Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   HELP, BRIAN OR NED....or someone
Shadow1
Guest


Message 1 of 21 (103979)
04-29-2004 9:58 PM


I recently went to easter service with my mother, and found the sermon a bit of a let down. There were several things the pastor brought up that I didn't agree with, so I e-mailed him, and this was his response, any help to continue to debate him would be very helpful.
Thank You,
Brad
"Thank you for your response to the Easter sermon and for taking the
time to
express your disappointment with the message and holes you found in it.
I
encourage continued dialogue.
Your first concern appears to be that all of the evidence for the
resurrection that I was citing came from biblical sources and the lack
of
extrabiblical sources decreased that credibility. Tom, there are all
kinds
of extrabiblical sources who corroborate the life, death, and
resurrection
of Jesus Christ. A number of historians corroborate the biblical claim
that
Jesus lived, died, and his followers' claim that he rose again. In the
absence of any credible historian giving evidence that Jesus had not
risen,
such as "here's the body, we found it, the claim of resurrection is a
lie",
the best assumption is that the claim of resurrection stands. The
Jewish
leaders who had the most to gain by proving the resurrection false
could
not. They put forth the argument that the body had been stolen, which
is
about as good evidence you can have that the tomb was empty.
Second, your assumption that the writers of the Bible have a political
agenda and therefore what it says should be discounted as lacking in
credibility is a mighty big assumption. There are more sources
corroborating the reliability of the Bible than any other historical
document. Almost all historians I know believe that the writings we
have of
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Sophocles are true. I have never read
of
anyone questioning the truth claims of those writers or questioning
their
political agenda in writing. The best manuscripts we have of these
writers
are dated around 1000 A.D., somewhere between 1000-1400 years after
these
writers died. Yet, everybody assumes they are true. The Bible, on the
other hand, has thousands of manuscripts dated within 400 years, and in
many
cases less than 100 years, of when it was originally written. The rule
for
a historian is to assume a historical document is true unless it proves
itself false. Your task then, Tom, as a historian is to sit down and
read
the Bible with an assumption that it is true. For the discussion we
are
having you can limit yourself to the five accounts of the resurrection:
Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, and Acts l. A better effort
would be
if you read all four gospels and the book of Acts in their entirety.
As to the resurrection accounts where some say there were three women
or two
women, one angel or two angels, they do not contradict each other. It
is
like five newspaper articles on the same modern day event. They all
mention
different aspects of the story according to their sources, but as long
as
the information within them does not contradict the other, we should
not
assume they are false.
As to the gospel of Mark, the original resurrection account is Mark
16:1-8.
Mark gives a clear account of Jesus' resurrection that he wasn't in the
tomb, that the tomb was empty, and then it ends abruptly. This is
typical
of Mark. Mark is far shorter than the other three gospels. Brevity is
the
norm for Mark. He tells most of his stories briefly and calls for a
response. In this case we the readers are to complete the story by
telling
what Christ's resurrection has done in our lives. By no means is his
account a denial of the resurrection, but his account calls for a
reader's
response of testifying to the resurrection. It is not true that most
historians don't think Mark's gospel includes the resurrection. Read
Mark
16:1-8 again.
Your assumption that the writers of the Bible have a political agenda
and
therefore the Bible is not credible I believe clouds your ability to
look
objectively at the reasons I give that we can believe in the
resurrection.
I am asking you to revisit that assumption, because I believe it is
keeping
you from taking a good look at the evidence. Consider the facts again
that
the case for resurrection grew up in Jerusalem, the very place where
Christ
was crucified and buried. It would be next to impossible for such a
belief
to flourish in the city where Jesus was buried if the tomb wasn't
empty.
Anyone could go and look for herself or himself. It is pretty powerful
evidence. I would encourage you to take another look.
So, Tom, I would encourage you to read the five resurrection accounts
and
look for inconsistencies that prove them unreliable. There are many
books
written by people like you who set out to disprove the resurrection and
in
the process of doing a careful investigation became believers. If you
haven't looked at one of those books, these are two I recommend to you
for
starters:
THE CASE FOR CHRIST by Lee Strobel
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT by Josh McDowell
Thanks again for writing me. I hope this is helpful.
Sincerely,
Pastor Ron"
p.s. it says I'm not authorized to post anywhere?!? and it won't let me post here saying my user name is in use by a registered user...hmmm

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 10:06 PM You have not replied
 Message 3 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-29-2004 10:14 PM You have not replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2004 10:23 PM You have not replied
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 04-30-2004 11:45 AM You have not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 2 of 21 (103980)
04-29-2004 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shadow1
04-29-2004 9:58 PM


I think your pastor is correct.
Though without knowing your actual concerns, I have to somewhat guess what you asked him.
the best assumption is that the claim of resurrection stands.
Amen!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shadow1, posted 04-29-2004 9:58 PM Shadow1 has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2292 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 3 of 21 (103982)
04-29-2004 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shadow1
04-29-2004 9:58 PM


Hi Shadow,
Welcome to EvC. There is already a registered member by the name of Shadow, if you are not this person then sorry, you'll have to modify the name or find a different one.
As an unregistered member you cannot post in most forums.
Starting a new thread involves registering then going to the Proposed New Topic forum, and following the guidelines found here.
Hopefully Brian will be able to get to his computer soon and will see your topic. Maybe ConsequentAtheist or Amlohdi will chip in to help you also.
Again, welcome to EvC. Now I have to get back to homework.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shadow1, posted 04-29-2004 9:58 PM Shadow1 has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 21 (103984)
04-29-2004 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shadow1
04-29-2004 9:58 PM


Not me
This is Biblical stuff. It isn't something I have enough expertise in to discuss.
There have been a number of threads discussing the historic records. I'll edit links into here if I can find them.
As I recall one position is that there are no extra Biblical references to Jesus other than references to the existance of people who believe in him.
I will comment on the logic of this part:
In the absence of any credible historian giving evidence that Jesus had not
risen,such as "here's the body, we found it, the claim of resurrection is a
lie",...
This is not logically sound. It suggests that if I make any absurd statment without any support for it that I win if you can't find evidence against it. The Bible is enough to give some suggestion that Christ may have existed. It doesn't prove that. It certainly offers no proof of any miricles.
Contemporaneous Roman records of the trail and crucifiction would be pretty convincing for the existance of the Christ.
You should expect your Preacher to list the extra Biblical records of Jeus's existance. Once you have those you will find references to them on this site (and probably with Google elsewhere).
You may post in "Proposed New Topics". This allows quality control of the topics before they are put into an appropriate thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shadow1, posted 04-29-2004 9:58 PM Shadow1 has not replied

shadow1
Guest


Message 5 of 21 (103988)
04-29-2004 10:45 PM


thanks ned
I am shadow, but it says I'm not allowed to post anywhere, but I think ned answered that also, if anyone else has any logical fallacies in there, that would be of great help, I have been reading, and pouring over information for the last several hours to write a very specific response, and if there is any more help out there, it would be much appreciated!, thank you
Brad

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2004 10:58 PM You have not replied
 Message 8 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-30-2004 3:42 AM You have not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 21 (103991)
04-29-2004 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by shadow1
04-29-2004 10:45 PM


Don't rush
There is no reason why you have to complete the discussion with the minister in a rush. You may want to propose a new topic that is specific to what you've been emailed. Then let the fun ensue for a few days. By the time a week goes by you may find a lot of response to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by shadow1, posted 04-29-2004 10:45 PM shadow1 has not replied

shadow1
Guest


Message 7 of 21 (103992)
04-29-2004 11:06 PM


I'll do that, after I get a response from what I wrote, I feel like there is much generalization in what we both wrote, and once I have more specific questions, I'll start (or propose) a topic.
Thanks
Brad

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 8 of 21 (104076)
04-30-2004 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by shadow1
04-29-2004 10:45 PM


Re: thanks ned
Shadow1 -
If you are the registered Shadow, then you need to enter your password when you log in. Enabling the "cookies" for this site will streamline the log in process. If you have forgotten your password, (as I recall) there is a "Forgot Your Password?" button available. Using that will get your password e-mailed to you.
As mentioned upstring, most of the forums are closed to the direct starting of topics, even by registered members. Instead you must use the "Proposed New Topics" forum, to post a new topic. No replies are permitted in the "PNT". Once a proposed topic is in the "PNT", it will be reviewed, and if deemed up to standards (fairly loose standards), it will be moved to one of the other forums where it will be open to debate.
If the proposed topic is not soon advance to active debate, it may be because there are problems with it. Keep an eye on topics in the "Suggestions to Proposed New Topics" forum, if you have a proposed topic pending.
What we are looking for, are reasonably well written opening messages, with a clearly defined topic. New topics should not cover too many themes. Also, we are looking for a quality topic title, that defines the theme of the new topic.
We're not demanding masterpieces of writing. Just as good as you your able.
Please see the link below, which will get you to the "Proposed New Topics" index page. There, there will be a "Post New Topic" button, which will get the new topic process started.
Adminnemooseus

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by shadow1, posted 04-29-2004 10:45 PM shadow1 has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4949 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 9 of 21 (104159)
04-30-2004 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shadow1
04-29-2004 9:58 PM


Hi Shadow
Hi Shadow.
The first thing you should do with the pastor is to ask him to start supporting the assertions that he makes. He claims a lot but never supports them. Saying that 'some historians' say this or that, is no good, he has to say who the historians are.
Your first concern appears to be that all of the evidence for the resurrection that I was citing came from biblical sources and the lack of extrabiblical sources decreased that credibility. Tom, there are all kinds of extrabiblical sources who corroborate the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Shadow, you can inform the ‘pastor’ that there are exactly zero sources outside of the NT that corroborate the life death and resurrection of Jesus. If he disagrees, ask him to provide a couple of the sources that he believes supports this argument.
A number of historians corroborate the biblical claim that Jesus lived, died, and his followers' claim that he rose again.
The pastor should really have given you an example by naming an historian and giving a full reference of the citation, this speaks volumes about his lack of academic training, as does the Mickey Mouse books he recommends.
But it should be remembered that not a single contemporary historian noticed Jesus, any mention of Jesus by historians are written at least 30+ years after Jesus died. The ONLY thing these historians confirm is what Jesus’ followers believed , this does not prove that Jesus did anything, only that people believed that he did.
Most will quote Josephus as proof that Jesus lived, but Jesus died between 3 and 7 years before Josephus was born, so how can Josephus confirm anything other than what people believed happened? There is also the problem of the forging of Josephus’ works by Christians, there are no scholars, Christian or otherwise, that do not accept this.
In the absence of any credible historian giving evidence that Jesus had not risen, such as "here's the body, we found it, the claim of resurrection is a lie", the best assumption is that the claim of resurrection stands.
I would ask why this is the best assumption? How can this be the best assumption when we know that men do not die and then suddenly come back to life three days later? The best assumption from a human viewpoint is that the body was stolen, or that the whole crucifixion/resurrection event is fictional, these are more credible assumptions that invoking miracles.
The Jewish leaders who had the most to gain by proving the resurrection false could not.
Says who, the gospel writers? Your pastor is caught up in a world of circular reasoning, he only knows that the Jewish leaders had most to gain because the Bible says so, he is using the Bible to support the Bible.
They put forth the argument that the body had been stolen, which is about as good evidence you can have that the tomb was empty.
Again another circular argument, who says that they put that argument forward, the very book that is trying to prove that Jesus rose from the dead that’s who! It is like saying, Matthew said Jesus rose from the dead, we know this because it tells us that in Matthew’s gospel.
Second, your assumption that the writers of the Bible have a political agenda and therefore what it says should be discounted as lacking in credibility is a mighty big assumption.
What they say should not be totally rejected, but that the Gospels contain propaganda is a fact, so the historian has to treat the Gospels as he would treat any other ancient textual source, and the first thing a historian would do is to remove all the references that use miracles as an explanation as they are beyond the realm of historical enquiry.
No doubt there are accurate historical references in the Bible, but the problem is they are too wrapped up in mythology to take them at face value, the ‘historical’ information has to be sifted out from the supernatural, they are incompatible in an historical enquiry.
There are more sources corroborating the reliability of the Bible than any other historical document.
You should ask him what he means by ‘reliable’.
Almost all historians I know believe that the writings we have of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Sophocles are true. I have never read of anyone questioning the truth claims of those writers or questioning their political agenda in writing.
This is a bit strange, and entirely untrue.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are all philosophers, the vast bulk of their work is related to the metaphysical, why would a historian believe everything they say?
Also, Sophocles was a playwright, does he believe that historians believe everything that Sophocles wrote in all of his plays (over 100) is 100% accurate.
The best manuscripts we have of these writers are dated around 1000 A.D., somewhere between 1000-1400 years after these writers died. Yet, everybody assumes they are true.
It is irrelevant when they were written, these authors were not primarily historians.
Ask your pastor about the works of Hecataeus, Herodotus and Thucydides, who are primarily known for being historians.
The Bible, on the other hand, has thousands of manuscripts dated within 400 years, and in many cases less than 100 years, of when it was originally written.
You would need to ask him which Bible he is talking about, the Bible wasn’t written all at one time, it was written over a period of about 800 years, during which time its contents varied considerably. If he is talking about a Bible that contains the Old and the New Testaments, he would again have to inform you of which manuscripts he is talking about. Making statements like, ‘and in many cases less than 100 years..’ is an unsupported claim, he should say what manuscripts he is on about, why should we take his word for it?
And anyway, the time of composition and the volume of texts have no bearing whatsoever on the accuracy of the claims made in that text. A billion copies of the Lord of the Rings do not mean that the stories in it are true.
The rule for a historian is to assume a historical document is true unless it proves itself false.
Where does he get this idea from, ask him for a reference for this ‘rule’ I would love to see it?
A few problems with this, firstly a historian does not ‘assume’ anything contained in a source is true, a historian gathers as much information from as many different sources as he can before he makes any decisions. Your pastor has clearly had no history training as he shows an obvious lack of knowledge of historical methodology.
Secondly, ‘historical document is true unless it proves itself false’; this is laughable and slightly embarrassing. According to the pastor, we are to assume that everything we read that doesn’t prove itself false is true, this means that external sources have no bearing whatsoever on our decisions about a text? He doesn’t say that if a certain external source disproves something in the text that this is a valid reason to reject it, he says the text has to disprove itself, very strange.
Your task then, Tom, as a historian is to sit down and read the Bible with an assumption that it is true.
No historian would ever approach an enquiry this way, this isn’t historical investigation, it is self delusion.
Your assumption that the writers of the Bible have a political agenda and therefore the Bible is not credible I believe clouds your ability to look objectively at the reasons I give that we can believe in the resurrection.
This is hilarious, he asks you to assume that everything in the Bible is true then he claims that your ability to look objectively at the reasons is clouded!
The pastor has severely contradicted himself here, he wants you to be both objective AND to overly subjective.
But on a serious note, you should not reject everything in the Bible simply because it has a political agenda to it, all historical texts have agendas. No historical writing is free from the bias of its authors, they select exactly what they want to select, and they include what they believe supports the particular stance that they want their readers to take as being true.
Does the pastor think that the Evangelists were entirely free from bias?
I am asking you to revisit that assumption, because I believe it is keeping you from taking a good look at the evidence. Consider the facts again that the case for resurrection grew up in Jerusalem, the very place where Christ was crucified and buried.
Does the pastor think that Jesus was the first person to have a resurrection linked to him, or does he think that Jesus was the first person that people in Jerusalem had heard of that had risen from the dead?
It is difficult to say from the way he has worded this part of his response. But resurrection myths are ten a penny in the near east, for example, a great many of the Roman army were followers of Mithras, who also rose from the dead after three days, a long time before Jesus was even born.
It would be next to impossible for such a belief to flourish in the city where Jesus was buried if the tomb wasn't empty.
When did Christianity flourish in Jerusalem, does the pastor think that Christianity spread rapidly immediately after the alleged resurrection, if so he needs to look at his history books again.
But the tomb being empty ( and no one knows where the tomb actually is) does not prove anything. In fact, if your pastor knew anything about history writing he should know that nothing in history writing is ever taken as being proven. The empty tomb, if it is true, only proves that there was a tomb that was empty, and nothing else, it doesn’t prove that Jesus rose from the dead, or that his body was stolen, or that he was never even buried there.
Also, it would not be impossible for anything supernatural to flourish in a first century Palestinian city, even today millions of people believe in many different things that have not been proven. Christianity did not immediately flourish in Jerusalem, there were so few Christians that the Jews allowed people such as Paul to preach in their synagogues?
Anyone could go and look for herself or himself. It is pretty powerful evidence.
But they couldn't go and look if it wasn't widespread news at the time, and the deafening silence from contemporary sources supports the case that it was not widespread news. If the resurrection was common knowledge immediately after the time it was supposed to have happened surely there would be some mention of it in an external source, but there isn't.
Anyway, what could they go and look at, an empty tomb, what would that prove?
The pastor needs to be aware that Christianity didn’t sprout up overnight, it crept around in the shadows, so if the resurrection was such a success, why did it take so long to catch on?
Personally I cannot be bothered arguing over whether a verse says one or two angels or another verse says Passover or Passover eve, these are extremely boring.
I would be more impressed if you pastor could tell us why Matthew copied 90% of Mark, when Matthew was supposed to be an eyewitness and Mark wasn’t, why would an eyewitness plagiarise a non-eyewitness's account?
You could also inform him that all of the Gospels are anonymous, no one knows for sure who wrote any of them, the names were given to them by the church fathers long after they were written.
THE CASE FOR CHRIST by Lee Strobel
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT by Josh McDowell
Most of the pastor’s information is plagiarised from these two books, I have read them both and they are essentially not of a decent academic quality. Mcdowell’s is especially very poorly written, he really doesn’t appear to have any critical evaluation skills.
I would not envisage that any of these two books would be accepted as a reference in an essay at any credible university.
I think that the pastor is one of those people who just starts calling themselves a pastor, I know that someone doesn’t need to have any academic qualifications to call themselves a pastor, and this guys’ arguments are devoid of any knowledge of history writing which makes me think he has not studied any of this at all apart from the two books he recommends.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shadow1, posted 04-29-2004 9:58 PM Shadow1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 04-30-2004 2:40 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 16 by sfs, posted 05-01-2004 12:15 PM Brian has replied

Shadow1
Guest


Message 10 of 21 (104169)
04-30-2004 12:09 PM


Thanks Brian
Thank you Brian, you braught up many points I had considered, but many more I had not. It's great to have you guys here to help me out, my mom made me enter a dialogue with him after I told her most of what I heard on the easter sermon didn't sem right to me, she is the type to tak what he preaches as fact, all of it, and if I question what he says, I must be wrong. Thank you for your lengthy and timely response, I will let you know what he thinks!
-Brad

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 1:07 PM You have not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 21 (104199)
04-30-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Shadow1
04-30-2004 12:09 PM


Re: Thanks Brian
Brad
Let me add one other thing.
IMHO, too many Christians get too hung up with the idea that the Bible must be taken literally.
To me, that is simply silly. It would be like saying that what is in a biology textbook IS evolution.
GOD is not bounded by the Bible. Even if the Bible were proven to be nothing more than stories told around a campfire, it would have no effect on whether GOD exists or does not exist.
The Map is not the Territory as S.I. Hayakawa said.
I consider myself a Christian. I have read and studied the Bible for many, way too many decades. I believe that Jesus lived and died, but that is a matter of Faith, not fact.
As you persue this course, I hope that you will remember that there is a difference between questioning the Bible or Authority, and Belief. I happen to find that the Christian Religion provideds a good moral base to live by. Even if the Bible is ignored, IMHO, simply looking at the Universe around us there is more than enough wonder to support a belief in the awe and majesty of a GOD.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Shadow1, posted 04-30-2004 12:09 PM Shadow1 has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 12 of 21 (104223)
04-30-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brian
04-30-2004 11:45 AM


Re: Hi Shadow
I've read McDowell's book several years back. I was told by my friend before I read it that it was really good that it presented irrefutable evidence that the Judeo-Christian God existed. After reading that book, I was very very disappointed by the volume of texts that tell you absolutely nothing except how mundane and silly his logic was.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 04-30-2004 11:45 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Asgara, posted 04-30-2004 3:03 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2292 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 13 of 21 (104235)
04-30-2004 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by coffee_addict
04-30-2004 2:40 PM


Re: Hi Shadow
I know the feeling Lam. A good friend gave me Strobel's book expecting it to help me see her side of things. I don't think she expected me to read it in one night and spend the next week writing copious notes in the margins explaining the flaws.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 04-30-2004 2:40 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 4:19 PM Asgara has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 21 (104283)
04-30-2004 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Asgara
04-30-2004 3:03 PM


Re: Hi Shadow
Don't folk just hate it when that happens

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Asgara, posted 04-30-2004 3:03 PM Asgara has not replied

Brad
Member (Idle past 4778 days)
Posts: 143
From: Portland OR, USA
Joined: 01-26-2004


Message 15 of 21 (104490)
05-01-2004 4:32 AM


Okay, I sent the e-mail, I'm hoping that there is some more intelligent discussion in this one then the last one that Brian seemed to have a decent time tearing to shreds. Perhaps once he replies a thread can be dedicated to it, I'll let you all know, however, I have to warn you in advance, I sent my first e-mail to him right after easter sermon...so this could take a while to get back to me. Thanks
Brad

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024