|
Post by Mary on Apr 21, 2015 11:54:13 GMT -5
Because a Father is greater than the Son does not mean they are not part of the same family I.e Trinity in this case.Together they are God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are times when the Father is called the Father. There are times when He is called God. There are times when Jesus is called the Son. There are times when He is called God. They both have different roles and functions in the Godhead the same as any Father and Son have different roles in any family. And yes like Nathan said Jesus lowered himself to become a man. He went back to His glory with the Father after the resurrection
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 21, 2015 12:52:32 GMT -5
The Bible says Jesus was God with us. The Father called the Son God. Thomas called Jesus God. Was the Father Catholic? Was God Catholic? What I was pointing out was that because a person believes something in the Bible it does not make them Catholic if the Catholic's believe something similar and that those in meetings do plenty of things that are Catholic, does that mean they believe Mary was born of a virgin too? Protestants believe in the Trinity in as far as Jesus was God in the flesh and that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Given that the majority of Protestants believe in the Trinity it was those who got burned at the stake. Those who believed in the Trinity got burned at the stake. The Workers seem pretty confused. Some workers believe that Jesus was God, some don't. Most of the early workers apparently did while most today do not when I was taught the Way of God never changes. Just to set this straight, it was those who did NOT believe in the Trinity that got burned at the stake. Catholics, by the time of the Inquisition, were Trinitarians. Those who disagreed did not believe in the Trinity and they were the ones that were killed in various ways, one of which was being burned alive. churches-of-christ.ws/earlycoc.htm
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 21, 2015 13:07:50 GMT -5
The article relates to a church called The Church of Christ which believes it is the true church. A church which does not believe in the Trinity.
Protestants were burned at the stake for not believing in infant baptism and any number of Catholic teachings. The ana Baptists which the article talks about were killed because they brought in adult baptism and rejected infant baptism of the Catholic church. They believe in the incarnation of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by responding on Apr 21, 2015 13:28:12 GMT -5
The Workers seem pretty confused. Some workers believe that Jesus was God, some don't. Most of the early workers apparently did while most today do not when I was taught the Way of God never changes. Jesus is called God in some places of the scripture, which means that Jesus is divine (God-like). That's why some say they believe in the trinity, thinking it simply means "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". Only when they find out what the word "trinity" actually means, as in R.C. doctrine, they must say, "I don't believe in that." The trinity doctrine holds that Jesus = God (i.e. Mary, mother of God).
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 21, 2015 13:35:38 GMT -5
Mary is the mother of the human Jesus. Fully divine and fully human because the Father was divine and Mary was human. I think the confusion might be as some teach the Trinity is Jesus and the Father are one being which may be the Catholic view of the Trinity, not sure. That is certainly one understanding of the Trinity while most protestants do not believe they are one being but 3 separate beings making up God Which people also call the Trinity.
The Bible says God not God like.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 21, 2015 13:47:57 GMT -5
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
John 14:28 ... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 14:09:35 GMT -5
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
John 14:28 ... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
This is, perhaps, the most helpful contribution to this debate yet, Matt10
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 21, 2015 14:16:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 21, 2015 14:26:43 GMT -5
We all have opinions, usually formed by prior experiences whatever they might be. We should all be able to discuss these opinions without resorting to 'emotive reasoning'. No kidding. But anyone can see that for quite a few people it goes way past personal opinion, personal belief, and personal conviction. For them everyone needs to think the way they do, if they don't something is wrong with THEM. Why does man so often default to thinking he needs to control his fellow man, even down to the way he thinks? Take for instance the Athanasian Creed quoted below. It's said to define "the doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of Christ in very concise language" - the best opinion man has to offer on the subject. It includes the word "incomprehensible" to describe what it is professing to help us comprehend. That is an obvious logical short circuit. I don't think that is what God means when he says "let us sit down and reason together". Like Snow has pointed out - many people have been condemned and killed because of man made thinking like that represented in that creed: If so called Christians squabble and kill each other over something like this what hope is there for Christians and Muslims, or anyone else, to get along? There isn't any hope of getting along when there's men thinking they need to be inflicting these kinds of personal opinions on their fellow men. Like Snow said it is really depressing. I wonder what God and Jesus think when they consider this creed and all the man made fighting, condemning, and confusion over what it represents. So much of this kind of opinion is so far away from the basic and easy to understand things Jesus taught and lived. Some, no a lot, of this kind of opinion is so far out I don't know if even God can wink over its ignorance. Why does anyone feel so moved to come along thinking they can do better with man made creeds and doctrines? Jesus left two commandments - if everyone in the world simply lived just the second one it would be more effective than the thousands words in man made creeds and doctrines. Think about the stand alone, simple,and basic things Jesus taught that if lived would change the world. Things that "against such there is no law". Things that if lived would eliminate cutting off heads and beating up others with what you think they think, or should think. The two commandments are an example. Matthew 5,6,7 have a bunch. If lived the world would be a completely different place, a much better place, and so would this board.
|
|
tom
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by tom on Apr 21, 2015 15:16:50 GMT -5
Roselyn - talking about the word confusion you and others might find the following interesting. Review005 cannot line up with the Bible in this discussion and simply say "Jesus is God" as Jesus himself claimed to be, as the Apostles knew Him to be and as God the Father had it recorded about his Son Hebrews 1, John 1 etc). However, in a post on TMB on 5 November 2014 at 9:10pm, review005 stated the following: In examining myself I find it his divinity that I most deeply appreciate and speak of. I also appreciate his humanity of course and that he understood and experienced what we do. I understand Jesus to be fully God and fully man. Something that is beyond the my human mind to comprehend.Confused? Ross do you think those that don't believe in the trinity could still be saved?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 21, 2015 15:40:20 GMT -5
Some theologians hold the attempt to derive the Trinity doctrine from the Bible to be hopelessly naïve...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 15:44:28 GMT -5
Another useful contribution. Continuing the informative theme here. What is provided below are links to articles by Dale Tuggy (http://trinities.org/dale/tuggycv.pdf) which appear to contradict some of the grand claims which have been made on this thread. I have copied out some interesting extracts for the benefit of those who don't/won't generally read links. Readers can make up their own minds as to which claims or claimants are more credible. Matt10 trinities.org/dale/unfinished.pdfTHREE PITFALLS AND AN INCONSISTENT TRIAD Anyone who talks to many Christians about the Trinity will discover that there is no one set of beliefs held by all, despite there being standard formulae which nearly all endorse. [.....] I want to focus on three basic problems which threaten trinitarian theories: inconsistency, unintelligibility, and poor fit with the Bible. Let us consider these in turn. Some trinitarian claims appear to be contradictory. This is a problem, for what is contradictory is also false. Others seem unintelligible. That is, one cannot understand what the speaker or writer is saying; they are using words, but for all one can tell, they are not really saying anything. Finally, some trinitarian claims seem to either contradict or not fit together well with the clear teachings of the Bible..... plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#Intro2.1 The Old Testament No trinitarian doctrine is explicitly taught in the Old Testament. Sophisticated trinitarians grant this, holding that the doctrine was revealed by God only later, in New Testament times (c.50–c.100) and/or in the Patristic era (c. 100–800). They usually also add, though, that with hindsight, we can see that a number of texts either portray or forshadow the co-working of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 2.2 The New Testament The New Testament contains no explicit trinitarian doctrine. However, many Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers hold that the doctrine can be inferred from what the New Testament does teach about God. [.....] In contrast, other Christians admit that their preferred doctrine of the Trinity not only (1) can't be inferred from the Bible alone, but also (2) that there's inadequate or no evidence for it there, and even (3) that what is taught in the Bible is incompatible with the doctrine. These Christians believe the doctrine solely on the authority of later doctrinal pronouncements of the True Christian Church (typically one of: the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox tradition, or the mainstream of the Christian tradition, broadly understood). Some Catholic apologists have argued that this doctrine shows the necessity of the teaching authority of the Church, this doctrine being constitutive of Christianity but underivable from the Bible apart from the Church's guidance in interpreting it. This stance is not popular among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. (2) would be the main sticking point, although some groups deny all three. 3.1.1 The One God in the Trinity Early Christianity was theologically diverse, although as time went on a “catholic” movement, a bishop-led, developing organization which, at least from the late second century, claimed to be the true successors of Jesus' apostles, became increasingly dominant, out-competing many gnostic and quasi-Jewish groups. Still, confining our attention to what scholars now call this “catholic” or “proto-orthodox” Christianity, it contained divergent views about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 5. Post-Medieval Developments The doctrine's basis or lack of basis in the New Testament, so vehemently debated from the 16th through the 19th centuries, is not presently a popular topic of debate. This is probably because some theologians hold the attempt to derive the doctrine from the Bible to be hopelessly naive, while other theologians, many Christian philosophers and apologists accept the common arguments (see section 2.2 above) as decisive. [....] Finally, it may simply be that trust in the mainstream tradition, or in various particular Christian traditions, currently runs high; many confess trinitarianism simply because their church officially does, or because it and/or the mainstream tradition tells them that the Bible teaches it
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 21, 2015 18:29:57 GMT -5
We all have opinions, usually formed by prior experiences whatever they might be. We should all be able to discuss these opinions without resorting to 'emotive reasoning'. No kidding. But anyone can see that for quite a few people it goes way past personal opinion, personal belief, and personal conviction. For them everyone needs to think the way they do, if they don't something is wrong with THEM. That may be so to a certain extent, but I believe frustration sets in when one poster fires back a pretty terse response and it is plain to see that they haven't really understood the other position. Sometimes they really do see but seem so set in their own convictions that their mind refuses to accommodate this new information, it's interesting to watch the twisting. I am fairly neutral in this discussion - I understand both sides of the belief so I have been interested to sit and watch.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 21, 2015 19:14:34 GMT -5
I notice RB in the discussion about confusion avoids any comment on this post: "RB has got the word 'confusion' on his brain the last few hours '2x2s confusion this', '2x2s confusion that'.
