Need some info/advice, please

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mary

Puritan Board Freshman
I saw one of my sisters yesterday and she mentioned that she has been reading the "Gnostic Gospels." I know next to nothing about this subject (Gee, how unusual, right?), so I didn't say much in return; I sort of gave her a "well isn't that special" type response. But after some careful consideration, I have decided that if they are not in the Bible, there must be a reason. (I know, my intellectual prowess has left you shocked and awed, right? Manata, zip it! www.zipit.com!)

*What are they?
*Why are they not included in the Bible?
*What should I say to her next time I see her?

BTW, I don't know which is the right forum for this post - I must have spent 10 minutes just trying to decide where to post this, so I hope I didn't mess up...

Dazed and confused...(well, really just confused)

Mary :puzzled:
 
I've read some of them. One of them includes a talking cross. They weren't included because they were written way after the authors they claim to be written by. They contradict other scriptures. And thirdly, as any thoughtful reader will see, they're just plain stupid.
 
There are good and bad books that are labeled 'apocrypha.' The criteria for canonicity in the early Church was whether or not the writtings are faithful to the oral tradition of the apostles. The concept of a 'canon' in which some books were inspired and some weren't, was unheard of. So, it wasn't until 3rd or 4rth centuries when the Church narrowed down the writtings to a specified set. However, there were of course, books they declared as false and others as true. It's just that the concept of a specific grouping of books was under formation.

The four gospels and the writtings of Paul were generally the first to gain acceptance. The 'general epistles' were the ones that got more criticism and were called 'the disputed books'; also, in this category were books that we don't have in our Bible today. Some of these books were accepted more or less as Scripture, others were labeled 'ecunumical (sp?) books' or 'deuterocanonical'. The 'ecunumical books' were only useful for spiritual gain and not considered as on par with the other more faithful writtings.

Other 'apocrypha' books were strictly banned. These were false gospels and false epistles. One of the main tests for the validity of the writtings was the time of composition. Was it written during the time of the apostles? If not, they were generally thrown out. Exceptions were books such as 'Sheperd of Hermas' and 'Didache'. As I said, they were useful for general reading, but not before the undisputed writtings. The Apostolic (and earlier) Fathers quoted from the non-canonical books quite a bit. They didn't usually discriminate when writting polemics (until later).

Due to gnositc heresies, the Church was forced to define the limits of the canon more and more. The majority of these writtings were gnostic and written for the purpose of deceiving people. Gradually, these works became of less influence as the Church begain defining the limits.

The term 'apocrypha' is a style of writting. It means 'hidden things' in Greek. For instance, the book of 'Revelation' is apocryphal. To my knowledge, the early Church used the term to refer to 'bad books'. Now, we use the term to describe all books that were written for the purpose of carrying some sort of divine message, but were not canonical. In todays usage, these books can be either good or bad reading material.

Also, there was OT apocrypha. Such as Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach etc. Here is an incomplete list of early NT apocrypha: [quote:175dd9e580]Apocryphal Acts
The Acts of Andrew

The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew

The Acts of Andrew and Matthew

The Acts of Barnabas

The Acts of John

The Acts of John the Theologian

The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew

The Martyrdom of Matthew

The Acts of Paul

The Acts of Peter

The Acts of Peter and Andrew

The Acts of Peter and Paul

The Acts of Philip

The Acts of Thomas

The Consummation of Thomas



Apocalyptic Texts
The Revelation of John the Theologian

The Revelation (or Vision) of Paul (from the Ante-Nicene Fathers)
The Revelation of Paul (another version, source is not identified)

The Apocalypse of Peter (from the Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol X.) Note that an entirely different text of this name is found in the Nag Hammadi Library.
The Apocalypse of Peter (another translation, from The Apocryphal New Testament)
The Revelation of Stephen

The Apocalypse of Thomas

The Apocalypse of the Virgin


Apocryphal Gospels
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Greek Text A

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Greek Text B

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: Latin Text

A Compilation of the Thomas Texts (c. 5th Century)

An Arabic Infancy Gospel

The Gospel of James

The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary

The Gospel of Mary of Bethany (or Magdalene)

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

The Gospel of Nicodemos (The Acts of Pilate)

The Gospel of Bartholomew

The Gospel of Peter

The Gospel of the Lord by Marcion

The Secret Gospel of Mark



Other Early Christian Writings
Didache.
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus, King of Edessa.
Ephraim of Syria`s The Pearl: Seven Hymns on the Faith.
Ephraim of Syria`s Hymn Against Bar-Daisan.
The Epistle of the Apostles.
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle.
[/quote:175dd9e580]

hope this helps,
Paul

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by rembrandt]
 
[quote:766194a977]*What should I say to her next time I see her?[/quote:766194a977]

Tell her she is wasting her time if she is not doing it for the sake of some really interesting history of early writtings.

However, they can be of *some* spiritual usage (the better ones that are not gnostic). Abraham Kuyper was once greatly comforted after recalling a Scripture verse in his head. He couldn't remember where in the Bible it was found. It turned out to be a verse in one of the better apocryphal books. He made note of it, and said that he was always going to remember the comfort of that verse.

I have not yet read some of the better ones (Hermas, Didache), but as Ianterrell said, they are mostly garbage. So it depends on which ones she is reading.

Paul

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by rembrandt]
 
[quote:dfbd682ae3][i:dfbd682ae3]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:dfbd682ae3]
Puritan Abraham Kuyper[/quote:dfbd682ae3]

Kuyper was a 19th-20th century Dutchman. He was not a Puritan.

Lon
 
[quote:81bf361b31][i:81bf361b31]Originally posted by panicbird[/i:81bf361b31]
[quote:81bf361b31][i:81bf361b31]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:81bf361b31]
Puritan Abraham Kuyper[/quote:81bf361b31]

Kuyper was a 19th-20th century Dutchman. He was not a Puritan.

Lon [/quote:81bf361b31]

Yeah, I keep getting him mixed up with someone else for some reason. I will edit my post. I'm not knowledgable of anything after the Early Church yet. :)
 
[quote:6dbe523032][i:6dbe523032]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:6dbe523032]
They are, at the earliest, second century documents.

They emphasize a Platonic view that the "spiritual" is what's important and matter is "evil."

Be careful she doesn't get into the Da Vici Code. The Bible actually talks about them. "They follow a knowledge (that's "gnosis" greek for knowledge) falsely so-called."

-Paul [/quote:6dbe523032]

Not all are second century. Not all are gnostic.
 
I second what Paul Manata says:

Reading these gnostic "gospels" for spiritual enrichment is actually destructive.

Gnostics believe matter is evil...that there is a spiritual war between good and evil that's eternal....that satan is Jesus' brother, etc. These are not even a sub category of Christian literature.
 
I don't think Rembrandt was advocating the use of the Gnostic Gospels for spiritual comfort; he was saying that some of the "other" apocryphal books might be used that way.
I read one of them, Ecclesiasticus I think it was, because I thought the Bible it was in just called Ecclesiastes by that name. After a few chapters I realized I was reading an apocryphal book, and it was actually quite good. A lot of wisdom there. But that would CERTAINLY not go for the Gnostic Gospels! They are false gospels and false teachings and should certainly not be "embraced" for any reason.
 
[quote:9d1aa6fa04][i:9d1aa6fa04]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:9d1aa6fa04]
[quote:9d1aa6fa04][i:9d1aa6fa04]Originally posted by panicbird[/i:9d1aa6fa04]
[quote:9d1aa6fa04][i:9d1aa6fa04]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:9d1aa6fa04]
Puritan Abraham Kuyper[/quote:9d1aa6fa04]

Kuyper was a 19th-20th century Dutchman. He was not a Puritan.

Lon [/quote:9d1aa6fa04]

Yeah, I keep getting him mixed up with someone else for some reason. I will edit my post. I'm not knowledgable of anything after the Early Church yet. :) [/quote:9d1aa6fa04]

I am not very knowledgeable of the Early Church, so you got me beat! :)

I know there were some guys who did some stuff and wrote some things. That is about it, right? :D

Lon
 
Craig, I was not saying the gnostic gospels are good. Only the ones that were said to be deuterocanonical by the Early Church.

Paul, From what I understand, most of the deuterocanonical books were thought to be written very close to the time of the apostles, even during their lifetime. However I realize that recent studies disprove alot of those assumptions (possibly).

Paul
 
[quote:9a18e073eb][i:9a18e073eb]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:9a18e073eb]
I was only referring to the gnostic gosples. And yes, scholarship has shown that they were written no realier than the second century [/quote:9a18e073eb]

Oh. I didn't even see that the "gnostic gospels" was Mary's primary question. Sorry, got a bit off subject!
 
[quote:b702dd32b4]
[i:b702dd32b4]Rembrandt[/i:b702dd32b4]
Craig, I was not saying the gnostic gospels are good.
[/quote:b702dd32b4]

I know. I was directing my comment to Mary since she asked advice since her sister [i:b702dd32b4]is[/i:b702dd32b4] reading the gnostic "gospels".
 
Hello Boys,

First of all, let me say that I am SO glad that I'm not the only person who gets off track in their responses!

Second of all, thank you all for your responses thus far. Let me give you just a teeny-weeny bit of background, and then you can tell me if I'm off base in my concern.

I was actually worried the second she told me she was reading them, even though I didn't know what exactly they are. She is about to file for divorce. Her current husband is an agnostic (or atheist) I'm not sure; I have avoided him as long as she's been with him. Her first husband was a Catholic, and she converted to marry him. She is in a dark place, emotionally and mentally. She has been starving (spiritually speaking) for years.

So...now that you know that, should I be WORRIED (and I mean Hale-Bopp worried)???

How do I explain to her how the books of the Bible are...I don't know how to say what I mean and I'm really tired right now (and should be sleeping, but I have to see the end of the basketball game)...how do I explain how it was decided which books of the Bible are from God and others aren't? (Does that make any sense - and PLEASE don't jump on me if I expressed it badly!?!)

Looking for more answers...

Thanks to all of you!!!

Mary
 
[quote:de517cde31]how do I explain how it was decided which books of the Bible are from God and others aren't?[/quote:de517cde31]

Does my first post answer that? Historically, canon was decided by deciphering which books hold to the apostlic [i:de517cde31]tradition[/i:de517cde31] in which they received. In the Reformation era, Luther used this simple tool: Does this book rightfully proclaim Christ?

And yes, you should be worried about this. Though the early Church said *some* of what we know as 'apocrypha' was good reading material, they said that these books should NOT be read by anyone who is a novice in the faith and has yet to understand the undisputed books. For the simple fact that they could contain errors, in which we know now that they DO.

The GNOSTIC GOSPELS have always been shunned by the Church. They are NOT to be read, unless for the fun of history. [b:de517cde31]If she is a Roman Catholic, tell her that the Roman Catholic Church has BANNED her from reading that material. They decreed it long ago, and they NEVER said the gnostic gospels were good.[/b:de517cde31]

Some of these books do contain very true accounts from 'Q' sources that the 'fourfold gospel' writters used. But they are always with a heretical twist. Tell her the books are banned, and she is not obeying her church!

Paul
 
Paul (manata) is the expert on apologetics...

My "advice"? Is she looking for THE CHRISTIAN God? If she IS, then contrasting the gnostic ideas with what is written in the Old and New Testament would be good. It is easy for people (and yes, women especially) to get hooked on gnostic ideas during tumultuous times in life. It's always more "spiritual" to reject the earth, matter....life. Those seem to be the source of problems, so reject them, right? Perhaps a good place to start would be how real her problems are. How real sin is. How God provides a solution...that hurts. She needs to know that gnosticism is avoiding her problems. Neglecting sin. It always says "the problem is outside of you". Let her know that sin is real and she is suffering (whether or not it's self inflicted) the results of it. From what many have told me, Jerry Bridges "Trusting God" may be a good resource for her. It presents a biblically Reformed approach to dealing with life's problems and seeing that God is truly in control.

If nothing else, pray for her! I will too.
 
Hey Mary -
I'm guessing your sister probably read the Da Vinci Code. Its one of the most pagan things I've ever read (well I read most of it anyway), except for maybe some Ayn Rand (but then what's more pagan than Ayn Rand? I've read the KORAN and wasn't as horrified as what I saw in Rand.) Anyway, one of the major premises in the Da Vinci code is that during the Council of Nicea (AD 325, I think), they were trying to form a canon that would present Jesus as divine, thus they had to get rid of the gnostic gospels, because they didn't serve their purposes. The author (Dan Brown) said that the vote was quite close - but that's a lie. The vote was actually 312 to 2, if I recall correctly, and it was on whether Jesus was homoousios (one substance - with the Father, that is) or homoiousios (like substance - a god maybe, but not quite God). The difference of one iota, but a significant one nonetheless. Anyway, the book sets up male and female divinities, and so it appeals to a lot of women (who can't remember that the book was shelved in the FICTION section when the bought it) who are now going back to the gnostic gospels and trying to find hints pointing to the female deity. Besides that I know of few people who bother to read the gnostic gospels. There are a lot of connections with the Scottish Rite masons there.

The reason they are not in the canon is because they aren't scripture.

There is only one requirement for something to be scripture, and that is if God said it. If He did, then it is. God spoke by His prophets and through the apostles, having them record the revelation they received. Also they could accept something someone else had written as canon. Thus, when the last apostle died (John), the canon was closed. There no longer remained any apostles to record in writing the flood of revelation received with the advent of Christ. And since God Himself came down to earth, there could be no further improvement on that revelation (that is, until we see Him in heaven and unhindered by our sin). Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, please.

Back to your sister. She's seeking spiritually, right? But she won't find Him for whom her soul seeks in the gnostic gospels. If Jesus isn't divine then there is no gospel. If He isn't human then there is no gospel. Pray for her, point her away from those documents and towards the Christ of Scripture. That's not very specific advice, I know, and having me write down platitudes isn't very helpful. But I will pray for her.
 
Wow. Great responses - thank you! Couple of things and some more questions:

1. Rembrandt - I did see your first post (I wasn't ignoring it) - see my followup questions below. Also, she converted to Catholicism when she married her 1st husband, and I don't think she's been to Mass in years. Her 2nd husband is a major anti-Christian guy. (she's done some serious compromising in her faith over the years, although I can't criticize!). So I can't use the Catholic Church to stop her from reading it...see below.

2. Paul Manata - Great website! Yet MORE books I need to read...what I need is to quit my job and read full-time. Haha. I was fascinated with Peter Jones' article about Gnosticism in the Mainline churches...

OK, now, Guys...to formulate my follow up questions (understanding that I'm not trying to start a debate or be a wiseacre; I'm just trying to foresee as many of her responses as possible)...

If I understand correctly what has been said here, the books which were included in the Bible were not selected until the 3rd century, right? Well (she might say) by then the Catholic Church was already developing "agendas" - retroactively making Peter the first pope (which Catholics will tell you didn't actually happen until after he was dead) and etc. Plus (in the "men are evil" category) men were trying to suppress any teachings that emphasized female power. (You know, like how the Church went after the herbalist women, calling them witches, etc...) This is the kind of stuff I hear all the time from women who cannot believe that I would embrace a faith that "oppresses" me. Sigh. And I never know how to answer stuff like this...What I need is a "Batphone"...or Cyrano deBergerac standing around feeding my responses to me...

I am very much afraid that she is NOT seeking after the Christian God, that she is quite lost. If I had to interpret her behavior, I would have to say that she feels so disillusioned and angry right now, that she will embrace whatever makes her feel powerful, and it sounds like the gnostic gospels (with their emphasis on God as a female !?) would do that...

Mary
 
[quote:f95f3b81a7]If I understand correctly what has been said here, the books which were included in the Bible were not selected until the 3rd century, right? Well (she might say) by then the Catholic Church was already developing "agendas" - retroactively making Peter the first pope (which Catholics will tell you didn't actually happen until after he was dead) and etc.[/quote:f95f3b81a7]

The LIMITS of the canon were not pronounced "dogmatically by creed" until councils in the 3rd century. Books were generally decided as true or false, before that. Its just that the [i:f95f3b81a7]CONCEPT[/i:f95f3b81a7] of a limited specified canon was still under formation. [b:f95f3b81a7]The declarations of the 3rd and 4rth centuries were just stating what was already understood and accepted by the Church atlarge. So they did not decide that at that date, they only decided to accept it in the creed.[/b:f95f3b81a7]

Paul
 
[quote:c370ec3d80]The LIMITS of the canon were not pronounced "dogmatically by creed" until councils in the 3rd century.[/quote:c370ec3d80]

By saying "limits," I am not saying that there were not some books that they were not sure of. I am just saying that the EXACT canon that they decreed in that council, is the EXACT canon that we have today.

NOTE: while they may have been hesitant on a number of books, this was NOT the [i:c370ec3d80]gnostic gospels[/i:c370ec3d80]. They were already banned. So she has no excuse.

Paul
 
Manata,

How about I just give you her phone number? :D

"Does he want my e-mail address?" Hahaha.

Ok, now onto the serious stuff. I am still (yes, STILL) needing serious help and guidance about this, and I am in a difficult place, because I don't want to hurt her (she's in so much pain already) and I don't want to cause a family fight either. But I'm really worried about her, and I appreciate you taking time to help out on this one.

"Some "debate" tips. Anytime anyone says this kind of stuff ("well they might have" etc) you need to point out that this is just ignorant conjecture. Don't let people "bully" you by mere opinions. You need to get past this and ask them to justify their claim. They are claiming X is true. Ask them how they *know* this."

OK, when she asks me how *I know* the Bible is accurate, what do I say?

"They will give you their justification, Y. Attack Y. How does anyone know what was going on inside the head of people thousands of years ago?"

How do WE know what was going on inside the head of people thousands of years ago? (I'm truly not mocking you by repeating everything back to you - I'm really asking.)

"This is arbitrary and you can always reverse arbitrariness by saying, "well, no they were not." Or, how about this one. "No, you have an agenda to discredit the Bible and the gnostics had an agenda to undermine Biblical teaching."

I like that ("you have an agenda to discredit...") except, I don't think that this is...intentional on her part. I don't think she woke up one day and said, "I don't believe the Bible and I also hate men!" I think that this is just more of that "fuzzy thinking" that is soooo common today. I have another sister (MO Synod) who says that she doesn't care about gay marriage, she just wishes they would shut up about it. And my stepmom said recently that Jesus and Buddha were both great teachers. You have to understand that all 3 of these women come from a much stronger fundamentalist background than I ever did, so it's VERY SCARY for me to see how much their opinions have been changed (note I used the passive there; I am CONVINCED that this is not intentional on their part).

***sidebar: You guys would have been sooo proud of me - I refuted my stepmom's Jesus & Buddha thing!***

"You need to point out that, upon analysis, what people who say these kinds of things are saying is this: "well, if Christianity were false then you would have a problem with the canon." This is uninteresting!"

Did you just insult me? Uninteresting? You didn't HAVE to respond, you know...:(:wink:

"No, if you learn the presuppositional method of apologetics you can be prepared to answer *any man.*"

I think I get presup apologetics - let me try one: If someone were to say that San Diego has the best Mexican food in the world, this PRESUPPOSES that anyone cares...:p

"The Bible tells us that no one seeks after God. Our worldview can even account for why man does not seek God. And, yes, all men are lost without Jesus."

That was in reponse to someone (Craig, I think) saying, was she looking for the Christian God in her reading of these "gospels"...I think she is looking for "truth". She might even be looking for "The Truth" but I don't think she will find it where she's looking.

"She may say "god" has female qualites that "it" expresses itself to us. Then, ask for her revelation of this "god." Proceede to refute this revelation."

You make it sound so easy. "Proceed to refute this revelation." That is the apologetics equivalent of the Control Tower talking the passenger through landing the plane after the pilot dies. "Pull back on the throttle." Here I am, saying WHAT'S THE THROTTLE?!?!?

If possible, I am now MORE confused (and scared to do this) than I was on Sunday when I first talked to her. I can see this really becoming a bad thing, and she isn't a stranger. I will have to see her at family gatherings for the rest of our lives. Things are already a little strained between us ever since our cousin's wedding last fall - my date got a little schnockered and pretended to stab her husband in the neck with a pen (a la Grosse Pointe Blank). Ahem.

Here's what I think: I think you ought to go into business as a rogue theologian. You can be like the Lone Ranger, rescuing us simple folk (and damsels in distress) from bad theology! After you leave town, people will ask: "Who was that bald man?!"

You're still not forgiven for the "this is uninteresting" slam. That was just mean. But I'll give you a big smiley anyway, because I still need your help. You have a chance to redeem yourself for ungentlemanly conduct. :(

Mary :bs2:
 
We-ellll, now that I know you weren't slamming me by saying "this is uninteresting"...But maybe "forgiven" isn't the right word.

How about "Alles klar, Herr Kommissar"?

Mary :bs2:
 
Mary,

There are a number of excellent books that go over exactly how the canon was formed and why the gnostic gospels were never included. These arguments about the gnostic gospels have been around for centuries and have been refuted time and time again, so no need to re-invent the wheel. I would recommend FF Bruce's book "The Canon of Scripture". I am sure there are other good resources as well.
 
Sometimes I think Paul Manata deserves a hug because he's so witty and smart. He seems like a teddy-bear ninja. Watch out!
 
[quote:49d6cdf5a5][i:49d6cdf5a5]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:49d6cdf5a5]
Mary,

There are a number of excellent books that go over exactly how the canon was formed and why the gnostic gospels were never included. These arguments about the gnostic gospels have been around for centuries and have been refuted time and time again, so no need to re-invent the wheel. I would recommend FF Bruce's book "The Canon of Scripture". I am sure there are other good resources as well. [/quote:49d6cdf5a5]

I second that recommendation. I just got done reading it myself.
 
[quote:38829f9c58][i:38829f9c58]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:38829f9c58]
[quote:38829f9c58][i:38829f9c58]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:38829f9c58]
Mary,

There are a number of excellent books that go over exactly how the canon was formed and why the gnostic gospels were never included. These arguments about the gnostic gospels have been around for centuries and have been refuted time and time again, so no need to re-invent the wheel. I would recommend FF Bruce's book "The Canon of Scripture". I am sure there are other good resources as well. [/quote:38829f9c58]

I second that recommendation. I just got done reading it myself. [/quote:38829f9c58]

I've got to read through the posts when I can really concentrate, but I can say this:

Yes, I could read a book on the subject, but (and I'm not kidding here) it could take me months and months to grasp what is in a book. That's why I'm tapping you guys for info - I am still stumbling over Chosen by God (Sproul) and I've read it about 4 times...The situation is that I am going to be seeing her again on Father's Day and I want to be able to talk with her then. If I order a book now, there is NO WAY I will be able to read it and understand the concepts by Father's Day. (Maybe if I didn't go to work...)

I will be ordering the book you recommended...but I need a stopgap.

Paul,

I see you responded - I will respond later.

Mary :bs2:
 
Mary,

I understand your situation. Unfortunately there are no quick answers. What Paul is recommending is good regarding debating, but its not going to help you in the short term, plus Paul has been doing his thing for a while and has it down. And obviously you are not going to be able to get through an entire book by Father's Day (but I am glad to see you are going to order it. The vast majority of Christians are ignorant about how the Canon was formed).

Here is a link to Bakers Evangelical Dictionary where it discusses the formation of the Canon that you might find helpful. It give the basics as to the criteria for inclusion.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi

Actually, the crosswalk site is pretty good. It has a lot of commentaries, theological dictionaries, bible translations and other stuff that is very helpful.
 
Mary-
There is a book that may be right up your alley! It's $4.99...is written by two people with solid sources backing up their ideas. The book is geared toward dismantling The DaVinci Code and in the process undermines the validity of the gnostic gospels.

The book is cheap, easy to read, and packed with enough info that one really couldn't take gnosticism or The Davinci Code seriously.

The title of the book is:
[b:673c5829e2]The Davinci Code: Fact or Fiction?[/b:673c5829e2]
It's written by Hank Hannegraff and Paul Maier.

Click here for a link to see what the book looks like. You could order it and pay shipping...but you can find it at Barnes and Noble for the same price. Hope this may be helpful!

[Edited on 6-6-2004 by Craig]
 
Maier's is Lutheran, at least! He's more colorful and doesn't use those crazy anagrams that Hank loves so much. Oh, and Maier's wrote most of it (makes it stronger, I think).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
I need help (Greek Scholars please help!)
Replies
2
Views
2K
Reformed1
R
JasonGoodwin
  • Locked
Links to God's Sovereignty??? I need some input
Replies
9
Views
3K
JasonGoodwin
JasonGoodwin
Eoghan
  • Locked
Info on "Prophesyings"
Replies
2
Views
3K
Eoghan
Eoghan
C4MERON
Thoughts/advice?
Replies
11
Views
798
Jerusalem Blade
Jerusalem Blade
Sovereign Grace
  • Locked
Please help!!
Replies
7
Views
2K
JonC
JonC
Back
Top