In His Steps Ministries

In His Steps Ministries

Are you on a Spiritual Journey to find God?
Are you a new Christian?
Alpha Course may be a great option for you.

In His Steps Ministries
christian web sites



ChristianSkeptics Interview

The Birth of Jesus Crucifixion of Jesus Christ-Did He die on the cross? Jesus was resurrected and offers eternal life for everyone.
(Note on graphic)

Pastor Richard D'Andrea Dover, the founder of In His Steps Ministries and founder of The Hill for Jesus was recently interviewed by Rick Woods (of AudioMartini), a self-proclaimed secular humanist and skeptic. Rick's position is that Jesus Christ is a myth, there was no historical Jesus. He gave me the opportunity to share my own beliefs. I believe Rick was very fair and I truly appreciate his sincerity. Talking with him after the interview was very enjoyable.

Be sure and read the various topics on the left border that have evidences that the Bible is true and that Jesus was a real person that was crucified and resurrected.

Before we discuss the interview I want to say that even though Rick Wood's is an atheist and secular humanist, I believe that he does have some good arguments against foolish Christians, false Christians, the whole paranormal group that are wacky, and because of this interview I have spent much time cleaning up this site and adding information. I ask that every Christian that reads this info to pray for Rick's salvation.

Rick Wood's Challenges to a Historical Jesus and Christianity
Right Click to Download Audio
Click Here for Streaming Audio

My Testimony
The interview started with Rick reading my bio. He then asked me to share my personal story. To be honest I stumbled in this. Now isn't that crazy. I obviously know more about me than anything else I shared. Anyways, I grew up as an atheist and was very argumentative with Christians. I had a car accident where my car went off the road and down a ravine. I was not injured and came to believe that there might be a God. After reading "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell and doing an intensive study on the validity of the Bible, I became a Christian.


As historical proof that Jesus was a man we shared that the Roman Historian Tacitus spoke of Jesus as a real person. Rick mentioned that Tacitus also spoke about Hercules, so Tacitus is not a reliable historian. Here is the quote we shared from Tacitus.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Annals 15 -44

” Mischievous Superstition”.
Exitiabilis is the latin word for mischievous. It means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was “a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition”. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, thus he would not be sharing about the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as superstition but the practice of Jesus’ followers.

A famous historian, reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, Tacitus would not have been prone to writing about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to see if he could not get the most accurate report possible. He wrote his history of Rome covering the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian, that's 14-96 AD.  He used earlier works by historians cross checking them with each other. He sought to verify his facts, something unusual in the writing of the time. He clearly has bias as he hated Domitian and wasn't a great fan of Tiberius, but this would have no bearing on mentions of Christ.

Here is a quote from Tacitus regarding Hercules:

Tacitus, Germania. Chapter 3

They say that Hercules, too, once visited them; and when going into battle, they sing of him first of all heroes. They have also those songs of theirs, by the recital of which ("baritus," they call it), they rouse their courage, while from the note they augur the result of the approaching conflict. For, as their line shouts, they inspire or feel alarm. It is not so much an articulate sound, as a general cry of valour. They aim chiefly at a harsh note and a confused roar, putting their shields to their mouth, so that, by reverberation, it may swell into a fuller and deeper sound. Ulysses, too, is believed by some, in his long legendary wanderings, to have found his way into this ocean, and, having visited German soil, to have founded and named the town of Asciburgium, which stands on the bank of the Rhine, and is to this day inhabited. They even say that an altar dedicated to Ulysses, with the addition of the name of his father, Laertes, was formerly discovered on this same spot, and that certain monuments and tombs, with Greek inscriptions, still exist on the borders of Germany and Rhaetia. These statements I have no intention of sustaining by proofs, or of refuting; every one may believe or disbelieve them as he feels inclines.

Rebuttal to Rick Wood's argument:
The above quote by Tacitus shows that Tacitus was not saying the mythological Hercules was a real man. All he was doing is sharing what others say. He is just repeating what others have said about Hercules. At times that is what historians do, they state what others say about their culture. In fact, about Ulysses he states 'believed by some'.
Regarding the quote about Christus (Jesus), Tactitus speaks authoritatively. No one disputes that there were Christians and that Nero persecuted them. Note that Tactitus does not say that some think there or say that there was a person that was named Christus that some say was the founder of Christianity. He speaks specifically that Christus suffered extreme penalty by Pontius Pilate. If this was not true, where are the documents of Tactitus time period stating he wrote history wrong. There are no documents whatsoever challenging Tactitus' statements. If what he stated was not fact, but a myth about Christus, why did his contemporaries never challenge him. As much as the Romans hated Christians, it would have been to their benefit to say that there was no historical Jesus, he is just a myth. Notice that in Tactitus writing that the Christians actions are called superstitious, not their belief in a real Jesus.

Rick also stated that Tactitus was not a contemporary of Jesus. This is true, but there are many historians (actually most) who are not contemporaries of the history they write about. What do historians do? They do research on the subject matter they are writing about. If you were to use Rick's logic then you would need to throw away most history books.

Let's explore when Jesus was born and died and see how far off Tactitus was from the time of Jesus life. Jesus was born around 4 B.C. not 0 A.D. (Reference). Jesus death (based upon if you believe his birth was 4 B.C. or 0 A.D.) was 29 A.D. or 33 A.D. Tactitus wrote the Annals at 64 A.D., so he was close to being a contemporary of Jesus.

Is the Bible Subject to Error
Rick wanted me to acknowledge that the Bible is full of errors and discrepancies. He wanted my position on the flood and other events in the Bible.

I do not have a solid position regarding certain events. There are scholars and Christian scientists who are much more educated than myself who do not agree on creation, the flood, etc. All I can say is that I believe God created the earth, there was a flood, and yes, by faith, I believe everything that is documented in the Bible.

I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe where there appears to be error or discrepancies, that we must look at the context, know about the culture of the time, look at the Greek and Hebrew, know when fact or allegory is being presented, and understand the purpose for what was written. I gave the example of a car accident. There can be several witnesses to a car accident, but each witness has a different perspective on the accident. They may even give different answers to who was driving and if not at the scene may even give a wrong color for the vehicles involved. This does not deny that there was an accident. Apparent discrepancies do not disprove the reality of a historical Jesus.

I made it clear to Rick that I do not believe the Bible is a collection of allegories. It is the Word of God written by men who were inspired by the Spirit of God. They had their own writing styles, personalities, and experiences. They were certainly subject to error and were sinners like you and me, but they were vessels used by a Holy God who does not make mistakes.

Flavius Josephus
Mr. Wood also stated that Josephus is not credible because he mentions Hercules. He also states that Josephus was not a contemporary. Actually, he was born right after Jesus death, so he is writing only a few years after Jesus death. Being a Jew who was against Christianity, I am sure he had any evidence that Jesus was a myth and what the Christians were promoting about Jesus crucifixion and resurrection was a myth he would have documented that these were myths.

Let's look at the quote I shared on the radio and then look at a quote I found by Josephus regarding Hercules.

 Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, and He drew to Himself many Jews. And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him. The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.
(Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 )

I removed the portions of the quote that were questionable and many believe Christians added. If you were to remove this quote completely from the Jewish Antiquities, there is no quote from Josephus questioning the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, even though Josephus was a Jewish historian and would have had every desire to disprove Jesus.

Quote by Josephus speaking on Hercules:
Chapter 15. How the nation of the troglodytes were derived from Abraham by Keturah.
That from Surim was the land of Assyria denominated; and that from the other two (Apher and Japbran) the country of Africa took its name, because these men were auxiliaries to Hercules, when he fought against Libya and Antaeus; and that Hercules married Aphra's daughter, and of her he begat a son, Diodorus; and that Sophon was his son, from whom that barbarous people called Sophacians were denominated.

I admit I know nothing about Greek Mythology. However when I did research on the web, I cannot find anything that gives this account of Hercules other than Josephus. So, was he talking about the mythological Hercules or a real man. I will let those who know mythology decide the answer. If Josephus is talking about the mythological Hercules, then yes, his writings are questionable. However, that does not mean everything he wrote is questionable. In the judicial system, people are convicted of murder based upon the testimony of questionable witnesses. The juror must take all the evidence and see if the testimony lines up with the evidence.
Hercules wives and sons
Life and Times of Hercules
In Depth study of Josephus

The Jewish Talmud
Rick states that most scholars believe that this reference is to a different Jesus. I would acknowledge that this may very well be the case listening to his argument.

The Jewish Talmud (Centuries of Jewish oral tradition committed to writing between AD 200 and AD 500), In the Babylonian Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin (43A), there is an interesting reference to Jesus.

On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went
before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned
in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let
everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found
naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.

The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Encyclopedia Britannica
I read a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica and Rick challenged the quote by stating the Encyclopedia also mentions ghosts. Of course it mentions ghosts. But it does not say that ghosts are real. The Encyclopedia Britannica speaks on a variety of mythological characters and states they are mythological. What does that have to do with Jesus and the credibility of the Encyclopedia Britannica? Rick in his statement is questioning the credibility of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Do we have other skeptics that are really willing to acknowledge that they are so much of a skeptic that they even question the Encyclopedia Britannica when it speaks on Jesus. How far will skeptics go in their unwillingness to even acknowledge there was a real Jesus of Nazareth?

So significant is Jesus in man's history that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napolean Bonaparte. Why would there be so much material on a man who was never born and is only a myth.

Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth:
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Rick's argument against this quote is that until the Age of Reason many documented events from earlier times were not questioned. We would agree. But here is something to consider. Since Christianity has started there has been much hatred of this religion. It is obvious that both the Jewish leaders and the Roman government had been antagonistic towards Christianity. Why during the earlier years of Christianity is there no historical documents refuting the existence of Jesus Christ of Nazareth? Why is it in 'ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus'? Is Rick stating that until the Age of Reason, the contemporaries of Jesus and early Christianity were not reasonable people? They were not intelligent enough? They were blinded? There has to be a logical reason why the contemporaries did not question the reality of a historical Jesus. The only logical reason we know of is the most obvious reason-because there was a historical reason.

I have a question for skeptics. If Jesus was just a myth and the Jewish leaders hated Him, the Romans hated Christians, and there were certainly others against Christianity, why is there a lack of documents for over 1800 years and specifically during the first century that refutes a historical Jesus?

The skeptics would argue where are all the documents proving there was a historical Jesus? We have the New Testament documenting about Jesus and Christianity, so there are 27 historical books. We would agree that some say the books are not historical.

Here is one more challenge regarding Rick Wood's argument about the Encyclopedia Britannica. This look at his position logically. He questioned Tactitus and Josephus because they were not contemporaries of Jesus. But he then wants to defend the position that it was not until the end of the 18th century that Jesus' reality was questioned. He rather trust documents that are written 1800 years after Jesus death than documents that were written a few years after Jesus death. Which are more reliable? If his argument is reliability is based upon how close to the time of Jesus life and death, then the documents written in the 1800's and 1900's are not as reliable. Of course, logically that is not sensible. Reliability is based upon evidence, not just how close a document is written to the time of the event.

Side Note
As a side note, in America it was ok to say Merry Christmas during Christmas time for years and years, but in 2006 it is not politically correct. Did Christmas time no longer become Christmas time because atheists are offended by Merry Christmas? Somehow, that does not sound enlightening? Because atheists or other faiths don't like hearing Merry Christmas and are trying to ban it, does it mean 20-50 years down the road, that it really was not Christmas time in December? What is my point? That just because we are in a modern age, it does not mean that people are always more logical. Is the reason the historical proof of Jesus is questioned because we are in the age of reason and that prior to the 1800's the historians and others were not intelligent enough to know there is no historical Jesus or because our society has become more and more been anti-Christian, anti-God? Something to think about.

Original Manuscripts
Since Rick Wood's brought up the topic of how close a document is written to an event and it's reliability, I shared on the amount of original manuscripts there are of the New Testament and how close they were written to the time of the events documented. I compared the New Testament with the Iliad written by Homer.

There are over 24,000 original manuscripts of the New Testament and portions of the New Testament. There are only 643 manuscripts of the Iliad. The earliest known manuscripts of the New Testament were written 25 years after the last documented event and 85 years after the last documented event. The earliest known manuscript of the Iliad has a 500 year time span. So according to Rick's argument, then the New Testament manuscripts are more accurate of the original documents than the Iliad manuscripts are of the original Iliad. Most scholars would agree that the closer a manuscript is to the time of the original event, the more accurate it most likely will be of portraying the event or the actual original document.
Note: We acknowledge the Iliad is just a story and some would say that the New Testament is just stories.

In the midst of this topic we also spoke on the prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled in the New Testament. Click here to read on the Validity of the Bible.

Herod's Innocent Slaughter of Children
One of Ricks arguments against a historical Jesus is that we cannot trust the Bible because there are many discrepancies in the Bible and there are no non-canonical documents about certain events. He specifically mentioned Matthew's account of Herod killing innocent children.

Rick was accurate in stating that with such a horrific event, there should be something written about it in some historical document. I stated that I believed I read somewhere that there is some archaeological evidence of this event. To be honest, I have researched the web and cannot find any archaeological proof, so I Must Be Wrong!

But before I concede that this topic in Matthew is inaccurate or false, here is some things to consider.

First of all, the absence of the mention of an historical event in any given document proves nothing. There may be a perfectly legitimate reason for an incident not being recorded among the documents of antiquity, no matter how dramatic it was. The histories of the ancient world were limited in number and in scope. Roman records, for example, dealt principally with matters of interest to the political fortunes of the empire, rather than with isolated tragedies in remote countries that were under the imperial control.

The claim is made, however, that Josephus, a Jewish historian, records much about Herod, and that not even he mentions the alleged case of the slaughter of the Bethlehem babies.

While it is true that Josephus provides considerable data relative to Herod the Great (47-4 B.C.) – even numerous despicable deeds –  it likewise is the case that his writings are slanted with a Jewish bias. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that he would have been inclined to record an episode that demonstrated the protective care of God on behalf of his Son, Jesus of Nazareth.

Second, it is not correct to say that history ignored this horrible event. It is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, and Matthew’s narrative is a reliable first century document. It is neither an honest nor legitimate approach to history to simply eliminate this record because it is in the New Testament. Critics must not be allowed to choose only those sources that meet their personal agenda.

There are a couple factors which may help to bring into sharper focus Matthew’s account of the slaughter of infants in Bethlehem.

  1. Bethlehem was a small, rather insignificant town in the hill country of Judah, about five miles south of Jerusalem. When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity, only 123 men settled in Bethlehem (Ezra 2:21). It probably did not have more than a thousand citizens at the time of Christ’s birth. It has been estimated that, at the beginning of the first century, there likely would have been only about ten to thirty boy babies under the age of two in the little hamlet (Michael J. Wilkins, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Clinton Arnold, Ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002, p. 19). The killing of a few children in an obscure Judean community would scarcely have attracted much attention in the notably bloody world of that day.


  2. This vile deed attributed to Herod is perfectly consistent with what is known about the character of the beast. He was so paranoid of his regal authority that he did not hesitate to murder numerous members of his own immediate and extended family. His favorite wife, Mariamne, was publicly executed, as was her mother, Alexandra. Earlier Herod had put to death Hyrcanus, Mariamne’s grandfather (who, incidentally, once had saved the king’s life). He also executed several of his sons, e.g., Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater. One ancient writer suggested that Augustus Caesar once quipped that it would be better to be Herod’s pig than his son! (Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.f.11). For a general survey of Herod’s activities, see Josephus, Antiquities, Books 14-17.

    If that ruler committed such atrocities as those just sketched, is there any doubt that he would be capable of the bloody spectacle depicted in Matthew’s Gospel?

Why no pictures of Jesus?
Rick asked a good question. Why if Jesus was so famous and was a real person are there no pictures of Him? He mentioned that there are even pictures of mythological people. Why not Jesus?

Well first off, obviously images of people don't prove they existed since there are images of Greek Gods. The lack of any images of Jesus does not disprove the fact that He was famous or a historical person. No one can deny that Jesus was famous whether there are images of Him or not. So why are there no images of Jesus? Secularists would argue because He was a myth. But that argue is not logical because we have images of other mythical persons.

Our argument would be that there is a God and He wanted to make sure that the images were not worshipped, so in His divine workings He prevented this from occurring. We see how the Catholic church has violated the commandment to not worship idols, how much more would this occur if there were images of Jesus. And of course, there are some drawings of Jesus from earlier times, just very limited.

Why do we not know the exact birth of Jesus? Skeptics would argue because He is a mythical character. But we know the birth of many mythical characters. That is the power of a myth. Maybe there is a divine God that did not want people worshipping a specific day (the day of the birth of Jesus). He already choose a special day, it is called the Sabbath. Which, most Christians do not honor.

Christians cannot even agree
Rick made a valid point that not even Christians can agree on a variety of issues. He is correct. But when it comes to the key doctrines of the bible, they all agree that Jesus was a real man, that He was crucified and He was resurrected. This is what unites Christians that come from a variety of backgrounds.

Science more and more contradicts the Bible
There was a statement by Rick that science is more and more disproving the Bible. I did not comment on that statement because it caught me off guard and and I was thinking about something else. I wish I would have responded on the air. How in the world can he make such a claim. More and more archaeology is proving the validity of what is in the Bible. Science is more and more showing that creation cannot be random. The exploration of atoms, molecules, microorganisms, etc. is showing that there must be something more than chance. As much as I respect Rick, if this is truly his belief, then he is willfully refusing to see the evidence of a creator, even if it is not God or Jesus.

Who is going to hell?
Rick really jumped on the topic of me saying that Muslims who do not receive Jesus as their Lord or Savior are going to hell. He asked me if he is. What about Jews? What about homosexuals or fornicators? Every person who does not receive Jesus as their Lord or Savior are going to hell. We shared the Gospel.

We would agree that the Gospel is very exclusive - only Christians can go to heaven. But here is a point that most miss. The Gospel is also very inclusive - anyone who accepts Jesus as their Lord & Savior can go to heaven. It is a matter of choice. You have been given the evidence. It is up to you if you accept Jesus. So, you can't say that God is unfair. He is very fair.

We also talked about the mercy of God. I personally believe one of the reasons God is so merciful is that He wants to give everyone time to receive Jesus. So, the old argument by skeptics that Christianity is judgmental, unfair, exclusive does not hold up. It only excludes those who chose to deny its existence. Which is no different than I can't be included in the category of a skeptic if I choose to believe the Bible. How unfair?
How To Accept Christ
Information on Other Religions

Jesus is Lord, Liar, or Lunatic
There is no room to say Jesus was just a good man.
Read More

Is there a historical Jesus?
After all the evidence I do not see how a person can deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Most non-Christian historians and many scientists of today acknowledge there was a real Jesus. Many judges, lawyers, doctors who are very intelligent men and certainly are familiar with reviewing evidence, agree there was a historical Jesus. There are even skeptics acknowledge there was a historical Jesus. Some have even stated that it would take a fool to not believe there was a historical Jesus.

So, why would a person deny the evidence? Here is one theory. If there was a historical Jesus, and what he said was true about Himself being the Son of God and is God, then each of us are confronted with the reality that we are sinners and that we are going to hell without receiving Him as Lord and Savior. For many, it is easier to deny His very existence than to be willing to turn their lives over to a God they cannot see. The reality is most people want to keep doing their own thing. What is scary is when people will deny truth just to continue their own way of living. What is sad is that people who claim to be the most logical, will make illogical decisions rather than to change. The very ones who claim Christians are the most illogical people, are instead some of the most illogical people.

Yes, it takes faith to believe in Jesus and His teachings. But it takes more faith to believe there is no God when all the evidence points to the fact there is a God.

Turmoil in my life just before this interview
Just before this interview there was tremendous turmoil in my life. Now there certainly was some other factors, but my wife and I have no doubt that some of the turmoil was because of this interview. Here me out on this. Then decide if I am just crazy.

A few days before this interview I was dealing with depression, tempted to use drugs, hounded by lustful thoughts, discouraged, conflicts with my wife, financial difficulties, frustrated with the people we minister to, and much more. Yes, some of this has come up before and there are other reasons for this happening. But the pressure and trials was greater than they have been in a long time. I felt like I was being personally attacked from an outside force. Now the skeptic is going to say that it was all in my mind. I wanted to be attacked so I could be a martyr on Rick's show. It was just coincidence regarding the timing of all this. Skeptics put much faith in coincidences. The problem is that you do not know what all I went through and I would never choose to go through it and I prayed against it. It was so intense I was not going to do the show. In fact, I was looking at quitting the ministry it was so intense. So, why in the world would I imagine all this was happening to me? Why would I want this to happen to be so I could prove that I must be representing God and the devil is attacking me. I would have to be a fool. Ok, some may think I am a fool, but that is very judgmental and none of my life show me living like a fool.

So, all you skeptics, here is something to think about. Maybe there really is a devil. Maybe there really is demons. Maybe they did not want me to share, because they would prevent this website from being promoted. They would prevent this summary of the radio interview from occurring. They would prevent people from becoming Christians. I hate to give you the 'bad news' but because of the interview, there will be people in heaven. As a skeptic I came to Christ with much less info, how much more for others with all the info we have provided. But here is the truly BAD NEWS. If you willfully deny the evidence presented before you and refuse to submit to Jesus Christ, you will be in hell when you die. So, we are giving you one more chance to allow Jesus to be the Lord of your life.
How To Accept Christ

Devil, you once again went too far. You thought you could destroy my testimony, destroy my marriage, take my life, but instead there are now more followers of Jesus Christ.

It should be noted that Christianity is a religion based upon relationship, not knowledge. It is a religion of faith not logic. The information provided is to help answer questions, but ultimately you must believe in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ because you believe in the claims of Jesus that we are sinners and we  need a savior.
How To Accept Christ

Note on Graphic:
Most of the pictures that you see of Jesus on the cross are not accurate.
1. During His time, most of the crosses were in the shape of a T. The top part of the T, patibulum, is what He would have carried.
2. He would have been naked.
3. His body would have been grotesque to look at.

christian web sites