Anyway He doesn't know the meaning of the word confusion!
He needs to read media reports about the Anglican synod, Aussie, UK, where ever. One group pro gay marriage, another group against it. One group pro woman bishops, another group against it. Then there will be some finance thing come up, then some property thing. But God the son,God the Holy Spirit, trinity etc is on their lips".
Rather he drags Clyde MacKay in. Ross holds Clyde guilty of many things..... but surely not the woes the Anglican church? The embarrassing issues it has with practising gay clergymen (google it if you have any doubt, openly gay bishops also), the same sex marriage debate, pro and anti woman bishop factions. Then the age old humdrum property and financial scandals and woes as well? The combatants 99.5 % (as Ross quotes) have the trinity terminology on their lips as they side by side debate their respective causes.... within the ' united' non exclusive Anglican synod. But it seems this is not confusion... the 2x2s hold the monopoly on that in the gospel according to ross. go figure Review I believe it was in fact you that mentioned confusion, also you have still not answered my question, is the confusion you accuse Ross of like the confusion of Clyde Mackay who re-baptised an ex-worker who committed CSA ? Funny how you won't answer this one isn't it ! You are so busy putting Ross down you don't even see what is happening in your own Church !
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 21, 2015 19:17:14 GMT -5
Those who write the articles seem to think some are confused about the Trinity which may mean they are the ones who are confused or don't understand. Easy to understand. God consists of 3 person's. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each is a part of God. The Catholic view might be that the 3 are one being, taking different forms but that is not generally the Protestant view. I think some might be confused because they see there are 2 views. There are many views on many parts of the Bible so nothing wrong with that. Having 2 views is minor and easy to understand. Maybe we should have another name for the Protestant view.
View 1: The 3 are different forms of the one being. View 2: There are 3 separate persons which make up the one God. View 1 seems to be Catholic, View 2 seems to be protestant. Protestants claimed that Jesus was not the Father thus the hearsay.
The first view is that a person can be a father, son, and husband. The one person with 3 different roles or like water 2 forms, steam liquid and ice. This appears to be the Catholic view but I might be wrong. The second view is like different people in a family. One the father, one the son one the sister etc. Completely different people but all making up the same family. The second view seems to be the protestant view. That's how I see it anyway and not confusing for me.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 21, 2015 20:35:05 GMT -5
It does not say that the devil could not try to tempt God. As we know the devil tried to tempt Jesus but Jesus was not tempted. We say you can try all you want but you can't tempt me. E.g.offer me some cocolate and I might say offer me it all you want but you can't tempt me. That is exactly how I read it. Jesus was tempted, just like we are, but never sinned! Luke 4 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil Hebrews 4 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin God cannot be tempted James 1 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. The pro-trinity group haven't explained how this scripture can be reconciled. 1. If our great high priest is God, why wouldn't God be touched with the feeling of our infirmities even before Jesus? 2. God cannot be tempted with evil, so why did the writer to the Hebrews consider it important that Jesus the Son of God was in all points tempted like as we are - and that he was without sin? Trinitarians seem to be denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh - by making him God.
