EChurch@Wartburg – 12.6.15

Welcome to Our Gathering of EChurch@Wartburg Background

Here is our Order of Worship

Advent Prayer link

God of majesty and power
Who spoke and this world was
Who breathed and this world lived
Who counts the hairs upon our head
Who sees our thoughts and reads our hearts
Who loves us more than we deserve
How can we not bring today
Our sacrifice of praise?
For in the child at Bethlehem
Lies the promise of intimacy
With a Saviour who would die even for me
And the promise of an eternity
In which to praise you more each day
God of promise we praise your name 

Traditional Episcopal Prayer for the First Sunday in Advent link

Almighty God,
give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness,
and put upon us the armor of light,
now in the time of this mortal life in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; 
that in the last day,
when he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge both the quick and the dead,
we may rise to the life immortal; 
through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, now and for ever.

Scripture Reading:  2 Corinthians 4:7 (NASB Bible Gateway)

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves;

1 Timothy 1:15 (NASB Bible Gateway)

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

Advent Prayer link

God of hope, who brought love into this world,
be the love that dwells between us.
God of hope, who brought peace into this world,
be the peace that dwells between us.
God of hope, who brought joy into this world,
be the joy that dwells between us.
God of hope, the rock we stand upon,
be the centre, the focus of our lives
always, and particularly this Advent time.

Blessing (from Isaiah 60) link

Arise, shine, for your light has come.
So lift up your eyes and look around.
May you see and be radiant.
May your heart thrill and rejoice at the abundance of love poured upon you through God’s gift of Jesus.


EChurch@Wartburg – 12.6.15 — 26 Comments

  1.   __

    “Round Two”




      Your pastor ‘At Large’ is still encouraging kind folk to worship of Archangel Michael as The Deity? 


      Respectfully, Michael the Arcangel will tell you (given half a chance…) , Jesus is no ‘Angel’.


      Perhaps you should select another pastor who will bring a proper scriptural message to his hearers without a certain measure of mis-guided idolitry leavened in?

    “Michael, the Son of God and Savior of the world, has come.” -Wade Burlison 

    Or does the Wartburg Watch blog seek no intrest in the presentation of proper scriptural interpretive measures?



  2. Sopwith,

    The eternal, transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, “Alpha and Omega,” Creator of all things, second Person of the triune God “in whom all the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwells” – that is Jesus Christ – is no more a created angel than you are are an evolved monkey.

    Please see here:

    and discover, Sopwith, that Calvin, Clark, Edwards, Gill, Spurgeon, Owen and every other Hebrew and Greek evangelical scholar pre-20th century held to the same opinion as I – that one of the TITLES of the Son of God, the Messiah, is Michael the Archangel. Yet God the Son has no more the NATURE or ESSENCE of an angel than you a the nature or essence of an ape.

    He is God – Emmanuel – God with us.

    I find it surprising, Sopwith, that you assess your own “proper scriptural interpretive measures” better than that of Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, Adam Clark, Martin Luther, and the others mentioned above.

    Disagreement over interpretations is healthy. Unambiguous egotism of superior interpretive skills – shutting out those who disagree with you – is both unhealthy and unwise.

    Do some research and be gracious with those who disagree with you. I shall extend to you the same courtesy.

  3. Sopwith,

    One final note – you make the same error the Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to make when they themselves QUOTE the great othodox and evangelical scholars I’ve named on THEIR website. In an inability to see the Hebraic TITLE “Michael the Archangel” in no form or fashion conveys nature or essence to Christ. In other words, Jesus AIN’T NO ANGEL. He is God.

  4. Having not read the article by Pastor Burleson to which Sopy (?) linked, I spent the last hour reviewing it. I’m not sure when I’ve read a more profound Christ-exalting article on the Internet. Of course, I grew up in a Bible-teaching evangelical church and am well read in the classics. Pastor Burleson’s position that Michael is a title for Christ and not an angel has been the orthodox Christian interpretation for centuries. Only recently, with the advent of the cultic Jehovah’s Witnesses (who wrongly deny the deity of Christ), have Christians with little understanding of the Bible associated Michael with a literal angel instead of a title for the Messiah.

  5.  __

    Q. Michael The Archangel Is Jesus?

    Short Ans. “Jesus is not Michael the archangel. 

      “The Bible nowhere identifies Jesus as Michael (or any other angel, for that matter). 

    Hebrews 1:5-8 draws a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels: 

    “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’? 

    Or again, ‘I will be His Father, and He will be my Son’? 

    And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship Him.’ 

      In speaking of the angels He says, ‘He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.’ 

      But about the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’” 

      The hierarchy of heavenly beings is made clear in this passage—angels worship Jesus who, as God, is alone worthy of worship. 

      No angel is ever worshipped in Scripture; therefore, Jesus (worthy of worship) cannot be Michael or any other angel (not worthy of worship). 

      The angels are called sons of God (Genesis 6:2-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), 

      But Jesus is THE Son of God (Hebrews 1:8; Matthew 4:3-6).

      Michael the archangel is perhaps the highest of all the angels. 

      Michael is the only angel in the Bible who is designated “the archangel” (Jude verse 9). 

      Michael the archangel, though, is only an angel. He is not God. 

      The clear distinction in the power and authority of Michael and Jesus can be seen in comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan, and Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel “dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy” against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. 

      Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1, 14). 

      Michael the archangel is a powerful angel, but still only an angel.” [1]

    [1] Reference:

  6. Wade Burleson wrote:

    I find it surprising, Sopwith, that you assess your own “proper scriptural interpretive measures” better than that of Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, Adam Clark, Martin Luther, and the others mentioned above.

    I hope Sopwith does better than them in many areas of interpretation!

  7. I remember a few years ago you wrote a blog post about Michael as a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ that caused a bit of chatter. I had not heard of it before but it was during the time I had been looking into ESS so it interested me quite a bit.

    I am always a bit leery delving into the topic of Angels, meanings, assigning rigid interpretations to allegory, etc. I realize this is more about prophecy to many. I do believe the OT is all about God and His interaction with His creation, I just don’t believe we have to read Jesus into it.

    It is of interest to me how the Jews might have understood Michael. They were totally against any worship of Angels or assigning any sort of saint status to them. Would they have mapped Michael to God in any way?

    Michael, which means, “one who is like God” is described as an “arch” angel in both the OT and NT. This was of interest to me when contrasted with “Lord of Host Armies, which the Jews would have definitely mapped to God and we often map to Christ. So, it seems, we have a “leader” of angels, Michael, and a “Lord” over the army of angels which could be Jesus as God.

    (I am not one who assigns specific rigid roles to the Trinity before God became flesh or eternity future. So that will probably get me into trouble off the bat!)

    I guess I don’t understand the purpose behind Michael as a “title” describing the Son of God unless we are mapping the meaning the of the name Michael in definitive terms.

  8. Sopy,

    You seem to be missing the point. You are insisting Michael is angel while many orthodox Christians throughout the centuries have said Michael is a title for the Son of God, and not an angel.

    Then, as Muff Potter accurately states, you make a false equivocation by charging others with idolatry for worship of an angel when they have been clear as crystal with you that (in their view) Michael is a title, not an angel.

    I don’t wish to offend you, but it does seem like you have an agenda.

  9. Anonymous wrote:

    You seem to be missing the point. You are insisting Michael is angel while many orthodox Christians throughout the centuries have said Michael is a title for the Son of God, and not an angel.

    When comparing it with other Titles like Son of God, Son of Man, Emmanuel and such….it does not fit. I am trying to think of other titles that might fit this assertion. Not even the descriptive titles in Isaiah 9 fit the concept of an arch angel.

    I know I am a bad girl for questioning “Orthodox scholarship”. :o)

  10. Lydia,

    Try “Root of David” – is Jesus a root of a plant?
    Try “Bright and Morning Star” – is Jesus a star like the north star?
    Try “Lion of the Tribe of Judah” – is Jesus a lion like the Lion King?
    Try “Alpha and Omega” – is Jesus a letter of the alphabet?

    I could go on. You get the picture.

  11. I had actually never heard this before, that is that the Archangel Michael is in fact an title for Jesus, although it does make sense. All the way through the O.T.there are these references to the LORD, to the Angel, appearing to people; especially Hagar who is one of my Bible heros. Right now I’m reading Judges 6,and there again the way the idea of the Angel speaking which is suddenly in v.14 The LORD makes a lot more sense.

  12. As a quick comment on the, thankgoodness, few and far between 'keyboard warriors' who occasionally pop up on this blog; judging by the English I think it might be fair to say that some may be ESL speakers, thus there may well be a certain amount of misunderstandings. With this in mind some mercy and grace perhaps?

  13.   __

    “On Christ The Solid Rock I Sand, All Other Ground Is Sinking Sand?”

       “In the recent past, you have accused me of being Catholic. Now, I happen to think that Catholics can be Christians just like I believe Baptists can be Christians. However, I know you meant that comment as a derogatory statement…” -Dee





      I spoke to you in a ‘private’ conversation during a phone call you made to my cell. Yes, up to that point, it would appear that you were coddling Catholic behavior, and I called you on it. Now you want to violate a trust? For what, a difference of opinion? Please tell your readers the rest of the story. 

      I was brought up devout Catholic; educated Catholic; many of our friends are devout Catholics. All my memories are extreamly favorable. Please place my words, spoken in confidence, in their proper context. 

      (My concern at that time was that you were giving Catholic behavior a free pass.)

      Now with the advent of your TWW Boston disclosure, a ‘certain’ balance has been birthed into being here at WartburgW. 

      Of a truth, certain Catholic parties/authorities must be held accountable for child molostatation. 

      I am very pleased that you would posess the courage to bring the kind ‘management folks’ of the RCC towards a better confidence, healing,and trust. Those who yet trust in it’s vast umbrella, may very well benefit from your no small labor.  I forgive you blatant indiscretion. As always, I am a phone call away,

    Jesus loves me dis I know, hum, hum, hum…

    Your dear friend in Christ,



    P.S. Pls inform dear brother Wade that difference if opinion aside, I have formally ‘invited’ Michael The Archangel to my house; as he and his ‘friends’ are always welcome here. 🙂 

  14. @ Sopwith:
    I violated a trust by saying you referred to me in what you perceived to be a derogatory manner? No Sopy, you don’t get to make outrageous comments and then expect those to be kept in confidence. To be truthful, I did not even imagine that such a comment was confidential. I would have assumed that it was more a statement of fact than anything else.

    I would never have deliberately violated an confidence. That goes against my grain and what we do on this blog. Once again, i would ask that you be a bit more circumspect in your comments to others.

  15. __

    This Is My Beloved Son, Hear Him?”


      Dear Friend, if you are a member of some church other than the one ‘Jesus built’ ™ , please consider this truth:

      ‘His church’ is your one means today of being a part of Christ, of being part of that which is eternally planned, divinely built, and providentially preserved throughout all generations, to the glory of God in Christ,

      To be a true member of it, as a penitent believer right now, pls. determine to trust Christ Jesus, His work on the cross, to be baptized for the remission of your sins, that you may be added to that church by the Lord Himself,

      The eternal disposition of your immortal soul depends upon the decision that is your alone to make. Pls. choose wisely.

    (Pls. see the bible for details.)

    Merry Christ-mas!



  16. Sopwith,

    I realize it is difficult to convey the emotion you feel via a keyboard. Emoticons are insufficient. However, as I write this, there is a genuine smile on my face, and a lightheartedness in my heart toward you. I know you love Christ, His church, and the Word. Having set the emotional backdrop, the words that follow convey how I perceive your words in this comment stream me, or to Dee and Deb, or even more accurately, to me via Dee and Deb.

    Your original comment in this section of Wartburg Watch (above) was to Dee and Deb:

    “Perhaps you should select another pastor who will bring a proper scriptural message to his hearers without a certain measure of mis-guided idolitry leavened in? see – “Michael, the Son of God and Savior of the world, has come.” -Wade Burleson Or does the Wartburg Watch blog seek no intrest in the presentation of proper scriptural interpretive measures? (sadface)”

    Here is the offense I have with your words. I use the word offense lightly. I’m reminded that “love covers a multitude of offenses,” so I am not seeking an apology from you, nor is my offense a result of any personal wound. Typically, I would not respond to negative comments, but there are occasions (and this is one) that the level of my offense rises to a response.

    Anyone can – and should – question me. That’s never a problem. We are to be Bereans and search the Word of God for ourselves. The person who accepts what is being said, just because who says it, is not being a “workman rightly dividing the Word of truth.” I also have no offense with your statement to Dee and Deb – “Perhaps you should select another pastor.” Dee and Deb (Wanda) and Wartburg Watch are free at anytime to choose another pastor. These two delightful ladies put E-Church together, and I have no expectation whatsoever that I should be the pastor at large. They will be my friends whenever the Spirit leads them to another at-large pastor. I didn’t ask for this, nor did I seek it, nor am I beholden to it.

    The offense I have is with your statement: “A pastor who will bring a proper scriptural message to his hearers without a certain measure of mis-guided idolitry (sic) leavened in?”

    (1). You accuse me of idolatry.
    (2). You emphatically state I’m not bringing a “proper scriptural message.”

    Later wonder (with a little shame attached) if Wartburg Watch has no interest in “the presentation of proper scriptural interpretive measures.”

    Your words convey to me spiritual authoritarianism, a danger in the Christian church of which I’ve written a great deal.

    In an environment of safety for those abused by the church and authoritarian leaders, Wartburg Watch provides a place of freedom for those who question, those who doubt, and those who struggle with faith.

    The attitude you display with your words in this comment stream seems to me to be one of superiority and authority in understanding the Scriptures, and a denigration of those who disagree with your views. That’s my offense. It seems you – and I don’t know you – expect others bow to your esteemed interpretations of Scripture. Words like yours (and again, I could be wrong with my perception of your words), when coming from a “pastor” or “one in authority” can cause great damage.

    I would suggest that you continue to question others, but be humble in your spirit. Absolutely challenge the interpretations of others, but try not to see or present yourself as the know-it-all of proper Scriptural interpretation. Of course, doubt what others say, but accept those who disagree.

    That, to me, is the Spirit of Christ. And, that to me, is what seems to be missing in your words.

  17. __

    “Spirit of Christ?”

    Searched and inquired carefully?


    Skreeeeeeetch !


      Yes Brother Wade, we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in us,

      But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him,


      If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness,


    (this you know…)

    Notre espoir est dans rien de moins que le Christ-Roi et sa justice, hum, hum, hum… 

    I Thank-You Brother Wade for the
    Christ-centric tenor of your thoughtful admonition; –and to a man of understanding wise counsel, to hear and increase in learning..?

    could b.

    Per Spiritum De Christi habitet in vobis abundanter! 

      And because we are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son Jesus into our hearts, crying, “Abba, Father!” 


    Circumspectly yours (grin),



  18. I can’t speak for others, but I don’t have a clue what Sopie is saying with all the rhyme and riddle. However, Sopie’s criticisms of others are clear as crystal. Scratching my head.

  19. @ Anonymous:
    @ Wade Burleson:
    @ Sopwith:

    I have known Sopy for a very long time and have had the opportunity to meet him. He was involved in the painful saga of SGM and that will always be with him. Sopy, until recently, has been quite encouraging with his own unique way of communicating.

    However, in this past year, he has let us know, publicly on the blog, that he has gone into renal failure and is in need of a kidney transplant. Kidney failure is a difficult situation since the kidney filters out many of the toxins in the blood. The entire blood stream runs through the kidneys so when the kidneys don’t perform, toxins build up and that can lead to not feeling well (to say the least.)

    I believe that this illness may be wearing on Sopy and it reflects in his comments.

    Wade and Anonymous

    You guys are wonderful and much appreciated by the vast majority of people on this blog, including me-your recalcitrant Arminian friend. Love is the basis of the faith which was seen in Jesus who was crucified, resurrected, ascended and coming again! He forgave us our sins so that we could love and relate to one another and to Him. I sense that love from you both, always as I sense Christ’s love in my life.

    You know I care about you even when we disagree. You are my brother in Christ and I love my family!

  20. Agreed, Dee. Thanks for the personal information. Sopwith, I will be praying for you, and I seek your forgiveness for the harshness of my comments. The centrality of Jesus Christ is very important to me, but I believe I crossed a line in my response to your initial comment. I probably should remain quiet when accused of idolatry (ie worship of an angel), but I’m human. 🙂

  21. Anonymous wrote:

    Try “Root of David” – is Jesus a root of a plant?
    Try “Bright and Morning Star” – is Jesus a star like the north star?
    Try “Lion of the Tribe of Judah” – is Jesus a lion like the Lion King?
    Try “Alpha and Omega” – is Jesus a letter of the alphabet?
    I could go on. You get the picture.

    I get where you are coming from listing the some metaphorical descriptors and other literary genres used. The real question is how would the audience of that day and time have understood it. AND the later audience of converted Berean Jews concerning prophecy. This is a very important consideration. That the Jews would assign an Angel or Messenger title to Messiah (God in the Flesh) seems extremely unlikely. It would have been considered blasphemous in my limited understanding and research of ancient Jewish beliefs.

    Let’s contrast the Archangel Micheal title with titles/descriptors given in Isaiah 9 for the coming Messiah. Those titles are found WITHIN the Trinity but are used to describe the coming Messiah. This was so very important. Jesus Christ is Everlasting Father, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace. We see Him called the same as Father God and the Holy Spirit.

    This is where the Angel (or even messenger) title for God in the Flesh does not work. Jesus Christ was not a messenger for God. He is/was God in the flesh! He IS the message. Interpreting Michael an arch angel as a title of Jesus Christ seems to even position HIm as a sort of lesser god. (That stuff is so ingrained that it is very subtle).

    The Jews in general, (not all schools, I am sure) would never attach “Angel” or “messenger” to God.

    I think Jude 9 is a clue orthodoxy got this one wrong and brought in non Jewish interpretations. I have read the cases made for Jude 9 proving Michael the Archangel is a title for Jesus but I think they miss the Jewish angle. It just would not work. It would work to lessen Jesus Christ in the eyes of Jews.

    I don’t think another interpretation is categorically heretical. I just don’t see it working from a Jewish angle. The Lord of Host Armies Who is the Word become flesh and could flatten the Temple if He wanted to and raise a leigon of angels does not have to rebuke in the “Name of the Lord”. He IS the Lord.

  22. @ Sopwith:

    Peace can be brokered, but it’s gotta be a two-way street.
    Pastor Burleson has been gracious and has extended a kind apology.
    There’s a way to disagree agreeably without arming and launch codes so to speak.
    Will you also stand down and not be so quick with hostilities?

  23.   __

    Q: “The Bible Speaks Of Michael The Archangel, Who Is He?”


    (The knowledge of Christ from searching da is worth the effort?)


      “The identity of ‘Michael’ becomes of prime importance when it is linked with Jesus Christ. 

      Various groups do teach that Jesus Christ is Michael, primarily the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
      First they taught in the Watchtower of November 1879 that “Michael is not the Son of God”, and continued this view into the Watchtower of March 1883, correctly stating that Jesus has “a nature superior to the angels”. By 1926, in “The Finished Mystery” Michael was identified as “the Pope” (of Rome). However, over the years their doctrine has evolved into the teaching that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel. The “Reasoning” book says on page 218, “…the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven…”. What an about-face!

    Other Examoles;

      The Seventh-day Adventists teach that Jesus Christ is Michael, while at the same time being God! 

      The Mormons, (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), on the other hand, teach that Michael came down to earth and became the first man, Adam, in the Garden of Eden. He supposedly brought one of his celestial wives with him and started the human race!


      With all this confusion over the identity of ‘Michael’, we need to know for sure just who Michael is, according to scripture. The name “Michael” means “who is like to God”, or “who is like God?”

      Some have suggested that this meaning sounds like a description of Jesus Christ, but does it? 

      —> To adequately answer this question, it is important that we lõõk carefully at ALL da scriptures dealing with Michael, and see if they ‘line up’ (c) with other scriptures describing Jesus Christ.

    Q: Could Jesus be Michael, or could He not be Michael? 

    Scriptures relating to Michaei in the book of Daniel(10:13):

    .”…Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the Kings of Persia”. [NAS]

     Michael is only one of several other “chief princes”. He is not unique.

      Jesus is never called “Chief Prince” in the Bible. It is not one of His titles. He is called, however “King of Kings” and Lord of Lords.” [Rev. 19:16]

     Daniels 10:21

    “…Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.” [NAS]

       Michael is portrayed as “your prince”. That is, the “prince” for the exiled nation of Israel, who fights for them. This battle is between angelic forces.

      Jesus does have angelic forces with him when He fights [see Mat. 25:31], but He is never referred to as the “Prince” of these forces, rather He is identified as “the King” [Matt. 25:34]

    Daniel 12:1

    “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people will arise…”. [NAS]

       Michael is here portrayed as a “great prince” who stands guard over Israel. Possibly a guardian angel.

    1. Jesus is never called a “great prince” in the Bible, nor a guardian.

    Jude 9

    “But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “THE LORD REBUKE YOU”. [NAS]

    1. Michael is an Archangel. The New American Standard Concordance p.1636 lists the meaning of “Archangel” as ” a chief angel”. This agrees with Daniel 10:13.

    2. Michael did not dare to rebuke Satan.

    3. Michael spoke of “The Lord” [“Kurios” in Greek] rebuking Satan.

      Jesus is not a “Chief Angel”, nor is He a “Chief OVER the angels” as the SDA’s have tried to twist the scriptures to say.

    2. Whereas Michael did not have the power to rebuke Satan, Jesus rebuked Satan many times. [see Matt.17:18, Mark 9:25, etc.] Therefore Jesus is not Michael.

    3. Michael referred to “the Lord” as separate from himself. “The Lord” is a New Testament reference to Jesus, and an Old Testament reference to YHWH.

    Revelations 12:7

    “And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon, And the dragon and his angels waged war.”

       Michael is fighting at the head of his angels, which is only proper, since he is a chief angel.

     Revelation 12:5, 6 just previous to this scripture portrays Christ as a “male”, a “son”. Verse 10 following calls Him “Christ”. Jesus is not called an angel in the book of Revelation.

    1 Thessalonians 4:16

    “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” [NAS]

     1. The Lord Himself descends.

    2. “with” shouting.

    3. “with” the voice of the archangel.

    4. “with” the trumpet of God.


     1. The Lord Jesus Christ is identified.

    2.-4. All these things are WITH Christ, “a shout”, “the voice of the archangel”, and the trumpet of God”. If we say this verse is saying that Jesus is an archangel because the voice of the archangel is WITH HIM , then we must also say that Jesus is “a shout”, “a voice”, and “a trumpet”! ” [1]

    Hope this helps,

     There are those who desire to make a ‘good showing’, attempting to compel you to a conclusion simply so that ‘tradition’, and those so called ‘scholars’ that came before, may be wholly satisfied. Take care that You are not mis-led…

    SKreeeeeeeeeeeech !

    Yet, the end of the matter is :

    Yes, ‘stand’ with Christ Jesus, God’s only begotten Son, Folks!

    Yes, You are invited!

      Yes, His marrage feast is about to begin soon,

    Yes, believe You me, ‘You’ don’t want ta be late…


    (Pls. see the bible for details…)



    “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand…” (grin)



    [1] Reference(s):
    NAS bible,