~That which is perfect~

sunlover1 · Jan 7, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
Yeah the anxiousness should not be so . . .

I never have any anxious feelings from speaking in tongues but i do sometimes get
anxious feelings when "it shouldn't be so"
Wait, am I ever supposed to feel anxious?
Ahh, nm lol

MOST of the time it shoud be in private, or private meetings, but more so just you and God.

[/QUOTE]
Private thang for the most part.

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 7, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
If you walked in and you saw someone teaching in a foreign language to a congregation who didn't speak it, you wouldn't think they were a little odd? I would.

Aaaaarrrghhh. NO ONE UNDERSTANDS MY POETRY!!!

Does that mean no-one on Earth or no-one who's heard it?

Please answer honestly.

Remember, people not understanding your tongue doesn't necessarily mean its a foreign tongue. It can also mean that you are using a language STYLE that is difficult to understand. A fancy tongue....with complicated words and phrases. Often happens here on the forums where people use complicated words to show off and you have to go and google them. I hate that.

If you walked in and you saw someone teaching in a foreign language to a congregation who didn't speak it, you wouldn't think they were a little odd?

Hmm . . . how in the world would you know that they didnt understand the language if they are strangers? You dont know them, nor what the speak, nor the speaker, nor what he/she speaks. You are predicating knowledge where there is none.

Rather, wouldnt you call a bunch of people, WHOM YOU HAVE NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF, who are spouting out what seems like "gibberish to you, crazy? I would. Foreign languages however wouldnt cause me to level the charge "insane" at anyone. Rather, those in corinth KNEW what ecstatic speech sounded like per the Grecian Oracles . . . and if they saw all doing such they would CERTAINLY SAY "DUDE THEY ARE NUTS"

here is mere foreign languages:

YouTube - German Preaching (deutsches Predigen)

I walk into a cultural hub like corinth (which saw FOREIGN LANGUAGES ALL THE TIME OF THE KNOWN WORLD) and walk into a room of people speaking a foreign language . . . no, hardly wil I say "ya'll are psycho" . . . I would say "hey, what is this guy sayin?" . . . but no allegations of being crazy.

Philothei · Jan 7, 2011

Try using a better lexicon. Kittles Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vol.s) states that ecstatic speech is one of the known usages of glossa. Sorry.

The Greek does not leave room for this exegesis...though. The glossolalia was specific for preaching the gospel... It happened in Pentacost for a reason it happened through out the Apostolic account for the same reason of evangelization.

It might seemed like 'jargon" thus the word "lalw" instead of the "logos" becasue to "others" who hear it is NOT word for them since they are ignorant to that specific language.... KWIM. Glossolalis definately had a 'usage" as we do not see in Christ's ministry first of all practiced even by Him either on the contrary he did commant :

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the ...

and also :

The Eucharist is a central religious rite of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy and several of the Christian denominations that have emerged since the Protestant Reformation. Letters of Ignatius of Antioch speak of it as a central rite for the Christians of the first years of the 2nd century,[4] and it is recorded as celebrated more than half a century earlier by the Christian community at Jerusalem and elsewhere.[5]

Eucharist.-The distinctive rite of Christian worship, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ upon the eve of His atoning death, being a religious partaking of bread and wine, which, having been presented before God the Father in thankful memorial of Christ's inexhaustible sacrifice, have become (through the sacramental blessing) the communion of the body and blood of Christ (compare John 6:54 Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7, 11 Romans 15:16 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

II. New Testament Sources.

The New Testament sources of our knowledge of the institution of the Eucharist are fourfold, a brief account thereof being found in each of the Synoptic Gospels and in Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (Matthew 26:26-29 Mark 14:22-25 Luke 22:14-20 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; compare 10:16, 17).

Bible Encyclopedia: Eucharist

as in the Bible and also practiced... These are two examples not to derail the thread ...

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 7, 2011

Philothei said:
The Greek does not leave room for this exegesis...though. The glossolalia was specific for preaching the gospel... It happened in Pentacost for a reason it happened through out the Apostolic account for the same reason of evangelization.

It might seemed like 'jargon" thus the word "lalw" instead of the "logos" becasue to "others" who hear it is NOT word for them since they are ignorant to that specific language.... KWIM. Glossolalis definately had a 'usage" as we do not see in Christ's ministry first of all practiced even by Him either on the contrary he did commant :

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the ...

and also :

Bible Encyclopedia: Eucharist

as in the Bible and also practiced... These are two examples not to derail the thread ...

Greek does not leave room for this exegesis...though

Have you looked at the Greek tho? I have . . . and the singular and plural usage of pronouns leaves no room for error . . . individuals each heard the group of the disciples in their own tongues AT THE SAME TIME . . .

Further, knowing Greek, the ioudian is original . . . making the concept of foreign languages IMPOSSIBLE.

The glossolalia was specific for preaching the gospel...

Tongues have never been for preaching . .. ever. The content of tongues in Acts 2 is ascription of praise "the mighty deeds of God" . . . not euaggelion. Further, why do believers need the Gospel preached to them? Yet this is the case, if your theory is right, in Acts 10 and 19 for it was FOR THE BELIEVER THAT THE TONGUES WERE SPOKEN. IOW the concept of the Gospel to unbelievers isnt tenable in Acts 10 or 19.

It happened in Pentacost for a reason it happened through out the Apostolic account for the same reason of evangelization.

Again, not for Acts 10 or 19. There is NO evangelization of the hearers . . . they are believers in those two accounts.

Further, tongues have the same purpose as all the gifts, edification of the Body . . . tell me how "evangelization through the Gospel" fits this:

1 Cor 14:13-18
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.
NASU

Tongues here are anything BUT evangelism . . . the recipient here is THE CHURCH . . . not the unbelieving.

It might seemed like 'jargon" thus the word "lalw" instead of the "logos" becasue to "others" who hear it is NOT word for them since they are ignorant to that specific language.... KWIM.

Um, sorry, but this is a little too disjointed for me . . . sorry . . . could you re-word and clarify for me? thnx

Glossolalis definately had a 'usage" as we do not see in Christ's ministry first of all practiced even by Him either

Of course he didnt practice it . . . He didnt need to. Not surprising at all.

Frogster · Jan 7, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
Hmm . . . how in the world would you know that they didnt understand the language if they are strangers? You dont know them, nor what the speak, nor the speaker, nor what he/she speaks. You are predicating knowledge where there is none.

Rather, wouldnt you call a bunch of people, WHOM YOU HAVE NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF, who are spouting out what seems like "gibberish to you, crazy? I would. Foreign languages however wouldnt cause me to level the charge "insane" at anyone. Rather, those in corinth KNEW what ecstatic speech sounded like per the Grecian Oracles . . . and if they saw all doing such they would CERTAINLY SAY "DUDE THEY ARE NUTS"

here is mere foreign languages:

YouTube - German Preaching (deutsches Predigen)

I walk into a cultural hub like corinth (which saw FOREIGN LANGUAGES ALL THE TIME OF THE KNOWN WORLD) and walk into a room of people speaking a foreign language . . . no, hardly wil I say "ya'll are psycho" . . . I would say "hey, what is this guy sayin?" . . . but no allegations of being crazy.

I tried to show them, that according to Rom 12, if they wanna chuck prophecy, then they gotta chuch teaching, and serving.

Yarddog · Jan 7, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
Why?

Well, at least if we use what most people, today, look at the wording. You may look differently.

Ecstatic usually refers to something over welling and emotional. Paul's description of tongues does indicate this though I have had many instances where the Holy Spirit has come upon me and I began to praise God in the Spirit and that was very emotional.

My experience with tongues was not emotional according to the witness. It was soft and subdued. The words spoken were quite clear and were not gibberish.