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on Apr 21, 2015 20:42:41 GMT -5
Roselyn - talking about the word confusion you and others might find the following interesting. Review005 cannot line up with the Bible in this discussion and simply say "Jesus is God" as Jesus himself claimed to be, as the Apostles knew Him to be and as God the Father had it recorded about his Son Hebrews 1, John 1 etc). However, in a post on TMB on 5 November 2014 at 9:10pm, review005 stated the following: In examining myself I find it his divinity that I most deeply appreciate and speak of. I also appreciate his humanity of course and that he understood and experienced what we do. I understand Jesus to be fully God and fully man. Something that is beyond the my human mind to comprehend.Confused? Ross do you think those that don't believe in the trinity could still be saved? Tom - I love the following verses in Romans 10: If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation. Now the Scripture says, Everyone who believes on Him will not be put to shame, for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on Him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. I'm not so interested in the word "Trinity". It was a concept/doctrine developed based on Scripture to make it clear who God is when heretics challenged it. Folk can have an intellectual understanding of the true nature and character of God but not believe in their heart nor confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord. They go on living as if nothing has changed. When you have a conversation with these folk it's clear that they haven't been converted. Where I think it is problematic is when folk profess to be Christians but flatly reject that Jesus is God and confess with their mouth that Jesus is not Yahweh - to use the Hebrew word. I used to do this for many, many years but I couldn't reconcile the Bible. I couldn't work out how it was possible for my sin to be completely dealt with at Calvary if Jesus wasn't God. I wondered why John 1 would be preached in gospel meetings up to but not including verse 14 - why did the workers omit this in our neck of the woods? Why was the humanity of Jesus given more import than his divinity? Why was I publicly rebuked in a fellowship meeting by the Head Worker of NSW for saying that like Thomas, Jesus was my Lord and God. Where there is confusion like this, Christian leaders are generally responsible as they were in Galatians for perverting the gospel of Christ. It is clear why the confusion exists when you read what Roselyn and others have quoted from some workers. I have previously quoted what Colin Sanders (an Australian senior worker) said at Brian Doecke's funeral speaking about Brian "It was his faith that helped to make the choices to follow Jesus, go in the work, trust and it’s faith that takes us to the end. Those that finish well will be sitting near the throne. And how Jesus endured the cross, despised the shame and kept the faith" and "The work of the servants (workers) is the best paid for all Eternity". When you see the eternal source and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2) minimised as a person who "kept the faith like Brian kept the faith" and the ministry elevated into the CEO pay bracket for all eternity you know that something is very wrong. Not all workers do this but in the main I think it is fair to say that they reject Jesus as "our great God and Saviour" as Paul put it in Titus 2. Paul asked the elders to "hold to the faithful message as taught, so that we will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it". (Titus 1:9). With Paul there was no confusion about the gospel of God. Because it was a personal revelation to me when reading the pages of the Bible I am very passionate about it. I'm thankful to the Father for revealing it to me by His Holy Spirit who points us to Jesus. I don't like it when people minimise Christ so I seek to defend who He is. As I said before, he doesn't need my defence but he definitely deserves it for what He has done for me.
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on Apr 21, 2015 20:52:16 GMT -5
Jesus was tempted, just like we are, but never sinned! Luke 4 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil Hebrews 4 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin God cannot be tempted James 1 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. The pro-trinity group haven't explained how this scripture can be reconciled. 1. If our great high priest is God, why wouldn't God be touched with the feeling of our infirmities even before Jesus? 2. God cannot be tempted with evil, so why did the writer to the Hebrews consider it important that Jesus the Son of God was in all points tempted like as we are - and that he was without sin? Trinitarians seem to be denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh - by making him God. Not at all - the Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He was fully human and fully divine (God) while on earth. He entered the world, became a man, to provide an eternal solution to sin. He understands what it is like to be a human - he understands our infirmities - because He came and lived in the flesh. Likewise, he understands what it is like to be tempted - but because he is God he was without sin.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 21, 2015 21:16:30 GMT -5
When a Catholic views the trinity they see it as the 3 being one. Others which I believe are Protestants, believe 3 separate person together make up one. The link to the website you gave - their description of the trinity can be interpreted either way. Have you heard of both descriptions, Ross? Which one do you adhere to?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 21, 2015 22:07:23 GMT -5
Collosians 2:9 For in him (Christ)dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 21, 2015 22:11:44 GMT -5
Trinitarians seem to be denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh - by making him God.As we say, He is fully man and fully God. He had a free will. He had a choice. God can do whatever he wants. He could have chosen to give into sin, but Jesus proved he was God because he did not sin. What is the more amazing scenario? 1. God who cannot be tempted, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 2. Fallible man who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 21, 2015 22:14:20 GMT -5
The article relates to a church called The Church of Christ which believes it is the true church. A church which does not believe in the Trinity. Protestants were burned at the stake for not believing in infant baptism and any number of Catholic teachings. The ana Baptists which the article talks about were killed because they brought in adult baptism and rejected infant baptism of the Catholic church. They believe in the incarnation of Jesus. They also didn't believe in the Trinity. You made the comment that those who believed in the Trinity were the ones that were getting burned at the stake. That doesn't make any sense since it was the RCC that were doing the burning for the most part, not exclusively. They believed in the Trinity so it's not likely anyone got burned for believing in the Trinity.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 21, 2015 22:16:49 GMT -5
Collosians 2:9 For in him (Christ)dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. For every Trinitarian argument there's a counter argument...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 21, 2015 22:22:05 GMT -5
Those who write the articles seem to think some are confused about the Trinity which may mean they are the ones who are confused or don't understand. Easy to understand. God consists of 3 person's. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each is a part of God. The Catholic view might be that the 3 are one being, taking different forms but that is not generally the Protestant view. I think some might be confused because they see there are 2 views. There are many views on many parts of the Bible so nothing wrong with that. Having 2 views is minor and easy to understand. Maybe we should have another name for the Protestant view. View 1: The 3 are different forms of the one being. View 2: There are 3 separate persons which make up the one God. View 1 seems to be Catholic, View 2 seems to be protestant. Protestants claimed that Jesus was not the Father thus the hearsay. The first view is that a person can be a father, son, and husband. The one person with 3 different roles or like water 2 forms, steam liquid and ice. This appears to be the Catholic view but I might be wrong. The second view is like different people in a family. One the father, one the son one the sister etc. Completely different people but all making up the same family. The second view seems to be the protestant view. That's how I see it anyway and not confusing for me. So what is the punishment if you don't believe in the Trinity? Do those who do not understand the right interpretation of the trinity go to hell? If they don't, why is Irvine Grey calling the 2x2's a 'particularly dangerous cult' because they don't teach the Trinity? No one has answered that question for me yet. What is so dangerous about not teaching the Trinity doctrine that he would label them a dangerous cult if people don't go to hell for not believing in it?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 21, 2015 22:28:34 GMT -5
Roselyn, I have chosen to not respond to your posts to me for quite a time. I tried but finally gave up. I didn't find it possible to have any meaningful dialogue. It's not your fault and not mine. It's just we have such a different perspective and experience of the church. wishes How typical Review ! Sounds so familiar .... just believe and don't ask questions ! So in fact what you are saying is you agree with Clyde Mackay to re-baptise an ex-worker who committed CSA ! And we wonder why in 2015 things are not changing in regard to CSA in the "Fellowship". I believe your lack of answer has answered the question.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 21, 2015 22:32:52 GMT -5
"He is also predictable in that when he is asked about some of the godless confusion and activities of leaders in the denomination he has aligned with he has nothing to say."
Review what did you say about people in glass houses ! Seems you are guilty of the same in regard to Mr Harvey and your Fellowship !
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 21, 2015 22:34:55 GMT -5
All things were made by him;(Christ) and without him was not any thing made that was made. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on Apr 21, 2015 22:58:05 GMT -5
Collosians 2:9 For in him (Christ)dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. For every Trinitarian argument there's a counter argument... Yes, as one Christian commentator put it "Just as under the law, the presence of God dwelt between the cherubim, in a cloud which covered the mercy-seat. Now it dwells in the person of our Redeemer, who partakes of our nature, and is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, and has more clearly declared the Father to us". There are plenty of people around who want to rid Christ or his deity and divinity. They will single out a verse here and there and argue about it until "the cows come home" and form a conclusion about Jesus based on one or two verses. However, when you look at the Bible as a whole, it is impossible to do this. JW's and Mormons have tried but in doing so they have added a person's (read founder) individual revelation to the Bible. And it is not long before the individual revelation becomes more important than the Bible. Likewise, there are also those who try to deny the physical resurrection of Jesus and so it goes on. Thankfully, Christians as a whole have stood firm through the ages on who Jesus is.
|
|