon and Richard

Dillon wrote:

The Gospel is not a text. It is a message. The Gospel invites the reader to the divine and it just so happens that the divine is also the bearer. Read more: ponderingconfusion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=islam&action=display&thread=16#ixzz1vryeC1Ky

---

I think this statement makes the "narrow strait" of Gospel, very wide and open. Where are the boundaries that define Gospel? which word is Holy Spirit's word and which one is not? How can you discern that? For example, think of it from Quranic perspective: Unanimously the followers of Quran have one single Quran worldwide, something like Torah of Judaism. Whatever comes after that is not considered as Quran at all. At best its called epistles of someone, human writing.

I think the church intentionally has expanded (and blurred) the boundaries of Gospel to include Epistles and writings of the church too. We see "Paul" has written many letters, we see the John of Patmos has written a section called revelation, there are tens of other kinds of writings that have not been included in the Protestant canon. No need to mention eastern or Ethiopian Church have their own list as well ! Thus the church intentionally has made it look confusing, because their intention is to remove and blur the boundary between the Holy Spirit word and the men's word.

Imagine the whole new testament with the first 4 books of Gospel of today! what would happen then? What problems would rise if Christianity limits down new testament to the first four Gospel only? Teach me on this: Why should Judaism name the five books of Moses by content (Genesis, Exodus...) but Church has gone to attribute the 4 Gospels to human names? -To me it seems that the church has built itself right on from the very words of the titles!! Introducing human being as the cause of preservation of Holy Spirit's words!

Quran and Gospel has cut this causal human link, but church and Islamic scholars can't accept it:

Q: It is We who have sent down the Remembrance, and We watch over it. (15:9)
G: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Matt 3:9 (KJV)

I think God doesn't need human being for survival of Holy Spirit word on paper! Church, on the other hand, sees itself as the causal link.

Richard wrote:

The gift of the Holy Spirit dose not mean - poof, now you are equal to any prophet. It just means that in certain situations, help will be given (if asked for) to facilitate God's plan here on earth.

Read more: ponderingconfusion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=islam&action=display&thread=32#ixzz1vs0WoaZm

---

This idea is in agreement with Quran as well....But... we are talking about "writings". Like Pauline Epistles or revelation, James writings etc. I am saying, these writings are not inspired words, because the writer could never recieve any revelation from Holy Spirit. The writer wasn't a prophet. The church says, YES THEY ARE! I bring the boundary issue forth (described above) and the Quranic testimony that only Jesus Christ was the prophet. The rest of folks around him were only his close followers, were preacher of his message.

So my question is how come a preacher's writing, today is part of the New testament? or even is considered as the part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Quran asserts that it was only Jesus who could have received "inspired words" through Holy Spirit. The rest of individuals around him were only his followers, not prophets.

ِAs this whole page is one of the testimonies of Quran about Jesus and his close followers:
tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/3:51

Thank you.
Ali

[Dave]

Is it Gospel or NT? This is an easy answer!

And that answer, without a doubt is --- Gospel

Part of the problem is vocabulary and semantics. As I read your post I saw so much wisdom in you Q! However, I also saw much misunderstanding (at least from the Gnostic perspective)

Let's talk about vocabulary first

Gospel have 2 different definitions. 1. A book. A text written down by man. The Gospel of Mark is simply the text Mark wrote to document the oral message by Christ. 2. A living message to man verbalized by Christ. The Good News.

The fact that the Gospel was recorded by 4 different guys (more if you count Gnostic text - Gospel of Thomas fro example) Is proof that each author is not the originator of the story - just the re-teller of the story. Why? I'll explain with an example:

Let's pretend that you, me, Dillon, Richard, and Pat all saw something. Then a detective comes along and want to decide for himself what it really was we saw. What would the detective do - take my word for it - or - take your word for it? NO, instead the detective would have each of us write down what we saw and then compare all versions. You might have added information I didn't. Richard might have seen something when we were not looking. I used different vocabulary to express what had happened. The Job of the detective is to glean the truth from each of our statements to determine what we we actually saw.

The written text of the Gospel is exactly the same. Matthew told the story, so did Mark, Luke, and John. We are the detective. We are to take it all in to prayerful consideration and the Holy Spirit will teach us the truth. Parables are like Hebrew metaphors - meaning upon meaning. There is a difference between academic understanding and spiritual understanding. One is surface and one yields depth.

The NT is simply the book all these stories have been grouped into. Each of the 4 written Gospels different in detail, but consistent in overall theme. Why are multiple Gospels necessary? The answers lays with human psychology. I can try to explain something to you and as hard as I try you just don't get it. Bill comes along and does his best, but still you are confused. Sam and Fred try as well - no luck. Then along comes Jim, who pretty much says the same thing as the rest of us and suddenly you get it. Jim choose the right words or the right expressions that spoke to you. Is Jim better than the rest of us - NO - just different. The Hebrew culture was a very small group. They all had the same background and history. Yet their scripture is 10-15 times larger than the 4 Gospels. Personally I find it amazing that these same 4 Gospels speak to not only a different culture than the Hebrews, but a much larger culture. In fact, the Gospels speaks to many different cultures all larger than the Hebrews. All with drastically different backgrounds, histories, and language. Even to this day the culture of the Hebrews number only in the millions, while Christians number in the billions.

The Gospel as a living word - this comes from guidance by the Holy Spirit. You like to use scripture to make your points so I ask you to review Luke 12:12, John 14:26, 1 Cor 2:9-14, and 1 John 5:7-8.

Only the most arrogant would suggest that the Holy Spirit cannot say anything new or different than the written Gospel. Here is a simple example: we are all lead to believe that we have free will and we can make our own choices in everything. But in Exodus 14:8 we learn that ... the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh ... so that God's plan unfolded they way He intended. Another example is Judas. Many Christians want to burn Judas at the stake for what he did to Jesus. It is preached that Judas is burning in hell as we speak, because he was the worst man to have ever lived --- yet, I ask these same Christians, 'How could have all prophesy be fulfilled, if Judas didn't do what he had to do?'

Again my answer is Gospel as experienced in sincere prayer, (recited?) understood through the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The NT is a text book where this Gospel was recorded in print.
Inspired - absolutely, 100% ? unsure, any room for error absolutely. Possibly usurped by a false message - absolutely. But having said that, God is all powerful, therefore His word survives to this day exactly as he allows.

Ambiguity is by design! If not, then scripture could have just stop with the Torah, the Jews would have accepted Christ as the messiah, and you and I would have been left out in the cold.

[Dave]

Richard wrote:

The gift of the Holy Spirit dose not mean - poof, now you are equal to any prophet. It just means that in certain situations, help will be given (if asked for) to facilitate God's plan here on earth.

This idea is in agreement with Quran as well....

Common ground and in my opinion this is the very bases of Christianity

But... we are talking about "writings". Like Pauline Epistles or revelation, James writings etc. I am saying, these writings are not inspired words, because the writer could never recieve any revelation from Holy Spirit.

Only God knows for sure if these writings were inspired or not. I am just a man and can not judge this. Although, these writings were necessary for non Hebrew cultures to grasp what is actually a Hebrew faith. Christ said himself that after His death and resurrection He would send the Holy Spirit to help believers. I think it dangerous and arrogant (no insult intended) to use human absolutes when talking about the powers and abilities of the Creator.

[Ali]

Hello David and thank you for your comments.

I disagree with your detective analogy due to followings:

1. If the book of Matthew or Luke is Matthew's or Luke's angle of Jesus story then:

a. How Luke could narrate Zechariah's story in the temple?
b. How come Matthew's character is introduced 9 chapters after the beginning of Gospel of so-called Matthew?
c. How Matthew could narrate Peter's denial of Jesus with that detail, while Peter obviously was the only disciple present in the palace? Matthew 26:69-75.
c. Was Matthew accompanying John the Baptist from the beginning too !? Was he there with Satan and Jesus as well?

Obviously not!

Church says Matthew or Luke could have received revelation or could have been inspired by Holy Spirit, but this explanation turns the disciples to "navi" or prophets and that contradicts the exclusive prophet hood of Jesus Christ.

2. The narrative angle across all 4 texts, similar to Quran, changes constantly. For instance we see the narrator not only records Jesus's words, but also Satan words or the voice (and actions) of even heaven...forming another reason that Gospel attributed to Matthew or Luke is not from Matthew or Luke themselves.

3. The narrative of Gospels reflects internal feelings of characters. I think everybody here agrees that Matthew or Mark or John never could capture internal feelings of Jesus, Pharisees or even whole population of a region. Because they were only disciples.

To make it short:

I think I am presenting enough amount of evidence that the narrative of 4 Gospels are independent of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, Ali or David! The narrative of 4 Gospels is the narrative of Holy Spirit. And Holy Spirit could never come down for such reason -revelation of sacred message- except to Jesus Christ himself.

Thus I see Jesus Christ, himself, as the compiler of the 4 Gospels. Even if Church opposes the notion and takes it as arrogance.

So teach me if you have other explanations.

[Ali]

Only God knows for sure if these writings were inspired or not. I am just a man and can not judge this.

YHWH Allah knows it for sure and has confirmed it for sure. The only problem is that you don't take that confirmation (Quran) seriously.

[Dave]

Boy, this is a difficult conversation and I think the difference between us is the fundamental way in how we see the omnipotence of God.

The arguments you use to defend your position revolve around your premise that: God, or the Holy Spirit, can't do this or that.

In all of our conversations, this is absolutely the biggest difference between us. You know for sure that 2000 yrs ago John Doe couldn't have done, known, or said this or that because it is impossible for God to do that. On this issue you and I will just have to disagree.

My God created the entire universe. He formed Adam from dust of the ground. he breathed the breath of life into Adam and Adam became a living being. He hardened Pharaoh's heart. He parted the Red Sea. He delivered Daniel from the lion's den. He protected his faithful within a fiery furnace. He took Enoch and Elisha into heaven without their physical death.

So, little things like - coming to earth as a man, raising from the dead, answering prayer, or providing insight to any human - seem so obviously within God's ability.

We also do not see eye to eye on vocabulary. No Christian anywhere will claim that the disciples of Christ, or authors of the NT were prophets. John did not predict revelation - he was transported into the future and witnessed it himself - then returned and simply reported what it was he saw. But, I suppose you will tell me that God can't do that either.

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

As for the NT,

In the Gospel of John, when the soldiers came to the garden to capture Christ. They asked which one of you is Jesus. Christ said I am and when He said that all the soldiers were thrown backward onto the ground. Luke doesn't say that. So, do we really have to have a discussion if it really happened or not?

Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? John Mark? Peter? Mark a follower of Peter? Or is it a collection of various authors? Parts of Mark's Gospel use different grammar and/or different prose (style). Did mark have multiple personalities? Did others interject phrasing to complete the text? Mark and his Gospel end up in Egypt and establish the Coptic Church and have their own pope sitting at the head of their church long before Rome ever got the idea?

But as someone who believes in the omnipotence of our Creator I say, who cares - why would it even matter? Could lowly human man ever alter the text into anything God didn't allow? If you say yes - then you must believe that lowly human man is more powerful than God!

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

This brings men to the second fundamental difference between us (or at least me and 99.99% of other Christians). Does God only have one message for everyone and is that message always good?

So for the first part of my Q, I reflect back on the example of God hardening Pharaoh's heart. God was telling Moses one thing and, at the same time, telling Pharaoh something different. Why? So that God's plan would unfold the way God wanted it to.

Is the Message always good? The answer lays with what do you mean by good. Does good always mean that it works out great for humans? Christian use Romans 8:28 as a promise of good sailing and happy times ahead. Didn't work out very well for the Pharaoh.

Israel is God's chosen people. That sound nice now doesn't it? But, chosen for what? To be killed, persecuted, enslaved, and pushed around all through history? Doesn't sound too nice for them?

I often think of those Christian in Rome being fed to the lions. Of course their courage ultimately served to strengthened Christianity - that's a good thing - but personally for the individuals involved it wasn't so nice.

Who had more faith than Job? Didn't work out well for him either.

So, is God's message to each of us always good - well good for God - good to facilitate God's plan on earth and just where do we mere mortals draw the line of what God does and does not do. Was the courage of the boy David all of his own. Was the boy David such a good shot with his sling that he was able to slay Goliath? Or did God steady his hand this one time so that God's plan unfolded per God's will? What is a miracle? Where do you draw the line? Tell me the boundaries of what Allah can do or can not do?

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

All of this leads me to the revelation that ambiguity is by design. All of this leads me to declare myself as a Gnostic Christian - meaning open to all the information - open to the Quran for example.

Open to the Quran in what regard? Open that it replaces the NT? NO. Supplemental to the NT - yes. But, I am confused if it a supplement that adds to the NT or detracts. If the Gospel had remained an oral message imprinted upon all our hearts by the Holy Spirit, Christianity would have been so much better off. Instead, people, you and I, sit around, quarreling over whether a dot on the page is a period or a comma.

The Quran tells you to embrace the Ingeel - that is a step in the right direction. Then it goes on to evidently teach you that God is not omnipotent because you consistently use the rebuttal argument that God can't do this or God can't do that - I see this as a step in the wrong direction.

For me it is not a question of one is the only correct and the other totally incorrect. I can see God using both to facilitate His plan here on earth. Without the Gospel in text form, Christendom couldn't have grown into its false message - as well as - without the Quran the hadith could not have grown into what it is today.

Our social structure today has to be what God intends, it has to be what God's plan is for this age - or God is not omnipotent.

[Ali]

We also do not see eye to eye on vocabulary. No Christian anywhere will claim that the disciples of Christ, or authors of the NT were prophets. John did not predict revelation - he was transported into the future and witnessed it himself - then returned and simply reported what it was he saw. But, I suppose you will tell me that God can't do that either.

---

oh! seriously, how come no where in your definition of "God-ness" has Muhammad any place as a prophet, to be get dispatched by God to other people? I suppose you too will tell me that God can't do that specific exception either!!

You know David, the biggest difference between you and me is that I rely on text, you rely on the message. The text is specific and detailed and comes with no Pauline attachment. The message is doctrinal, wide and idea based and could contain 600 books in NT. I tell you even if I convert today to Christianity, we would not be the same Christians in faith. And I'm gonna tell you that since the very beginning your approach to almost all the discussions has recalled "Shiaism" for me. And I promise, you take some of their Gnostic books and I can see you enjoying their ontology, their view of "message-ship" and to make it short you'll see the wide and open gate there, as well.

Okay..

I would claim that God has 16 heads. How do I know that? Well, because he can do anything! ..You have to accept it, otherwise John could not be transported to the future after Jesus either. (Btw, was Jesus himself ever claimed to be teleported anywhere? Or is it only John of Patmos?)

Think about this for a while: how do you know that you know?

If revelation is not exclusive to Jesus Christ, then what is the problem with me adding another book of my own revelations to New Testament? Are you saying that God "can not" reveal things to me through his Holy Spirit either?!

[Dave]

oh! seriously, how come no where in your definition of "God-ness" has Muhammad any place as a prophet, to be get dispatched by God to other people? I suppose you too will tell me that God can't do that specific exception either!!

Wow Ali, boy are you in a grumpy mood today. I think I was clearly talking about the authors of the NT or the disciples of Christ. What specifically did I say about Muhammad?

You know David, the biggest difference between you and me is that I rely on text, you rely on the message.

Yes, this is a difference - you keep up your search for that perfect text and when you feel alone in the dark perhaps those pages of ink will comfort you. I could care less about pages of ink, my focus is on the Lord. As a Christian, when I am alone in the dark it is the Lord that I invite into my heart to teach and guide me in the living message, the Gospel, by the Holy Spirit.

And I'm gonna tell you that since the very beginning your approach to almost all the discussions has recalled "Shiaism" for me. And I promise, you take some of their Gnostic books and I can see you enjoying their ontology, their view of "message-ship" and to make it short you'll see the wide and open gate there, as well.

Honestly, I don't really get your example here. Wide, narrow, crooked, or straight there is only one way to the Father and that way has nothing to do with ink and paper.

I would claim that God has 16 heads. How do I know that? Well, because he can do anything! ..

God is all powerful - He can do anything He wants.

16 heads huh? Do I really need to address this with an answer? I will answer your proposal with a real life example. In 1830, God and Christ appeared to a guy named Joseph Smith. The Angel Mormo then told him where he could dig up 6 golden plates along with the sword of Labien and the Urman and Therman. Joseph Smith used these Urman and Therman to translate the 6 golden plates into "Another Gospel of Jesus Christ."

I know some followers of this "Another Gospel of Jesus Christ," and they seem to be really good people. There churches are some of the biggest buildings in America. This church dominates one of our states to the point that they dictate politics and school policies. The current Republican candidate for president is a member of this church group.

So, I read their book. Their book is full of references from the Torah, as well as the NT. A lot of the book sounds very nice and inviting. But in the end, through prayer and reflection, I totally discount this book in entirety. I have more respect for the Koran than the Book of Morman. Why? Because there is just too much that is not in agreement with other older scripture.

God is not an Alien living in the constellation of Pleiades. Christ and Satan are not twin brothers. AND if I forget to call out my wife's name when I awake in Heaven - it will not damn her to hell.

16 heads huh? Show me supporting scripture. Teach me how your revelation blends with the totality of all scripture.

You have to accept it, otherwise John could not be transported to the future after Jesus

God is omnipotent - does he need my acceptance on anything?

Think about this for a while: how do you know that you know?

What do I know? Let's see. I know that I thank the Lord each and every day I draw breath, because each day I am here I have two great opportunities to peruse. 1. Seek the Kingdom of the Lord and 2. Share the Kingdom of the Lord.

Let's see - what else do I know ?? I know I have a few simple truths I accept on faith. Beliefs if you need to call them that.

I believe that God is the the Creator of the entire universe and he is omnipotent.
I believe that God exist as a plurality - Let Us make man in OUR image.
I believe that God chose Abraham to influence the global culture
I believe that God gave the Hebrew language to the Jewish people
I believe that God gave the OT to humanity to prepare the way for the Messiah
I believe that Jesus was that Messiah and that the Messiah did not come to save only the Jews, but all humanity.
I believe that Gen 3:15 and 6:4 clearly set up an opposition force
I believe that this opposition force is alive and well today and extremely active
I believe that the only requirement place on me as a mortal is to:
Believe that Jesus Christ is the living Gospel and that his death and resurrection demonstrates once and for all that there is a very real and viable afterlife.
I believe that belief in Jesus Christ, and confessing my belief, benefits me in preparing for that afterlife.

I also know that not one word of ink on any page anywhere can teach me more than the the Holy Spirit, which Christ made available to all of us.

I also believe that without ever reading a single word of ink - we should all be aware of the wonders of God through his creation. Therefore evidence from His creation can never deny the Creator. You can pick up a beautiful Rose and appreciate it's beauty. But I also believe that if I describe that same rose as a woody perennial of the genus Rosa, within the family Rosaceae you will think I am diminishing the Creator or looking at it with a wrong vehicle.

Are you saying that God "can not" reveal things to me through his Holy Spirit either?!

I am saying absolutely the opposite. Nothing would please me more than to have the Holy Spirit touch you.

If revelation is not exclusive to Jesus Christ, then what is the problem with me adding another book of my own revelations to New Testament?

If the Holy Spirit causes you to inscribe anything into ink, I would be the first to want to read it. But once I have read it, I will hold it up to the totality of other scripture and pray for understand about it.

Hope your feeling better soon.
Your friend Dave.

[Richard]

I have read and reread these post and though long and hard about how to best contribute.

Just a few thoughts.

It is OK to disagree as long as we disagree respectfully.
Words on paper are not the Word spoke of in John 1:1
I also agree that God is omnipotent - how can man place limits on Him?
The problem with strict adherence to any written text is in the choice of text. Different Bibles contain different text.

Even the hadith must have hints of truth in them for so many people to accept them, just as the Book of Mormon.

We can argue over which words, which translations, which versions, or which language; but will any of that discussion bring us one step closer to our Father in Heaven?

[Ali]

you keep up your search for that perfect text and when you feel alone in the dark perhaps those pages of ink will comfort you.

---

good you didn't think it was the font type that comforts me there! You know David, the same those pages of ink, if not comprehended correctly, would keep you in the darkness of YOUR doctrine of plural God forever. So read those ink things seriously, because it is through those ink that your heart is taking shape.

I can't take your duality where in one post you question whether Muhammad has inked the Quran and in another post the ink thing becomes not of an importance.

[Dave]

May 27, 2012 13:33:56 GMT -5 Ali said:

I can't take your duality where in one post you question whether Muhammad has inked the Quran and in another post the ink thing becomes not of an importance.

Duality

I am sorry, if you find my comments contradictory. There is a duality! An extremely obvious duality. There is the thing and the non-thing. There is flesh - and there is spirit. For the flesh to place limits upon spirit is just arrogant. Years ago I use to refer to the "Riddel of Steel." Steel is real. It is hard. If forged into a sword, it can easily kill. But regardless of how many people it kills, it can not kill an idea or belief. The example from current events is Syria. King Assad is clearly able to kill his own people, but he doesn't seem to be able to kill the unrest with his people. Isn't this an obvious lesson learned from each and every revolution?

As far as scripture goes - there are the words of ink written down by man - AND - the communication from God. When God spoke to Abraham, was it a verbal non-thing; or did God give Abraham some writing to consider? Is the fact that this communication was not in written form diminish the message?

As you and I have discussed before - only once was something written by the finger of God - 10 short sentences. these 10 short sentences did nothing to change the heart's of Israel and Israel used this writing as a weapon of war. Today, this most precious writing is lost (hidden).

Since then - other writings have come down to man from above beginning with the Torah. Let's talk about the very first book - Genesis. Is each and every word written from the hand of Moses? - maybe - maybe not - does it matter?

Is the Torah the only text given from above - NO. Now the question comes - what is and what is not inspired writings. Is every writing by King David included - NO. Is every writing by any of the prophets - major or minor - included - NO. So, where do we draw the line? By the time of Christ even the Torah had additional commentaries that influenced the Jewish mindset.

After Christ there were - and are - many writings flooding the culture. So many that someone felt it necessary to gather the writings together to edit and canonize. Did that stop more text from being written? - NO. 300 years pass before Muhammad is even born. Since then we have seen another 1500 years of additional commentary by Christians as well as Islam. Even as late as 1830 another Gospel of Christ is written. The 1960s see Islamic commentaries impact Islamic attitudes.

Even our relationship - you and I - began over the question of what is the true Ingeel! So, absolutely yes there is a duality-what is and what isn't. You even told me once that you had a life defining moment when something was told to you by spirit. Can I sit here and say - that's impossible - NO way. Do I have to decide whether you lied to me or not - NO. Was the message give to you meant for me?- NO. If you can be given information today - how can you turn right around and deny that it could have happened to Matthew, mark, Luke, or John?

There is a new member on this blog - obviously Christian in orentation - I have no idea who he is, but he posted the following in the "What is Gnostic Christianity" section.

rognyt23Let's not get confused by using the term "Church" to be one group, or homogenous structure. Leadership by man is always threatened by men who deviate from Truth, for whatever purpose. That deviation can come out of conscious or unconscious choice. Some are mere pawns as was Pharoah in the time of Moses.

From the original statement, #1, point 3, "but if God is omnipotent - then again this all would still be a part of God's plan", our available information would be protected by God, and be sent forth by His prophets. Those who were martyred for the sake of Christ would not have been so bold were they not absolutely convinced that He was who He said he was, ie eternal God in the flesh.


I did not write these words, but agree - I agree especially about those used as pawns. pawns used to facilitate God's plan here on earth.

As with every aspect of this reality there exist a duality - thing, non-thing; flesh, spirit; truth, lie; or good, evil.

So, still my answer to your original question of is it NT or Gospel - my answer is still - GOSPEL.

Sorry it took so long to reply. It was an American holiday weekend.

You friend - that doesn't ever mean to offend - just discuss.
Dave

[Dave]

Now let me ask you this-

You accept the Torah therefore you accept Genesis. How do you translate Gen 1:26 -Let US make man in OUR image ?

Just who is the co-creator?

[Stella]

John 1:1 puts forth the idea of plurality better than any other verse.

In the beginning was the Word -
The Word was with God - different but together
The Word was God - doesn't get much plainer than that
and through the Word all was created.

Us and Our - made obvious

[Dillon]

Christ told the man on the cross next to Him that because of his belief that man would be in paradise with Christ.

If that man ever read / heard any text, we would assume it was OT only. Therefore the power of the message must be greater than any written text.

It was the actions of Christ - the witness of Christ - the spoken words of Christ that caused this man to believe.

[Ali]

Hello! This is in response to Dave and Stella's "us/our" misconception:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LavvpdMPZdw&list=PLFECF9B7A74203DB3&index=9&feature=plpp_video