Unintelligible refers to not capable of being understood. Paul understood the tongues which he spoke but did not allow tongues to be used, in meetings, unless someone was there who could understand what was being said.

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 7, 2011

Yarddog said:
Well, at least if we use what most people, today, look at the wording. You may look differently.

Ecstatic usually refers to something over welling and emotional. Paul's description of tongues does indicate this though I have had many instances where the Holy Spirit has come upon me and I began to praise God in the Spirit and that was very emotional.

My experience with tongues was not emotional according to the witness. It was soft and subdued. The words spoken were quite clear and were not gibberish.

Unintelligible refers to not capable of being understood. Paul understood the tongues which he spoke but did not allow tongues to be used, in meetings, unless someone was there who could understand what was being said.

I would use ecstatic the way it is used in koine

ek-out of
stasis-normal standing

meaning ecstatic means something apart from normal. It is used of visions and other supernatural things. The connotation of emotionalistic frothing at the mouth and swinging on chandliers is misplaced. That is A connotation, not THE connotation.

As for emotional, the studies of tongues have shown that the frontal lobe, the speech and logic centers are not active . . . which is what Paul says, praying in the spirit is NOT praying with the understanding. What regions ARE active, however, are the emotive regions . . . the same places that are active when we SING. Making tongues INTENSELY emotional . . . but not meaning FEELING . . . meaning the connection of the person in their deepest parts . . . deep crying out to deep, in essence.

My experience with tongues was not emotional according to the witness. It was soft and subdued. The words spoken were quite clear and were not gibberish.

Agreed that they are NOT gibberish . . . but to most people they will sound like gibberish. And to most who denounce the practice, they will call it gibberish because it doesnt bear the qualities of known languages. It is a language of your spirit to God . . . soft and subdued can be INTENSELY emotional.

I speak in tongues rather articulately . . . very clear. But to the person who looks on, who doesnt know about tongues, to them it seems like gibberish . . . tho it is not.

Unintelligible refers to not capable of being understood

Correct. This is why a distinct gift of the Spirit, called interpretation of tongues, is needed . . . REQUIRED . . . to understand it.

Paul understood the tongues which he spoke

That is not what he says.

1 Cor 14:2
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
NASU

here he gives the overall reason for the passage about order in understanding. The governing principle for tongues is that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS . . . including the speaker, ergo . . .

1 Cor 14:13-15
13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.
NASU

Where Paul says quite clearly that the speaker needs to PRAY, petition God, for an interpretation, something he would not need to do if he understood it; AND that speech in tongues is dichotomised with speech of the mind . . . meaning IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD . . . Paul's usage of nous (mind) and the INABILITY of the mind to UNDERSTAND IT (why he puts prayer with the understanding/mind as OPPOSITE prayer with the spirit/tongues) requires that tongue speak cannot be understood apart from an interpretation given BY THE SPIRIT ALONE in response to a prayer from the speaker TO INTERPRET.

Frogster · Jan 7, 2011

Yarddog said:
Well, at least if we use what most people, today, look at the wording. You may look differently.

Ecstatic usually refers to something over welling and emotional. Paul's description of tongues does indicate this though I have had many instances where the Holy Spirit has come upon me and I began to praise God in the Spirit and that was very emotional.

My experience with tongues was not emotional according to the witness. It was soft and subdued. The words spoken were quite clear and were not gibberish.

Unintelligible refers to not capable of being understood. Paul understood the tongues which he spoke but did not allow tongues to be used, in meetings, unless someone was there who could understand what was being said.

In acts 19, they spoke in tongues, same wordage as the greek (tongues) an Pent, and there is no account of interpreation happening there, in 19.

Not always, as far as meetings only, he did not always understand..but still no evidence that he did not pray in tongues privately.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

Tongues, translated praise God, so whether we know it or not, it is good to praise anyway.

Even if the mind does not understand. "unfruitful".

