|
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
What do this verse mean?
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
the Lord the Father could nt look upon sin and that is why it is written Jesus was made sin for us. so it also fulfilled that Jesus died a MAN with not even God with him.so that we could come to God. Rev5:9 |
| |
The meaning of "Son of Man" |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
How is the term "Son of Man" to be understood? |
| |
The meaning of "Son of Man" |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Greetings Tryggvi!
By the way, welcome to the Forum!
The phrase, "Son of Man" is an interesting phrase. It is a Messianic title, but it was not a popular one during the time of Christ. There were several other titles which were popular at the time, "Messiah" and "Son of David." However, both of these had been co-opted by those who believed that the Messiah would come and be a national leader for Israel and set them free from the Romans. Thus, for Jesus to use one of these would be sending a message that He did not want to send.
However, "Son of Man" was not as common and did not send such a message. Even though it was clearly a Messanic title. It comes from Daniel 7:13-14:
"13 ‘‘In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
Throughout Mark, Jesus is leading His disciples through a progressive understanding of what it really means to be the Messiah (8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33; 14:21). This process culminates with His statment to the Pharisees at His trial. Notice how they responded to His answer in Mark 14:60-65:
"60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ‘‘Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 ‘‘I am,” said Jesus. ‘‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
63 The high priest tore his clothes. ‘‘Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 ‘‘You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, ‘‘Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him. "
Notice that the High Priest specifically asked Christ if He were the Messiah. He replied in the affirmative and then refered to Dan. 7:13-14. The pharisees denounced it as blasphemey.
Thus, "Son of Man" should be taken as an affirmation of both His Divinity and true nature of His mission as the Messiah.
I hope this helps!
Your brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
Is Mark 6:8 and Matt.10:10 a discrepency |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Could someone help me understand why Mark 6:8 says to take a staff and Matt.10:10 and Luke 9:3 [Same content and context] says NOT to take even a staff. Is this a discrepency? |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
I believe this verse is Jesus as a man crying out in pain on the cross. God is completely holy and Jesus at this point had all the sins of mankind on his shoulders and since God in His complete holiness could not be in the presences of sin He turn His back on the cross. |
| |
Is Mark 6:8 and Matt.10:10 a discrepency |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
first i would like to say that Jesus siad this to all the twelve and only four testaments in the bible tell of him according to matt, mark, luke and, john. So therefor what he siad to one person he could have said another way to that other peson, or the way they pecieved it when it was happening could have veried a bit but it all boils down to love and fiath in doing his will. |
| |
Is Mark 6:8 and Matt.10:10 a discrepency |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Taken from "Hard Sayings of the Bible"..
"When we read Mark 6:8-9, Jesus’ instructions seem clear enough: the only item that the Twelve are to take with them on their missionary journey is a staff. Yet then we read Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3, which prohibit the taking of a staff.
The first piece of information that we notice is that although Matthew seems to know Mark quite well in other places, here only his mention of copper is in common with Mark (the word for “money” in Mark means “copper,” while the word in Luke means “silver”). The rest of Matthew’s version has more in common with Luke.
Despite the differences there is general agreement among the accounts. The Twelve are not to take money, bread, a bag (in which to carry their provisions and into which to put anything they were given) or a second tunic (this was the inner garment, so it indicates a change of clothing). Thus all of the accounts agree that either the trip was so urgent or their dependence on God was to be so radical that the disciples were not to take the normal necessities for a journey with them. Luke’s absolute “Take nothing for the journey” is certainly how the Twelve felt. They were setting out on a trip totally unprepared, without even food or money to buy food. They were also setting out quite differently from the wandering Cynic and Stoic philosophers of Greece, who traveled simply but were permitted to carry food with them and to take up collections in their begging bag. By way of contrast, if Jesus’ followers had been given anything beyond what they could eat or put on there on the spot, they could not have carried it with them, for they had no bag to carry it in.
We also notice that these instructions were taken seriously by Christian missionaries throughout the New Testament period. The one place we find anyone shaking off the dust of their feet against a city is not in the Gospels but in Acts 13:51, where Paul and Barnabas do it outside Pisidian Antioch. Nor is there any indication in either Acts or his letters of Paul’s carrying supplies of any type with him, although this is an argument from silence. We do note that when he comes to Corinth and needs to work he does not set up his own stall but joins in another man’s workshop (Acts 18:3). The point is that these passages were put in the Gospels because they were relevant to missionaries throughout the New Testament period. The concern was not simply to record commands given to the Twelve that were irrelevant for later missions.
What, then, can we say about these three passages? It is possible that a corruption has crept into the text and that Mark originally read “no staff” (which was used for self-defense as well as an aid to walking), but that is unlikely. There is no solid manuscript evidence for that, nor would that explain the problem of the sandals as well. The sandals are mentioned twice in the Mark passage (once in Mk 6:9 and then later in shaking the dust off the sandals), while Matthew is consistent in saying no sandals and then telling them to shake the dust off their feet rather than off their sandals.
One solution is to suggest that it is possible that there were two such commands by Jesus and Mark has one and Matthew another. However, Luke, who agrees with Matthew, clearly identifies his account as the sending of the Twelve, not the Seventy, and there is no evidence that Jesus sent the Twelve out on more than one major trip of this type. This solution would be inventing trips simply to save us problems. It may have happened that way, but it is unlikely given the shortness of Jesus’ ministry.
What seems more likely is that there were two traditions transmitting these instructions of Jesus. Both traditions have the same essence, that the disciples were to travel light, without the normal supplies needed for a journey, resulting in their total dependence on God, but they differed in their exact wording. ... Whatever the reason for the differences in the traditions, Mark followed one (perhaps one he received directly from Peter) and Matthew and Luke followed the other (we have no idea who the source of their common tradition was).
Finally, these passages call us not to lose the forest for the trees. Jesus called his missionaries to travel simply, without the normal provisions for a journey. They had to depend on God for their support. What does that mean for us who call ourselves disciples of Jesus in our security-conscious age? When we would not think of setting off on any mission, ordered by God or not, without ten times the normal provision that Jesus prohibited (credit card as well as money; a suitcase of clothes, not just a change), the issue of whether or not sandals or a staff were or were not permitted to the Twelve fades into insignificance."
|
| |
history of Mark |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Can I get some history or background on the book of Mark?
|
| |
history of Mark |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Mark recorded the life of Jesus according to the eyewitness account given by Peter and other apostles. Mark was the sone of Mary, whose home in Jerusalem seemed to be a center for Christian leaders. Mark went with his well-to-do cousin Barnabus to Antioch in Syria, from where both accompanied Paul on his first missionary journey. Mark, however, left Paul and Barnabus at Cyprus and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Later Barnabus and Mark went to Cyprus, whil Paul departed for Asia Minor.
About ten years later Mark was with Paul in Rome (II Tim 4:11;Col 4:10). Mark's close association with Peter is indicated in 1 Peter 5:13, where the latter speaks of Mark as "my son."
It may have been during Peter's lifetime, or shortly after his death, that Mark wrote the Gospel bearing his name.
Mark frequently records the reactions of Jesus, as well as others. Jesus is portrayed as a Man of action. Although Mark is not noted for extended character sketches, his peculiar portrayal of individuals is often intriguing.
-from Amplified Bible |
| |
history of Mark |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Hello cogic1974!
Here is the "run down" from The Ryrie Expanded Edition Study Bible..
"AUTHOR: Mark
DATE: 50s or 60s
Authorship
John Mark was the son of Mary, a woman of wealth and position in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Barnabas was his cousin (Col. 4:10). Mark was a close friend (and possibly a convert) of the apostle Peter (1 Peter 5:13). He had the rare privilege of accompanying Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey but failed to stay with them through the entire trip. Because of this, Paul refused to take him on the second journey, so he went with Barnabas to Cyprus (Acts 15:38-40). About a dozen years later he was again with Paul (Col. 4:10; Philem. 24), and just before Paul’s execution he was sent for by the apostle (2 Tim. 4:11). His biography proves that one failure in life does not mean the end of usefulness.
Distinctive Approach of Mark
(1) Mark wrote for Gentile readers in general and Roman readers in particular. For this reason the genealogy of Christ is not included (for it would have meant little to Gentiles), the Sermon on the Mount is not reported, and the condemnations of the Jewish sects receive little attention. As a further indication of his Gentile readership, Mark felt it necessary to interpret Aramaic words (5:41; 7:34; 15:22), and he used Latin words not found in the other Gospels (“executioner,” 6:27; “cent,” 12:42). (2) There are only about 63 quotations or allusions from the Old Testament in Mark as compared with about 128 in Matthew and between 90 and 100 in Luke. (3) This gospel emphasizes what Jesus did rather than what He said. It is a book of action (the word , “at once” or “immediately,” occurs more than 40 times).
Mark and Peter
It is generally agreed that Mark received much of the information in his gospel from Peter. With Peter’s apostolic authority behind the gospel, there was never any challenge to its inclusion in the canon of Scripture.
Date
If one denies the phenomenon of predictive prophecy, then the book must be dated after A.D. 70 because of 13:2, but since our Lord could predict the future, this late date is unnecessary. In fact, if Acts must be dated about A.D. 61, and if Luke, the companion volume, preceded it, then Mark must be even earlier, since Luke apparently used Mark in writing his gospel. This points to a date in the 50s for Mark. However, many scholars believe that Mark was not written until after Peter died; i.e., after 67 but before 70.
Contents
The theme of the book is Christ the Servant. The key verse is 10:45, which divides the gospel into two major divisions: the service of the Servant (1:1-10:52) and the sacrifice of the Servant (11:1-16:20)."
|
| |
can i get background on mark 4:35-41 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Thank You for the response and background for the writer and author for the book of Mark but I need information and deeper enlightment on Mark 4 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Thanks |
| |
can i get background on mark 4:35-41 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Greetings cogic1974!
I have many sources..
"4:35 the other side. The E side of the Sea of Galilee.
4:37 Violent storms often occurred because the valleys descending to the lake (700 ft, or 213 m, below sea level) acted like wind tunnels.
4:41 They became very much afraid. The disciples were rebuked (v. 40) for being “afraid” (lit., cowardly). In verse 41 the word afraid refers to reverential, respectful awe for the Lord. In exclaiming, Who then is this, though not yet comprehending fully, they acknowledged that He was greater than they thought." (Ryrie Study Bible)
"4:35 To cross over the Sea of Galilee, a lake only eight miles wide, would not seem difficult at first glance. Yet its unique geography produces a greatly varying climate. The lake is situated seven hundred feet below sea level and is surrounded by mountains that rise three to four thousand feet above sea level on the west, north, and east. Tropical conditions prevail around the lake’s surface, where even bananas are grown today. Yet the higher elevations can produce chilling night air.
4:37 It is not unusual even today for a sudden great windstorm to appear on the Sea of Galilee during the evening hours. The warm tropical air from the lake’s surface rises and meets the colder air from the nearby hills. The resulting turbulence stirs up great waves which make boating extremely treacherous.
4:38 The mention of Jesus being asleep on a pillow shows His true humanity. He was fully human and needed food and rest just as all people do.
4:39 Jesus’ command over the wind and the sea demonstrates His full and complete deity. Only God the Creator can calm wind and sea.
4:41 Mark uses the disciples’ question “Who can this be?” to evoke a similar response in the minds of his readers. Mark relates the works and words of the one he calls “Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1)." (The Nelson NKJV Study Bible)
"4:35-37. The vivid details indicate that Mark recorded an eyewitness report, probably from Peter. On the evening of that day of teaching by the lake (cf. v. 1), Jesus took the initiative and decided to cross over to the other (east) side of the Sea of Galilee with His 12 disciples. Though not stated, He probably desired relief from the crowds and rest. Perhaps also He sought a new sphere of ministry (cf. 1:38). Even so, other boats, carrying those who wanted to remain with Jesus, tagged along.
His disciples, several of them experienced fishermen, took charge of the voyage. The words, just as He was, refer back to 4:1 and link Jesus’ teaching in a boat with His miracle-work in a boat (cf. the disciples’ address, “Teacher,” v. 38).
The journey was interrupted by a sudden furious squall, common on this lake, surrounded by high hills and narrow valleys that functioned as wind tunnels. A storm in the evening was especially dangerous, and on this occasion the boisterous waves broke over (lit., “kept spilling over into”) the boat so that it was nearly swamped.
4:38-39. Exhausted from a full day of teaching, Jesus was sleeping in the stern, on a sailor’s leather rowing cushion. The panic-stricken disciples woke Him with a cry of reproach (cf. 5:31; 6:37; 8:4, 32) at His apparent indifference to their situation. Though they called Him Teacher (Gr. for the Heb. Rabbi), they did not yet understand His teaching.
Jesus rebuked (lit., “ordered”; cf. 1:25) the wind and said to the waves, “Be silent! Be muzzled and remain so!” (the force of the Gr. perf. Tense, ) This verb, “be muzzled,” was somewhat of a technical term for dispossessing a demon of his power (cf. 1:25) and may suggest that Jesus recognized demonic powers behind the ferocious storm. But at His command the wind stopped and the lake became completely calm.
4:40-41. Jesus rebuked His disciples for being afraid (, “cowardly fear”) in a crisis. Despite Jesus’ tutoring (vv. 11, 34) it still had not dawned on them that God’s authority and power were present in Jesus. This is what He meant by His second question, Do you still have no faith? (cf. 7:18; 8:17-21, 33; 9:19)
In stilling the storm Jesus assumed the authority exercised only by God in the Old Testament (cf. Pss. 89:8-9; 104:5-9; 106:8-9; 107:23-32). That is why the disciples were terrified (lit., “feared a great fear”) when they saw that even the forces of nature did obey Him. The verb “terrified” (from , “have awe;” cf. , “cowardly fear,” in Mark 4:40) refers to a reverence that overtakes people in the presence of supernatural power (cf. 16:8). However, their question to one another, Who is this? indicated that they did not fully comprehend the significance of it all." (NIV Bible Knowledge Commentary: NT)
These are just a few of my sources.. Please write me through e-mail at nkeck98@yahoo.com if you would like to have more on Mark 4:35-41..
Blessings,
Nolan
|
| |
Are theregospels about Mary Magdeline? |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
In the gospel of Mark 16: Mary magdeline is the first person to see jesus ressurection, what other important events took place in the bible where Mary Magdeline played a key role? Are there any gospels about just her? |
| |
Are theregospels about Mary Magdeline? |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
freespirit-
I think I covered all of these in your other post, and no, the only gospels there are are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Debbie |
| |
Are theregospels about Mary Magdeline? |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
freespirit, Here is what the Gospels says about her:
John 12:3 - Some believe anointed the feet of Jesus
Matt 27:56 - She was at His cross (Mark 15:40, John 19:25)
Matt 27:61 - She saw where He was buried (Mark 15:47)
Matt 28:1 - She came to the grave (Mark 16:1, John 20:1)
Mark 16:9 - He cast out seven demons from her
Luke 24:10 - She told the 11 about what she saw (John 20:18)
There is no Gospel just about her.
Steve |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
I agree that Jesus became sin for us at that time and God turned away but I believe that it was for a split second and then Jesus' holy nature returned. As we know, when we completely submit our lives to and accept the gift of salvation through Jesus, we feel that complete separation from sin. As if a great burden had been lifted but then in a split second our sinful nature returns. Jesus was sin for a split second. He died Holy. |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Hi, Pixie;
I can't prove this, of coure, but it seems to me that for the substitutionary atonement to be real, Jesus must have died with our sins on him. If he shed them before he died, then they're still awaiting payment and we're stuck with the bill. The wages of sin is death, not a momentary separation from the Father.
I think part of the shame and horror and utter injustice of the cross is that the man Jesus did die utterly alone. He was as separated from the Father as anyone carrying a burden of sin to the point of death would be. Because he carried the burden all the way into death itself, we who put our faith in him won't have to.
Just my opinion, not worth arguing over. ;-)
Peace and grace,
Steve |
| |
Are theregospels about Mary Magdeline? |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Hi, Freespirit;
Jesus cast out seven demons from her (Luke 8:2) while healing several women. And she was a witness to Jesus' crucifixion.
There is a book called the "Gospel of Mary" purportedly by or about Mary Magdelene. This book was known and rejected by the early church. In the last 100 years, it has become one of the treasures of liberal (scewball?) theologians who want Jesus to be anything but the holy Son of God.
Hope this is helpful.
Peace and grace,
Steve |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Hi Steve, I never really thought about this subject. I know that Jesus took on the sins of the world but as to how long he held them, was never a question. You bring up some food for thought. I don't know whether He shed the sins that were placed on him or perhaps His blood covered and purified them. But I know He had to be sinless and holy before entering into God's presence. So when did His holy nature return? As I said before, this is not something that I had ever thought of and my earlier response was an immediate thought. I guess I'll have to study up on this subject..thanks..pixie |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Hi, Pixie;
My guess - it's just a guess - is that when he gave up his spirit, the man representing all that sin was dead and what remained was the pure, holy spirit of Christ: 'When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit' (John 19:30)
All our sins were taken on at the cross and atoned for at that moment when Jesus breathed his last. At the resurrection, the man Jesus, righteous all along, was again holy and pure enough to ascend into Heaven.
I like to sit around and read about these events and try to figure out such things - trying to "think God's thoughts after him". But don't let my intellectualizing get in the way of the wonderful myteries that have been only partly revealed.
Peace and grace,
Steve |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Greetings Steve!
I don't remember if I discussed this issue with you before or not! But, at the risk of repeating myself, my I add a few comments!
There is a much simpler way of understanding the phrase "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us." (2 Cor. 5:21) Rather than trying to figure out how long He was sin, ect... We simply need to understand that He took our place upon the cross and paid our debt.
I don't believe that this verse means anything more than that He took upon Himself the penalty of our sins.
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Greetings Steve!
"Stepped across the stars to Bethlehem and Jerusalem...."! I like it! :-)
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Thanks; the quotes reveal that it's not original: Joseph Bayly, "Psalms of My Life" Victor, 2000. Hard to find but worth it. This is a review so I hope the following is fair use:
A Psalm for Christmas Eve
Praise God for Christmas
Praise Him for the Incarnation
for Word made flesh.
I will not sing
of shepherds watching flocks
on frosty night
or angel choristers.
I will not sing
of stable bare in Bethlehem
or lowing oxen
wise men
trailing distant star
with gold and frankincense and myrrh.
Tonight I will sing
praise to the Father
who stood on heaven's threshold
and said farewell to His Son
as He stepped across the stars
to Bethlehem
and Jerusalem.
And I will sing
praise to the infinite eternal Son
who became most finite
a Baby
who would one day be executed
for my crimes.
Praise Him in the heavens.
Praise Him in the stable.
Praise Him in my heart.
(c) Copyright 1987, 2000 by the estate of Joseph Bayly.
If you can read that dry-eyed, you're a better man than I. Our (retired) pastor used to say that without Easter, Christmas has no purpose; without Christmas, Easter has no meaning.
Peace and grace,
Steve
|
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Hi, Tim; I agree. This is a topic that I've thought about in the past and felt moved to jump in.
I once did a brief meditation at a community Good Friday service on some of Jesus' words from the cross. In it, I speculated about Jesus' separation from his Father at Christmas when he "stepped across the stars to Bethlehem and Jerusalem". I wondered if his prayer in Gethsemane wasn't motivated more by dread of this looming moment of complete separation than by dread of the cross itself. I concluded with the thought that the terrible, undeserved separation he endured assures us that "neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God." (Romans 8:38-39)
Still, the details are a mystery that ought to pique our curiosity but also feed our sense of wonder.
Peace and grace,
Steve |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Steve
I'm confused if you believe Romans 8:38-39, as I do, how is you believe God would leave Jesus. Everyone says God had to turn from Jesus when He had all the sin of the world on Him, WHY? Satan stands before God and he is the epitome of sin. Also for God to turn Himself from Jesus means He turned Himself from Himself since They are One. Mark 15:34 shows Jesus’ concern for us and His willingness to die for us by reciting Psalm 22, which was a prophetic picture of what was taking place, in one more attempt to show the people their error. God never left Jesus for a moment and there isn’t anything in the bible to indicate God did.
EdB
|
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Hi EdB;
I guess I don't see the connection with Romans 8:38-39 since that has to do with the assurance of our reconciliation with God accomplished by Jesus on the cross.
But I do wonder why Jesus (quoting Psalm 22) would cry out to God who had "forsaken" him? Are you saying that was just a final scripture lesson for the benefit of the spectators and not a cry from the heart? It seems to me that this cry suggests (probably doesn't prove) that God the Father had indeed "forsaken" him somehow. To say that God "turned away" is more metaphorical than factual. Clearly, nobody really knows.
I don't want to start a whole new trinity discussion, but they are also Three. I assume that it would be one thing for God to contenance Satan and his sin and something entirely different to see his own Son (and himself, in some mysterious way) stained with the world's sin.
Peace and grace,
Steve |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
The connection with Romans 8:38-39 is love is what keeps the promise that God would never leave us of forsake us. How much more the love of the Father for the Son that was faithful and obedient. No, God would never leave nor forsake Jesus. Jesus' cry was two things first another confirmation of his humanity and two a conformation of His divinity even in agony of death He is still teaching His beloved children of His love.
There is much teaching about God having to turn from sin where do we get this idea? God and Christ confronted sin head on. God in His love for us reaches out to us when we were deepest in sin.
Many say sin separates us from God and that is spiritual death, and I agree but Christ couldn’t have experienced that or he would have been both physically and spiritually dead which means (and I too am not trying to start another discussion on the trinity) that since Jesus and God are one then God would have had to died spiritually also. No Way!
|
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Hi, EdB;
Well, while I'm not entirely convinced, I'm convinced it's not terribly important: "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face" (1 Corinthians 13:12)
Peace and grace,
Steve |
| |
explain Mark 15:34 |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Just the fact you would consider it means there is desire to learn.
EdB |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
