Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come now. Do you really want me to go through the NT picking out all the bits that say that the old rules and procedures are not only superseded by what Jesus says, but the observance of which is likely to harm you prospects of being saved than to help them?
That passage of Matthew does cause a problem when it seems to contradict the rest of the gospels. In fact Luke has to alter it to say (as I recall) that it is harder for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot of the Law to pass away 9or something to that effect). I am afraid here that the tail of the Matthew quote cannot wag the dog of the rest of the gospels.
I really do not know what to make of the revelations. I sometimes see it as a Nazorene Jewish document and sometimes as a Christian one. In any case, what it predicted hasn't happened, and I don't buy it that it relates to present day events, no more than Daniel, so I am not inclined to consider it over -much in looking at the gospels.It is enough that they indicate an expectation of as return by Jesus in their lifetimes.
I really do not know what to make of the revelations. I sometimes see it as a Nazorene Jewish document and sometimes as a Christian one. In any case, what it predicted hasn't happened, and I don't buy it that it relates to present day events, no more than Daniel, so I am not inclined to consider it over -much in looking at the gospels.It is enough that they indicate an expectation of a return by Jesus in their lifetimes.
I know you do not credit any of it and you discuss it only to point out its ridiculous inconsistencies (which I agree with). But what do you think the Comforter being sent in Christ's name meant, Arq? He DID return at Pentecost and He abides with us ALL as the Comforter (Holy Spirit) within our consciousness to guide us to the truth God has "written in our hearts."
Come now. Do you really want me to go through the NT picking out all the bits that say that the old rules and procedures are not only superseded by what Jesus says, but the observance of which is likely to harm you prospects of being saved than to help them?
That passage of Matthew does cause a problem when it seems to contradict the rest of the gospels. In fact Luke has to alter it to say (as I recall) that it is harder for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot of the Law to pass away 9or something to that effect). I am afraid here that the tail of the Matthew quote cannot wag the dog of the rest of the gospels.
I really do not know what to make of the revelations. I sometimes see it as a Nazorene Jewish document and sometimes as a Christian one. In any case, what it predicted hasn't happened, and I don't buy it that it relates to present day events, no more than Daniel, so I am not inclined to consider it over -much in looking at the gospels.It is enough that they indicate an expectation of a return by Jesus in their lifetimes.
You said the Gospels, not the NT. Paul can be shown to be all over the place on the subject according to which one liners you want to quote mine. Part of Paul's agenda was to justify bringing Gentiles into the movement. Making Jewish law unnecessary for Gentiles was an important element of that. (Adult circumcision is not a great selling point. )
I am not aware of Luke saying anything about the law passing away or not passing away. Most of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount that Luke chose to incorporate is in his brief ‘Sermon on the Plain’ in Luke 7. We see parallels to Matthew but the part about the Law not passing away is omitted. After all, Luke’s audience is Gentile.
However Luke has no problem with the Law. He has many references to Jesus obeying the requirements of the law. All his main Jewish characters in his Gospel and in Acts are observant. This even includes Paul. In Acts 15 (Council of Jerusalem) it is made clear that Paul does not want to abolish the law, simply not require Gentiles to be subject to it in order to be Jesus followers. (This is the general sense one gets from Paul as well if one reads in context.)
Even John has Jesus clearly be a Jew, recounting several instances of religious pilgrimages to Jerusalem for various holy days. And of course Mark has Jesus reading scripture in synagogues.
I am not aware of any part of the NT (except maybe somewhere in the late pseudo-Paulines?) that says that the law is abolished. It simply does not apply to Gentiles.
Revelation needs to be understood in the context of the times. Originally Jesus was expected to return very soon, as we see in Paul who expected to see it happen. By 70 CE or so when Mark wrote, some 40 years after the time of Jesus, this was starting to look doubtful. Mark ‘resets the clock’ by having the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple be the sign of an imminent return. Later, Matthew and Luke pick up on Mark’s theme but throw in disclaimers about the continued delay. Later still, John simply gives up on an imminent return, making no mention of the idea except in the last chapter where he says the expectation was a misunderstanding. That was not what Jesus really said.
But John of Patmos (a different John) did not give up so easily. He wanted to revitalize the idea of an imminent return of Jesus even at the end of the 1st century. This was a time of persecution and fading hopes. Revelation weaves together elaborate prophecies from Daniel and Ezekiel with some Isaiah thrown in. J of P cleverly relates dramatic and colorful images from Daniel to events of recent history building up to a Daniel based judgment and punishment scenario, with some Matthean hellfire thrown in. Ezekiel’s vision of a future resurrection and the appearance of a Messiah ties into this, leading up to an Ezekiel based description of the post-resurrection life to come.
In the Book of Daniel the angel told Daniel to seal up the book because the time had not yet come. In Revelation the angel tells John not to seal up the book because the time is at hand. The invocation of powerfully imaged prophecies, the tie in to recent events and the statement that this is all about to happen was supposed to revive hopes in the imminent return of Jesus and an end to suffering.
You said the Gospels, not the NT. Paul can be shown to be all over the place on the subject according to which one liners you want to quote mine. Part of Paul's agenda was to justify bringing Gentiles into the movement. Making Jewish law unnecessary for Gentiles was an important element of that. (Adult circumcision is not a great selling point. )
I am not aware of Luke saying anything about the law passing away or not passing away. Most of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount that Luke chose to incorporate is in his brief ‘Sermon on the Plain’ in Luke 7. We see parallels to Matthew but the part about the Law not passing away is omitted. After all, Luke’s audience is Gentile.
However Luke has no problem with the Law. He has many references to Jesus obeying the requirements of the law. All his main Jewish characters in his Gospel and in Acts are observant. This even includes Paul. In Acts 15 (Council of Jerusalem) it is made clear that Paul does not want to abolish the law, simply not require Gentiles to be subject to it in order to be Jesus followers. (This is the general sense one gets from Paul as well if one reads in context.)
Even John has Jesus clearly be a Jew, recounting several instances of religious pilgrimages to Jerusalem for various holy days. And of course Mark has Jesus reading scripture in synagogues.
I am not aware of any part of the NT (except maybe somewhere in the late pseudo-Paulines?) that says that the law is abolished. It simply does not apply to Gentiles.
Revelation needs to be understood in the context of the times. Originally Jesus was expected to return very soon, as we see in Paul who expected to see it happen. By 70 CE or so when Mark wrote, some 40 years after the time of Jesus, this was starting to look doubtful. Mark ‘resets the clock’ by having the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple be the sign of an imminent return. Later, Matthew and Luke pick up on Mark’s theme but throw in disclaimers about the continued delay. Later still, John simply gives up on an imminent return, making no mention of the idea except in the last chapter where he says the expectation was a misunderstanding. That was not what Jesus really said.
But John of Patmos (a different John) did not give up so easily. He wanted to revitalize the idea of an imminent return of Jesus even at the end of the 1st century. This was a time of persecution and fading hopes. Revelation weaves together elaborate prophecies from Daniel and Ezekiel with some Isaiah thrown in. J of P cleverly relates dramatic and colorful images from Daniel to events of recent history building up to a Daniel based judgment and punishment scenario, with some Matthean hellfire thrown in. Ezekiel’s vision of a future resurrection and the appearance of a Messiah ties into this, leading up to an Ezekiel based description of the post-resurrection life to come.
In the Book of Daniel the angel told Daniel to seal up the book because the time had not yet come. In Revelation the angel tells John not to seal up the book because the time is at hand. The invocation of powerfully imaged prophecies, the tie in to recent events and the statement that this is all about to happen was supposed to revive hopes in the imminent return of Jesus and an end to suffering.
Yes. I keep Paul in mind as I regard his arguments as the basic ones adapting the beliefs of the apostles (and I have to believe they really existed and thus Jesus did, too) that are developed further (and in a more anti -Jewish way - Paul was only hostile towards his opponents and dismissing of the Jewish law as being able to save, but was more of a burden and barrier to salvation - all these are ideas that we find in the gospels) to suit the gentiles.
Up to now, our discussions have been about my particular interest: how the gospels were written, and thus why and therefore by what kind of people for what kind of reasons, and therefore that tells us what the Gospels are and what they are not. But Paul is absolutely basic to why the gospels were written.
Paul's comment on the law (in the sermon) we find in Luke 16.17 'The law and the prophets were until John, since then, the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone enters it violently. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void'. This is placed by Luke as part of the teachings on the way to Jerusalem, whereas Matthew has it in the wholsale package of these sayings as one sermon.
Luke has about a third of them as his 'level place' sermon, but prefers to pad out his trip to Jerusalem with the rest. Matthew says that not a jot or iota of the law will pass way until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished.
Which is clearly the same as Luke, but with a tweaking that completely changes the sense - in either Luke or Matthew. I wouldn't like to say which represents the original, but both oddly contrast the fixed immutability of the law - evidently the written mosaic law - with the sense in the Luke quote above that suggests that the law has passed away, since John came announcing the messiah.
This is a puzzle and I can only speculate on how two contrasting and apparently contradictory ideas came to be associated, but I reiterate that the 'jot and tittle' remark is an anomaly and the general sense in the gospels is that the old law has passed away since Jesus came preaching the new law.
You said the Gospels, not the NT. Paul can be shown to be all over the place on the subject according to which one liners you want to quote mine. Part of Paul's agenda was to justify bringing Gentiles into the movement. Making Jewish law unnecessary for Gentiles was an important element of that. (Adult circumcision is not a great selling point. )
.
Oh, hey! You may have solved the gay problem for a large part of the population!
It's only Jewish gays that are an abomination.
I know you do not credit any of it and you discuss it only to point out its ridiculous inconsistencies (which I agree with). But what do you think the Comforter being sent in Christ's name meant, Arq? He DID return at Pentecost and He abides with us ALL as the Comforter (Holy Spirit) within our consciousness to guide us to the truth God has "written in our hearts."
At the risk of drifting too far off-topic. I take the whole comforter, messages from God, Pentecost events appearances of Jesus in the spirit and the voice within our heads (I talk to min all the time - I just know it's me and do fool myself that it's God) as various manifestations of the warm fuzzies.
It is a dangerous delusion referred to in
Matthew 10.19. don't worry about how to respond or what to say. God will give you the right words at the right time.
or as Luke uses it in 12. 11 “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”
Because this is the same delusion we see apologists from everytghing to genesis -literalism to supporting doctrine from Corinthians II.
And we find they are wrong, more often than not, and yet they still believe this furry woolen comforter is feeding them with truth. Poor sods. I feel sorry for them, annoying though they are.
As for the Pentecost event, I would not trust Luke to give me the correct change, let alone a true account of what befell the apostles after Jesus' death.
Yes. I keep Paul in mind as I regard his arguments as the basic ones adapting the beliefs of the apostles (and I have to believe they really existed and thus Jesus did, too) that are developed further (and in a more anti -Jewish way - Paul was only hostile towards his opponents and dismissing of the Jewish law as being able to save, but was more of a burden and barrier to salvation - all these are ideas that we find in the gospels) to suit the gentiles.
Up to now, our discussions have been about my particular interest: how the gospels were written, and thus why and therefore by what kind of people for what kind of reasons, and therefore that tells us what the Gospels are and what they are not. But Paul is absolutely basic to why the gospels were written.
Paul's comment on the law (in the sermon) we find in Luke 16.17 'The law and the prophets were until John, since then, the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone enters it violently. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void'. This is placed by Luke as part of the teachings on the way to Jerusalem, whereas Matthew has it in the wholsale package of these sayings as one sermon.
Luke has about a third of them as his 'level place' sermon, but prefers to pad out his trip to Jerusalem with the rest. Matthew says that not a jot or iota of the law will pass way until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished.
Which is clearly the same as Luke, but with a tweaking that completely changes the sense - in either Luke or Matthew. I wouldn't like to say which represents the original, but both oddly contrast the fixed immutability of the law - evidently the written mosaic law - with the sense in the Luke quote above that suggests that the law has passed away, since John came announcing the messiah.
This is a puzzle and I can only speculate on how two contrasting and apparently contradictory ideas came to be associated, but I reiterate that the 'jot and tittle' remark is an anomaly and the general sense in the gospels is that the old law has passed away since Jesus came preaching the new law.
The Gospels are not so much anti-Jewish as critical of certain groups of Jews. In the Synoptics it is the Pharisees, Sadducees and teachers of the law. Most Jews were none of the above. Those three groups are exactly who would oppose a historic Jesus. Here was this upstart from some village prophesying the end of the world and criticizing their obsessions with man-made rules and rituals and literalism, pushing true righteousness – moral and charitable living – to the background. (I sometimes wonder if a historic Jesus consciously patterned himself after the prophet Amos.)
John is different from the Synoptics in this way. (Among many other ways) He still has Pharisees as the ‘bad guys’ but no Sadducees or teachers of the law. Instead he has ‘the Jewish leaders’ or just ‘the Jews’. In the other Gospels references to Jews without qualification simply meant people and was not at all pejorative.
It is not all Jews John has a problem with. For one thing he told the Samaritan woman “salvation is from the Jews” (Jn 4:22). There were Jews who believed in Jesus (Jn 8:31). And throughout the Gospel his close followers were often identified as Jews. And as I stated earlier John has Jesus be an observant Jew.
It is interesting that at one point the Jews who listened to Jesus talk about who he was were ‘divided’. (Jn 10:19) Jesus had said that there were other non-Jews (“sheep of another pen”) that he must also tend. It is also interesting that when he tells the Samaritan woman that salvation is from the Jews, he also says that “a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain [as the Samaritans do] nor in Jerusalem [the soon to be gone Temple]”
When Jesus lived, the Temple still stood. When John wrote it was long gone. With the loss of the spiritual center of Judaism, the Pharisees who had managed to leave Jerusalem proceeded to reconstruct Judaism on the rabbinic model. This was Matthew’s arch-rival for the mantle of true historic Judaism. John makes no mention of the Sadducees (associated with the Temple) or teachers of the law (associated with the centers of learning in Jerusalem). But he has the Pharisees and (some) Jews as the opposition to Jesus.
In John, as in Paul, there are those Jews who follow Jesus and there are the Jews who do not. By the time of John, in the community of John, there was a clear separation between the two divisions of Judaism. There was historic Judaism that gave rise to Jesus and the Jesus movement, which spread to the ‘other sheep’, and Rabbinic Judaism, which to John had become ‘the Pharisees’ and ‘the Jews’.
It is clear that the Gospel writers were strongly influenced by Paul, either directly or through each other. There is of course the Son of God theme and the death as sacrifice and resurrection as promise concepts. The expected return of the Son of Man and a future resurrection and judgment are from Daniel, but their conflation into the single figure of Jesus first appears in Paul, although the Gospel writers know more details about Daniel than Paul provides. The Eucharist formula is an unmistakable one. As is the spread of the Jesus movement to Gentiles.
OTOH there are also the stories about the life of Jesus that appear in the Synoptic Gospels that often sound like ‘the real thing’ with miraculous events woven in. Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus. The delay in the eschaton and the destruction of the Temple and its aftermath are also major factors, explaining IMO why the Gospels were written in the first place. Paul is a very significant factor but not the only important one.
I had forgotten Luke mentioned “heaven and earth” although I remembered the Law and Prophets part. (gettin’ old) I did already understand what the Law and the Prophets meant, both here and in Matthew. And now I think I understand Luke’s heaven and earth.
Let’s look at the several passages.
Quote:
Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Notice that Matthew refers to the Law and the Prophets, not just the Law. (The various other Writings were not yet a coherent body of work as they would be in the canonical TaNaKh.) The Sadducees believed in only the Law (Torah). Others also believed in the Prophets, which is where the main Messiah prophecies are.
Abolishing both the Law and the Prophets would amount to abolishing Judaism as Jesus would have known it. Abolishing the Prophets would nullify the messianic prophecies Matthew leans so heavily on to justify his view of Jesus. But Jesus goes on to emphasize the importance of the Law. Sounds like a swipe at non-observant Gentile Christians. (I am reminded once again of Matthew calling Peter the foundation of the church of Jesus. Peter the Apostle to the circumcised as per Paul.)
Jesus fulfilling the Prophets would mean that he is the Messiah they look forward to. Jesus fulfilling the Law relates to the following passages where Jesus says that the (rule obsessive) Pharisees and teachers of the law are doing it wrong and then the importance of observing not just the letter of the (true Mosaic) law but its spirit as well. A return to true righteousness was the message of the prophets of old and it is the message of Jesus. The Law and the Prophets are tied together in Jesus.
Quote:
Matthew 11
12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence,[d] and violent people have been raiding it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear.
d Matthew 11:12 Or been forcefully advancing
The Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, who is the returned Elijah, the prophesied forerunner of the Messiah. And who is that Messiah? Got ears? The prophecies have been fulfilled.
Quote:
Luke 16
16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John (the Baptist). Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
Luke repeats Matthew’s comment about John being the start of the fulfillment of the prophecies. (And the forcing business, another topic) But Luke takes Matthew’s ‘heaven and earth’ reference and turns it around. Why?
Matthew talks about heaven and earth disappearing in the future when all things are fulfilled. Earlier I related this to the end of days and a future resurrection and judgment followed by a new heaven and new earth. But Luke talks about heaven and earth disappearing as a hypothetical. Why? Because in just a little bit Luke goes into the Lazarus and the Rich Man story. This has reward and punishment happening not in the future after a resurrection but immediately after death. This concept would be more familiar to Luke’s Gentile audience from Greek mythology. But notice how he couches it in Jewish terms like ‘the bosom of Abraham’ and ‘Moses and the Prophets’ to keep the story on track.
Yes. But we are getting off the topic of contradictions, I'm broadly in agreement, but just what groups of Jews were under Gospel attack and how much of Jewry itself that covered (I think that in Matthew and John is was pretty much all of it).
The contradiction was.. yes it was the Jewish law in Matthew and matters such as the remark about clean food, healing on the sabbath and what I call 'dilution of the mosaic law'. This is all to be taken together with remarks about 'something greater than the temple is here'. Jesus (that is, Faith in Jesus) had replaced the Law as the way to be saved.
It is true that the attack is on the Pharisees, mainly and the Sadducces only appear when Jesus arrives in Jerusalem 9as though he had never been there before). The attack is on the law through the Pharisees and personal attack on their motives and behaviour is only to be expected.
This is based on Paul, who only targeted the law because it did not suit the gentiles. I suspect there is also a personal element of a not very observant Jew. Paul begins by saying that the law is only incumbent on Jews (which includes himself) and not on gentiles, who can become as good Jews as Jews but without Kashrut or circumcision. He argues that, if they allow themselves to be circumcised, they are then 'burdened' with the need to observe the Mosaic law.All this is very arguable, but that is his line and that the ball the gentile christian run with when they wrote the gospels.
I may say that Paul indicates that did not observe the law himself at times (justifying it as a method of winning converts) and it becomes clear that part of his 'conversion' what a method of being saved like a good Jew, even when he wasn't. Simple. Faith in Jesus clears him. Which it doesn't as (as a Jew) he is required in his own thesis to observe the Law) but he soon overlooks that.
These arguments about anything is clean if you think it is (Romans 14.14) are reflected in the synoptic arguments that what goes into a mouth does not defile, but what comes out. This is a development of Paul's argument placed into the mouth of Jesus, retrospectively.
So all this is arguing that the thrust of the gospels is that Jesus came and fulfilled the law and prophecies, too) not prophets, as John has Caiaphas prophesying long after John and Jesus had arrived.
This still leaves us with that contradiction in Matthew and also in Luke. I am pretty sure in a vague way that validity of the Law in its Mosaic law form was not on the Gospel table. I am sure that Luke and Matthew copied that passage (and others) from another source (I know you think Luke copied and 'inverted' Matthew - which would make Matthew the original) and one or both of them 'tweaked' the original text.
What i suggest is that it is rather getting around the permanence of the Mosaic laws by saying 'they are permanent - up until John and Jesus came. It is a way of getting over a problem by eliminatimng the problem. It is the solution of decriminalization. It is exactly what Paul does about his 'Sin' of not observing the Law as well as he should; get rid of the Law.
I noted just now his rather amusing contention that he wouldn't have known that to covet was a sin if there wasn't a law to tell him so. What about the law written on the heart? What about the knowledge of good and evil? Paul says himself that sin was in the world before the Law. The law just made it easier to sin my imposing rules to break.
(this explains that odd passage in Acts (15.10 where Peter talks of a burden neither we (Jews of the circumcision) or the forefathers were able to bear. This would be nonsense to an observing Jew and of course they would have leaped up to protest and of course Peter couldn't have made any such argument and of course it is Luke making it all up.
P.s
I think it is interesting to compare the parallel passages: Matthew in the sermon and John's question.and Luke, where it is all together in the collection of preachings on the way to Peraea.
Luke 16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John (the Baptist).
Matthew 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
Luke Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.
Matthew 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence,[d] and violent people have been raiding it.
Luke 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
Matthew. until heaven and earth disappear, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
I would suggest that the simpler form is in Luke and represents the original form of the passage. Because it is harder to imagine that Luke took Matthew's passes, combined them and simplified them. I suggest that matthew took the passage, separated and elaborated them and used them in different places.
What you think?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-21-2015 at 04:35 AM..
P.s (after the 90 minute cut - the curse of bacon!)
What you think? Could Matthew be the original form? Could the raiding be literal and Matthew talking about armed invasions of the Holy land? Could Luke have tweaked it to suggests that everyone is rushing forcefully to sign up to Christianity? Matthew is saying that none of the Law will disappear until it is all 'accomplished'. That isn't the same as saying that everyone including Gentiles is obliged to observe it. It is just saying that it will stay, intact until the end. That also doesn't preclude those who listen to Jesus not being obliged to observe it.
The more I look, the more I'm beginning to think that Luke did the alteration!
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Then he scolds the Pharisees for following and teaching the laws in matt23
13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
The way I see it, the Pharisees and Scribes would be evil if they were killing innocent people. But it is very clear that they were only following the laws of Moses when they condemned them to die. The doctrine of the OT sanctions the death of anybody. No one is innocent in the eyes of YHWH. NO ONE! Not even Jesus! He healed on the Sabbath, and taught of God in a way that contradicted Moses. According to the OT he is guilty, and should die. It seems to me, if Jesus was the savior of the Jews, he would have scolded Moses and YHWH for murdering innocent people, and sanctioning the executions of innocent people, himself included. Does Jesus lack the wisdom? It seems he hated the sinners and loved the sin here. Anyone?
So.... you do notice there are two contracts in the bible. Which contract are you going to sign in?? I signed myself as a slave from the very beginning. And that faith is called Islamic.
If you don't know love, you cant understand the bible. One day, if you fall into love, you will see the bible is a very lovely book. You cant understand the bible without the knowledge of the Holy Love. no sex before the marriage thogh.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) 