Mathetes the kerux · Jan 7, 2011

I hate having to do this every so often . . . but
Here is the case for what was spoke, the common "unintelligible speech" that we hear in tongue speak . . . and that the miracle was more in the hearing than in the speaking.

The first thing to consider is the usage of glwssaiV lalien(speaking in tongues) in historical context. It is widely known that the ecstatic usage of tongues was widely practiced during the time of New Testament (NT) Palestine in the whole Mediterranian due to the so-called mystery religions/cults.

The Pythian and Delphic oracles were known to spout unintelligible prophecies that needed an interpreter when the women were said to be under the influence of a supernatural entity (pagan gods). This provides the usage of profhthV and glwssaiV lalien in Koine history in association with non-human unintelligible speech.

The phrase speaking in tongues, while not necessarily connoting ecstaic speech, does certainly INCLUDE this dimension of usage. Most limited lexicons give very brief and simplisitc overviews of the Koine Greek . . . the best, recognised universally, is G. Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). I would suggest a view of the article on glwssa.

The historical concept of the profhthV and their speech and the contrast of the mystical concept of the pnuema verses the nouV pretty much seals the deal that the speech was not of the understanding . . . but from the place within that connected with what extends beyond the understanding. This can be defined as ecstatic.

So lets define ecstatic. A compound verb from ek (out of) and estemi (to stand) making ekstasiV, or literally out of stance . . . it has the connotation of out of NORMAL stance. Hence it has been used in reference to a vision (Acts 10:10) and amazement (Mark 5:42).

Our common conception of ecstatic, someone running around bumping into walls and frothing at the mouth is NOT what is in view . . . hence to read our current colloquial usage is folly. Truly, any gifting or move of the Spirit can be ecstatic if demonstrative enough to cause amazement . . . or even the specially edowed prophetic utterances whose source is not from "normalcy" but the supernatural working of the Spirit. This usage is in view when I say "ecstatic" . . . it is thoroughly biblical and wholesome.

To the text of Acts 2:

We have already established that there is an understanding of ecstatic NON-human language in the usage of the Konie glwssaiV lalien, although not a necessary understanding. The context will have to determine our understanding.

The first concept of import is in the word eterais (other) . . . the clear concept of the word includes something that was different than their normal tongue and something that was altogether new to them. Hence, whatever it was that they spoke . . . it was NOT something that they were familiar with . . . not something that was in their history of personal usage.

The second concept is that the speech was inspired by the pnuema (Spirit). Many studies have overlooked this vital concept. The history of the word is one of mystical and other-worldy usage. It is derrived from the pn a linguistic construct that pointed to the unknown and supernatural representing the rough breath and mystery the ancients associated with breathing and air. Hence, pnuema, connotes a supernatural unknown mysterious feeling.

The connection with pnuema and speech (laleo or cognates) cannot be overemphasized . . . the history of association from Plato and others in Ancient Greek of the mystery of speech inspired by the pnuema carries into the NT with the concept of the Holy Spirit of God. This connection wasn't unqiue to the Greeks . . . Hebrews associated the same mystery as did most ancient cultures.

This background lays the foundation for a type of speech which is obviously supernatural and patently *other* worldy. At this point it may still be known foreign languages supernaturally imparted, however.

The next touchpoint is the use of fonhV (sound). It is singular . . . not plural. That means that when the masses heard what it was that they heard . . . it was ONE loud sound . . . not many variable sounds. The sound of a group not individuals. This leads to the conclusion that what they gathered to was NOT a speech, per se, procession . . . but something much more awkward . . . obtruse.

Here is where the arguement begins to take more form, and from the Greek becomes quite clear. The text will be helpful:

Acts 2:6-8
6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. Acts
7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, " Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
NASU

NASU

The key is the singular and plural usage. "each one" ekstatoV eiV (each man singular) is the men hearing. Each individual heard them (autwn first [v. 6] plural and ekstatoV second [v. 8] SINGULAR) . . . AS A GROUP. The picture is of each man hearing them (plural) as a GROUP (singular). One hears ALL of them speaking in Parthian, while the man next to him hears THE SAME MEN (AS A GROUP) speaking in Mede AT THE SAME TIME . . . and it continues down the line.

Illustration: I am speaking in (whatever) and I have a Mexican, Russian and African all in front of me . . . the Mexican man is hearing me in Spanish, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the Russian is hearing me in Russian WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the African is hearing me in African.

TDNT sees the sealing issue the Ioudaian (Judean's) as original (meaning it is in the original autographa). As such . . . this means that you have Judeans (local Jews) suprised to hear Judean's (the disciples) speaking Judean! BIG PROBLEMS. The resolution is that they are mystified because everyone is hearing their own dialects coming from the same men at the same time . . . which is physiologically impossible.

The case then becomes more of a miracle of hearing . . . than a miracle of speaking. The miracle is that the men gather at a strange sound, something uncommon (foreign languages are hardly uncommon) and are further dismayed as they are each able miraculously to understand this formerly strange sound in their own dialects AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MAN NEXT TO THEM from the WHOLE GROUP OF DISCIPLES.

Add to this that those who gathered and heard the noise and DID NOT understand accused the disciples of being DRUNK (ever heard a drunk man speak unintelligibly? I have) and you have a pretty solid case that the tongues of Acts 2 were ecstatic unintelligible languages who the Holy Spirit imparted understanding of to the men who would be converted.

Rick Otto · Jan 7, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
Yeah the anxiousness should not be so . . .

MOST of the time it shoud be in private, or private meetings, but more so just you and God.

Can you imagine it not being meant for at least a few of us?
At any rate, in my own limited experience, even the results were either highly subjective or too close to self-hypnosis, group mesmerization, & a wringing of emotion as if it were itself spiritual.
I was great as a musician with charismatics, but I was unknowingly a Calvinist looking for Geneva & didn't run into the canons of Dordt until I got online in 2000.
I witnessed the genuine thing I'm sure, but even when it was good it wierded me out just a little (lol).
I get wierded out pretty easy sometimes, so I know not to make or trust quick & easy judgements I make.

sunlover1 · Jan 7, 2011

Rick Otto said:
I witnessed the genuine thing I'm sure, but even when it was good it wierded me out just a little (lol).

I really can relate to the 'wierded out " part. Not with tongues but with life in general LOL

I get wierded out pretty easy sometimes, so I know not to make or trust quick & easy judgements I make.

[/QUOTE]
I kwym!

razeontherock · Jan 7, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
Query repeat ....what are childish things?

Not Spiritual gifts, that's for sure! You don't get them by acting childish.

Yarddog · Jan 7, 2011

Mathetes the kerux said:
I would use ecstatic the way it is used in koine

ek-out of
stasis-normal standing

Yes, if it is used as it should be used then I agree with you. I tend to be careful because people misuse the meanings.

razeontherock · Jan 7, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
Does not compute. Are you saying you need other PEOPLE to tell you that you have or 'hear' the Holy Spirit?

Proverbs 24:6 "in multitude of counsellors [there is] safety." Comparing to "koinonia," which is what I'm describing, you are choosing to - Biblical terms here - be an idiot. Vis:

Dr.Strangelove said:
Number 5 understands 'discipleship' to be communitarian leadership training in order to 'change' Christians from simple Bible belief to 'concensus' regarding non-Gospel social and ECUMENIST 'conversation'.

DocBot does not require what you consider to be 'discipelship'. But I can see clearly the effects of it within yourself.

You see no such thing in me, or if you think you do you owe specifics. There's simply LOTS of Scripture you're not accounting for in your understanding, so far. Which is to be expected. What about

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection.

You will note this is not something that has come, but something we are to "go on unto." I agree any church (note the small c) that would change you from simple Bible belief to nonsense, is something to avoid. I'm also aware that in EU it's hard to find a decent Church. The effort on your part to look is absolutely necessary, and is the way Christianity has ALWAYS been. Even the 70 (first bunch of Disciples sent out after the 12) were sent out 2 x 2.

DISCIPLESHIP changes you from simpleton Bible belief to "a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" (Ephesians 4:13)

You don't have that, and you're forsaking the very means given in context. Software re-write needed? No guilt trip here, but no compromising the Truth either. Find Scripture to support your position - go ahead, I dare you ^_^

razeontherock · Jan 7, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
Of course. Prophecy is teaching the revealed Word of God. It's teaching scripture.

No, teaching is ... wait for it ... the gift of teaching! If it's being done by a gifted teacher, that is. Either way both these things are still gifts of the Spirit, not childish things put away in favor of something better.

Dr.Strangelove said:
You'd think people would just LOOK out in the world to see if miracles are

Yup. I'd think you might look, but instead you won't.

Dr.Strangelove said:
The very fact that Christians do NOT have the ability to heal whole towns of people like the 1st Century Apostles did.

They didn't do that. Quite the opposite, whole towns prevented even Jesus from being able to do anything. Facts are messing with your theology again!

Your attitude is identical to Child of Jesus', in that instead of dealing with specifics you want to be prejudiced, stereotyping anybody that says anything even remotely associated to something you feel required to guard against. It's still prejudice, and gossip too. There's absolutely no other reason why you would've asked something like "show me where Jesus spoke gibberish."

We all have a lot of perfecting to do, eh?

razeontherock · Jan 7, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
Ya he's speaking about one and the same. Foreign languages.

The chiding was for the Corinthians using foreign languages without an interpreter.

Paul never talked about gibberish...EVER.

Your usage of "gibberish" is disturbing. You surely have something in mind, but you are projecting that evil onto people, with no reason to do so; other than what you have in mind.

Anyway, even the Orthodox recognize that the tongues at Pentecost were not the only type ever given, young padawan.

razeontherock · Jan 7, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
The gift of communicating and enforcing revealed truth.

It is (From Strong's):

4394 prophēteía (from 4396 /prophḗtēs, "prophet," which is derived from 4253 /pró, "before" and 5346 /phēmí, "make clear, assert as a priority")  properly, what is clarified beforehand;

Either (From Strongs):

prophecy which involves divinely-empowered forthtelling (asserting the mind of God) or foretelling (prediction).

Either or. There you have it. Some may have both, some may have one. If you can show me someone who's prophesying things that need to be added to scripture

Well now you're waffling so I guess you don't need Discipleship? ^_^

This is better than your previous butchering of Prophesy = teaching, but why go out in left field and pretend prophesy "needs to be added to Scripture?!?"

In case you haven't noticed, Scripture does NOT tell you lots of things. Where to go look for work when you're unemployed, for example.

razeontherock · Jan 7, 2011

Dr.Strangelove said:
Tongues fosters intimacy with god.

Show me the scripture that supports this please.

You pretend like you know this stuff?!? This is why you need DISCIPLESHIP:

1 Cor 14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself"

Just blew all your theology full of holes. No apologies, it's good for us when it happens.

razeontherock · Jan 7, 2011

Yarddog said:
"True tongues" given by the Spirit may sound like gibberish to the weak in faith.

And to the strong in Faith, true tongues given to noobs may sound like baby talk :papapa:

razeontherock · Jan 7, 2011

Yarddog said:
Paul also tells us of the tongues of angels which is not confined to the word nation.

When you understand that there is a difference between gibberish, which is probably at work in many churches which claim to use tongues, and true tongues given through the Holy Spirit.

Hey Dawg - you sure you're a Cathoic?!?

Love ya either way man!

~That which is perfect~

Beloved, Let us love one another

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Love never fails

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Galatians is the best!

Senior Contributor

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Galatians is the best!

Tales of a Twice Born Man

The Dude Abides

Beloved, Let us love one another

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads