Fast Apologetics Video

Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries has been putting a lot of videos of his debates and commentaries on YouTube. I learned something new from this video about what Mormons believe.

You can check out his other videos here.

Advertisements

46 Responses to Fast Apologetics Video

  1. ditchu says:

    Fast but not accurate.

  2. billphillips says:

    What would you say is inaccurate?

  3. ditchu says:

    The video decided for the viewer what is ment by a few verses from the bible that in context may not be seen the same way. the video quibbles over a few selected words but uses them out of context to the message they were delivering. this is Fast but not accurate nor percise.

    I would especially like to comment on the phrase used in the video: “I and the Father are one.” the video would suggest that from this line alone we can see that Jesus Christ (the speaker in the vrese of the bible) is God the father. I would suggest that that line in context as well as how the video put it could be Jesus Stating that he is asting on behalf of the father and doing the father’s will.
    I see it this way… Me and my wife are one. We go to work in sepperate places and may not always be together physically but We are one. We work towards the same ends, we have the same goal and our focus is in the same place, out family. It is no different for God the Father and His Son who has come to help the family of man by doing his Father’s will.

  4. billphillips says:

    Ditchu,

    The verse about Jesus and the Father being one is what oneness pentecostals use to show that Jesus is the Father, and I would disagree with them, and agree with what you said.

    I agree that the video takes Deuteronomy 4:35 by itself, but it may or may not be out of context. We all have to decide for ourselves what that verse means, but as the guy in the video said there are 500 verses that say the same thing. You should definitely do whatever it takes to convince yourself of what that verse says, even if it means having to learn Hebrew to verify the translation. Your eternity depends on being right about this.

    Exodus 20:2-3 is the first of the Ten Commandments. If you believe the LORD/Yahweh/Jehovah is Jesus, then this commandment says you shall have no other gods before Jesus. So even the Father can’t come before Jesus. Wouldn’t that mean you shouldn’t pray to or worship the Father? You should only pray to and worship Jesus.

    It’s clear to me that the Bible can only be made any sense out of if you believe in one God–the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  5. ditchu says:

    Not shure how othersd handle this but I see it as this.
    1. There is only one true God and none else shall we serve before the most high.
    2. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit make up the Godhood, and thus we have one God.
    That is my beleif and though I can speculate other possibilities I do not move from it.

  6. billphillips says:

    Ditchu,

    So do you pray to Jesus (John 14:14)? Do you worship Him like the angels do(Hebrews 1:6)?

    So if you really believe in one God, does that mean you don’t hope to become a god someday?

    If you answer yes to these questions, I can provide LDS Scripture and quotations that say otherwise. Why would you continue on as a Mormon if you disagree with their doctrine?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  7. ditchu says:

    I do not disagree with the doctrine. I just stated my position on the trinity and it does not conflect the way you seem to think it does.

    1. I have prayed to Jesus But then I learned how Jesus told us to pray and I follow his guidence. I pray in the name of Jesus Christ and to The Father.
    Also I do worship My savior Jesus. Do you?

    2. Becomming a god someday… Well I have not stumbled upon the scripture that backs this up but I see here the term god is not Capitolised… When people use the term god they are speaking of deity. this term is used for most beleif systems but when you capitalize it you are speaking of the almighty God. Again if you could sypply the instances that “Mormon” Scripture accually says we are going to be gods that would be cool. But I have yet to find it. All I hear about it is that we may have Authority and Power that may seem to these people as only a god can yeald. I do not know much about being a deity but I do know there is more to man than flesh and bone.

  8. billphillips says:

    Ditchu,

    1. I worship Jesus and pray to Him like He commanded me in John 14:14. How can you have a relationship with someone you never talk to? Jesus is prayed to in Acts 7:59 (by Stephen who was inspired by the Holy Spirit), and even 3 Nephi 19:18.

    2. Take a look at D&C 132:19-22. Also there are many quotes from LDS big wigs:

    These first two concern how many gods there are:

    Joseph Smith said there are many Gods.
    “Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible . . . Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many . . . but to us there is but one God–that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, page 474). “In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5).

    Joseph Smith said the Trinity is three gods.
    “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.” (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith p. 370).

    Brigham Young said, “the only men who became gods, even the sons of god, are those who enter into polygamy” (Journal Of Discourses V11/269).

    Also, this page: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mormonshopetobecomegods.htm
    has dozens more quotes and the biblical refutation.

    If you don’t have a proper understanding of who Jesus is, you will die in your sins (John 8:24). Please do whatever it takes to make sure you’re right. Is Jesus your Lord and your God (John 20:28)? If you don’t have the Son, you don’t have the Father (Luke 10:22).

    Thanks,
    Bill

  9. ditchu says:

    Bill,
    Thanks for your concern but rest assured I do have a relationship with my King: Jesus christ.
    Be at peace. I do know how I will be greeted in the next life and I know that Jesus Christ is formost important in my salvation. It is our understanding of the tri-god, trinity, and “One God” conundrum that we are discussing. My relstionship with Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and God the Father Started long before I became LDS. I have taken a long journey in my life to come to my understanding and I will not parish with out the knowledge of the Gospel. Through the darkness and the light my God, My King, my friend has always been there for me, and I recongnize the savior’s influnce in my life.

    Also it is good to hear that you do worship Jesus Christ. I pray that we can meet on the other side of the veil, (In Heaven) and look back to this day when we have differing views but both are in a position to benifit from the salvation of Christ. As for your concern for my wellbeing again thank you.

  10. Manuel Culwell says:

    Here is a question for you that not any Reformed seems to want to answer. How come your view of Jesus seems to be hybrid? what I mean is; that Jesus (according to your position) is One person with two natures, I am One person with one human nature. Your view of Jesus is that the divinity gets both the nature and the personage, but the humanity is only relagated to a nature, and not a real man because a nature is not a person. So my conclusion is, you must have a hybrid, something other than what we are.If you are not mixing the two to make something new but the hbuman nature is not a person then you do not have a real human person in Jesus, you deny his real humnaity and is just as bad as denying his real Divinty… In Oneness his divinty is God the Father and his Humnaity is the real human sonship we deny neither and have both the father and the son in Jesus. He is antichrist who denies the son.(not *God the son* there is no such thing scripture. ) You are denying his human sonship thus you are antichrist.

  11. billphillips says:

    Manuel,

    Thanks for your comment.

    You said I believe that, “the humanity is only relegated to a nature, and not a real man because a nature is not a person” I don’t believe that. Jesus was fully man and fully God.

    Jesus truly is something other than what we are. He is 100% man and 100% God. Take a look at John 1:14, and Colossians 2:9. I have to admit I posted the video more for Mormons than anyone else, and I don’t totally understand what you believe, or exactly what you’re getting at with your comment. Maybe you can explain it a little more if I didn’t answer your objections.

    Forgive me if these are stupid questions, but do you deny the divinity of Jesus? Was Jesus only God while He was on earth? What is He now? What about when Jesus was baptized–whose voice was coming from heaven, and how did the Holy Spirit descend like a dove?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  12. Manuel Culwell says:

    Hi Bill, Thanks for answering! No I am Oneness, we teach Jesus is the only supreme God as to his deity. iw ill explain more later. first I would like to take this a bit further.

    So is your jesus two persons in the incarnation or is it One person with two natures? If so ,then your “God the son “deity is relegated to being an actual person, but the humanity is not and is only a nature. so in my mind you do not have 100% man, a real human man is a person and not just a nature. your view has to be one or the other.

    Manuel l Culwell

  13. Manuel Culwell says:

    Bill, You have not asked stupid questions at all, they are very good questions!

    The Divinty I have answered , his divinity was given to him without measure.(John 3:34, 1st. cor. 15:45, Matt. 28:18,Acts 2;36) Because you see, his humnaity had a beggining and was not eternal, the divinty that was given which is eternal was that of God the father, not *God the son.*(the father in me he doeth the works or miracles John 14:10) Because I can of mine own (human) self do nothing. the reason Jesus did not know the time of his own return. becuase the divinty of the father had not revealed it.(God the father was in Christ reconcilling the world unto himself 2nd. cor. 5;19)

    I would like to see a passage where God the son was incarnate in the son?

    You wrote:
    Was Jesus the Only God while on the earth? God could not be limited to the body of one little human man , not only was God in christ but in heaven and filled the earth.

    You wrote:
    what is Jesus now ? Jesus is God, but he has a glorified body.

    You wrote: what about when Jesus was baptized-Whose voice was coming from heaven?
    Well ,because Jesus was a real man who was in subjection to his real God who said this is my beloeved son IN WHOM i am well pleased…we have One real man and one real God …What we do not have is “two persons of God” as that would deny Jesus real humanity.

  14. Manuel Culwell says:

    James White actually Got this all started because of his fast Apologetics article on youtube in which I called in to his radio program to rebut, he accused Oneness of having two persons in Jesus, which is not true ,so I decided to show him the contradiction I had found inherent in the trinity doctrine relating to his view, but he would not allow it, of course he wanted to go somewhere else.

    manuel

  15. billphillips says:

    Manuel,

    When Trinitarians say God is one God in three persons, the word ‘person’ in this definition doesn’t mean ‘person’ in the normal sense of a human being. The Father is a person. The Holy Spirit is a person. And Jesus is a person, but none of them are persons in the sense of some person on the street. If you don’t like the term ‘person’ maybe you can come up with a better term, but human language is guaranteed to fall short in describing God.

    I disagree that Jesus’ body had a beginning. He was with God in the beginning (John 1:2). He appeared to Abraham (Genesis 18) and many others. Isaiah saw Him being worshipped by the angels in Isaiah 6. We know it was Jesus in Genesis 18, because Abraham saw God Almighty, but not the Father (John 6:46). John 12:40-41 says Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory in Isaiah 6. So, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that Jesus’ body had a beginning. I’m unaware of any verse that says His body had a beginning.

    Why do you say, “God could not be limited to the body of one little human man”? I say all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form (Colossians 2:9).

    Thanks,
    Bill

  16. Manuel Culwell says:

    Bill, This is exactley what I wanted from the Trinitarian to admit and that is the term you use person in refernce to God is limiting and really should not be used at all,I understand you are not discarding the term but you seem to be the only honest one I have met.

    Now ,you say “you disagree that jesus body had a beggining.”of course his Body had a beggining ! His Body was M-A-D-E of a woman, M-A-D-E under the Law.in time not eternity(Gal. 4:4) No passage indicates otherwise. To deny such is going against scripture. God was God in the Beggining for sure but there is no God the son not even the passages you submitted say so. Not a one! John 1:2 does call the the word a he but John was speaking from a knowing experience of the actual plan/Logos/word made flesh. What was the word?

    Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavnes made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
    The word in John 1:1 is not and was not another person with God but rather could not be seperated from God and it was his all powerfull word by the breath of his mouth.

    Paul uses the same term logos/plan/word in (2nd. tim. 2:17) and is in agreement with the John, both Apostles are in total agreement in the usage and menbaing of a term that was already used in OT.
    And thier word/logos/plan will eat as doth a cancker of whom is hymeaneus and philetus who concerning the truth have erred. This refered to thier evil plan.

    Mind you this is not the Logos of God but shows the common link with the Psalm passage and the Trinitarain has actually changed the meaning and attributed something to the term never ever found in scripture before, they have added a new meaning the Apostles themselves did not mean. The true meaning and usage is that God had a plan/Logos for redemption of mankind and Jesus was that plan; the glory of God in the incarantion as his own arm would bring salvation.

    Jesus refered to his Glory in John 17:5 which had nothing to do with pre-existence.
    The Apsotles Jesus said would take part in this glory he had with the father before the world(John 17:22) which Proves the glory was refering to his passsion(Rev. 13:8) as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Yes Jesus Glory was Known and was prophecied but he did not exist untill the fullness of time was come when jeus was made of a woman made under the law. all passages refering to his deity refer to the deity Of God the father in him and before he existed.

    I also say that all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily. But it cannot mean that all of the quantity of God dwelt in him bodily. Therfore it is his headquarters all of the quality attributes and power. God cannot be limited to one little man as the heavens are his throne and the earth is his footstool.

  17. billphillips says:

    Manuel,

    Galatians 4:4 doesn’t mean that Jesus’ body had a beginning, it means that God submitted (made) Himself to keeping the law to redeem those under the law. You didn’t respond to how Abraham and Isaiah both saw Jesus–other than to say I’m wrong. Jesus had glory before He was born, because Isaiah saw His glory around 700 B.C. (John 12:41).

    Psalm 33:6 and particularly Isaiah 44:24 say the LORD created the universe alone, by Himself. Yet Jesus created the universe (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2, 10-12).

    Why does the Father call the Son His God (Hebrews 1:8), and refer to Him as Lord (Hebrews 1:10)?

    Just to make sure we’re in the same boat, If you were to die today, and you stood before God and He said, “Why should I let you into heaven?” What would you say?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  18. Manuel Culwell says:

    Bill, The passage In Gal. says that Jesus was made of a woman, made under the law .(Gal.4:4) Both having been made of woman and under the law means that he came about through birth at the time of the law ,not at all what you are saying.He kept the law because his divinty was the law giver and he was in subjection to the law as a real human man.

    You are also ignoring your delimma of Jesus real humanity. What I find every reformed person does is ignore this problem and simplky say we believe jeus is 100% man and 100% God . I don’t want to hear that I wnat to know how that is I have had zero explainations and you are no differant Bill.

    Yes Abraham saw his glory and it had nothing to do with him pre-existing,

    Abraham and Isaiah did not see Jesus ,they saw his *Glory* (John 12:41), his glory is what you refered to yourself, his passion(John 12:15) when Jesus was glorified(Past tense) then remebered the disciples. they did notunderstand untill his glory. this glory is also spoken of in Of John 7:38-39
    On the great day of the feast jesus stood and cried saying if any man thirst let him come unto me and drink but this spake he of the spirit which they that belioeve on him should recieve for the Holy ghost was not yet Given for Jesus was N-O-T Y-E-T
    G-L-O-R-I-FI-E-D. tHE GLORY HE HAD WITH THE FATHER BEFORE THE WORLD WAS…. REFERS TO HIS SLAIN HUMANITY. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8) Now i know this is not what you are used to in taking one passage and isolating it in vaccum to prove a point but these passages are related. The scriptures should never be studied in a vaccum you can prove all kinds of false doctrines that way.

    Psalm 33:6 says by the word of the LORd were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth the day you can make the breath of your mouth a pre-existent person is the day I will change my mind.

    John 1:3 does not say jesus created either, it is the same word by the bresath of God’s mouth that is the Logos which is God and was with God, the all powerfull spoken word of God.

    All passages related to Jesus creating are because of the incarnation, in other words because Jesus was God manifest in the flesh ,the worlds were created by and for him.
    The so called incarnation is God (The father) in man (Jesus as the son) areal human man. so your proof texts are just as important to me as they are to you. but they are alon way from proving jeuss was a pre-existent person known as an unscriptual “God the son.”

    Hebrews 1:8 is a prophetic Passage thy throne oh God refers to his deity given him and the second part deals with his humanity, God even thy God . How does God have a God without undefying the God with a God? Thus the passage is dealing with the coming incarnation and it is prophetic Qouting from (Psalm 45:6-7)

    Yes I am saved and have no doubts whatsoever and do not fear standing before God as I have already stood before him once when i was Hit by a car as young Boy and died and told that I had to go back , I know what i am here and why I had to go back just to tell you and others now…

  19. billphillips says:

    Manuel,

    The 100% man, 100% God thing is called the hypostatic union. I’ve heard it described as the greatest miracle in history. Just as I can’t explain how God spoke the universe into existence, I can’t explain the hypostatic union. However it does not defy any laws of logic, and God is powerful enough to accomplish this if He so chooses. I never thought this was an area of disagreement between trinitarians and oneness people, and I still don’t understand why you disagree. You believe Jesus was God and human. Jesus’ blood had to have infinite value to pay our infinite penalty, right? No man’s blood is of infinite value. Jesus was God, and you agree.

    Why couldn’t Jesus have had a physical body eternally?

    Isaiah 6 says, “(1)In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple…(3)And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.”

    John 12:40 quotes Isaiah 6:10, and then John 12:41 says, “These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.” If you study the preceding verses, you will see that the ‘him’ referred to is Jesus.

    Genesis 18:1 says, “And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day.”

    In John 6:46, Jesus said, “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.”

    So, people have seen the LORD God Almighty, but no one has seen the Father. Who do you propose Abraham and Isaiah saw? John says Isaiah saw Jesus. Where am I going wrong here? Isn’t it clear that the person who ate, walked and talked with Abraham had a physical body? Yet it wasn’t the Father.

    I have no doubt you’re saved. Why are you saved, by what means?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  20. Manuel Culwell says:

    Yes I understand what you call it! what i have never ever heard is anyone explainan the inherent contradiction of the doctrine. which is again you make the deity of jeuss a person and a nature but his humanity is not a person but relagated to a nature only a nature is not a person. thus you do not have a real human man in your trinitarian version of Jesus.

    Yes his blood paid the price and it was real human blood. Yes I believe Jesus was God and human. His Deity was that of God the father, his Humnaity was that of the son born of a virgin. There is nothing said in scripture of jeus having a physical body eternally.

    Abraham saw a theophany he did not see anything else God temporarily had to have made himself a bodily representation they did not see God ever until the Lord jesus the Image of the invisible God(Col. 1:15) God was not seen of angels until he took the body of his son in the incarnation.the him refers to jesus alright as the incarnation made Jesus God.

  21. billphillips says:

    Manuel,

    There may not be a verse saying Jesus’ body has always existed, but that doesn’t mean it’s not so.

    People have seen the LORD, but no one has seen the Father. That’s certainly a statement you can’t disagree with. It’s a direct quotation of verses that are repeated several times. If, as you say, the Father created Himself a body, then people have seen the Father. Even if that’s the case, John said that Isaiah saw Jesus in Isaiah 6.

    Do you deserve to go to heaven or hell?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  22. Manuel Culwell says:

    There is not a verse saying the pope does ‘nt sit in Rome either and that does not mean it is not so. With that kind reasoning one could come up with all kinds of doctrines. I think you want that to be so because of your doctrine of inherited sin which vehemently deny, I am sure that is what you mean by the question you asked which all calvinsts ask; do I deserve heaven or Hell? I beleve babies are born innocent and do not inherit Adams sin! So yes, When I sinned either by committion or ommisssion I deserved death, Only being in Christ then save me from that death.

  23. Manuel Culwell says:

    Isaiah did not see *jesus* as I have already explained, Abraham and Isaiah saw his Glory. Philip saith to jeuss Lord Show us the fzather and it will satisfy us Jesus said: have I beeen so long time with you philip and yet you have not known me he that has seen me has see the father and how do you say show us the father.(John 14:9) It was the father in the son that makes the Incarnation(John 14:10) the father IN ME He doeth the works.

  24. billphillips says:

    Manuel,

    Thanks for the conversation. I’ve learned a lot. I guess we’ve reached an impass, on whether it was Jesus in Genesis 18, and Isaiah 6. I just don’t see where you’re coming from.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  25. Manuel Culwell says:

    Thank you also Bill!

    Manuel

  26. Manuel Culwell says:

    Subotai:
    This will be my last post in response to comments made
    by Manuel. The reason I am responding this time, is it
    gives me the opportunity to discuss some issues I want
    touch on.
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell: Okay fine,Let it be known I offered you the
    chance for a discussion on my yahoogroup: Trinity
    Vs.Oneness.Since you refuse I will be taking this
    exchange of ours and posting them on my groups. Again,
    this seems to be the norm for the Reformed to stay
    inside thier comfort zones to attack and not face
    anyone or be accountable to the false charges they
    make along with thier lying apologetics but that is
    fine with me because I welcome all comers to use those
    Apologetics you send your folks with concerning our
    doctrines, you are only hurting them when they realize
    they do not work.
    ——————————————————————

    Subotai:
    First, I did accuse Manuel for having a Dispensational
    take on 2 Tim 2:15. Manuel explained graciously
    (that’s sarcasm) that he does view the passage as I
    view it. In the context of the exchange though, it did
    seem he was using it in a manner that I was against,
    but I’m glad that at least we agree on one thing— He
    agrees that the text means to “Rightly handle” and
    goes on to say:

    ——————————————————————
    “Rightly dividing the word is “right handling the
    word,”It means the same thing to me, it does not mean
    I chop it all up and make it say whatever I want it to
    mean, nor does it give you the right to vacuum isolate
    passages.”
    ——————————————————————
    subotai:
    I want to discuss and point out that he accuses me
    (and Reformed Theo.) of “isolating passages in a
    vacuum”. I would say that my position is more like
    keeping the verse in it’s context which you can
    observe in most of what I write.
    ——————————————————————

    mlculwell: You mean you think that is what you do!I
    have a little bit of experience dealing with you folks
    and you can call it what you like but I can say
    without a doubt your group vacuum Isolates passages to
    come up with your doctrines. A
    perfect example of your so called “keeping in context”
    is your view of Jesus standing (or sitting at the
    right hand of God.)Which is not a geographic location
    next to a divine appendage! This is how you have come
    to your conclusion of the trinity in the first place
    along with other unscriptual doctrines such as
    Calvinism and your view of salvation apart from Acts
    2:38.
    ——————————————————————

    Subotai
    On the flip side, what about the Oneness hermeneutic?
    What is the lens, or the key to the New Testament, the
    door to understanding? Oneness proponents have been
    unashamed, claiming that the New Testament can rightly
    be seen only through the book of Acts namely Acts
    2:38.
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell: Guilty as charged, and you are right, I am
    not ashamed! (Acts 2:38) and the Reformed
    Hermenuetics is to Ignore the passage and say :”that
    was not for us, but for unbelieving Jews.”(Luke 24:47)
    Jesus said :that Repentence and Remission of sins
    would be preached in my name among ALL Nations
    BEGGINING AT JERUSALEM.(Not Ending)That all began in
    Acts 2:38 which was the fullfillment of Luke 24:47
    When every group of people were put into Christ the
    same way.The Jews(Acts 2:38)….The Samarians(Mixxed
    Jew and gentile(Acts 8:16) The Gentiles(Acts 10:44-47)
    and the followers of John the Baptist under the Old
    covnenant(Acts 19:1-6) all passages related to
    believeing does not exclude Baptism in Jesus name, it
    includes it!What I know is where and when did it
    change to something else or what nulifies Acts 2:38
    for today? What changed the gospel to the
    unrecognizable thing it is today taughted by the
    Reformed and others?
    ——————————————————————

    Subotai
    Thomas Fudge has gathered well over thirty references
    proving this fact, and states:
    ——————————————————————

    mlculwell: I don’t care what Thomas Fudge wrote, nor
    do I even Know who he is, but yes, I have already
    stated that I was guilty of believeing Acts 2:38 and I
    am not ashamed of that fact. You have presented no
    arguments against it as being invalid for all today,
    you presented Apostolic Oneness folks who hold to Acts
    2:38 because it contradicts your view, you don’t know
    where it fits or how to fit into your belief system so
    you ignore and say it does not belong but it comes
    from scripture not from the 25th chapter of my
    imagination.With that said I will ignore the
    references you have submitted concerning those Oneness
    Folks that Believe Acts 2:38. I will noy however do as
    you have done to ignore whole arguments that
    contradict your doctrine.
    ——————————————————————

    Subotai
    There was a great piece written by Gordon D. Fee in
    Perspectives On The Pentecostal The New Pentecostalism
    where Fee goes over the dangers of reading the New
    Testament through the book of Acts, which Pentecostals
    in general, are susceptible to. Now add the Oneness
    insistence on Acts 2:38 and the hermeneutical horizon
    is limited to nothing but Acts 2:38. You can see how
    this works out in how Oneness Pentecostals interpret
    passages such as John 3:5 as a interpretive reflection
    of Acts 2:38’s dual baptism of water and Spirit. It
    goes on to force Ephesians 4:5 into submission to Acts
    2:38 . Fudge picks up on this astutely, stating this
    question:
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell:
    I find the Above very funny,You have three persons of
    God but yet you interpret scripture by isolation in
    vacuum (One passage alone) and yet you cannot stand
    the fact that out of the mouth of two or three
    witnesses a matter cannot be established! Those three
    passages are related, water and spirit are one
    baptism, one is not complete without the other, being
    born of the water, and of the Spirit, is not natural
    birth, that is one of the most ridiculous
    interpretations to force an unscriptual view that has
    ever beeen devised by man.
    ——————————————————————

    subotai:

    “The obvious question is how did these ideas and texts
    become amalgamated? Their consistent exegetical
    juxtaposing, more than anything else, facilitated the
    rise and proliferation of the `water and Spirit’
    doctrine.” (Christianity without the Cross p. 120)
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell:

    I had a good laugh from the above! Yeah,you know how
    all passages are unrelated because God is just some
    airhead and cannot get it together. Again you have not
    contradicted how they are not related you simply say
    they are not related and submit others who say the
    same thing.This does not work with me! You must submit
    scriptual evidenece that the passsages are unrealted
    (John 3:5) fits perfectly with (Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47,
    Acts 8:16,10:44-47,19:1-6) Nothing has changed except
    for your version of the Gospel so everything else must
    change to make it work.
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai:
    This is what I have been accusing Manuel of doing
    since the beginning when I made the comment about him
    being “all over the place,” taking a piece here and
    there on the Dividing Line. Now I’m not saying that
    this is always the case! I have read good exegesis
    from Pentecostals and Oneness Pentecostals, but I am
    in complete agreement with Gordon Fee when he says:

    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell:
    You can continue to accuse me all you like until you
    submit a valid argument why Acts 2;38 is no longer
    valid and why and where it all changed into the
    version of the gospel you prop up.

    ——————————————————————

    Subotai submits Gordon fee:
    “In place of scientific hermeneutics there developed a
    kind of pragmatic hermeneutic—obey what should be
    taken literally; spiritualize, allegorize, or
    devotionalize the rest…
    —————————————————————–
    mlculwell:
    LOL! All Views do this! Are you telling me you
    don’t”spiritualize, allegorize, or
    devotionalize”? Scripture interprets scripture, there
    will be another passage that relates to the subject…
    Oh, I make no mistake in thinking you “Obey” because I
    know the Calvinst Reformed version of “Obey” does not
    mean the same thing as the scriptual version of
    “Obey.” You cannot because that means you help God in
    salvation.LOL!
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai:
    Therefore, although exegetical
    aberrations abound in Pentecostal pulpits and
    sometimes in their pamphlets, the mainstream of
    traditional American Pentecostalism has treated
    Scripture in very much the same way as have other
    forms of American fundamentalism or evangelicalism.
    The differences have been over what is to be literally
    obeyed.” (Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism p.
    122 emphasis mine)

    Not only do Oneness Pentecostals want “you” the person
    to obey Acts 2:38, it squeezes the whole New Testament
    through the Acts 2:38 obedience filter.
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell:
    And the Reformed Twist the meaning of “Obey” to mean
    something else so that they can force and squeeze the
    whole New Testament through thier unscriptual version
    apart from Acts 2:38 as it does not fit thier version,
    they wish Acts 2:38 and other passages were not in
    scripture as it is a nasty little passage they have to
    have they have to back peddle and explain to thier
    huddled masses who blindly accept thier view.
    ——————————————————————

    Subotai:
    Also, Manuel goes off on a tangent about Reformed
    Hermeneutics and criticizes me by saying:

    “You start off isolating the passage in a Vacuum when
    that does not work you get a special commentary to
    interpret the scriptures. When that does not work,
    you go to the original Languages because God was not
    much
    thinking ahead or smart enough when he gave us faulty
    bibles he should have waited ,and he would have had
    smarter, more Godly men, than what was given us
    through Tyndale or the Wycliffe,cover dale,Geneva,KJB,
    etc.(Oh I am not KJB Only, But I think it is the best
    we have and we will not see better in our lifetime.)
    Then If all that does not work, then Just deny it and
    ignore it.”

    Manuel criticizes me for commentaries, and looking
    into the original languages. Again, this is in perfect
    step with Pentecostalism in general as Fee points out:
    ——————————————————————

    Mlculwell: Actually No, I don’t criticize you for
    using commentaries and the original Langauges. I
    criticize you for your unscriptual spiral of
    Hermeneutics, I use all of the same tools only leaving
    out the Calvinism and not excluding Acts 2:38 and use
    all of the scriptures, these tools you use
    exclude Acts 2:38, I include the passage, as it is
    relevent for this day and age, there is nothing
    in scripture that excludes the passage.
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai:

    “First, their (Pentecostal) attitude toward Scripture
    regularly has included a general disregard for
    scientific exegesis and careful thought-out
    hermeneutics.
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell:
    There is absolutely nothing true about the above
    Qoute! The Qoute is Both Bias and Dishonest and meant
    to persuade folks that Oneness Beleievers are a bunch
    of Hillbilly anti-Intellectuals therefore incapable of
    proper scriptual hermeneutics….

    ——————————————————————
    Subotai:
    In fact, hermeneutics has simply not
    been a Pentecostal thing.” ( Fee, Perspectives on the
    New Pentecostalism p.121)

    Grammar is not good enough, exegesis is not good
    enough, context is not good enough, original languages
    is not good enough, commentaries not good enough. This
    is why I will not respond to any more of his comments.
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell: All of the tools you mentioned are valid to
    come to a proper understanding of scripture, I use the
    same
    tools, but my criticizing you had really nothing to do
    with the use of the tools, but more in the way you
    misuse those tools in light of the way you interpret
    scripture in isolation of passages.
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai:

    With hermeneutics out of the way, what else does he
    accuse me of? Next he says that:
    ——————————————————————
    Mlculwell: Hermenuetics are in no way, out of the way!
    —————————————————————–
    Subotai submits what I wrote to him:

    “Whatever Your name is, I have no idea, But there is
    no such thing as “Jesus being the father in a
    Modalistic interpretation,” that is your lying
    Apologetics. We refer to Jesus as the Father because
    of the Spirit given him without measure(John 3:34).”

    The quote says that there is no such thing as “Jesus
    being the Father in a Modalistic interpretation.” I
    corrected Manuel with baptismal regeneration and now I
    guess I have to with the Oneness Pentecostal form of
    modalism.
    ——————————————————————

    mlculwell: It is very Bold of you to make such a claim
    but it is untrue. Baptism does not constitute
    regeneration without the Name Jesus, I have made that
    very clear, you have completely gotten rid of the posts
    I submitted concerning thos facts.
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai:
    Here is what David Bernard (the most prolific Oneness
    writer) states about Jesus being the Father.

    “Jesus is not another God or a part of God, but He is
    the God of the Old Testament robed in flesh. He is the
    Father.” (Bernard, Oneness of God p. 59 emphasis mine)
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell: Let’s see? We say Jesus did not exist in
    the Old testament, this fact cannot be denied, a
    matter of fact we have the public record of James
    White asking me on the DL if I believed Jesus
    pre-existed? What you are trying to show your folks is how we believe
    Jesus must be is his own daddy. Not true! The sonship is his humanity
    the father is the Spirit of God which John 3:34 says was given to him
    without measure or limits… We refer to Jesus as the father because of
    the Deity given him . (John 3:34) This makes the second time I have
    submitted the passage along with others(1st. Cor. 15:45, Matth.
    28:18,Acts 2:36) in which you chose to ignore. This is a fine example
    of what I am talking about with you folks, you don’t know what to do
    with these passages and Jesus being given his deity, that of God the
    father.
    There is a reason why we refer to Jesus as the father and a
    distinction we make in the father and son which is spirit, and flesh,
    not in two persons of God.
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai:
    “We can know the mystery of God and the Father, which
    is Christ” (ibid p. 65)

    “If there is only one God and that God is the Father
    (Malachi 2:10), and if Jesus is God, then it logically
    follows that Jesus is the Father.” (ibid p.66)

    ” Isaiah 9:6 calls the Son the everlasting Father.
    Jesus is the Son prophesied about and there is only
    one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6), so Jesus
    must be God the Father.” (ibid p.66)

    Since Manuel can’t prove my exegesis wrong he tries
    here to prove me wrong on a Oneness technicality
    namely, that Jesus is not the Father in his humanity.
    I’m NOT accusing that the Oneness position is
    Patripassianism (Father suffered). I know the Oneness
    position does not hold to the Father is the Son (as in
    humanity), but it does hold to the Jesus is the Father
    just like Bernard states in the above quotes!
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell: There is no Technicality, you know that we teach the
    spirit of God the father existed before the son, usually that is how
    that works except in Trinitarianism. So, if we say the father existed
    before the son, and the spirit of God the father was given to the son
    wihtout measure, and we refer to Jesu as the father then those
    comments are qualified and limited to what we actually mean which is
    in reference to what you know as the incarnation.That is why I
    protest your perversion of our beliefs.
    It would be akin to me calling you a polytheist.
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai

    There are several different types of modalism. The one
    I am speaking of is the position of Oneness
    Pentecostalism, the one which Bernard defines here:
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell:
    We don’t call ourselves”modalist”either! Please,I understand you
    posted where Bernard said our beliefs are similar or equivalent. we
    all understand that as modern Oneness,But David Bernard did not say
    we were Modalist. How would you like If I started calling you
    Polytheist?
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai:

    “Thus Oneness is a modern term basically equivalent to
    modalism or modalistic monarchianism”(ibid p.321.)

    I know the “modalistic interpretation” of Oneness
    Pentecostalism— that the Father is not the Flesh but
    actually “indwelt flesh” or was “in the flesh!” That
    becomes the very problem with the position, in that
    the Son becomes the puppet of the Father that is
    tossed aside when the Father is done with the MODE,
    role, manifestation, or whatever you want to call it.
    The Oneness position states that the Son will end!
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell: A puppet? Well,this brings about a very big problem that
    has not been dealt with by you or any other trinitarian.
    How that your view is actually a hybrid,oh keep in mind I am going to
    answer what you have misrepresented here and that you don’t
    understand what you are talking about.

    Your view Jesus is that his divinity(That of God the son.)is both a
    nature and a person but his humanity is relagated to only a nature.
    (Not a real person) to deny his real humanity is just as bad as
    denying his real divinity. therein lies inherent contradiction within
    your trinity doctrine.

    Now,as for “his sonship being tossed aside.” that is not what we
    teach! we Teach his humanity was for redemptive purposes, he never
    tosses aside his glorified humnaity but puts down all rule and
    authority as the son when he delivers up the kingdom to God even the
    father(1st. Cor. 15:24) Oh you say, see there is two persons of God.
    Nope! I am going to use the special Oneness Hermenuetic by taking
    another realted passage instead of the Refored weaker Hermenuetic of
    vacuum Isolation and show How Jesus actually presents the kingdom to
    himself(Eph. 5:27) and is forever known as God.
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai
    “`Son of God’ refers to a specific role that God
    temporarily assumed for the purpose of redemption.
    When the reasons for the Sonship cease to exist, God
    (Jesus) will cease acting in His role as Son, and the
    Sonship will be submerged back into the greatness of
    God, who will return to His original role as Father,
    Creator, and Ruler of all.” (ibid p.106)

    This interpretation completely undermines Jn 1:14.
    _—————————————————————–

    mlculwell: What it does is undermines your version of John 1:14
    thankfully so! As can be seen and I pointed out the weakness of your
    trinity doctrine concerning your denying the real humanity of the son
    and proves it to be a false doctrine for anyone who is honest enough
    not to ignore the contradiction.
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai:
    John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among
    us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only
    Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.(ESV)

    The “Word” became, not indwelt. (Verb, finite, third
    person, singular, second aorist, indicative, deponent)
    ——————————————————————
    mlculwell: We don’t teach and neither does the scriptures, that the
    Word was another deity with God the father. Rather we teach the word
    was both with and was God the father and could not be seperated from
    Him. And no, The word did not indwell anyone! We teach no such thing
    that is your doctrine that teaches the word was a seperate person not
    ours!We teach the word/Logos was the all powerfull way in which God
    created.

    By the word of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of
    them by the breath of his mouth.(Psalm 33:6)
    I don’t blame for not wanting to continue a discussion, in all
    discussions realting to the subject of the God we contually reveal
    the weaknesses of the trinity doctrine.
    ——————————————————————
    Subotai:

    ἐãÝíåôï —–(1) as what comes into existence
    become, come to be, originate, with the distinctive
    sense arising from the context; (a) of persons be
    born, appear (Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N.
    F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New
    Testament.)

    Since Manuel doesn’t care for when I use lexical aids,
    or state grammatical features of words, and with his
    continual refusal to accept these features of the
    text, no wonder he makes the claim that I have proved
    nothing… Because those features mean nothing to him.

    2 Cor. 13:14
    ——————————————————————
    As I said before, I use the same tools. My protesting is in reference
    to your vaccum isolation of passages. Again your argument has nothing
    to do with what the Oneness doctrine teaches as we do not teach the
    word was a seperate person, so that the word being made flesh is in
    realtion to God bringing his plan from the foundation of the world of
    a future redemption to fruition in time from eternity and the word
    becoming flesh no more proves your doctrine than anything else does.

    If you wish to continue though I am here for you….

  27. billphillips says:

    Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation. If it were required, it would mean that Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t sufficient to pay for our sins, and we must add good deeds to His sacrifice. Take a look at:
    http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/baptism2.html

    Thanks,
    Bill

  28. ditchu says:

    bill-
    Why do you suppose that Jesus Christ was Baptized?

    If it were unneeded then why would he even introduce it to his church?

  29. billphillips says:

    Ditchu,

    We’re commanded to be baptized to identify ourselves with God. We’re doing something that appears foolish to show that we’re willing to be obedient. Jesus was baptized for the same reason He kept all of the other laws. He had to be a sinless sacrifice. So, we’re not baptized to get saved, we’re baptized because we are saved.

    In Galatians 5, it talks about those who were requiring circumcision. Baptism is a similar religious ritual done to please God. Paul says if circumcision is required then Christ is of no use (verse 2), and whoever says circumcision is required is required to keep the whole law (verse 3), which is impossible.

    In Acts 10, Cornelius and his family were saved, and the Holy Spirit came upon them before they were baptized. Clearly baptism isn’t required for salvation.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  30. ditchu says:

    Is not this obedience necessary?

  31. billphillips says:

    Ditchu,

    Obedience is not possible. The law (the Ten Commandments) was given to us to show us how sinful we are, and how impossible it is for us to be obedient. If you’ve ever told a lie, you’ve broken the 9th commandment. If you’ve ever stolen anything, even when you were a kid, you’ve broken the 8th commandment. Jesus said that if you’ve ever looked at a woman with lust, you’re an adulterer at heart (Matt. 5:28-29), and you’ve broken the 7th commandment. We’re all guilty lawbreakers, and if we’re going to stand before the Creator of the universe and say I did good deeds to make up for breaking the law, it’s not going to fly. Criminals don’t get let off for their crimes by washing the judge’s car or mowing his lawn. Justice must be served.

    The only thing we’re going to be able to tell God on Judgment Day is that our sentence has been served by Jesus. If we say, “my sentence was served by Jesus, and I got baptized, and I only told a few hundred lies in my lifetime versus a few thousand,” wouldn’t that be offensive to Jesus? Isn’t the sacrifice He made adequate?

    If someone gave you a million dollars, and they asked you to watch their dog and pick up their mail while they’re on vacation for a week, wouldn’t you do it gladly? You would be doing that out of gratitude, not because you think you’re going to be earning the million dollars back. Jesus has offered us a gift worth all the money on earth, and we should be so grateful that we’d do anything He asked. But this is done in response to what He’s done, not to earn what He’s done for us.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  32. Jim says:

    When was the believing thief on the cross baptised? Did I miss something?

    All those who believe in works righteousness (even if they don’t admit it) have to take a look at the thief on the cross. He had: no works, no baptism no church attendance, no tithes, no helping old ladies across the road blah blah blah etc. How was he saved (are you going to deny that man his salvation?)? He believed in Jesus. He only believed, he believed in Jesus alone. Plus nothing/nada/nicht/rien/zero.

    Hope that’s crystal clear. If you hold on to your works, they’ll drag you to eternal hell. None of us want that to happen. Please consider your righteousness as filfthy rags (Isa.64:6). Please consider them as rubbish/dung (Phil.3). All who rely on works of the law are under its curse (Gal.3).

  33. ditchu says:

    How do you know he was not baptized? Maybe jesus recongnized him from the time he was baptized by John?

    Ok in all reality, It is not required for redemption. That is what christ gives us. But for exaltation, to share in the glory of God is it not a required step to be baptized?

    “Faith without works is dead.” We need to do more than beleive. Also I would second the opinion that works without faith is also pointless.

  34. billphillips says:

    Ditchu,

    Exaltation is an LDS doctrine, and isn’t in the Bible. We’re either dead in our sins (Ephesians 2:1-5) or born again (John 3:3). We’re either going to heaven or hell. If we’re redeemed, we will share in the glory of God.

    Take a look at this, from the same guy who made the Fast Apologetics Video:

    The point isn’t about who won or lost the debate but about how Joseph Smith tinkered with the gospel, and it no longer makes any sense.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  35. ditchu says:

    The gospel is simple. I think it has always been understandable but there are items that differ among religions that are not exactly part of the gospel. It is these extraneous things that may contribute to your current regard to Joseph Smith Jr.

    Also did you just provide me with reasoning that suggest baptism is required? “If we’re redeemed, we will share in the glory of God.” So if baptism were required to Share in the glory of God, then by this statement it is required for Redemption.

    Ok enough twisting your comments… I just have a differing view point than you on the matter of what baptism grants a person. It’s mostly symbolic anyways: We die to our sinner self, our natural man, our sins, and are re-born to a new life as a servant and follower of Christ.

    By the way I do not put a lot into these videos, and for that matter the whole “Apologetics” movement. If you have an issue with scripture than you must dig through it and find your answers. I do not relay too much on the opinions of others and mostly when you are talking about religion you are dealing with opinion and viewpoints.

    Bill, I like how easy you have been on these issues, not ramming them down anyone’s throat. At the moment we just have differing paradigms that keep our views at odds. You have shown true caliber of someone honestly seeking truth and I hope I have done the same.

  36. billphillips says:

    Ditchu,

    Thanks for the compliment, and while I have found Mormons easier to talk to than people from any other religion, you have been the easiest Mormon to talk to.

    I agree that you have to dig through the Scriptures and prove everything to yourself. I certainly don’t want you or anyone to take my word for anything. The reason I encouraged you to look at that last video is that first of all, I’m not familiar enough with the Mormon scriptures to quote them to you. Second I hope that you’ll examine the quotes James White provided, and figure it out for yourself. I think you owe it to yourself to be able to answer the questions that the Mormon in the video was unable to if you’re going to continue in the LDS faith. The path to life is narrow, but the path to destruction is broad (Matthew 7:13-14). Do whatever it takes to make sure you’re on the narrow path.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  37. Manuel Culwell says:

    Jim asked a very good question where we always get a very bad answer from those who exclude Baptism from faith and believing and try and make it a work of the Law: “when was the thief on the cross Baptized”? The thief on the cross did not have to be Baptized he was still under the OLD Covenenat and died under the Old where Jesus was about to usher in the New! But when the first Salvation Message was preached then every one has to go the same Acts 2:38 wasy anything else is not the salvation message.

  38. Manuel Culwell says:

    Allow me to also Add, Baptism without the name Jesus is simply getting wet! nAll those Baptised in the Titles Father son and Holy Ghost have not been Baptized hou Must be baptized in the name of the father son and Spirit which is the One name Jesus the reason the Apostles always Baptized that way you will never Find anywhere that they Baptized in the Titles!

  39. Manuel Culwell says:

    Baptism was not required of faith and belief under the Old covenant it is now a part of faith, and to not do so in the name Jesus is a fundemental lack of faith in God’s word because of 1.)False doctrine that excludes it. Men cannot put together How it is of faith, so they make it something else, which God alone does through faith in and through his name. Col. 2:10 says. Baptism is New Coveneat circumcission. The male Jewish Child 8 days after birth was circumcised and named. John the Baptist was this is a type of our Baptism in the New Covenant where we take ther family name Jesus and the old flesh is cut away and we are made new in him!(Luke 1:59-60, Col.2:11-12) God gives us faith not through a predetermined imposing of his will which murderers and rapists do, but through him giving us faith through the preaching of the word which Calvinists misinterpret like the do everything else in scripture…. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God! Also Babies do not need to be Baptized becaused they are not born stained with sin but are innocent , also they have no capacity for belief or faith. The very word *generate* means :Life, but the christian is re-generated, returning to something they had that was lost at birth after they were able to sin and realize they had sinned against God , thus *the new birth.*We are not only returning to Adams innocence but the Baby infant is born with the same innocense of Adam, only Adam was an adult when he was created and later sinned he brought sin into the Garden where before there was none. So they were kicked out of perfection into imperfection(The world) and mankind would forever choose flesh rather than the Spirit and sin making man a sinner seperated spiritually from God….

  40. Manuel Culwell says:

    When we are Baptized in Jesus name by faith, we are put into Christ(Gal.3:27) by faith of the operation of God.(Col.2:12) If you have not ,you do not have faith ,but have been duped into a false Gospel that does nothing .

  41. billphillips says:

    Manuel,

    In Acts 10, Cornelius and his family were saved. The Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues, all before they were baptized.

    The whole point of Galatians 5:1-15 is that if you’re trusting in your good deeds along with Jesus, you must obey the entire law, which is impossible, and only leads to eternity in hell.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  42. Manuel Culwell says:

    I don’t believe in “trusting our good deeds” it does nothing! we cannot pull ourselves up by our own boot straps ! Cornelius and his Household were *Commanded *by Peter to be Baptized!(Acts 10:47) This is not the Law!

  43. billphillips says:

    Manuel,

    If you’re saying baptism is required for salvation, that is saying there are good, religious deeds I have to perform in order to be accepted. You have nothing to exchange for your salvation.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  44. Manuel Culwell says:

    You must have faith and Baptism is a part of faith, you must be born again, and that is required for salvation!God Commands all men everywhere to repentence. all of these things are of faith God ordained. You are talking about working for your salvation which none of these things are! thay are all of faith you must have faith!

  45. Manuel Culwell says:

    Faith is not something God Gives you like giving out a paycheck but he gives faith through the preaching of the word and he does not predetermine who comes and who does not!

  46. Manuel Culwell says:

    James White’s Fast Apologetics are just that! “Fast” and no thought put into them.If someone were to use those Apololgetics of his with a Oneness person they would be picked apart…. I have had a personal discussion with James on his D L and find him to be overated as an apologist and defender for the Reformed, I could very easily pick apart what he has submitted concerning the Oneness but he likes to turn the discussion away to something else ..Just my two cents.

    Manuel

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s