NTRMin Discussion Forum
    > The Areopagus
        > re: loyal opposition		 New Topic    Add Reply

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Subject Author
re: loyal opposition Hananiah
Quote:
there IS no "loyalty" of Pal toward Peter to be had in Galatians, btw

What do you mean? He calls Peter a rock in the very same letter.

Quote:
Is it possible, operating on the principle of "loyal opposition" a "loyal" RC to disagree with Pius IX's proclamation of infallibility?

No. When the pope decrees that some doctrine is to be held by all the faithful with divine and Catholic faith, the "loyal RC" is left with two choices: accept it, or cease to be Catholic.

Posts: 147
2/1/04 4:28 pm
Reply
Re: re: loyal opposition JasonTE
Hananiah said:


Quote:
He calls Peter a rock in the very same letter.


Paul calls Peter by one of his names. The fact that the name means "rock" doesn't imply a papacy. Given that Paul asserts his equality with and independence from the other apostles in the book of Galatians, and that he refers to Peter second as one of three reputed pillars of the church (Galatians 2:6-9), the book of Galatians is evidence against an early papacy rather than evidence for it.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
www.ntrmin.org

JasonTE
Posts: 1447
2/1/04 5:31 pm
Reply
Re: re: loyal opposition NTRMin
Quote:
No. When the pope decrees that some doctrine is to be held by all the faithful with divine and Catholic faith, the "loyal RC" is left with two choices: accept it, or cease to be Catholic

Yes, I know, I know. And you base this on Pius IX's definition of papal infallibility. How do you know that statement wasn't wrong?

ES

NTRMin
Posts: 1213
2/1/04 9:09 pm
Reply
re: loyal opposition Hananiah
"And you base this on Pius IX's definition of papal infallibility. How do you know that statement wasn't wrong?"
As on the authority of the Catholic Church.

Posts: 159
2/2/04 5:02 pm
Reply
Re: re: loyal opposition NTRMin
I wrote: "And you base this on Pius IX's definition of papal infallibility. How do you know that statement wasn't wrong?"

You responded: "As on the authority of the Catholic Church."

I have no idea what this means. I asked you how you could be certain that Pius IX's statement wasn't just his wrong opinion. How does your statement answer my question?

ES

NTRMin
Posts: 1216
2/2/04 6:08 pm
Reply
re: loyal opposition Hananiah
I have made one fallible decision; to embrace the Catholic Church as a package deal.

Posts: 161
2/3/04 8:47 am
Reply
Re: re: loyal opposition Hilasterion
It isn't just afalible, its wrong.

But it is quite a package you have ambraced; perforated so that you can easily tear off bits you don't like.

"My food is to do the will of Him who sent me..." John 4:34a

 Moderator
Posts: 526
2/3/04 10:50 am
Reply
Re: re: loyal opposition NTRMin
Quote:
I have made one fallible decision; to embrace the Catholic Church as a package deal.

So how does the reliability of that admittedly fallible decision differ from the decision of the Mormon to embrace the "package" of the infallible interpreters of Mormonism? And how does it differ from the decision of the Jehovah's Witness to embrace the "package" of the infallible interpreters of the Watchtower?

ES

NTRMin
Posts: 1217
2/3/04 12:46 pm
Reply
re: loyal opposition Hananiah
Quote:
So how does the reliability of that admittedly fallible decision differ from the decision of the Mormon to embrace the "package" of the infallible interpreters of Mormonism? And how does it differ from the decision of the Jehovah's Witness to embrace the "package" of the infallible interpreters of the Watchtower?

The two fallible decisions differ in that my decision is tenable while theirs is not. Any church that embraces a total apostasy theory makes Jesus Christ a liar. This includes Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo, etc. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are the only Churches which are in a position to claim to be the true Church of Christ, as they are the only churches which can actually trace their origins back to the apostles. You can't just start a Church in 1880 and claim to be the one true Church of Christ. It is simply a ridiculous proposition. Also, with regards to Mormonism, their scriptures have been disproven by archeology, as there is no evidence of the advanced civilizations described by the book of Mormon ever having existed. And the Jehovah's Witnesses contradict the perspicuous teaching of the Bible that Jesus is God.

Posts: 164
2/3/04 7:57 pm
Reply
re: loyal opposition Hananiah
Quote:
It isn't just afalible, its wrong.

Your contention that justification is by faith alone isn't just fallible, it's wrong (James 2:24) (James is clearly using the word "justify" in the soteriological sense, as verse 24 is the conclusion to the inquiry begun in verse 14, "can the faith save him?").

Quote:
But it is quite a package you have ambraced; perforated so that you can easily tear off bits you don't like.

I believe in every single defined dogma of the Catholic Church, I acknowledge John Paul II as the legitimate successor to St. Peter, and if he makes a dogmatic declaration, I will accept it. I have torn off nothing.

Posts: 166
2/3/04 8:24 pm
Reply
Re: re: loyal opposition NTRMin
Quote:
The two fallible decisions differ in that my decision is tenable while theirs is not. Any church that embraces a total apostasy theory makes Jesus Christ a liar.

What you really mean is that any church that embraces a total apostasy theory makes your interpretation of Jesus Christ a liar.

Listen to this closely, because you consistently miss it. You cannot make the statement you just made while holding to your rule of faith. Your rule of faith does not allow perspicuity of Jesus words--they must be interpreted. You have chosen arbitrarily to adopt the RC interpretation. Do you think for one minute that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't have their own interpretation of Jesus' words that completely satisfies their own system? All you're doing is appealing to sola scriptura and the "plain reading of the text" as the first principle in order to arrive at your Roman system, only to jettison it once you arrive at Rome. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Sorry, you're not allowed to do that.

Now, see if you can answer the question in a way that doesn't rely on our principle while violating the very principle you want us to adopt.
Quote:
Also, with regards to Mormonism, their scriptures have been disproven by archeology,

So what? Your belief in papal infallibility is disproven by Honorius, Liberius, Galileo, Joan of Arc, and dozens of other examples. That doesn't seem to stop you, now does it?

NTRMin
Posts: 1218
2/3/04 8:51 pm
Reply
re: loyal opposition Hananiah
Quote:
What you really mean is that any church that embraces a total apostasy theory makes your interpretation of Jesus Christ a liar.

No, Jesus' words are clear here. The true church will always remain somewhere. The reason I don't include Protestants in this list is because Protestants usually maintain that some remnant of true believers remained while the institutional church apostasized. Mormon's, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo, etc, beleive in total apostasy.

Quote:
Your rule of faith does not allow perspicuity of Jesus words--they must be interpreted.

My rule of faith most certainly does allow it. The Bible contains some things which are hard to understand and need to be interpreted (2 Peter 3:16). Not everything in the Bible needs interpreting. I don't need the Church to tell me that fornication, idolatry, adultery, and drunkeness are wrong; that's quite obvious from the plain teaching of the Bible. I do, however, need the Magesterium to help me reconcile all the seemingly contradictory statements about how we acheive salvation. A short list compiled by Jacob Michael:

[Moderator's note: DELETED: Don't try this again]

Quote:
All you're doing is appealing to sola scriptura and the "plain reading of the text" as the first principle in order to arrive at your Roman system, only to jettison it once you arrive at Rome.

No, I am using one principle throughout; when the Bible is clear, go by it's plain teaching; when it is difficult, look to the magesterium.

Quote:
Your belief in papal infallibility is disproven by Honorius, Liberius, Galileo, Joan of Arc, and dozens of other examples. That doesn't seem to stop you, now does it?

Whether these examples disprove papal infallibility is still subject to debate. I plan on listening to a few debate tapes on the subject, and I will decide if they do in fact disprove papal infallibility.

Edited by: NTRMin at: 2/3/04 10:02 pm

Posts: 171
2/3/04 9:33 pm
Reply
Re: re: loyal opposition NTRMin
Quote:
No, Jesus' words are clear here. The true church will always remain somewhere.

Are they really? Or maybe you’re just not aware of alternative interpretations. The Mormon and JW will point out that when Jesus says, “I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it,” he doesn’t have in mind the longevity of the church, but rather the certainty of the resurrection. They will point out that Jesus doesn’t use the word “hell” here (as though he is referring to the Devil’s attempt to destroy the church). Rather, he uses the word “hades,” which means “grave” not “hell” (see Gen 37:35 and elsewhere). Therefore, Jesus’ point is not that Satan will attempt to snuff out the church but fail; his point is that those in the church will not finally be overcome by death—they will in the end rise to conquer death. It is in this way that the gates of the grave will not overcome it. If they are right on this, then you really don’t have a basis for your assumption that “the true church will always remain somewhere.” That’s simply a gratuitous interpretation from the standpoint of your rule of faith.
Quote:
My rule of faith most certainly does allow it. The Bible contains some things which are hard to understand and need to be interpreted (2 Peter 3:16). Not everything in the Bible needs interpreting.

This is the Protestant view, not the Roman Catholic view. All I need to do to show your inconsistency in this is to point out the clarity of a passage like 1 Tim 2:5 (“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”), or the biblical teaching regarding contacting the dead or praying to anyone else but God, at which point you will no doubt quickly retreat back to the real Roman Catholic view.
Quote:
however, need the Magesterium to help me reconcile all the seemingly contradictory statements about how we acheive salvation.

Maybe they seem contradictory to you—but they are not contradictory to us. Your ineptness at reconciling these passages merely betrays the "unlearnedness" and "instability" of the interpreter rather than the imagined need of an infallible interpreter. Again, your idea of what is clear and what is not clear is entirely arbitrary and baseless.

I wrote:
Quote:
All you're doing is appealing to sola scriptura and the "plain reading of the text" as the first principle in order to arrive at your Roman system, only to jettison it once you arrive at Rome.

You responded:
Quote:
No, I am using one principle throughout; when the Bible is clear, go by it's plain teaching; when it is difficult, look to the magesterium.

Who decides for you when the Bible is clear? I have already pointed out that passages you thought were clear may not be so after all. You have decided to go with the Roman Catholic Magisterium for help. But on what basis? I have already shown you that the Matt 16 passage can be interpreted another way. You simply started with what you thought was the only interpretation of that passage, looked around for a church that you thought supports and fulfills your interpretation of that passage, and concluded that everyone else must be wrong. How do you know for certain that you have rightly understood that passage to begin with? How do you know that it’s not really the Mormons who have been right all along, and that you’re just self deceived?

I wrote:
Quote:
Your belief in papal infallibility is disproven by Honorius, Liberius, Galileo, Joan of Arc, and dozens of other examples. That doesn't seem to stop you, now does it?

You responded:
Quote:
Whether these examples disprove papal infallibility is still subject to debate. I plan on listening to a few debate tapes on the subject, and I will decide if they do in fact disprove papal infallibility.

LOL: and that’s just what the Mormons will say to you regarding passages like Matt 16, Matt 28, etc. By the way; under Roman authority, you are not at liberty to decide for yourself whether these examples disprove papal infallibility. You are rather commanded to submit unquestioningly to the dogma of papal infallibility. Where do you get the notion that you are at liberty even to make such a decision? Are you a Modernist by chance?

Edited by: NTRMin at: 2/3/04 10:44 pm

NTRMin
Posts: 1221
2/3/04 10:38 pm
Reply
re: loyal opposition DTKing
You wrote: The reason I don't include Protestants in this list is because Protestants usually maintain that some remnant of true believers remained while the institutional church apostasized.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Many times have the clergy erred; the bishop has wavered in his opinion; the rich men have adhered in their judgment to the earthly princes of the world; meanwhile the people alone preserved the faith entire. John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856), p. 197.
Latin text: Plerumque clerus erravit, Sacerdos mutavit sententiam, divites cum saeculi istius terreno rege senserunt; populus fidem propriam reservavit. In Psalmum David CXVIII Expositio, Sermo 17, §17, PL 15:1446.

Jerome (347-420): The Church does not depend upon walls, but upon the truth of its doctrines. The Church is there, where the true faith is. But about fifteen or twenty years ago, heretics possessed all the walls of the Churches here. For, twenty years ago, heretics possessed all these Churches. But the true Church was there, where the true faith was. See William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 2, p. 344.
Latin text: Ecclesia non parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum veritate. Ecclesia ibi est ubi fides vera est. Caeterum ante annos quindecim aut viginti, parietes omnes hic Ecclesiarum haeretici possidebant. Ante viginti enim annos, omnes Ecclesias has haeretici possidebant. Ecclesia autem vera illic erat, ubi vera fides erat. Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus CXXXIII, Migne PL 26:1223.

Jerome (347-420): After these proceedings the Council [i.e. the Synod of Ariminum] was dissolved. All returned in gladness to their own provinces. For the Emperor and all good men had one and the same aim, that the East and West should be knit together by the bond of fellowship. But wickedness does not long lie hid, and the sore that is healed superficially before the bad humor has been worked off breaks out again. Valens and Ursacius and others associated with them in their wickedness, eminent Christian bishops of course, began to wave their palms, and to say they had not denied that He was a creature, but that He was like other creatures. At that moment the term Usia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, §19.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) included in his work Against Valens and Ursacius the following letter from pope Liberius to Ursacius, Valens and Germinius, where the pope in exile (Liberius) condemns Athanasius...
Quote:
From Liberius in exile to Ursacius, Valens and Germinius: 1. Because I know you to be sons of peace, lovers of concord and harmony in the Catholic Church, I address you, very dear lords and brothers, by this letter. I have not been forced by any necessity, as God is my witness, but to do it for the good of the peace and concord which has prior place to martyrdom. Your wise selves are to know that Athanasius, who was the bishop of Alexandria, was condemned by me, before I wrote to the court of the holy Emperor, in accordance with the letter of the Eastern bishops, that he separated from communion with the church of Rome; as the whole body of presbyters of the church of Rome is witness. The sole reason for my appearing slower in writing letters about his reputation to our Eastern brothers and fellow-bishops, was in order that my legates, whom I had sent from Rome to the Court, or the bishops who had been deported, might both together, if possible, be recalled from exile.
2. But I want you to know this also: I asked my brother Fortunatianus to take to the most clement Emperor my letter to the Eastern bishops, in order that they too might know that I was separated from communion with Athanasius along with them. I believe his Piety will receive that letter with pleasure for the good of peace, and a copy of it I have also sent to the Emperor’s trusty eunuch Hilary. Your Charities will perceive that I have done these things in a spirit of friendship and integrity. Which is why I address you in this letter and adjure you by God almighty and his son Jesus Christ our Lord and God, to see fit to travel to the most clement Emperor Constantius Augustus and ask him to order my return to the church divinely entrusted to me, for the sake of the peace and concord in which his Piety ever rejoices, in order that the church of Rome may undergo no distress in his days. But you ought by this letter of mine to know, very dear brothers, that I am at peace with you in a spirit of calm and honesty. Great will be the comfort you secure on the day of retribution, if through you has been restored the peace of the Roman church. I want our brothers and fellow bishops Epictetus and Auxentius also, to learn through you that I am at peace, and have ecclesastical communion, with them. I think they will be pleased to receive this news. But anyone who dissents from our peace and concord which, God willing, has been established throughout the world, is to know that he is separated from our communion. See Lionel R. Wickham, Hilary of Poitiers: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-century Church, Liber II Ad Constantium, section 8 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997), p. 80.

So much for the presupposition of unbroken succession. The modern day Roman notion of papal infallibility doesn't permit the kind of loyal opposition that people like Athanasius and Hilary took against pope Liberius in their day.

DTK




 adelphoi
Posts: 205
2/3/04 10:53 pm
Reply
Re: re: loyal opposition JasonTE
In light of Hananiah's most recent definition of the gates of Hades prevailing in Matthew 16, I want to remind everybody of what Hananiah said previously on this subject:

pub84.ezboard.com/fntrmin...c&index;=16

As David King has said in previous posts, Hananiah sometimes changes his arguments in the middle of a discussion. He's doing it with Matthew 16. He'll argue at one point that the gates of Hades would prevail if any non-apostolic teaching was found in an early source such as Ignatius. But, after I gave him examples of Ignatius and other early fathers contradicting Roman Catholicism, Hananiah changed his argument. He's now claiming that the gates of Hades would prevail if there weren't any believers anywhere on earth (pub84.ezboard.com/fntrmin...c&index;=46 ). Yet, in a previous post, he accused me of arguing that there were times in church history when only ignorant laymen were saved, and he said that such a view would contradict Matthew 16. But now he says:

"No, Jesus' words are clear here. The true church will always remain somewhere. The reason I don't include Protestants in this list is because Protestants usually maintain that some remnant of true believers remained while the institutional church apostasized." (pub84.ezboard.com/fntrmin...c&index;=46 )

Which is it? Does Hananiah include Protestants among those who contradict Matthew 16 or doesn't he?

This is one of the difficulties in interacting with people like Hananiah. Their arguments keep changing in the midst of the discussion.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
www.ntrmin.org

JasonTE
Posts: 1449
2/4/04 5:43 am
Reply
re: loyal opposition Hananiah
Quote:
He'll argue at one point that the gates of Hades would prevail if any non-apostolic teaching was found in an early source such as Ignatius.

I argued that the gates of hell would prevail if a concept which entailed the wholesale perversion of the Gospel, such as baptismal regeneration, or apostolic succession (with the correlarly that one must belong to a specific institution to be saved) was universally accepted in the early sources.

Quote:
Yet, in a previous post, he accused me of arguing that there were times in church history when only ignorant laymen were saved, and he said that such a view would contradict Matthew 16.

Indeed it would, in my opinion. This is essentially the same standard as the previous.

Quote:
Which is it? Does Hananiah include Protestants among those who contradict Matthew 16 or doesn't he?

I would argue that Protestants do, in fact, contradict Matthew 16. However, I do not include you among those who make Jesus a liar because you at least attempt to reconcile your ecclesiology with that promise, and reject total apostasy theory.

Likewise, I think you contradict James, but I do not accuse you of making James a liar because you attempt to reconcile his words with your theology.

Posts: 173
2/4/04 1:15 pm
Reply
Re: re: loyal opposition JasonTE
Hananiah said:


Quote:
I argued that the gates of hell would prevail if a concept which entailed the wholesale perversion of the Gospel, such as baptismal regeneration, or apostolic succession (with the correlarly that one must belong to a specific institution to be saved) was universally accepted in the early sources.


No, not only is that not what you said at first, but it's not even what you said after you changed your argument the first time. When I explained to you that some of the earliest fathers either don't mention apostolic succession or define it in a way that contradicts Roman Catholicism, you claimed that it was sufficient for two early fathers (Clement of Rome and Ignatius) to refer to some type of apostolic succession, even if it wasn't the same as the Roman Catholic concept. The fact is, you've repeatedly changed your argument on this subject, and the argument has been irrational in every form it's taken.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
www.ntrmin.org

JasonTE
Posts: 1450
2/4/04 5:06 pm
Reply
Re: re: loyal opposition Robin
Quote:
The Bible contains some things which are hard to understand and need to be interpreted (2 Peter 3:16).

That's taken completely out of context Hananiah. Peter was explaining to believing Jews that the law was not destroyed. Take a look at verse 17.

Psalm 129:5
May all who hate Zion
be turned back in shame.

Member
Posts: 89
2/5/04 6:30 am
Reply
I don't mean to be unkind, but this is muddled thinking. justabrother
The concept of "loyal opposition" does not come from Roman Catholicism. It comes from the British form of government.

How in the world does one stand up to the RC church and say, "The way I disagree with you is just like the way the Toreys disagree with the Labor party when it is in power. Like them, I am still loyal to the crown, but I just disagree and think you are wrong." ???

That didn't work out so well for Hus, did it?

Mark

 Member
Posts: 60
2/6/04 9:10 pm
Reply
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply
Replies
Messianic Judaism: The First Real Protestants Robin 1/24/04 8:22 pm
    Re: Messianic Judaism: The First Real Protestants Evan 1/26/04 2:59 pm
       Re: Messianic Judaism: The First Real Protestants Robin 1/26/04 10:00 pm
       re: universalism Hananiah 1/30/04 9:10 pm
          Re: re: universalism NTRMin 1/31/04 3:43 am
             Re: universalism DTKing 1/31/04 8:13 am
                Re: universalism NTRMin 1/31/04 9:04 am
             re: universalism Hananiah 1/31/04 10:10 am
                Private interpretation DTKing 1/31/04 12:04 pm
                Wait a minute . . . NTRMin 1/31/04 1:03 pm
          Re: re: universalism Hilasterion 1/31/04 7:32 am
             LOL Faith of Job 777 1/31/04 8:40 am
                re: LOL Hananiah 1/31/04 10:35 am
                   Re: re: LOL Ree 1/31/04 1:01 pm
                   Perspicuity in Microsoft Excel Faith of Job 777 1/31/04 1:20 pm
             re: universalism Hananiah 1/31/04 10:15 am
                Re: re: universalism NTRMin 1/31/04 10:35 am
                   re: loyal opposition Hananiah 2/1/04 4:28 pm
                      Re: re: loyal opposition JasonTE 2/1/04 5:31 pm
                      Re: re: loyal opposition NTRMin 2/1/04 9:09 pm
                         re: loyal opposition Hananiah 2/2/04 5:02 pm
                            Re: re: loyal opposition NTRMin 2/2/04 6:08 pm
                               re: loyal opposition Hananiah 2/3/04 8:47 am
                                  Re: re: loyal opposition Hilasterion 2/3/04 10:50 am
                                     re: loyal opposition Hananiah 2/3/04 8:24 pm
                                  Re: re: loyal opposition NTRMin 2/3/04 12:46 pm
                                     re: loyal opposition Hananiah 2/3/04 7:57 pm
                                        Re: re: loyal opposition NTRMin 2/3/04 8:51 pm
                                           re: loyal opposition Hananiah 2/3/04 9:33 pm
                                              Re: re: loyal opposition NTRMin 2/3/04 10:38 pm
                                              re: loyal opposition DTKing 2/3/04 10:53 pm
                                              Re: re: loyal opposition JasonTE 2/4/04 5:43 am
                                                 re: loyal opposition Hananiah 2/4/04 1:15 pm
                                                    Re: re: loyal opposition JasonTE 2/4/04 5:06 pm
                                                    Re: re: loyal opposition Robin 2/5/04 6:30 am
                      I don't mean to be unkind, but this is muddled thinking. justabrother 2/6/04 9:10 pm
                Re: re: universalism Ree 1/31/04 1:06 pm
                Re: re: universalism NTRMin 1/31/04 3:10 pm
                Re: re: universalism Hilasterion 1/31/04 8:39 pm
                   re: contradicting the pope Hananiah 2/1/04 4:18 pm
                      Re: re: contradicting the pope JasonTE 2/1/04 5:38 pm
                      Re: re: contradicting the pope Hilasterion 2/3/04 10:53 am
                Re: re: universalism JohnBugay 2/1/04 10:19 am
                   re: CCC Hananiah 2/1/04 4:23 pm
                      infallible? DTKing 2/1/04 6:47 pm
                         re: infallible? Hananiah 2/1/04 8:30 pm
                            re: infallible? DTKing 2/1/04 8:56 pm
                      Re: re: CCC Hilasterion 2/3/04 10:57 am
                      normative vs. absolute Intrepidus44 2/3/04 12:46 pm
                         normative vs. absolute Hananiah 2/3/04 8:18 pm
          Re: re: universalism JasonTE 1/31/04 7:33 am
             re: universalism Hananiah 1/31/04 10:32 am
                Re: re: universalism JasonTE 1/31/04 11:31 am
                The slave of Naaman returns Faith of Job 777 1/31/04 2:31 pm


Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- NTRMin Discussion Forum - The Areopagus - New Testament Research Ministries -



Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.3u
Copyright ©1999-2003 ezboard, Inc.