Muslim & Christian Discussion ForumCurrently responding to>>> Quran vs. ChristWow this is really long. These are probably as painful for you to read as they are for me to write! How coincidental that you should start a religious debate with Muhammad 'Abduh, a man who not only said that usury was lawful in Islam, but denied that Islamic laws necessarily needed to be obey and that the Caliphate is an obligation upon every Muslim; the man was an Arab Nationalist for God's sake. Now I personally don't care what 'Abduh says or thinks, but I do agree that the Qur'an is the word of God. However, and this is a phrase you will read several times from now on, bring your evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah which states that the Qur'an or even God's word is "eternally of the essence of God". Does God or does the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ever describe the Qur'an or God's revelations in this way? Since they don't, why do you? Haha, congratulations, yes that's true, that's how God's word would have to be communicated in the real world, through writing and sound. That's true, but of course Al Ghazali hasn't strayed far from basic definitions, since the Qur'an is a partial record of God's will obviously subsist with God. And yet I don't like to take theological positions without evidence, so to you and Al Ghazali I ask bring your evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Otherwise we're dealing with every man's opinion and idea or explanation. I'm sure you can already guess how fun this dialogue will be. I disagree, so bring your evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah No, I'd just like to see where you got the last sentence from. If it wasn't from God or the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) speaking by means of divine inspiration?why are you clouding religion with theological opinions? I agree that God's essence is unique to God alone. However, God's Will and the happenings of the universe are said to be recorded on the 'Preserved Tablet" e.g including the deeds of all of God's creations. However, the essence of God, or God Himself, is not said to be recorded or described in an infinite number of words. I know you meant better, but that sentence didn't pass by so smoothly. I'd love to hear what you mean by the "uncreated' COMBINGING with creation. Certainly we say that God's revelation is expressed with letters and words, but where do you get any "combination" occurring. Clearly, you have in mind your hypostatic union parade and need to use words like "combine" to pave the way for your argument. You're being disallowed until you describe who expressing messages with language constitutes combining the created with the uncreated. Right, resolved quite simply with the hypostatic God-man. We never got through to showing how God can be in a hypostatic union with anything and yet have the same attributes before and after. That's because you had to change the subject to the 6 quotes from an array of Muslims which I very much agree is irrelevant to our original objective. Ahaha, where are you getting all these different sense from? The Qur'an is divine revelation, eternally True and unchanging, uncreated. In no way is it "temporal" or "created". Nice try though. Something is either created or it isn't, and being expressed in a "temporal" language doesn't change the essence of that thing. Otherwise it's like saying that simply by spelling "God" or writing a word that encompasses God that you have made Him temporal, perish the thought. And according to the Qur'an and Sunnah, what is the divine will of God? Listen bro, and please don't be offended, but this semantic magic doesn't fly at all around here. Maybe in a liberal arts course we can get A's for convoluted works but not with me. When did anyone say that the Qur'an existed as some sort of "essence" co-equal with God? Where on God's Earth do you make this stuff up from? It's almost like you take pleasure seeing how many ways you can use the word "essence" and "divine" and "God" in combinations. That's why I marvel at your writing. You can use terms for pages without ever having defined anything. But then again, that's the only way to maintain your arguments. As long as you keep quoting authorities and never referring to any Scriptural proofs, you can basically dance on any topic for as long as you need so long as there existed some other man like you who did that before. I disagree here. First of all is English not your first langage? Divine as an adjective refers to something that comes directly from God (you know, like divine revelation maybe?) It does not ascribe Godhood to the thing. Second of all, eternal existence is an attribute of God, but God has ALL the divine attributes, not just one. If something is said to have one such attribute, it doesn't become God. Heaven and Hell for example are often said to be eternal realms. That'd doesn't make them gods. Thanks, but how on earth do you expect to build premises from different (and often contradictory or supplementary) opinions about the Qur'an? The only premises I want to hear are from, take a guess, that's right, the Qur'an and Sunnah. Otherwise one might as well do thise: Premise 1: Protestants assert that? Premise 2: Mormons say that? Premise 3: Jehovah's witnesses claim? Who cares what any of these people say? The only premises should come, in terms of Christianity, from the mouth of Jesus (pbuh). But fair enough, let's say you don't consider any of these people "Orthodox," hey that's cool. So let's say it was like this then Premise 1: Orthodox Christian 1 claims? Premise 2: Orthodox Christian 2 claims? Premise 3: Orthodox Christian 3 claims? Unless they bring proofs from Scripture, it STILL wouldn't matter what they say. At least in Islam, there is no such thing as "Orthodox Islamic Philosophy". certainly there are Muslims who contradict Islamic teachings with their Philosophy and these are out of the question. But those that do not have various personal interpretations which neither help nor benefit one's religion in practice. Yet another example of this are debates about Heaven and Hell in Islam.. The only importance belief relating to these is that they EXIST, not understanding HOW they exist. That's where the philosophers come in and shine each other on, though it doesn't mean any of them can provide an "Orthodox" interpretation, even if widely accepted, NOT accepting it neither helps nor harms you, it is simply not a religious necessity. This is incoherent to me. Who can say in our dichotomous world that something is neither a thing or not the thing? Neither 1 nor 0. Seriously get a grip and quote Scripture, not philosophers. haha, nice conclusion, you just repeated wahat the last people just said. A conclusion is based on several premises. A premise must be accepted as True such that the conclusion is True if it is based on the premises (you know this). So why should we accept anything of what these men offer as explanations of the divine if they don't bring any evidence from God's book or Messenger? But that's exactly it, you keep talking about the object like it's an uncreated thing apart from God, when in fact it's a record of His Will. Of course you can't say that God's Will is God's creation. Man, I have to say that this is one of the most perverse things I've ever heard. How do you claim to be a Christian when you speak like a polytheist? Why in God's name would you worship something other than God? You think that just because revelation comes directly from God that it should be worshipped? Do you realize how warped that understanding is? No wonder people worship the Prophet of God as his son, people can't stop at accepting the miracle of a virgin birth, they just want to worship things and creations. There's nothing logical about this associative worship but maybe if you were a Muslim with these sinful inclinations you WOULD worship the Qur'an, God forbid. So you're saying that Christian revelations are not directly from God? Where does God's Truth enter a man's brain then? What is the divine link? If there isn't a link, it's not revelation, and if it's not direct, it's not Prophecy. From where do people get divine providence and how does it enter them? Fine I won't go into this, even though it's necessary. <Sigh> This is what is so sad about discourse with Christians, they want to make as many analogies about God as they can. They want to compare Him to His creations. They can't ever be satisfied with knowing God and accepting Him, they have to demote Him to some human analogy, to separate Him into divisible parts and compare them. I have one thing to say to that: Yet there is among men such a one as disputes about God, without Knowledge, without Guidance, and without a Book of Enlightenment, (Qur'an 22:8) Invent not similitudes for God: for God knoweth, and ye know not. (Qur'an 16:78) Actually part of God's Will is very much preserved in words. The acts and deeds of men, all the occurrences of the Universe. These ARE quantifiable and expressable by God. Sometimes I sit and marvel at the linguistic acrobatics you have to go through to make analogies about God. Maybe one day you'll try to realize that Jesus himself never made these analogies about Him. I would actually. Ashari is not the spokesperson for Islamic philosophy, not even close. Even asharism has its stark critics from the Sunnis and Ghazali. humbleguest: Hey bro, that's cool, where is your evidence for this? The Qur'an is rife with verses describing the Qur'an as a revelation sent by God, transmitting pure Truth, a measured amount, always distinguished from God. So what proofs do you bring to our discussion? Thanks Actually, the Preserved Tablet is supposed to preserve everything that happens in the Universe, and not a perpetual description of God. Fully divine in that it is 100% from God and unchanged, not that it shares God's essence and attributes? If these two meant anything else, then I and millions like me staunchly disagree. Oh and in case I forget bring your evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah that the Qur'an "shares God's essence". Who are these people that you quote as authorities on Islamic philosophy, their opinion is no more valid than any other Muslims' when it comes to matters that aren't outlined, and their opinions aren't even definitive. No it could not have been applied to the Gospels because they don't contain a direct revelation from God, and not even claimed to be preserved to the word [fill in your blanket statement about "inspiration" for very smart men]. Though the analogy COULD have been made for the ten commandments for example. haha, yeah there's definitely a lot of "adding" going on around here! Revelation is a manifestation of God's will and Truth. This happens either through direct speech that is written down (God?Gabriel?Muhammad?Qur'an) or through the teachings of Jesus through his internalized revelation "the Injeel". If that's what you mean by "through a man" then that is acceptable, but "through a man" doesn't mean engineering an essence blend. Sometimes I can't believe I have to actually tell people these things. Oh sure, there's a lot of points which, not completely outlined in the Qur'an and Sunnah, cause controversy. That's because people then resort to reasoning and guesswork without a scriptural foundation. Eternity, Predestination and Free Will, Heaven and Hell?belief in these is required, but writing a report on them is quite impossible without leaning on what we know from revelation. The analogy DOES grant many assumptions, that's how analogies are made! Take this one for example: Roman General Crassus: Horse Perseus: Pegasus We have to grant a very big assumption for the analogy to work. ? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analogy "A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects." So once more I'm going to ask you. Do you believe that the authors of the NT received revelation like Moses received revelation. Is the revelation of the NT on equal ground as Moses' Torah? That's right, in Islam "the Word" has roots based in Scripture, what occurs in the universe is recorded as unchanging Truths, but God's logic/rationale/divine plan/reason or a summary of what God Himself is, would NOT be found on this Preserved Tablet. God Himself cannot be perpetually described with writing, but the Universe which had a beginning and an end, can. That's why in the Qur'an when it comes to what needs to be known about Heaven and Hell and God, it is told in plain land intelligible anguage, not some endless stream. Yes, and the Qur'an is a subset of the Word of God, but the Word of God is not a subset of the Qur'an. Do you take sets and probability. Qur'an C Word of God. Actually that's exactly what they thought. They thought that everything that was revealed in the Qur'an became Truth as it was revealed, and was not already a Truth before it was manifested in 610 AD. For example, they considered that when a part of the Qur'an was revealed, the day before it wasn't true, and was not already Willed by God to either happen or not happen, but the day after it became True and was Willed. They had exactly the temporal issues you are asking about. Lies? No. The Mutazilite didn't believe in a Preserved Tablet, they thought that Truths became True as soon as they were revealed to us, and NOT that they were always True (before the Universe was ever created). Any analogy is weak when it grants too many assumptions necessary to complete the similitude. "These two are analogous?assuming away their major differences?" = weak analogy. Hey that's fine by me actually. So long as you admit that you know what you know based on the NT alone. The idea that something is similar to the Qur'an as direct revelation is nothing new, but justifying that belief with an authentic scripture that is traceable back to the mouth of a Prophet is not so easy. Oh ok, so that's basically where we differ. I believe in honesty and truthfulness of the apostles, but not that they received revelation in the form of a text called the Bible, nor that NT was completely written by "the apostles" even originally. That's a keeper right here. "The Spirit of God and the Eternal Word are co-equal persons within the Godhead, acting in unison, a union of co-equal persons which comprise God". Sometimes I don't even know if you're being serious. So after Jesus (pbuh) ascended to Heaven, "the Word" came back to the authors of the NT and inspired them to write the NT? If that's the case, why didn't the authors declare their Prophet-hood openly to the people like every other Prophet in the world did? Every single one. Why were their texts not transmitted moreso than any other and had to be chosen from among other "gospels" by the early Church fathers? Two things then. First of all, are you denying that you can ever hold a book that contains God's Word exactly? A revelation from God to mankind in the precise Words revealed? Because as you know even the NT isn't preserved to the word, but apparently you retain the "gist" of the message. Second of all, your logic is painfully circular, the ENTIRE belief that "Christ was the eternal Logos? The SPIRIT OF GOD ? The Holy and Glorious Spirit came down upon the apostles attesting to Christ The Living Word, teaching them all things and bringing to their remembrance all things said" is something you believe today because you find it in the Bible. The only way you could believe that is if 1) you believe the apostles were like Moses 2) Actually for the analogy to hold it would have to be the issue. But if you believe that the NT is a revelation from God and that it's authors are Prophets, then that's what you believe. Yes actually, I had no idea Christians consider the authors of the NT as they consider Moses! That's so interesting actually. So you think the NT is of equal authority as the 10 commandments for example? Do you have trouble understanding how the 10 commandments could be direct revelation from God? Well this is all that I'm interested in. Since this is on what your entire belief about Christ and Logos and "the Word" is based, I think it plays a slightly more important role than you make it out to be. The only reason our discussion goes on for so long is because you have no conception of what comprises an authoritative belief. If it's not based on a Scripture or transmission of the words of a Prophet, it's USELESS, regardless of WHO said it and how religious they were, and how many golden canes they carried around. This is something people who believe in a clerical hierarchy sadly miss out on. So just to be very clear, one more time. Moses (pbuh) is of the same authority to you and Saul of Tarsus? Then you're not being at all clear. When a thought is put into the minds of an "inspired man" it must be very articulate, especially if it is divinely inspired AND conveys complex ideas. The very fact that a man would not write EXACTLY what he knew, or would paraphrase what was revealed to him, is abhorrent to me. But why would the "Spirit of God" reveal to John something in so vague a way that John would have no precise why to state it? Think about this, and I do mean literally think about it, before you write a sentence down, you arrange it in your head. Now if the "Spirit of God" is reminding you with Truths, before you express them they would be arranged very clearly, and for John to express them when they were already ready in his mind, he would just need to write it down. Why on Earth would he then decide to write a Truth in a different way from the way the "Sprit of God" instilled it in him? That's right, the Preserved Tablet and its records and how/when they are recorded. Your source is confused then. Hanbali's orthodoxy comes from his jurisprudence and deriving permission, forbiddance, and the exact method of Prophetic religious rites. THOSE are considered "Orthodox" and anyone can accept those. When it comes to A Hanbali's anthropomorphic analogies (not THE Imam Hanbal, but a person who uses Hanbal's reasoning) then these CAN'T be considered Orthodox simply because they contradict the Qur'an and Prophetic Tradition. Even Ashari can't be considered Orthodox when he says and writes things that have no proof or support from the Qur'an and Sunah. Why? Because anthropomorphism and Islamic philosophy don't HAVE an Orthodoxy about them, they are mostly conjecture that tries NOT to go against the Qur'an and Sunnah, but it doesn't mean it's BUILT on it. Now while there aren't "Orthodox" philosophies were they stray from the Qur'an and Sunnah, there are "Unorthodox" philosophies which blatantly stray from the Quran and Sunnah, accepting these latter philosophies WOULD denote levels of disbelief or misguidance. Accepting other philosophies would neither help nor harm you, as long as they didn't trespass on Scripture, though whether or not they are accurate is unknown because they are just opinions and conjecture. Well obviously if every time I show you that to exist WITHIN your own Creation and to be completely confined to within the Universe is not a contradiction because infinity is being used as a different sense and so on and so forth, then yes we're going to be here forever coaxing your imagination and definitions of "dependence on creation". If you want to believe that God in His entirety, God, can exist fully within His own creation, and you see no problem with this, fine, then let's agree to disagree, because that doesn't at all comply with Islam. So to say I haven't proved anything to you is shameless, I've shown you something that removes you from the fold of Islam, and you're saying "nah, that doesn't really breach divinity to exist inside your own creation, I'm cool with that, you didn't prove it". Fine then, be cool with that since that's a choice you make. For me, this alone has removed one of God's attributes and changed it. This alone, this act of change to God's position in relation to His creation, constitutes a breach of Divinity. Haha, so read very carefully then. Yes the exact Arabic used is inseparable from the Divine Message being conveyed, which in turn is inseparable from what is written on the Preserved Tablet. You would be able to find the entire Qur'an on the Preserved Tablet itself. Yet the Preserved Tablet is in turn COMPLETELY separate from God, though it records His Will in the Universe. Umm, first of all we don't ever say things like "the Qur'an SHOULD have said" about anything. Maybe from a Christian perspective where revelations are paraphrased you can say things like "John should have said this, it would have sounded better" but that doesn?t apply to direct revelation. Second of all, the Qur'an distinguishes Gabriel in rank and stature, but not in nature from the other angels. But to be honest with you, at this point I can't blame you for squirming around about this. For the disbeliever, if 1000 proofs were laid out to him, he would always choose to remain in doubt, that's the beauty of the Divine Plan, the disbeliever is always granted a means. "Announce, O Prophet: Whoso bears enmity towards Gabriel - because of his having caused to descend upon thy heart, by the command of Allah, this Book which fulfils that which precedes it and contains guidance and glad tidings for the believers - whoso bears enmity towards Allah, His angels, His messengers, Gabriel and Michael, then surely, Allah too is the enemy of such disbelievers. Indeed We have sent down to thee manifest Signs, and no one disbelieves in them but the disobedient." (Qur'an 2:98-100) -The Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel -The Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad via "the Spirit" In terms of logic, nothing can be more basic than to conclude that Gabriel is "the Spirit" in that case. It's called the Transitive Property for God's sake, go look it up. "Oh brother" is right. Here in this passage Gabriel and Michael are named and distinguished from "the angels" to show their additional important stature, not to change their essence, thanks. "Announce, O Prophet: Whoso bears enmity towards Gabriel - because of his having caused to descend upon thy heart, by the command of Allah, this Book which fulfils that which precedes it and contains guidance and glad tidings for the believers - whoso bears enmity towards Allah, His angels, His messengers, Gabriel and Michael, then surely, Allah too is the enemy of such disbelievers. Indeed We have sent down to thee manifest Signs, and no one disbelieves in them but the disobedient." (Qur'an 2:98-100) Haha, wow, "men" does not denote nature? That was just awkward to read bro, if I left you for a year you'd still be reaching? Take a long hard read: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=man Next you'll be crying out "no no, you should have said homo sapien!" Oh ok, then I strongly disagree with you that the Spirit is not ever Gabriel. Spirit in 78:38 = Gabriel. Bro I understand the nature of the claim, and I STILL disagree with the analogy on two fundamental parts. Not only does the Qur'an obviously NOT reflect all of God's Word the way Christians claim Jesus is God's Word (which you reiterated a million times) but ALSO it grants you the assumption that we have two identically authoritative Scriptures claiming the Divine Word is either in the Qur'an or in Christ, which is possibly the weakest religious assumption I can think of. And I'm saying that the Qur'an is direct revelation, it says what it says. Anyone can deduce using basic logical principles that if the Qur'an was revealed by Gabriel, and that the Qur'an was revealed by "the Spirit" and these two are used interchangeably, then they are the SAME THING. Not only that, but you act like people never asked the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) from where He received revelation! It's like a complete mystery zone for you. Regarding your curiosity, the "Spirit from Allah" is referring to the Spirit sent from God, that's Gabriel who was sent by God. "We" don?t have binatarian beliefs thankfully, haha, in this conversation you've not only tried to convince people to worship Gabriel, the Qur'an, Jesus?haha wow, no wonder Trinitarianism sprung up so easily, look at what an accepting audience it has. May God have Mercy on you. Not even close. What you clearly proved is that you think "man" doesn't denote the nature of a creation! Actually it's yours because it shows how you're willing to contort a simple sentence so furiously that it's clear meaning no longer makes sense. That's exactly what a disbeliever is. He wants to do everything he possibly can to not be guided. Whoa this is really cool bro. So you have three different, co-equal, interdependent "essential parts of God" that are submissive to each other? Shared obedience and absolute sovereignty? That's fantastic man, an absolute Monarchy in a Kingdom of plural Kings makes more sense. No offense to the man, but I could fill a lot of gaps in his arguments, the guy isn't even a scholar, he's an e-Muslim, probably scrounges around for answers on the internet, straightforward stuff, and pastes it back in and arranges it. Except he doesn't though, and I've never seen him do anything but scratch the surface on superficial points, not that this is bad or anything, since that's where most of the attacks dwell, on superficial points. Actually yes, find me some articles where he really uses his own knowledge of Classical Arabic to do that. And don't find something that is widely circulated like "the need for Hijab," I want to see some classical Arabic action with root word analysis and usage notes from 7th Century Arabia that he goes into. I think they both stumped him, but then again they didn't stump me, hey where'd my answers to your questions disappear, go scroll back up to find the big quoted block. Good, that's exactly an example of why it's critical to have working knowledge of the language of revelation. Though I doubt you could tackle every OT/NT translation problem, unless you truly are a scholar of Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/Latin. Of course this point is even MORE important when you have the direct word of God, where every word is chosen PRECISELY for its position in the sentence. The mysteries and profundity about that alone is amazing. Then let me give you a hint that will be one of the most important you will ever read in your life: Not all Muslim scholars are?Muslim scholars. Especially not mainstream ones or e-scholars forbidding and permitting what they deem fit, having studied a few hadiths at the middle east department for a few years. As far as the translator was concerned. See that's why we don't like to read translations, we learn Arabic just to read the Qur'an. Is it that important? Yes. Bro that reasoning is completely flawed, and here's why: Look at how vast this tree is! Now you grab one of the leaves and decide that just because there is a discussion about the Arabic root that the English roots of tens if not hundreds of English roots (*******) has the same type of controversy surrounding it?! First of all, WHICH of the words (English translations) do you go by, and second of all, how can every reader of a different translation claim that their English words all have the same problems as the Arabic root itself! There are completely different languages and even different English words among the translations which couldn't possibly have the same semantic issues. Each of those roots gives you a meaning Each of those English words has roots ********** Each barb has several English words _\|/_ _\|/_ _\|/_ _\|/_ _\|/_ _\|/_ Meaning Meaning Meaning Meaning Meaning Meaning (20) (Arabic) _\|/_ Root | Word Used
Yes do look into that. However, the Qur'an ALSO says that everything happens by the Will of God. In fact. There's two passages in the Qur'an which say that you should say ANYTHING will happen except by adding "If God Wills". Nor say of anything, "I shall be sure to do so and so tomorrow" - Without adding, "So please God!" and call thy Lord to mind when thou forgettest, and say, "I hope that my Lord will guide me ever closer (even) than this to the right road." (Qur'an 18:23-24) Wow man, "few" isn't being used because of ignorance, it's being used to stress that whatever the price was, it was LOW to sell a Prophet of God. "Twenty Shekels? Is that good or bad" "Thirty silver pieces? Was that too much or too little". It was LOW. Oh man! Are you serious? Are you saying "well if God REALLY knew, he'd mention it"? Not only that, but crucifixion on trees WAS a form of execution at that time. Yes, Ibn Kathir often cited Jewish supplementary sources to Prophetic stories, though it was always noted that they were Jewish sources, not Prophetic or Islamic, and that they should neither be believed as absolute nor belied. http://admin.muslimsonline.com/~islamaw ... ucify.html So bring the verse you're having a problem with right here. Post it. Your ignorance is exhausting bro. He's a DUDE, does that mean if HE personally can't handle a question then he's the spokesperson for Islam? Wow. It's like saying "yes! I converted a priest! I win!" or "ooooh, that' Rabbi couldn't convert him, that just shows you what's up". The man actually has pages devoted to pornography in the Bible, how professional do you think he is?! mmhm, and you've already said two times >but I can't believe that Osama, OSAMA!, couldn?t handle that question! I just can't believe that > Second of all, ironically, you JUST commited that fallacy by saying, "no I wasn't just talking about Osama, even THESE TWO MUSLIMS in this book talk about it. Haha, so what? And I know Muslim scholars personally who can rebut books written in their entirety by "Hollywood scholars" like that. Usually people without a strong foundation in religion end up writing books like that. Already done. Until Osama produces a degree in Classical Arabic (yes, there are degrees) then he can't be an authority on the subject. Hah, as if meanings of root words aren't a major topic of debate! Jews and Christians still debate over words like "virgin". Don't buy it because I'm not selling it. Like I told you a hundred times before. Take those passages to a major mosque in the area and ask about them, don't just put in your pocket the idea that "THE RAZI quoted by none other than AYOUB was unable to give a convincing explanation for a few passages" Yes it's VERY likely, and who are these two by the way, do you know them? Um, actually it was resolved around 632 AD when the Qur'an, containing tens of passages talking about God's omniscience, had completely been revealed. Christ's ignorance of certain things is a factor because there are historical accounts of when he didn't know things. But where do you find a point when God didn't know something, if you think you do, how on Earth did you prove that God wasn't aware of it? Fair enough. So you know what I'm going to say to you right now? Go to a mosque and demand that they pull out a Classical Arabic dictionary and sit down and get your questions answered. I wouldn't trust a kid on the internet anyway so just do that. What kinds of Prophecies and miracles did each author of the NT perform?
|
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame