ARE SATAN’S LIES THE ROOT OF ALL SIN?


looking-lurking-and-losing_wide_t_nt1-575x323

We KNOW that Satan is the Father of Lies…

John 8:44

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

I have long held to the concept gleaned, I think from C.S. Lewis, that Satan IS very subtle when he tempts us. For instance, he does NOT say,

“Jane, why don’t you steal that candy bar.” or…

“John, you need a car, look here is one with the door unlocked. Just hotwire it and you will have a car.” or…

“Harry, look at that hot chick, you are special…too special to have sex with just one woman for life. She’ll never  know….”

What we “hear” in our head when we are tempted by the Devil is more like these thoughts implanted in our mind:

I don’t have the money right now but I really want a candy bar…no one is looking.”

I need a car. Here is one with the door unlocked….no one is looking.”

“She is hot! I’ve got some time and I deserve it because I am not like most men. I need more than just one woman for life. Variety is the spice of life after all. Mary will never know.”

I have bolded the “I’s” not to point out the egocentricity, although there is that too; but to point out the brilliant observation of C.S. Lewis, that Satan deceives us into thinking that “I” want, so that our guard is down. We are then convinced that the desire comes from within and not from a demon, and we are then much, much, much more open to the idea, the temptation,  whatever it is.

This is good to know. To always be on guard for the lies and temptations of the Devil, even when they seem to be my own desires.

I have recently been recording and watching crime shows on TV. Not the various TV series but the real ones based on real events like, Who the Bleep did I Marry, Mystery on ID,  Unusual Suspects, etc. Of course, they are troubling but I love to find out how the police caught the perpetrator. Solving the mystery is always interesting to me. Sometimes there is a motive that one can understand but many times it seems to be just gratuitous murder, for no reason, except the person was driven to murder….diabolical for sure. And, no matter what the motive, murder is always diabolical.

He was a murderer from the beginning…

No doubt some people get away with murder. Sometimes, they don’t catch the murderer. I hate those. But, a common scenario is a husband, who is having an affair but doesn’t want to divorce his wife and pay alimony, so he kills her. But then he gets caught and goes to prison for life and the children are orphaned and he has ruined his own life, killed the life of the mother of his children, ruined the lives of his children, and scarred both sets of grandparents and all the siblings. So much sorrow and damage to so many people and all to the glee of Our Enemy.

I wonder how a person could be so stupid. Didn’t they at least think about what might happen if they got caught?

Then, last Friday, while I was at Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, I was reading a book,

The Healing of Families by Fr. Yozefu-B. Ssemakula

It is about Satan’s foothold in the lives of families. But I found this statement of Fr. Yozefu profound:

And at the root of any evil is a lie that the person believes, in order to get to the place for doing evil.

This is one reason we are exhorted not to dwell on any fantasy of sin or temptation of any kind but to pray and reject the evil thought immediately. This prevents Satan from getting a foothold and leading us to the conviction that life would be so much better if I just do ….(fill in the blank)

If you want to fill in the blank with anything that is a sin, you can be sure that Our Enemy is leading you to believe a lie…leading you into temptation.

 

JOAN: Here are a few Scriptures that Contradict the Catholic Church


images-1
BFHU:  You have merely been taught that these scriptures contradict the Catholic Church’s teaching. But we completely accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God. In fact, the Catholic Church compiled and canonized it. It is a Catholic Book.

Our doctrine preceded the canon of the Bible however. So the NT was derived from the teachings of the apostles. Catholic doctrine came first and was not derived from the Scriptures the way Protestants derive their beliefs only from Scripture.

The Bible was not officially canonized for 400 years after Jesus. The pilgrims landed here 400 years ago. That is a long time. And yet, the Catholic Church spread the Christian Faith far and wide without the New Testament. And even the OT was too expensive for everyman to own one. Besides most people could not read. 20% of the world population still cannot read. So, the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura never would have been invented until after the invention of the Printing Press. And still, what is a person who can’t read supposed to do? God to Hell? Or go to a Catholic Church where Scripture is read to the faithful. Conversation: Sola Scriptura vs Illiteracy Rates

The Catholic Faith and teachings do not contradict Scripture anywhere. I was a Sola Scriptura Protestant until 15 years ago –>Why I became Catholic

However, Catholic Doctrine does contradict Protestant interpretations of Scripture in several places. But that is not the same thing as contradicting scripture itself. These interpretations are Protestant Traditions not Apostolic Traditions. But let’s go through your Scriptures. ( to see Joan’s complete comment in context–>Joan Barton March 17, 2014)

Joan: Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth & the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me. John 14:6 For there is one God & one mediator between God & men, the man Jesus Christ I Tim 2:5

BFHU: Since Jesus is both God and man He is the One mediator between God and men.–>One Mediator

Joan: And when Jesus came to Peter’s home, He saw his (Peter’s) mother-in-law

BFHU: Celibacy ( I am guessing that is why the passage on Peter’s mother-in-law) is not a dogma of the Catholic Church. It is a discipline. In fact we have married priests in the Catholic Church precisely because it is a discipline that can be changed and exceptions made. There is historical evidence that the Apostles were celibate from the beginning and that Peter’s wife had probably died leaving him only with a mother-in-law. But even if his wife was mentioned in Scripture proving she was still alive it would not change things. Celibacy allows a man and a woman to have an undivided heart for serving Christ in line with St. Paul in

I Cor 7:38 he who refrains from marriage will do better

–>History of Clerical Celibacy

imagesJoan: The Catholic Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

But she remained a virgin until her Son was born; & Joseph named Him Jesus. Matt 1:25 

…and knew her not until she had brought her 1st born son: & he called His name Jesus. Matt 1:25 K.J. Version In the old testament the term ” and he knew her” meant that he had sexual intercourse.

and He (Jesus) taught them in their synagogue & they were astonished. They said, Whence has this man’s wisdom, & the mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother called Mary? His brothers James, Jo-ses,& Simon & Judas; and his sisters, are they not all with us?” Matt 13:54-56

I have recently learned that some are trying to twist the scriptures to say that Joseph was married before he married Mary, or that his brothers & sisters were actually cousins.
The Bible doesn’t even hint at such; it clearly calls them brothers & sisters.
Some thoughts about that: I it was so important that Mary be so pure & immaculate of a virgin, why was she not worthy to have an immaculate husband instead of a well used one? Could they not find an immaculate husband for such a pure one?
It is unbelievable that during all the years between Jesus birth & death that absolutely not even a hint of her getting a husband that came with a built in family. When they went to pay their taxes would not some of those children go with them, or at least mention where they were & why none did.

BFHU:  We do not “twist the Scriptures” to say Joseph was married before or that the ‘brothers and sisters” were cousins. These are historical/cultural/entymological evidence against the literal interpretation of brothers and sisters to mean siblings and only siblings. Please see–>

A Tradition of Men: Jesus had Siblings. Mary is NOT a Perpetual Virgin.

What we find in the Gospels is what was deemed pertinent to Salvation. It is historical but not exhaustive because Sola Scriptura had not been invented yet and Jesus left a teaching Church. He did not leave the NT or even exhort the necessity of writing the NT. We know from St. John that much of what Jesus did was left unwritten for Oral Tradition to teach verbally.

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Therefore, we do not have all the detailed information in the NT regarding Mary and Joseph’s marital arrangement. Joseph was assigned as a protector of Mary and was not immaculate. Mary’s freedom from all sin was a special grace of God and a fitting place for God the Son to dwell for 9 mos.
Full of Grace

Peter & the KeysJoan: Jesus built His Church on the rock of Peter’s faith.

BFHU: This is a common Protestant interpretation of Mt 16 in order to dispute that Jesus built His Church on Peter. The attempt is to assert that the Church is built not on Peter and the Apostles but on Peter’s confession. Note that you have not quoted a scripture to prove this assertion because there is none. It is merely a Protestant tradition. Please see—>

Petros/Petra vs. Rocky/Rockelle

 

Joan: The next is baptism. Every baptism in the Bible was by immersion in water. It says that it symbolized being, along with your sins crucified with Christ. Coming up from the water symbolizes resurrecting, & being born again with Jesus. Every one baptized in the Bible chose to be & was receiving Jesus as their savior. And they received at least one gift of the Holy Spirit which was their guide from then on.

BFHU: The Bible nowhere commands that Baptism be by full immersion. And how do you  prove that all the baptisms in the Bible were by immersion?

Jesus LA cathedral–>How Was Baptism Administered in First Century?

I have given you many things to read because a one sentence question cannot be answered with one sentence. I hope you are genuinely seeking to at least understand the Catholic Church even if you never agree with the Catholic Church. I appreciate your interest.

Why Did MARY HAVE TO BE ‘EVER VIRGIN’?


holy Family

Joan: When tradition is contrary to the scriptures I choose the scriptures.

BFHU: We both choose Scripture. Whether you realize it or not, you are, in addition to choosing Scripture, choosing your interpretation or an interpretation of Scripture you have been taught. I am choosing the interpretation that has been held for 2000 years. It is also the interpretation of the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus Christ Himself, upon Peter and the Apostles. Our Apostolic Teaching (or SACRED TRADITION) is not contrary to Scripture at any point.

Joan:2 different scriptures say that Mary & Joseph did not have sexual relations until after the baby was born.

BFHU:There is no scripture that says Mary was a virgin until AFTER the baby was born. You have just broken the rule about not adding to Scripture. The way you interpret this is not wrong but there is Biblical precedence for interpreting until as follows:

Your interpretation of the UNTIL in:

And knew her not until she had brought forth her son and He called His name Jesus.’

to mean that Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus was born; would then mean we  HAVE to interpret the following verses like this:

As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child until the day of her death.2 Samuel 6:23

Interpretation: Using your hermenutic this would have to mean that Michal DID HAVE A CHILD AFTER HER DEATH.

In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away. Psalm 71:7

Interpretation: At the end of the world, the moon will be taken away and righteousness and peace will no longer shine forth.

For He must reign, until He has put all enemies under his feet. I Corinthians 15:25

Interpretation: Once Christ has defeated His enemies, He will no longer reign supreme.

Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world. Matthew 28:20

Interpretation: God is with us always, but at the end of the world He will no longer be with us.

I am sure you would agree that the Catholic way of interpreting until would be more appropriate in all of the above verses. And based on historical evidence the Catholic interpretation of until in Matthew 1:25 is also more appropriate.

Joan:Jesus called Mary woman because she is the mother of Jesus & not of God. He is both God & man but He always called his mother “woman.”

BFHU:
Jesus is God as you say. But, He is also fully man. Mary gave birth to Jesus. She did not give birth only to a human person. Jesus was God/Man; fully both at the same time. Since Jesus was God Mary is the mother of God. Not because she created God or preexisted Jesus but b/c she was His mother.

Jesus addresses Mary as woman, not our of disrespect since that would be a sin against honoring father and mother, but because he was highlighting her role as the Second Eve. Whereas the 1st Eve sinned the 2nd Eve (Mary) was sinless.

Joan:I will have to seek the source but it is said that Jesus asked His disciple to take care of Mary because the brothers were not yet believers. I have never bothered to look that up.

BFHU:
That is a very common Protestant INTERPRETATION in a futile attempt to rebut the Catholic contention that Jesus disrespected his siblings by giving His mother to St. John; but you will not find that explanation anywhere in Scripture.

Joan:A previous marriage & children is mighty big news. It is incredible that it wouldn’t even be hinted at.


BFHU:
The Catholic Church is not dogmatic that Joseph had other children. This explanation is the earliest commentary on the brothers of Jesus. But in the 4th century St. Jerome pointed out that the word brother could denote a sibling or other close relationship. As it still does today in English. We use “brothers and sister” all the time and do not mean literal siblings.

Joan:Also if Mary was so sacred that she could not have other children of her own it doesn’t make sense to me that she would be given a husband that did.


BFHU:
Mary could have chosen to have children. But, Mary took a vow of virginity. Joseph was betrothed to her as a brother/husband to be her protector. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit who conceived in her Jesus. If you were Joseph would you enter in to the place where God the Holy Spirit entered? Where God the Son dwelt for 9 months?

Joan:There is a scripture that says to not be unequally yoked. It sure makes sense if having other children would pollute her the to have a polluted husband is what she got. It doesn’t compute.


BFHU:
Yes, Joseph was not sinless. But he was a godly man. Mary was a Godly woman and both were devout Jews.But, I have never heard the admonition “not to be unequally yoked” to refer to the level of sinfulness. If every husband and wife had to be equal in sin and holiness there wouldn’t be too many marriages. Beside how would this even be determined?

Sola Scriptura: A Tradition of Men 5


Peter & the KeysCharles Allen: All things must be tested to God’s word which is truth then we must ask if these oral teachings were tested to God’s word. So does the catechism of the CC church test these oral traditions to scripture ? If they were not tested by scripture then how are we to be sure of their validity ie that they were not merely man’s invention.
Sola scripture just means that things must be tested to scripture as the only reliable source of truth – it was not an invention of Luther’s but always existed.

BFHU:  Where has Sola Scriptura always existed? It did not exist until Martin Luther invented it. Did you know that because of his adherence to Sola Scriptura Luther had the audacity  to delete 7 books from the NT that conflicted with his doctrines.

For instance, he taught that we are saved by faith alone. Sola Fide. But, in James we find these words;

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Well, Martin Luther did not like that so he just took it out of his translation of the Bible into German along with other books of canonized Scripture. I think it was 7 OT and 7 NT. He took them out b/c his doctrine of sola scriptura conflicted with his doctrine of  sola fide.

He also added the word alone to Eph 2:8 in an outrageous attempt to bolster his doctrine of Sola Fide.

“saved through faith alone.” Here is what it actually says:

Ephesians 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—

Yes, Charles, nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts or conflicts with Scripture. Catholic teachings do, however, conflict with Protestant interpretations of Scripture.

Because Protestants tend to think, as you do, that they can infallibly interpret scripture*, (see note below) then, when the Catholic Church teaches something they don’t agree with because they have a different interpretation, they assert that Catholic teachings conflict with Scripture. But that is not correct. Catholic teachings merely conflict with various INTERPRETATIONS of Scripture. That is not the same thing as actually conflicting with Scripture. And, not only that, Catholic interpretations are 2000 years old. Protestant interpretations only go back 500 years.

But where in Scripture does it say anything close to”

“all things must be tested to God’s word which is truth”?

Scripture does say:

I Thess. 5:20 do not despise prophesying, 21 but test everything;hold fast what is good, 22 abstain from every form of evil.

St. Paul clearly says not to despise prophesying, that would certainly be ORAL not written. But to test it. He NOWHERE SAYS TO TEST IT BY GOD’S WORD, SCRIPTURE OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

The Catholic Church does test everything by both the oral and the written Teachings of the Apostles.

Once again, Charles, you are adding to Scripture what just is not there. Therefore, you are now making up traditions of men.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*NOTE:  By the way, I am not making a false accusation agains Charles. In a comment on another post:

Let us take note that in answer to my question:

Do you think you can infallibly interpret scripture?

Charles said,

“Yes”

Sola Scriptura: A Tradition of Men 4


Immaculate Conception - detail 1

Charles Allen: But these traditions were then written down and then formed the NT.
Neither you or anyone else can give me an example of oral traditions in the church that were not written down at some point.
So that is why we are exhorted not to go beyond what is written – Paul would be looking to the future when apostates would try to bring in new non biblical traditions.

BFHU: No, Charles, all of the Oral Traditions did not get written down in time to be formed into the NT as St. John clearly says:

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book..

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

A few Oral Traditions that did not get written into the NT are;

Doctrine of Purgatory
Assumption of Mary
Prayer to the Saints
Infallibility of the Pope
Immaculate Conception of Mary
Mary Ever Virgin

Yes, what were the  Oral Teachings of the Apostles/Oral Tradition that did not get written into what eventually became the Written Teachings of the Apostles/New Testament were eventually written down. You can find them easily now in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So, it was very unwise of Martin Luther, 1500 years later, to invent a new doctrine we know as Sola Scriptura which is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in the Oral Teachings of the Apostles or the Written Teachings of the Apostles.

Sola Scriptura: A Tradition of Men 3


EucharistCharles: bfhu – Are you saying that God allows us to add to His word even though He has told us not to – EVEN though this is demonstrated throughout the bible.

BFHU: No Charles I  believe St. Paul when he wrote:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

That is, Oral Tradition and Written Tradition (Bible)

Charles: “Inasmuch as MANY have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were HANDED down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to WRITE it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the EXACT truth about the things you have been taught.” Luke 1:1-4
Luke begins by mentioning uninspired gospels by Christians, then the oral tradition of the apostles and concludes that SCRIPTURE ALONE will allow Theophilus to know for certain what the truth is.
Luke was guided by the Holy Spirit all the way – although to unbelievers it would seem he as a mere man was writing history.

BFHU: What???? Where ever in that passage does it say one thing about uninspired Gospels and oral tradition?

Yes Luke knew about other gospels but that is all he says. There is no support to believe he also knew about the rest of the NT books. This is just wishful thinking.
You are breaking your rule again by adding to Scripture when you assert that Luke was dissing “uninspired gospels and oral tradition” when that is nowhere in the text and then concludes that:

Scripture Alone will allow Theophilus to know the truth.

Huh? Where does it say Scripture alone?

Does Scripture convey the Truth? Absolutely!

Is all TRUTH contained in Scripture. No.

And there just is no Scripture that asserts that ALL TRUTH PERTAINING TO SALVATION is contained in Sripture ALONE.

As I said before this is a tradition of men.

It has to be because it is not written anywhere in Sacred Scripture. And neither is it contained in Oral Apostolic Tradition. Since, Protestants claim all doctrine must be derived from Scripture alone this undermines their whole case.

Protestants cobble together various verses that honor Scripture. They have been taught that Catholics do not honor Scripture, so they think that showing us these verses about the importance of Scripture, will convince us, that Scripture Alone is true.

But we already know the value of Scripture. And Catholics do honor and must honor Scripture. We hear more Scripture at a Catholic mass than most Protestants  hear in their service. But these verses, that rightly proclaim the glory of Sacred Scripture, do not substantiate the tradition of Sola Scriptura.

This makes Sola Scriptura a tradition of men.

Sola Scriptura: A Tradition of Men 2


images-3Charles: The bishops in the early church were known and called popes. Peter said he was a fellow elder.

BFHU: Charles, Peter referring to himself as a fellow elder was absolutely true. Our pope is a fellow priest to all Catholic priests. And a fellow bishop to all Catholic bishops. It is an act of humility to identify with them and an act of hubris to go around proclaiming, “I am a pope, the Vicar of Christ.” This is because every pope knows he is nothing but only a servant to the servants of God.

Charles: Honoring scripture means making it part of one’s life in constant study. Five minutes scripture on a Sunday is not honoring scripture especially if it involves football matches after the one hour service. As I did .

BFHU:Where do you find this definition of “Honoring Scripture” in scripture?
or
Is this just your opinion?


Charles:
Sola scripture was started by the Apostles – it is what they preached.

BFHU: Based on what evidence do you assert that Sola Scriptura was started by the Apostles?

Charles
There are so many more quotes but of course the main one is from Jesus – when He says that man must live by the WHOLE BIBLE.

BFHU: Where did Jesus say that?

Charles: “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 1 Corinthians 4:6

“from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15

“if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; Ephesians 3:2-

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19

“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Deuteronomy 4:2

BFHU: Charles are aware that  none of these are quoting Jesus?  What does “what was written” refer to exactly? Since, no one at the time Paul wrote  had any idea which writings would end up in the New Testament.
As you point out the same sort of warning as you quote in Revelation was also given in Deuteronomy. So that would exclude the whole rest of the Bible–OT & NT …….if you were consistent.

Charles: Mathew 4 ; 4 “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word (THE WHOLE BIBLE) that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
Jesus and the apostles had full confidence that the Bible would be perfect through the Holy Spirit – the bible was not man’s choice.

God never said you could add or take away from His word.

BFHU:
Charles, if we know, as St. John says, that everything Jesus did could not be written down but only what was necessary for salvation, then we know that, since Jesus is God, that every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, is NOT recorded in Sacred Scripture. Therefore, in order to more closely live, “by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” one should wish to follow ALL of Apostolic Teaching and this is found ONLY in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Also, interpreting, “every word of God” as the “whole Bible” is an interpretation and you are breaking your own rule and adding to the Scriptures.
Charles: The writings they were referring to came from the apostles so they knew what was to be included.

BFHU: Based on what evidence do you assert this?

Charles: bfhu – Using your logic would mean we only have to keep the commandments when they are mentioned but not in the bits where they are not mentioned ??????

BFHU: That is not my logic. You assert that the Catholic Church adds to Scripture b/c of our adherence to the Apostolic Teachings contained in the oral Tradition and not contained in the Written Tradition/Bible and therefore that we violate the Revelation 22 proscription against adding to “the prophecy of this book”.

I am simply pointing out:

1) “prophecy of this book” does NOT refer to the whole Bible as we know it today b/c it DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME JOHN WROTE REVELATION. So it much more likely  merely referred to his book of Revelation, only.

2) This interpretation is further supported because everyone who uses this verse to bash Catholics is usually ignorant of the implication of   similar verses in the 5th book of the OT :

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Everything that I command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take from it.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

By using the logic of excluding Oral Tradition with Rev. 22, Protestants, once they find out about Deut.4 and 12, should only adhere to the first five books of the OT and exclude all the rest of the Bible….if they were consistent.
But this would be silly because both the Rev and the Deut passages are merely referring to the books they are contained in.
Don’t add or take away from the commands in Deut.; don’t add to the Prophecy of Rev. That is it.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 302 other followers