Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Really Wrote the Gospels?
Catholic Education Resource Center ^ | 2003 | Fr. William Saunders

Posted on 01/07/2004 6:49:39 PM PST by Salvation

Who Really Wrote the Gospels?    FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS


I recently attended a religious education workshop, and the teacher said that the Gospels were written by the early Church community probably between the years 200 and 300, not by St. Mark, etc. I find this strange. If this is true, then the Gospels really don't tell us much about Jesus but seem more "made up" by later believers.
 
The notion that the Gospels are the product of the early Church community in the third century is "strange" indeed. However, we must be aware that a lot of "strange" things have emerged in some circles of modern Scripture scholarship, where scholars have isolated the texts of Sacred Scripture and examined them without any appreciation for divine intervention or the living Tradition of the Church. Sad to say, some Scripture scholars would have us believe that the only thing we can know for certain is that Jesus existed. Even the pagan Roman historians could tell us that. Such a bent in Scripture is misguided.

Therefore, to answer this question we must be clear on how the Gospels were formed and what constitutes authorship. Citing Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the Catechism has a very succinct presentation on the formation of the Gospels.

The foundational premise is that "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He live among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up."

After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the "sacred authors" wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form. Sometimes the authors may have synthesized some of these events or teachings, or may have underscored parts or explained parts with a view to a certain audience. This is why the Gospels oftentimes tell the same story, but each will have certain details not included by the others. In a similar way, if each member of our family had to write a family history, each member would tell basically the same story, but each member would also highlight certain details he considered important and would keep in mind who would be reading the family history. Nevertheless, the sacred authors wrote "in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus." Therefore to suggest that the third century Church "wrote" the Gospels in some kind of vacuum, almost to "create" Jesus, is without foundation.

So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the Gospels? Is the sacred author also the saint? Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the 12 Apostles. We must keep in mind that the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his though and in his spirit even though a "ghost writer" did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the psalms.

Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with John Mark of Acts 12:12 and the Mark of I Peter 5:13, is mentioned in a quote contained in a letter from Papias (c. 130), Bishop of Hierapolis: "When Mark became Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done." St. Irenaeus (d. 203) and Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) support this identification. The Gospel of Mark is commonly dated about the year 65-70 in conjunction with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

St. Matthew is identified with the tax collector called as an apostle (Mt 9:9-13). Papias again attests to the saint's authorship and indicates that he was the first to compile a collection of Jesus' sayings in the Aramaic language. For this reason, the Gospel of Matthew, at least in a very basic form in Aramaic, is considered the first Gospel and placed first in the New Testament, although the Gospel of Mark is probably the first in a completed form. St. Irenaeus and Origin (d. 253) again support this authorship. Nevertheless, some scholars doubt the saint's direct authorship because we only have the Greek version, not the Aramaic, and no citations are made from the Aramaic version in Church literature. The version of the Gospel we have was probably written between 70-80. St. Luke, the beloved physician and disciple of St. Paul (Colossians 4:14), has consistently been recognized in Christian tradition as the author of the third Gospel, beginning with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (d. 220), and Clement of Alexandria. The Gospel was written about 70-80.

St. Irenaeus identified the author of the fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. He does so based on the instruction of his teacher, St. Polycarp (d. 155), who himself was a disciple of St. John. Throughout this Gospel, the numerous details indicate the author was an eyewitness. Also scholars generally agree that "the beloved disciple" mentioned in the Gospel is St. John. This Gospel was written probably about 80-90.

Whether the actual saint wrote word-for-word, whether a student did some later editing, or whether a student actually wrote what had been taught by the saint, we must remember the texts — whole and entire — are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the human authors used their skills and language with a view to an audience; however, they wrote what God wanted written. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation clearly asserted, "Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the Sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.

Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Father Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, have analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry.

Jesuit Father Jose O'Callaghan, studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship but also supporting the traditional authorship.

Perhaps some mystery surrounds these texts and the identify of the authors. Nevertheless, we hold them as sacred, as inspired, and as truly the Word of God.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Saunders, Rev. William. "Who Really Wrote the Gospels?" Arlington Catholic Herald.

This article is reprinted with permission from Arlington Catholic Herald.

THE AUTHOR

Father William Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Sterling, Virginia. The above article is a "Straight Answers" column he wrote for the Arlington Catholic Herald. Father Saunders is also the author of Straight Answers, a book based on 100 of his columns and published by Cathedral Press in Baltimore.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Current Events; Eastern Religions; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Humor; Islam; Judaism; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Orthodox Christian; Other Christian; Other non-Christian; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Religion & Science; Skeptics/Seekers; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: authors; catholiclist; deadseascrolls; gospels; hebrew; john; luke; mark; matthew
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 next last
To: dangus
once more... the magisterium does not invent revelation.

No they just philosophize doctrines into existance and when they think it sounds good, the pretense is that it has been "revealed." Binding and loosing does not allow the creation of new doctrine save under a very narrow scope - that of amplifying an existing doctrine. That is the way things were under the law. As we are no longer under the law, even that extent of authority is questionable. And in any event, such things had to be made in full agreement with scripture, just as any "revelation" had to be in full agreement. Thus, saying that they don't invent doesn't moot the point that the revelation isn't in line with scripture. Therefore one must question who revealed it. But that upsets people who demand to be followed no matter what they proclaim. That isn't How it works. That's how your religion is setup; but, that isn't how Christianity is setup. And therein is the beef.

101 posted on 01/15/2004 4:38:52 AM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Fury; Claud; dangus; All
Ah, yes, I remember you. The wee little one that kept nipping at the heals and could not be made to behave. Have we changed? Doesn't appear to be the case.. All the things in both statements are required.

You'll note the difference between becoming a christian and remaining one and that thusly the context from which you ripped these things to present an appearance of something wrong... Any more slander you wish to engage in whilest you're at it?

102 posted on 01/15/2004 5:12:54 AM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Actually, he does know of what he speaks; but, he isn't going to debate the entire system in one thread just to avoid being tarred. I'm over it lol. When you guys learn to read scripture and understand that a cup of 'my blood' that is still wine isn't actually blood.. you might get somewhere. You also might understand that when he calls the cup the new covenant, either that cup is the new covenent, or the agreement between God and men is. You might also understand, by learning to read, that when Christ institutes a jewish meal of remembrance and says 'this do in remembrance of me' - it is a meal of remembrance using metaphors just as the jewish passover meal..
103 posted on 01/15/2004 5:35:38 AM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Like I said, you deny the scriptures.
104 posted on 01/15/2004 8:18:58 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Havoc; Claud; dangus; All
Ah, yes, I remember you. The wee little one that kept nipping at the heals and could not be made to behave. Have we changed? Doesn't appear to be the case.. All the things in both statements are required.

I guess I missed the "To be continued" or "Please see this other message" disclaimers in your message(s).

As you wrote:

"Perhaps you've missed the cleverly disguised point of all this - to get it right. It isn't about bashing or finger pointing. It's about dealing forthrightly about the facts and pointing out the correct path."

please see - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/656646/posts?page=48264.

Indeed, sir, indeed. Please don't take exception to others who insist on the same.

You'll note the difference between becoming a christian and remaining one and that thusly the context from which you ripped these things to present an appearance of something wrong... Any more slander you wish to engage in whilest you're at it?

Slander? Sorry, that dog don't hunt. An inconsistency was noted - and a darn important one at that - between two statements that you made. In one case (in Statement 1) it was downright error. I'm interested in souls and truth. What about you?

Your statements were not taken out of context - context was provided, along with the statements in question. Let's look for now at the first statement. You were clear of what it took to in becoming Christian in the first statement quoted:

1) Repent
2) Confess
3) Learning Scripture and following Christ

What about believe? As in confess and believe - believe and confess - i.e. remittance of sin, Paul also mentions this (e.g. born again, saved). Christ was clear in Mark 16, and Paul discussed this as well. You are not clear, indeed, you are errant. Both are required. Not just one - both. You've stated that:

"What does the scripture say? Believe and confess. Period. Both are required - not just one and we'll think about the other."

please see - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/656646/posts?page=7586.

We'll hold off on Statement 2 for now, and the issue of be[ing] a Christian. Statement 1 is sufficient and makes the point quite well. Scripture is inerrant. The Holy Spirit is inerrant. Christ is inerrant. What you wrote is errant and it was documented and noted as such. Concerning your other comments, how your ego (e.g. "nipping at heals [sic], could not be made to behave") handles someone noting you erring in representing Scripture - using your citations as references - is your concern. Facts, logic, reasoning and faith might be appropriate.

Souls and truth, Havoc. If that is what you believe is important, I'd ask you to be consistent with how you represent Scripture.

105 posted on 01/15/2004 9:25:21 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Havoc writes:

When you guys learn to read scripture and understand that a cup of 'my blood' that is still wine isn't actually blood.. you might get somewhere

When we learn to read Scripture? Hmmm.... Let's just take John 6 for now as this addresses in many ways the flesh and blood in question.

John has two literal uses of "eat my flesh and drink my blood". The first is the Jew's crass literlism - Jesus intends to tear off his flesh and consume as such - cannibalism. The second is sanctified literalism - Jesus speaking about eating and drinking his sacramental flesh and blood. At this point in time, Jesus doesn't expect the disciples, including the Apostles to understand this teaching of the precise form his flesh and blood will take -he does expect them to accept it. The Apostles accept it (although they would not fully understand until they were filled with the Holy Spirit), indeed some disciples did not accept and turned away and no longer followed him - the only time in the NT this occurs.

106 posted on 01/15/2004 9:41:11 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: dangus
No, I just embrace all of them - including the ones you guys ignore or don't like and the ones that are inconvenient to your philosophy...
107 posted on 01/16/2004 5:30:12 AM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Fury
It's not an inconsistancy, as stated. And anyone who's read my comments on this issue knows that I hammer on repentance followed by compliance with Mark 16 requiring being born again and baptised in the Spirit, Romans 8 and John 10 - requiring being born again listening to and following in the Holy spirit AND the direction of the Apostles to reject anything which is different from the message they taught (requirement to know the scriptures).
This is not new. It seems to step on your toes along with those of meny other sects; but, that's scripture.

As I said before, you know this and you know your reputation from the Christian Chronicles threads. As per usual, you want to whine about the consequence of your behavior rather than behaving as a christian. That is your problem to solve, not mine. And your behavior is the reason you aren't directly speaking to me, or did you forget that part? I haven't.
108 posted on 01/16/2004 6:20:27 AM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Traditional Authorship = Actual Authorship. We can toss out all that revisionist garbage. God Bless
109 posted on 01/16/2004 6:49:48 AM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: All
Havoc writes:

It's not an inconsistancy, as stated. And anyone who's read my comments on this issue knows that I hammer on repentance followed by compliance with Mark 16 requiring being born again and baptised in the Spirit, Romans 8 and John 10 - requiring being born again listening to and following in the Holy spirit AND the direction of the Apostles to reject anything which is different from the message they taught (requirement to know the scriptures). This is not new. It seems to step on your toes along with those of meny other sects; but, that's scripture.

They were your posts - your words that were posted and references to those posts were provided - much less wiggle room that way and sets the record straight for those who view the thread.

There are steps to becoming a Christian. You posted these steps - minus some. One of those steps is to confess and believe. Not just confess and not just believe. It's found in Scripture. The requirements as outlined by Scripture don't step on my toes, but what you posted (or rather, failed to post) is not what Scripture calls for and I will note that as such.

As I said before, you know this and you know your reputation from the Christian Chronicles threads. As per usual, you want to whine about the consequence of your behavior rather than behaving as a christian. That is your problem to solve, not mine. And your behavior is the reason you aren't directly speaking to me, or did you forget that part? I haven't.

Hmmm. I thought you were over that, as *you pinged me* on your reply. Guess not. Not sure what this has to do with souls and truth. - that's all of our concern. Whatever justifications you use for not getting it right in accordance with Scripture is for your and your ego to figure out.

110 posted on 01/16/2004 6:54:28 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Fury
Well, it's refreshing to know that you guys still think you need to attack me personally when you can't defend any given topic. It's understandable too that you all seem to feel the need for this kind of damage control. Tell ya what, you just keep it up and I'll sit back and snicker for a while. What's that rule, attack the citations and impugne them, if that fails attack the person and impugne them, if that fails.... but never deal with the topic at hand if it paints you in a bad light.. lol. Have fun.
111 posted on 01/16/2004 7:24:23 AM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
>> No, I just embrace all of them - including the ones you guys ignore or don't like and the ones that are inconvenient to your philosophy... >>

Yeah, like the one at the last supper, when he goes, "Prank'd! It's just a cup of wine. Judas! Judas! You can come back now. Geez. You guys thought I was serious? do you even KNOW who Aaron Kutcher is? Man, Peter... was your face WHITE!"

O, no, wait, that only happened in your fevered blasphemies.

112 posted on 01/16/2004 8:01:29 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: All
Havoc writes:

Well, it's refreshing to know that you guys still think you need to attack me personally when you can't defend any given topic. It's understandable too that you all seem to feel the need for this kind of damage control. Tell ya what, you just keep it up and I'll sit back and snicker for a while. What's that rule, attack the citations and impugne them, if that fails attack the person and impugne them, if that fails.... but never deal with the topic at hand if it paints you in a bad light.. lol. Have fun.

"Need to attack you personally"? LOL. Not even close. I expect accuracy and references if someone is asserting something as fact, whether it be pertaining to Christianity or some other matter.

There is more to becoming a Christian than you stated in the first statement initially cited. Scripture was provided to justify that assertion, along with references.

It's not about you, Havoc, and you don't seem to get that. It's about souls and truth and making sure that Scripture is represented as to what it says - and means. I'm not sure who "you guys" is, and I don't consider insisting Scripture be quoted and represented accurately as "damage control". That you do is a cause for concern.

113 posted on 01/16/2004 8:03:54 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: dangus
You mean at the last supper where he said, this do in remembrance of me. The one where he said 'this cup is the new covenant'. How can it be the new covenant if it's actually supposed to be blood; but, then he also states that he will not drink of the fruit of the vine again till much later - referencing the cup. So, it's wine, then it's blood, then it's the new covenant, then it's wine again. Oops. So, we understand he is speaking metaphorically because this is no different than any other feast of remembrance. Or do you not know what the bread and wine represented before this? Another oops. These errors in doctrine on your clergy's part occurred because they didn't know what they were reading and didn't know Jewish custom.
Moreover, they didn't want to know the jewish customs and even took to torture and murder of jewish converts under the inquisitions for keeping their old customs.. remember.

Jesus spoke in parables to the unbelievers and in straight talk to the believers, which is why the followers in John 6 left. They were getting the carnal understanding for though they followed, they didn't believe. Jesus gave them every chance to get the spiritual meaning and when they didn't, they were angered and left just like the pharisees and saducees. The bread of life was being eaten in the old testament times - as christ said, man does not live on bread alone; but, on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. That is the bread of life, God's spoken word to us. Christ was talking about spiritual life, thus the flesh profits nothing because only the spiritual can feed the spiritual. To those that are not spiritually minded and are unbelievers, this remains a riddle that is hard to understand and thus they grab to carnal notion that one must eat the flesh of christ and drink his blood literally.
This was not the message. The message to the contrary was that he would eventually be put to death and that if one was going to have any part in the kingdome, they'd have to take the benefit of that sacrifice by believing and confessing as Peter did in Matthew 16:18. That is the eating and drinking - but the carnal mind can't get around that nor does the devil want that message out there. So the more he can confuse the issue and keep people in ignorance, the better chance he has. Spiritual warfare - not physical. You should go back to Matthew 16 and read the first part of the chapter and take a lessen. Beware the leaven of the Pharisees and saducees - keep away from their doctrines.
114 posted on 01/16/2004 8:46:20 AM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Fury
What seems odd to me is that Havoc seems to discount the need for baptism. JESUS was baptized, but he thinks we don't need to be? John and Acts pretty much describe the disciples baptizing at every turn... but it was just optional, I guess.
115 posted on 01/16/2004 8:52:45 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
No,Havoc.

CUP:
1. A small open container, usually with a flat bottom and a handle, used for drinking.
2. Such a container AND its contents.

No changing back and forth:

There was wine, it was poured into a cup, and turned into the blood of Christ. As the blood of Christ, it is still the "fruit of the vine," every bit as much as wine is the fruit of the vine, because it was made from the vine. (In the same sense, Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb.)

116 posted on 01/16/2004 9:09:31 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: dangus
If it turned into the blood of Christ, why then is it still wine? It doesn't say he won't drink his own blood, it says he won't drink the fruit of the vine again till later - fruit of the vine is wine for those in rio linda. Again, ignoring what you want in order to fit into your philosophy rather than taking the whole and gleaning the proper understanding given in scripture.

You're clergy were trying to understand with their physical minds just as the pharisees and saducees did. Just as the unbelievers did. And they were caught in the same trap that Christ layed for the unbelievers. That's what He intended and that's wherein you are snared. And that is where you will remain snared unless God opens your spiritual eyes. John 6 provides a great wealth of clues to what Christ is saying along with abundant allusions to the OT to references which spell it out in no uncertain terms.
Those ignorant of God's word just run right on by it, ignore it and don't get it. I'll lay it out there for the others again. If the BREAD OF LIFE was being eaten in the OT by listening to and acting on the words of God, it is the same yesterday today and forever, then how does the bread allof a sudden require injesting food rather than listening to God's word? Christ states that hasn't changed even in John6 - It is the work of God that you should believe him whom he sent, etc. Have fun.
117 posted on 01/16/2004 9:33:28 AM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Remember Paul never knew Jesus personally, but Jesus said "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe". So why should believe that Luke knew him? Paul was not chosen originally as an apostle, but later. I think Paul wrote lots of things.
118 posted on 01/16/2004 9:48:44 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Havoc doesn't discount water baptism, he just sees it as Christ sees it. It's like circumcision, an outward sign, not an inward one. Christ commanded that we be baptised; but, with fire - in the holy spirit as it were. That was and is Christ's baptism. John's baptism was and is the baptism of the old covenant - in water. This baptism is still practiced by the Israelites under judaism. You are hungup on the same carnal issues one would expect you to be hungup on. The thief on the cross wasn't baptised in water. Why? Simple, he didn't need to be. God looked at the inward man and knew Him. It is men who want outward signs, God wants inward repentance and obedience. We are not of John's baptism as Christians. We are of Christ's.
We are not of the physical circumcision; but, of the spiritual. Carnal minds and unbelievers do not or will not get this.
119 posted on 01/16/2004 9:53:50 AM PST by Havoc ("Alright; but, that only counts as one..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Now you're referring to yourself in third person? "Smeagol likes hobbitses!" |^D!

You should know that the Catholic Church has ALWAYS maintained that "a sacrament of desire" occurs when someone desires a sacrament, but it is impossible to receive it. So, yes, the theif on the cross was baptized.

But EVEN baptism in the spirit was done with a laying on of hands. The outward signs are necessary to demonstrate and manifest the will. If a person rejects the outward sign, that it is certain that he has rejected the body of Christ.
120 posted on 01/16/2004 10:12:10 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson