Who is Jesus?

[Matthitjah]

Yes, but Jesus certainly had his own teachings that were not written in the Old Testament. Naturally, with people following those new teachings that was going to create a new spiritual movement.

Nope, not at all. Jesus came to fulifll everything that was in the Old Testament. He didn't change one teaching, Not One iota. He merely enhanced the meaning and came to fulfill it. No new teachings.

Take for example the understanding of adultery. Adultery was forbidden yet folks were divorcing for any and all reasons and justifying their acts of adultery. They were even lusting in their hearts and believing that they would get away with it.

However, Jesus explained the command a little more and developed it's True meaning.

Here's the Old Testament command;

Ex 20:14

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Here's His expounding on that bit of Old Testament;

Mt 5:27

¶ You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not commit adultery:

Mt 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

He came to fulfill and to flesh out that which was written. He didn't teach anything new. Not even the Gospel was a new thought. It was written about by the Jewish prophets.

Even Moses testified of Him;

De 18:15

¶ The LORD your God will raise up unto you a Prophet from the midst of you, of your brethren, like unto me; unto him you shall hearken;

De 18:16

According to all that you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

De 18:17

And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

De 18:18

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto you, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

De 18:19

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

The people of Moses'es day didn't want God to speak to them either, because much like you. If He did it would be required of them to hear Him. They'd rather have Moses speak to them, because like you. They could discount what he had to say as second hand. After all, maybe Moses got it wrong? When they heard God thundering from the Mountain they shook with fear.

God said that He would raise up a Prophet from amongst them. One much like Moses. Moses was a Liberator, a Ruler, and a Judge who spoke face to face with God. However, this new Prophet who was to come would be slightly different. Those who would not hear Him would be destroyed from amongst the people and it would be required of them;

Ac 3:23

And it shall come to pass, that every soul, who will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

This Prophet, Priest, and King who would rule and was from amongst them came to fulfill the Word of God and to speak it to His people face to face.

That is why we call Him Emmanuel.

Isa 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isa 9:7

Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

No dear one, Jesus didn't come to change the Law. He came to fulfill it and the Jewish Religion.

Listen though, be sure of this. God did not require it of the people to heed unto Moses or to hear Him rumbling from the Mountain. Yes, some lost their lives because of their arrognace and haughty nature. That we can be sure of. They fell in the desert. However, be sure of this and refuse Him not now when He speaks for He has sent His only begotten Son to fulfill all things. Understand that Him we cannot refuse when we hear Him speaking because God will require it of us. He has now sent His One and only begotten Son because of His Great Mercy.

Heb 12:25

See that you refuse not him that speaks. For if they escaped not who refused him that spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape, if we turn away from him that speaks from heaven:

Mt 13:9

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Heb 3:15

While it is said, Today if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the rebellion.

Heb 3:16

For who, when they had heard, did rebel? did not all that came out of Egypt by Moses?

Harden not your heart dear one. Don't refuse the Lord when He speaks forth from heaven. God will require it of you, and if you hear Him, today is that day.

Peace,

Dave

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 13 February 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

No, that is not true.

Could you elaborate on this?

Paul who wrote most of the New Testament did not write anonymously, the books of James, I, II, III John, I and II Peter, Jude and Revelation were not written anonymously, and the Neither were the books of Moses or any of the prophets. I really don't know where you get the idea that most of the Bible was written anonymously, unless you are just parroting someone else.

Yes, but Jesus certainly had his own teachings that were not written in the Old Testament. Naturally, with people following those new teachings that was going to create a new spiritual movement.

Not true. Jesus used the OT to support everything He taught. He constantly used the phrase, "It is written" to emphasize that the source of His teachings were OT Scriptures. Jesus' only fell at odds with the extra traditions imposed on the people and erroneous interpretations by some of the corrupt Jewish leaders at the time. If anything, Jesus' had a much more OT friendly and were wholly based on Scripture, which is why in part, His enemies could not refute Him.

Ok. So, they would fight against the sin by letting Jesus into their heart and fight for them while following his teachings. This doesn't take away from my point.

Yeah, it does. It pretty much torpedoes the motives you tried to assign to them. Their teachings were not about human efforts at behavioral modification.

And as I mentioned in my above post, just because somethings in the Bible are historically accurate, it doesn't make everything in the Bible true. it would be very easy for someone to record what was really happening at the time while adding fictional parts. Look at the Qu'ran.

The problem is that what you are suggesting is counter-intuitive to what actually happens in reality. You cannot offer any evidence of genuine fictional information. You seem bent on trying to assign your own subjective values to the Bible and to the writers that simply do not bear out. The fact that the Bible has an impeccible historical track record defies the notion that anyone put fictional information in it.

The problem with this argument is that it's still based on unverified information in the Bible. We don't know if the Romans/Jews actually viewed him as so much of a threat at the time of his death that would request the body to be shown to his followers. We don't know when they got news of the resurrection, it could have been long after the body had begun to decompose.

We know based on extra-biblical information particularly how the followers of Jesus, called the "Notzrim" of that day were persecuted by the religious authorities. That is consistent with the testimony of Paul, even according to his own admittance, who was at first among those who persecuted and tried to stamp out the testimony of the apostles and their followers.

Maybe YOU don't know anything about it, but historians and scholars are quite knowledgeable about the climate of 1st century Israel under Roman occupation and the objections to Jesus by the religious leaders as depicted in the Bible are consistent with what is known about 1st century Israel. Even the Talmud aggrees with Jesus' assessment of the corruption of the religious leaders of that time and the Talmud blames the religious leaders of that generation for the destruction of the Temple.

In addition, the revolt of Bar Kochba who some during the 2nd century heralded as the Messiah shows just how much of a threat Messianic leaders were to the religious authorities. Messianic movements prior to Jesus ended in destruction and so it is not inconsistent with the NT at all.

I'm only saying that the certain things in the Bible can't be verified as true (or false).

The problem is that you are using that claim (which is wrong) as a crutch for unbelief. Instead of searching for the truth, you just assume the truth can't be known and thus you will continue to reject the Bible as a result. It is nothing but a convenient way of intellecutally lazy.

Because of this, there are many possibilities as to what the truth is.

Not really.

It could be that everything written in the Bible is true, but it could be that not everything in the Bible is true. Only the writers know the truth.

That is an assumption based on your presupposotions, and not on objective fact.

As a result of this, the burden of proof is on those that are making the claims that they know what this truth is. I'm not. I can say what I believe, and give reasons for this belief. But I'm not claiming to know the truth.

Sorry, but you have the burden of proof standing on its head. YOU are the one who bears that burden. Truth is assumed and the status quo remains unless evidence can be offered to show that the status quo is wrong. In court of law, the defendent does not have to prove his innocence. He is presumed innocent unless further evidence can be offered to show he is guilty. In the same way, the Bible is the defendent and unless you actually demonstrate that the Bible is not credible, then by default the Bible remains true.

Right. That's what it says in the Bible. There is no way of knowing whether or not these miracles actual occurred, and we don't know a lot about Jesus himself outside of the Bible.

That is fallaciuos logic. There is no indication that even more people had written about Jesus outside the Bible or even if there were historical confirmation of those miracles that you would be willing to believe the confirmations. It is likely that you would dream up a reason to disbelieve any extra historical evidence that confirmed the Bible.

Simply because the Bible is the primary source we have for the life of Jesus does not mean that it is wrong, flawed or insufficient.

[sdktlk]

I guess the eyewitness account in the Bible best talks about who He was. There weren't too many journalists in those days, you might try here: http://users.binary....carp/jesus.html

Have you pondered on any of the other questions?

Thank you for the link. Much appreciated.

As for the other questions, I dunno, there have been other religions that have lasted a pretty long time and that were presumably thanks to one man (For example: Buddhism and Islam). I figure, at the end of the day, in order to believe all of the supernatural aspects of Jesus's story, one would first have to have faith in the Bible. I don't have faith in the Bible, so I don't believe any of the supernatural aspects of his story.

808state - Read my testimony under "testimonies" with the heading sdktlk testimony.God bless in Jesus' name.

[Guest]

I guess the eyewitness account in the Bible best talks about who He was. There weren't too many journalists in those days, you might try here: http://users.binary....carp/jesus.html

Have you pondered on any of the other questions?

Thank you for the link. Much appreciated.

As for the other questions, I dunno, there have been other religions that have lasted a pretty long time and that were presumably thanks to one man (For example: Buddhism and Islam). I figure, at the end of the day, in order to believe all of the supernatural aspects of Jesus's story, one would first have to have faith in the Bible. I don't have faith in the Bible, so I don't believe any of the supernatural aspects of his story.

808state - Read my testimony under "testimonies" with the heading sdktlk testimony. God bless in Jesus' name.

sdktlk testimony

[808state]

Can I ask you a question? Suppose you could know the truth about God right now...would you accept it, knowing that once you've accepted it, you'll have to submit to it?

Yes, I would. I have a question, is the truth supposed to be evident to me at this point in time?

Yes but potential isn't necessarily actuality. That people could potentially add fictional bits doesn't mean they did. If you're going to assert that, you'll have to prove it.

Right. I'm not asserting that they actually did, but that they potentially did.

The nature of any historical evidence is that it cannot be 'proven'. There isn't anything more the gospels written could have written that wouldn't be vulnerable to hyperscepticism.

This is the same for all of human history. How do we know Julius Ceasar really crossed the rubicon, or that Jerusalem really fell in 70AD?

Well, that's true. We don't know 100% what is or isn't historically accurate. However, if there are a number of verified sources describing the same events, it's probably relatively safe to assume that some version of those events did occur. Of course, when historians look over historical documents they never take anything at face value, they have to take into account several things and one of those things would be personal bias of the writer. Historical records are filled with cultural, political, and religious bias. So, while they may accept certain historical documents as mostly fact, they might not accept everything written in those documents as fact.

The burden of proof is indeed on us, and we've provided sufficient evidence. If you're saying more extra biblical writers should have written about Jesus, then their extra-biblical accounts would have probably been added to the Bible, and then you'd reject them too for being part of the Bible. If there were a thousand corroborating gospels, then a true sceptic would expect more and reject it based in there not being ten thousand. Or it could simply be wiped off the table as, "they're probably just lying about it".

Such is the nature of all historical evidence.

Wouldn't your argument depend on how Jesus was being written about? Like, say the Romans had kept record of Jesus's execution, I doubt that would be included that in the Bible. Or say if those that considered Jesus to be an enemy wrote about him, I doubt that would be included in the Bible either.

Besides, there's definitely stuff written about Jesus that wasn't put into the canonized Bible. Take the Infancy Gospel of Thomas for example. Now, that was left out because the writer was indeed lying about his knowledge of Jesus, but I have a question, why would they lie and why would so many believe them?

...consistency with what? As I said there was no expectation of the Messiah being killed as a criminal and rising from the dead. The expectation was of a conqueror who'd set up the throne of David forever. When Jesus was arrested even His closest followers denied Him. They left in disappointment, believing that it was all over.

I'm sorry. I thought the Old Testament was a bit more clear with the resurrection prophecy than they actually were.

I don't understand what you're meaning. You mention consistency with the Old Testament, which you substantiate with people seeing ghosts in ancient Rome. Neither ghosts nor Rome feature much in the Old Testament.

Again, I apologize, I meant to say Ancient Israel not Ancient Rome (though they seemed to have a firm belief in ghosts). It wouldn't have been effective for the writers to use a spiritual resurrection because essentially all a spiritual resurrection is are dead people reappearing as ghosts, and the concept of ghosts were pretty common back in those days, so Jesus having a spiritual resurrection would not have been as special as a bodily resurrection. And while ghosts may only have brief mentions in the Old Testament, it's very likely that many Jews believed in ghosts due to influence of surrounding cultures. And even if they didn't, if the writers wanted to appeal to gentiles, they would have to put into consideration the role that ghosts played in many cultures surrounding them at the time anyway.

Well, the Christian God poses serious problems if it's merely a made up entity. Most pagan gods are like humans only bigger. They have the same desires and lusts as we do, they war amongst each other and they can even be defeated under the right circumstances.

The idea that people would come up with a trice Holy triune God is absurd.

The Christian God is also inconvenient, because He's too powerful, too big and too pure. It's not the sort of God that people invent. The other unique and inconvenient thing about Him is that there's nothing we can do to please Him. He needed to save us for Him, whereas all other gods generally bargain with their subjects, "If you do these things, then I'll reward you with heaven or nirvana or valhalla or whatever". This is pleasing to the human ego because through the power of will and deed, you can end up in a situation where god is indebted to you. The Christian God slays the ego, by saying, "even your best deeds are like filthy rags to me, but fear not I will save you".

I don't see how it isn't possible that humans could have created the Christian God. Humans may not be perfect but they can certainly visualize perfection. All that takes is a little imagination. The idea that there was one supreme being that was the embodiment of all things good, it doesn't seem far-fetch to me that a human could think that up. Humans can recognize good and bad deeds when they see them. Humans can see the negative effects of the over-indulgence of things like sex, money, alcohol, power, etc. I mean, look at Buddhism or Hinduism, it's all about giving up "earthly" desires in-order to seek enlightenment and salvation. The idea that God is all-knowing and is capable of doing whatever he wants, again, it's not far-fetch at all that a human could imagine what the most powerful-being known to man would look like.

As far as other religions appealing to the human ego, I'm not sure if Christianity actually differs too much in that regard. This is what the Bible says on rewards:

"Anyone who comes to him [God] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6)

"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Matthew 5:12 )

Now, obviously, the main point is that you have to genuinely accept Jesus as your lord and savior and let him into your heart. You still have to work to build on that relationship with Jesus so you can live in a way that's pleasing to him. But it's not like the Bible doesn't come with a set of commands that followers are expected to adhere to and it's not like many Christians don't struggle with sin every day. So, it does take some amount of work of the part of the follower and there are rewards in it. Again, I understand that followers much be pure and genuine in their intentions, but Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism teach the same thing in that regard.

The philospher J.P.Moreland uses this illustration to demonstrate the point:

Suppose I invite you to play monopoly at my house. You get the first turn and you roll the dice and get a 5, and you move your token 5 spaces up.

Now it's my turn, I turn the board upside down and arrange some houses in a circle and say, "your turn!".

You turn the board rightside up again, giving me a glance of disapproval, you put your token back where is was, roll the dice and more your token up.

My turn: I pour custard on the board and glue some of the monopoly money onto the custard.

Your turn: You roll the dice, maybe buy some property.

My turn: I turn on the TV and start watching something, saying "your turn"

Your turn: You pass go and collect $200

My turn: I take your $200 dollars fold it into a paper hat and put it on my head.

At some point you'll realise that the game is meaningless, and you'll stop playing, right? Why? Because if the game is ultimately meaningless, then your invidual actions stop mattering and there's no point in continuing.

If people make their own meaning, in the absense of ultimate meaning, then life becomes pointless, and nothing really matters.

Onto your next point. Survival by itself cannot be an ultimate meaning or a purpose, because then the question comes "Why must we survive?"

Also living in order to survive is a rather dreary reason to keep living, not so? In fact, when people say, "I;m just surviving right now, not really living" we understand as them being down in the dumps, depressed or unhappy.

Moreover it seems tautologous...surviving only to survive.

Survival is just part of the human instinct, it's naturally how we operate, it's not a conscious decision (unless you're in a dire situation where it has to become a conscious decision). Take a look at pain, what function does it serve? It keeps us from doing things that will harm our body. You put your hand on a hot stove and you experience pain. It's your body's way of telling you not to do something through an unpleasant sensation. Now, when it comes to the more emotional side of human-beings, we experience things like happiness and then things like sadness. The things that make us truly happy are the things that are healthiest for us. The things that cause us pain and sadness, well, that's nature's way of telling us not to do those things. We're social beings so keeping the emotional part of us healthy is just as important as keeping the physical part of us healthy. The two go hand in hand and are necessary for our survival. So I would say the universal meaning is to find those things in life that give our individual lives meanings and keep us happy. Exactly what those things are will differ from person to person.

The issue with your whole argument is that it seems to be an appeal to consequence. It's a fallacious argument. You accept a premise as true because you don't desire the consequences if it's not true.

[808state]

Nope, not at all. Jesus came to fulifll everything that was in the Old Testament. He didn't change one teaching, Not One iota. He merely enhanced the meaning and came to fulfill it. No new teachings.

Right. These teachings may not have been "new", they were new to many Jews at the time who were interpreting certain things in the Old Testament a bit differently than the way Jesus would interpret some of these passages. Also, the very idea that Jesus was the son of God was new. It was obviously prophesied in the Old Testament, but the details were new. Naturally, this would spark a new spiritual movement.

[808state]

Paul who wrote most of the New Testament did not write anonymously, the books of James, I, II, III John, I and II Peter, Jude and Revelation were not written anonymously, and the Neither were the books of Moses or any of the prophets. I really don't know where you get the idea that most of the Bible was written anonymously, unless you are just parroting someone else.

I didn't say that most of the Bible was written anonymously, but that most of the New Testament was written anonymously. It seems to be pretty commonly accepted among both Christian and secular scholars that the much of the New Testament was written anonymously and that it was a little later on that everyone agreed on who the actual authors of these books were. The Case For Christ, Understanding the Bible, and the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels all state this.

Not true. Jesus used the OT to support everything He taught. He constantly used the phrase, "It is written" to emphasize that the source of His teachings were OT Scriptures. Jesus' only fell at odds with the extra traditions imposed on the people and erroneous interpretations by some of the corrupt Jewish leaders at the time. If anything, Jesus' had a much more OT friendly and were wholly based on Scripture, which is why in part, His enemies could not refute Him.

I understand his teachings were based in the Old Testament, but, as you pointed out, he was also interpreting certain things in the Bible a bit differently then how many Jews were interpreting those passages at the time. While these interpretations may not have been actually "new", they were new to many of the Jews at the time.

Yeah, it does. It pretty much torpedoes the motives you tried to assign to them. Their teachings were not about human efforts at behavioral modification.

Actually, it doesn't. I know it teaches in the Bible that Jesus will fight those sins once you accept him into your heart, but again, it is still up to the follower to read the teachings of the Bible (as a way to strengthen that relationship with Jesus) and to make sure that they stay true to Jesus in their everyday lives. Obviously, this can sometimes be a struggle for many Christians.

The problem is that what you are suggesting is counter-intuitive to what actually happens in reality. You cannot offer any evidence of genuine fictional information. You seem bent on trying to assign your own subjective values to the Bible and to the writers that simply do not bear out. The fact that the Bible has an impeccible historical track record defies the notion that anyone put fictional information in it.

I'm simply pointing out the possibilities. I'm not trying to offer evidence that parts of the Bible actually is fictional, but that because certain things in the Bible can't be verified, I believe we can't currently know one way or another.

We know based on extra-biblical information particularly how the followers of Jesus, called the "Notzrim" of that day were persecuted by the religious authorities. That is consistent with the testimony of Paul, even according to his own admittance, who was at first among those who persecuted and tried to stamp out the testimony of the apostles and their followers.

Maybe YOU don't know anything about it, but historians and scholars are quite knowledgeable about the climate of 1st century Israel under Roman occupation and the objections to Jesus by the religious leaders as depicted in the Bible are consistent with what is known about 1st century Israel. Even the Talmud aggrees with Jesus' assessment of the corruption of the religious leaders of that time and the Talmud blames the religious leaders of that generation for the destruction of the Temple.

In addition, the revolt of Bar Kochba who some during the 2nd century heralded as the Messiah shows just how much of a threat Messianic leaders were to the religious authorities. Messianic movements prior to Jesus ended in destruction and so it is not inconsistent with the NT at all.

Could you please give me some more information persecution of the Notzrim? I do know that Ancient Rome had many rules that all religions were meant to adhere to if they were expected to keep the live peacefully under their rule, and that certain religions had trouble with this. But it seems that things didn't really start to get bad between the Jews/followers of Jesus and Rome until a couple of years after Jesus's death. Also, didn't the Bar Kochba happen about 100 years after Jesus died?

The problem is that you are using that claim (which is wrong) as a crutch for unbelief. Instead of searching for the truth, you just assume the truth can't be known and thus you will continue to reject the Bible as a result. It is nothing but a convenient way of intellecutally lazy.

No, that's not the sole reason as to why I reject the Bible. It doesn't help me believe it anymore, but that's not the primary reason why I personally don't believe in the Bible.

That is an assumption based on your presupposotions, and not on objective fact.

The objective fact is that the parts of the Bible can't be verified as to have actually happened. If we can't prove something has actually happened, then there are multiple possibilities as to what actually did happen. This is just basic reasoning.

So, far the only arguments I have really gotten from you guys is "I can't imagine why they would have lied about it, so therefore they didn't lie about it." It's a fallacious argument.

Sorry, but you have the burden of proof standing on its head. YOU are the one who bears that burden. Truth is assumed and the status quo remains unless evidence can be offered to show that the status quo is wrong. In court of law, the defendent does not have to prove his innocence. He is presumed innocent unless further evidence can be offered to show he is guilty. In the same way, the Bible is the defendent and unless you actually demonstrate that the Bible is not credible, then by default the Bible remains true.

You're confusing ideas. The reason why in court on law the defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence is because he wasn't the one who made the initial claim. Whoever makes the initial claim has the burden of proof. In this case, the Bible made the initial claims, but not all of it's claims can be verified. It's pretty simple.

That is fallaciuos logic. There is no indication that even more people had written about Jesus outside the Bible or even if there were historical confirmation of those miracles that you would be willing to believe the confirmations. It is likely that you would dream up a reason to disbelieve any extra historical evidence that confirmed the Bible.

Simply because the Bible is the primary source we have for the life of Jesus does not mean that it is wrong, flawed or insufficient.

I'm not arguing that the Bible is wrong or flawed, but it does not provide a sufficient amount of evidence by itself for certain events that occur in it.

[808state]

I guess the eyewitness account in the Bible best talks about who He was. There weren't too many journalists in those days, you might try here: http://users.binary....carp/jesus.html

Have you pondered on any of the other questions?

Thank you for the link. Much appreciated.

As for the other questions, I dunno, there have been other religions that have lasted a pretty long time and that were presumably thanks to one man (For example: Buddhism and Islam). I figure, at the end of the day, in order to believe all of the supernatural aspects of Jesus's story, one would first have to have faith in the Bible. I don't have faith in the Bible, so I don't believe any of the supernatural aspects of his story.

808state - Read my testimony under "testimonies" with the heading sdktlk testimony.God bless in Jesus' name.

Thank you for sharing that with me. It sounds like you had a rough start, but I'm glad you've been doing well for so long. Very cool.

[sdktlk]

I guess the eyewitness account in the Bible best talks about who He was. There weren't too many journalists in those days, you might try here: http://users.binary....carp/jesus.html

Have you pondered on any of the other questions?

Thank you for the link. Much appreciated.

As for the other questions, I dunno, there have been other religions that have lasted a pretty long time and that were presumably thanks to one man (For example: Buddhism and Islam). I figure, at the end of the day, in order to believe all of the supernatural aspects of Jesus's story, one would first have to have faith in the Bible. I don't have faith in the Bible, so I don't believe any of the supernatural aspects of his story.

808state - Read my testimony under "testimonies" with the heading sdktlk testimony.God bless in Jesus' name.

Thank you for sharing that with me. It sounds like you had a rough start, but I'm glad you've been doing well for so long. Very cool.

Now, it becomes really simple for you. All you have to do is say, "God, if you are there, You show me what is true with respect to Jesus Christ." No man can show you that, only God can reveal Himself to you. So, our prayer for you is Lord, by Your Spirit, draw 808state to Yourself in Jesus Name.

[Guest]

In The Name Of Jesus

Amen~!