P
pcordero
Guest
We follow the ten commandments, but why are many of the other laws not followed?
- Status
T
triumphguy
Guest
Because they were laws that pertained to the specific context of the day, and are not universally “true” for all contexts like the ten commandments.
See the Acts of the Apostles and Peter’s dream.
So laws against eating shellfish etc., are dust.
See the Acts of the Apostles and Peter’s dream.
So laws against eating shellfish etc., are dust.
M
midori
Guest
The parts pertaining to morality are still intact— honoring your parents, not killing, loving your neighbor, etc.
The parts that pertained to culture-- not wearing mixed fibers, the keeping of various feasts and making of particular offerings, cleanliness laws, dietary laws, etc-- were a big chunk of what made the Jewish people Jewish.
There were arguments in the early church as to how much/which of the OT laws needed to be carried over. The Council of Jerusalem was one such incident where this was discussed: did Gentiles need to convert to Judaism and fulfill all of the requirements before they could be Christian?
But remember, the Bible is a lot of things… history, Jewish law, poetry, prophecy, allegory, correspondence, etc. It’s important to recognize what part of the Bible was written for what purpose, and in what context. Understanding that helps you realize why men no longer have an obligation to marry their brothers’ widows and give her children on his behalf, or why rape victims don’t have to marry their rapists.
The parts that pertained to culture-- not wearing mixed fibers, the keeping of various feasts and making of particular offerings, cleanliness laws, dietary laws, etc-- were a big chunk of what made the Jewish people Jewish.
There were arguments in the early church as to how much/which of the OT laws needed to be carried over. The Council of Jerusalem was one such incident where this was discussed: did Gentiles need to convert to Judaism and fulfill all of the requirements before they could be Christian?
But remember, the Bible is a lot of things… history, Jewish law, poetry, prophecy, allegory, correspondence, etc. It’s important to recognize what part of the Bible was written for what purpose, and in what context. Understanding that helps you realize why men no longer have an obligation to marry their brothers’ widows and give her children on his behalf, or why rape victims don’t have to marry their rapists.
C
Crumpy
Guest
Paul’s argument (in Romans, I think) is that we are not saved by those precepts of the Law. If we were saved by them, then the sacrifice of Jesus was in vain.
Our salvation comes by faith and not by works of the Law.
Our salvation comes by faith and not by works of the Law.
C
Cyklist
Guest
Well I wouldn’t build too much of my faih on Acts, it’s a bit unreliable book, it’s too polished/harmonious, especially the story about the Council, to be true. The story of the Council in Gal contradicts it. On the other hand, Gal is not something to build theology on either, it was written by Paul in a haste.
**
Consider the following:**
Mt 5:17 (2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, quickly anglicized July 15. 2011 spelling with ©Microsoft Word 2002): Do not think that I have come to loosen the law or the prophets. I have not come to loosen, but to fulfil.
If Jesus didn’t abolish all dietary laws, then certainly Paul or Peter (Acts 11:7 [bless and do not curse]I also heard a voice say to me, ‘Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.’ Revised New American Bible. (1986) Washington, DC: © The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.) didn’t.
Follows: Commentary on Mt 5:17
The introductory “do not think” (μὴ νομίσητε) speaks directly to the church. There is no evidence of a direct polemic, for example, against antinomians.28 Matthew argues on principle; it cannot be proven that he had concrete opponents in mind, whether antinomians or Jews who accused Jesus of annulling the law. What is the meaning of “law or prophets”? One can either think of the prophetic/predictive significance of the law and prophets—indeed, in Judaism Moses is also a great prophet (cf. Deut 18:15*), or one can think of their function of giving directions or instructions—for Matthew in particular the prophets were also important witnesses for the love commandment (cf. Hos 6:6* = Matt 9:13*; 12:7*). The meaning of “fulfill” will then also change depending on the choice one makes. Now it seems rather clear, in spite of important advocates of a salvation-history prophetic interpretation, that in this passage Matthew is not thinking of the predictions of the law and prophets. Too many things speak against such an understanding: the context of the antitheses, the immediate repetition of “law and prophets” with a simple “law” in v. 18*, and the fact that in 11:13*, the only place where Matthew wants to emphasize the prophetic function of law and prophets, he puts “prophets” first and adds the verb “prophesy” (προφητεύω). Furthermore, the opposing verb “annul/ destroy” (καταλύω) makes it difficult to interpret “fulfill” in terms of predictions. What this verse thus means is that Jesus “fulfills” the instructions or directions of the law and prophets. However, what do the two verbs “annul” (καταλύω) and “fulfill” (πληρόω) mean?
We can relate them either to Jesus’ teaching or to his life. In either case they are still ambiguous and permit various nuances of interpretation.
Interpretation
The history of interpretation shows how difficult it is to find a precise meaning of v. 17* and in the interpretations how much from the very beginning the context of the antitheses, the total witness of the Bible, and one’s own situation played a role. Decisive for the interpretation are (a) the meaning of πληρόω and καταλύω and (b) the Matthean context.
a. On the meaning of the words. In connection with “law” (νόμος) and similar words, καταλύω is almost idiomatic in Greek and Hellenistic Jewish texts. The meaning varies between “to get rid of” in the sense of “to cancel,” “to abolish,” and “to get rid of” in the sense of “not to keep,” “to break.” Πληρόω is also documented in connection with “law” and similar words. Most texts speak here of “fulfilling” through obedience and practice. Based on the usage in the Hellenistic and Jewish parallels, the readers of that day would initially have more likely thought of Jesus’ practice rather than of his teaching.
b. On the context. Of course, πληρόω reminds the readers of the fulfillment quotations; however, this is, as it were, a diversion that leads to a dead end—an association that in the context cannot be correctly heard. Also important, however, is the reminiscence of 3:15*, where Jesus and John fulfill “all righteousness.” The concern here was their action. The immediate context of our passage also makes one think of Jesus’ action (5:16*, 20*). However, the antitheses suggest that 5:17* has something to do with Jesus’ teaching. Verse 19* is especially important. Here in a similar antithesis “loosen” is contrasted with “doing and teaching.” That in turn corresponds to the total image of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus, who teaches the will of the Father and the fulfilling of the law, is also the obedient Son of God (3:13–4:11*) whom Matthew presents to his community as a role model.
Based on the meaning of both verbs, we should thus most likely think that Jesus fulfilled the law through his obedience (interpretation 2a). However, the following context also permits us to think of his teaching. The idea is presumably a secondary idea in the text, because Matthew thinks about the unity of practice and teaching with Jesus. However, praxis takes precedence (cf. 7:15–23*).
Especially when one thinks of Jesus’ practice, it is noteworthy that Matthew uses “fulfill” (πληρόω) and not “keep” (τηρέω) or “do” (ποιέω). Unlike the profane sources and Paul,66 πληρόω is for him an exclusively christological verb. Only Jesus (and John the Baptist) “fulfills” the law. There resonates a singular element of completeness and fullness. Fittingly, v. 17* is an “I came” saying (ἦλθον): fulfilling the law and prophets fully and comprehensively is Jesus’ special mission. Verse 17* also contains a christological element, even if Matthew is not thinking of Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is then continued in vv. 18* and 20* by the emphatic “I say to you” and especially in the “I” (ἐγώ) of the antitheses.
Luz, Ulrich, & Koester, H. (2007). Matthew 1-7 : A Commentary (Rev. ed.). Hermeneia–a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (213–217). Minneapolis, MN: © Fortress Press.
**
Consider the following:**
Mt 5:17 (2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, quickly anglicized July 15. 2011 spelling with ©Microsoft Word 2002): Do not think that I have come to loosen the law or the prophets. I have not come to loosen, but to fulfil.
If Jesus didn’t abolish all dietary laws, then certainly Paul or Peter (Acts 11:7 [bless and do not curse]I also heard a voice say to me, ‘Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.’ Revised New American Bible. (1986) Washington, DC: © The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.) didn’t.
Follows: Commentary on Mt 5:17
The introductory “do not think” (μὴ νομίσητε) speaks directly to the church. There is no evidence of a direct polemic, for example, against antinomians.28 Matthew argues on principle; it cannot be proven that he had concrete opponents in mind, whether antinomians or Jews who accused Jesus of annulling the law. What is the meaning of “law or prophets”? One can either think of the prophetic/predictive significance of the law and prophets—indeed, in Judaism Moses is also a great prophet (cf. Deut 18:15*), or one can think of their function of giving directions or instructions—for Matthew in particular the prophets were also important witnesses for the love commandment (cf. Hos 6:6* = Matt 9:13*; 12:7*). The meaning of “fulfill” will then also change depending on the choice one makes. Now it seems rather clear, in spite of important advocates of a salvation-history prophetic interpretation, that in this passage Matthew is not thinking of the predictions of the law and prophets. Too many things speak against such an understanding: the context of the antitheses, the immediate repetition of “law and prophets” with a simple “law” in v. 18*, and the fact that in 11:13*, the only place where Matthew wants to emphasize the prophetic function of law and prophets, he puts “prophets” first and adds the verb “prophesy” (προφητεύω). Furthermore, the opposing verb “annul/ destroy” (καταλύω) makes it difficult to interpret “fulfill” in terms of predictions. What this verse thus means is that Jesus “fulfills” the instructions or directions of the law and prophets. However, what do the two verbs “annul” (καταλύω) and “fulfill” (πληρόω) mean?
We can relate them either to Jesus’ teaching or to his life. In either case they are still ambiguous and permit various nuances of interpretation.
- If we relate καταλύω and πληρόω to Jesus’ teaching, we can go further and ask whether Jesus’ teaching does or does not change something in the law. If Jesus makes no changes in the law, πληρόω may mean (a) “to emphasize it in its true meaning,” “to express it completely.” If, however, Jesus’ fulfilling changes the law itself, we could understand πληρόω either quantitatively in the sense of (b) “to add,” “to complement” (something that is missing) or qualitatively in the sense of (c) “to finish,” “to make perfect.”
- If we relate καταλύω and πληρόω to Jesus’ activity, πληρόω can mean either that Jesus (a) “fulfills” the requirements of the law and prophets in his life with his obedience, that is, that he keeps the law. Or we can also (b) think of Jesus’ death and resurrection: with his death and resurrection Jesus has “fulfilled” the law and thus brought it to its goal and end.
Interpretation
The history of interpretation shows how difficult it is to find a precise meaning of v. 17* and in the interpretations how much from the very beginning the context of the antitheses, the total witness of the Bible, and one’s own situation played a role. Decisive for the interpretation are (a) the meaning of πληρόω and καταλύω and (b) the Matthean context.
a. On the meaning of the words. In connection with “law” (νόμος) and similar words, καταλύω is almost idiomatic in Greek and Hellenistic Jewish texts. The meaning varies between “to get rid of” in the sense of “to cancel,” “to abolish,” and “to get rid of” in the sense of “not to keep,” “to break.” Πληρόω is also documented in connection with “law” and similar words. Most texts speak here of “fulfilling” through obedience and practice. Based on the usage in the Hellenistic and Jewish parallels, the readers of that day would initially have more likely thought of Jesus’ practice rather than of his teaching.
b. On the context. Of course, πληρόω reminds the readers of the fulfillment quotations; however, this is, as it were, a diversion that leads to a dead end—an association that in the context cannot be correctly heard. Also important, however, is the reminiscence of 3:15*, where Jesus and John fulfill “all righteousness.” The concern here was their action. The immediate context of our passage also makes one think of Jesus’ action (5:16*, 20*). However, the antitheses suggest that 5:17* has something to do with Jesus’ teaching. Verse 19* is especially important. Here in a similar antithesis “loosen” is contrasted with “doing and teaching.” That in turn corresponds to the total image of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus, who teaches the will of the Father and the fulfilling of the law, is also the obedient Son of God (3:13–4:11*) whom Matthew presents to his community as a role model.
Based on the meaning of both verbs, we should thus most likely think that Jesus fulfilled the law through his obedience (interpretation 2a). However, the following context also permits us to think of his teaching. The idea is presumably a secondary idea in the text, because Matthew thinks about the unity of practice and teaching with Jesus. However, praxis takes precedence (cf. 7:15–23*).
Especially when one thinks of Jesus’ practice, it is noteworthy that Matthew uses “fulfill” (πληρόω) and not “keep” (τηρέω) or “do” (ποιέω). Unlike the profane sources and Paul,66 πληρόω is for him an exclusively christological verb. Only Jesus (and John the Baptist) “fulfills” the law. There resonates a singular element of completeness and fullness. Fittingly, v. 17* is an “I came” saying (ἦλθον): fulfilling the law and prophets fully and comprehensively is Jesus’ special mission. Verse 17* also contains a christological element, even if Matthew is not thinking of Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is then continued in vv. 18* and 20* by the emphatic “I say to you” and especially in the “I” (ἐγώ) of the antitheses.
Luz, Ulrich, & Koester, H. (2007). Matthew 1-7 : A Commentary (Rev. ed.). Hermeneia–a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (213–217). Minneapolis, MN: © Fortress Press.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Sooo… what’s your argument? Why do we not follow all the OT laws?
C
Cyklist
Guest
Look at the ants, they have an amazing society. Consider then that piggs are highly intelligent animals with an emotional life. There was not much brain science (so that is not the explanation) when the Bible was written, even so the Bible contains the inspired words not to eat pork.
In the NT, Jesus is not torturing animals.
Look for example at the passage when the disciples were making food on the Sabbath - they prepared a vegetarian meal. If Jesus would have wanted us to eat pork, the passage would have been about slaughtering a pigg on the Sabbath.
In the NT, Jesus is not torturing animals.
Look for example at the passage when the disciples were making food on the Sabbath - they prepared a vegetarian meal. If Jesus would have wanted us to eat pork, the passage would have been about slaughtering a pigg on the Sabbath.
T
triumphguy
Guest
OK.
T
TS_Aquinas
Guest
Because the Levitical Laws pertained to the priestly tribe of Levi and the Deuteronomy Laws pertained to the Hebrew people under the Old Covenant. The Temple is gone, the Aaronic line is broken, the Law has been fulfilled by the Perfect and Holy Victim and the New and everlasting Covenant has been established. You couldn’t practice the Old Law even if you wanted to, there is no Levitical priests making sacrifices on the Altar in the Temple because the Temple is destroyed and such grounds are occupied by Muslims now. And even if you got them off those grounds and built the Temple again you couldn’t consecrate the Temple nor the Altar or make any sacrifices without the priesthood. Since Christ gave St. Peter authority over the Church Militant, we have no need to follow the Old Law when Peter has spoken. To put a final point on it that the Old Law is fulfilled, read Acts 10 when the Angel told St. Peter to kill and eat what was before unclean, now cleansed by God.
Hope this helps.
C
Cyklist
Guest
Hebrews 9:14 (1992 GNT 5th Ed. NT & 1976 GNB 4th Ed. NT): Since this is true, how much more is accomplished by the blood of Christ! Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself as a perfect sacrifice to God. His blood will purify our consciences from useless rituals, so that we may serve the living God.
Notes for 9:14
18 tc The reading adopted by the translation is attested by many authorities (A D* K P 365 1739* al). But many others (א D² 0278 33 1739c 1881 M lat sa) read “your” instead of “our.” The diversity of evidence makes this a difficult case to decide from external evidence alone. The first and second person pronouns differ by only one letter in Greek, as in English, also making this problem difficult to decide based on internal evidence and transcriptional probability. In the context, the author’s description of sacrificial activities seems to invite the reader to compare his own possible participation in OT liturgy as over against the completed work of Christ, so the second person pronoun “your” might make more sense. On the other hand, TCGNT 599 argues that “our” is preferable because the author of Hebrews uses direct address (i.e., the second person) only in the hortatory sections. What is more, the author seems to prefer the first person in explanatory remarks or when giving the logical grounds for an assertion (cf. Heb 4:15; 7:14). It is hard to reach a definitive conclusion in this case, but the data lean slightly in favor of the first person pronoun.
(2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Heb 9:14). Biblical Studies Press.
καθαριεῖ (LN: 53.28; verb, future, active, indicative, third person, singular)
to cleanse, to purify
Contained in: Sentence
Syntactic Force: Finite verb
Lukaszewski, A. L., Dubis, M., & Blakley, J. T. (2011). The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, SBL Edition: Expansions and Annotations (Heb 9:14).
inmaculatus (imm-), a, um, unstained, undefiled, Ep 1:4 (1941 Confraternity Version): Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish in his sight in love; Hebrews 9:14.
Harden, J. M. (1921). Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament (p. 60). London; New York: Society of Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Co.
The eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14);
Day, C. A. (2009). Collins Thesaurus of the Bible.
νεκρός, ά, όν: pertaining to being utterly useless, with the implication of total lack of purport—‘useless, futile, vain.’ καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ἡμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων ‘will cleanse our conscience from useless rituals’ He 9:14.
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (p. 624). New York: United Bible Societies.
emundo, 1, cleanse, 2 Tim 2:21; Hebrews 9:14; Jas 4:8; 1 Jn 1:9.
Harden, J. M. (1921). Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament (p. 41). London; New York: Society of Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Co.
The blood of Christ cleanses the conscience (Heb. 9:14)
Day, C. A. (2009). Collins Thesaurus of the Bible.
λατρεύειν (LN: 53.14; verb, present, active, infinitive)
to worship, to serve
Contained in: Infinitival Clause
Syntactic Force: Direct object functioning as Prepositional object.
Lukaszewski, A. L., Dubis, M., & Blakley, J. T. (2010). The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament: Expansions and Annotations (Heb 9:14).
The verse, taken as a whole, clearly refers to the abolishing of the blood sacrifices for sins. Obeying some laws is still needed: christianforums.com/t7663777/
To be pure, we need to obey: Ep 5:25-27 (1941 Confraternity Version): Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her in the bath of water* by means of the word; in order that he might present to himself the Church in all her glory, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and without blemish
Notes for 9:14
18 tc The reading adopted by the translation is attested by many authorities (A D* K P 365 1739* al). But many others (א D² 0278 33 1739c 1881 M lat sa) read “your” instead of “our.” The diversity of evidence makes this a difficult case to decide from external evidence alone. The first and second person pronouns differ by only one letter in Greek, as in English, also making this problem difficult to decide based on internal evidence and transcriptional probability. In the context, the author’s description of sacrificial activities seems to invite the reader to compare his own possible participation in OT liturgy as over against the completed work of Christ, so the second person pronoun “your” might make more sense. On the other hand, TCGNT 599 argues that “our” is preferable because the author of Hebrews uses direct address (i.e., the second person) only in the hortatory sections. What is more, the author seems to prefer the first person in explanatory remarks or when giving the logical grounds for an assertion (cf. Heb 4:15; 7:14). It is hard to reach a definitive conclusion in this case, but the data lean slightly in favor of the first person pronoun.
(2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Heb 9:14). Biblical Studies Press.
καθαριεῖ (LN: 53.28; verb, future, active, indicative, third person, singular)
to cleanse, to purify
Contained in: Sentence
Syntactic Force: Finite verb
Code:
Words That Modify καθαριεῖ
• subordinate-conjunctive relation: The word καθαριεῖ is modified by εἰ (conjunction) in Heb 9:13, word 1 (εἰ is outside of the current clausal unit).
• pronoun-to-verb relation: The word καθαριεῖ is modified by πόσῳ (pronoun) in Heb 9:14, word 1 (πόσῳ is outside of the current clausal unit).
• adverbial relation: The word καθαριεῖ is modified by μᾶλλον (adverb) in Heb 9:14, word 2 (μᾶλλον is outside of the current clausal unit).
• prepositional relation: The word καθαριεῖ is modified by ἀπὸ (preposition) in Heb 9:14, word 20 (ἀπὸ is outside of the current clausal unit).
• prepositional relation: The word καθαριεῖ is modified by εἰς (preposition) in Heb 9:14, word 23 (εἰς is outside of the current clausal unit).inmaculatus (imm-), a, um, unstained, undefiled, Ep 1:4 (1941 Confraternity Version): Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish in his sight in love; Hebrews 9:14.
Harden, J. M. (1921). Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament (p. 60). London; New York: Society of Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Co.
Code:
The Spirit is eternalDay, C. A. (2009). Collins Thesaurus of the Bible.
νεκρός, ά, όν: pertaining to being utterly useless, with the implication of total lack of purport—‘useless, futile, vain.’ καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ἡμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων ‘will cleanse our conscience from useless rituals’ He 9:14.
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (p. 624). New York: United Bible Societies.
emundo, 1, cleanse, 2 Tim 2:21; Hebrews 9:14; Jas 4:8; 1 Jn 1:9.
Harden, J. M. (1921). Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament (p. 41). London; New York: Society of Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Co.
Code:
Cleansing the conscienceDay, C. A. (2009). Collins Thesaurus of the Bible.
λατρεύειν (LN: 53.14; verb, present, active, infinitive)
to worship, to serve
Contained in: Infinitival Clause
Syntactic Force: Direct object functioning as Prepositional object.
Code:
Words That Modify λατρεύειν
• articular relation: The word λατρεύειν is modified by τὸ (article) in Heb 9:14, word 24 (τὸ is within the current clausal unit, before λατρεύειν).The verse, taken as a whole, clearly refers to the abolishing of the blood sacrifices for sins. Obeying some laws is still needed: christianforums.com/t7663777/
To be pure, we need to obey: Ep 5:25-27 (1941 Confraternity Version): Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her in the bath of water* by means of the word; in order that he might present to himself the Church in all her glory, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and without blemish
- The bath of water: the Sacrament of Baptism.
K
kkollwitz
Guest
“it’s a bit unreliable book, it’s too polished/harmonious, especially the story about the Council, to be true.”
Sez who?
Sez who?
T
triumphguy
Guest
Break this down and put it into a sentence of your own words, because I’m not sure what you are saying.
E
edwest2
Guest
We are not saved by the Law. And, in the early days, the Jews believed salvation through Christ was their’s alone, or that Gentiles who believed should be circumcised. Salvation was meant for all peoples. Jesus abolished divorce which was allowed, except for adultery. As far as what to eat, regarding Jewish dietary law, see Luke 10:8.
bible.cc/luke/10-8.htm
Peace,
Ed
bible.cc/luke/10-8.htm
Peace,
Ed
5
57Bill
Guest
I look at Matt 16:19 with Peter and the keys
regarding Jewish law…the authority to Peter to bind and loose
keeping the laws bound and other laws are loosed.
regarding Jewish law…the authority to Peter to bind and loose
keeping the laws bound and other laws are loosed.
B
Bballer32
Guest
It’s because Christ came to the earth to renew the covenants and make them able to fit within His Church until He comes again.
K
kkollwitz
Guest
“Jesus abolished divorce which was allowed, except for adultery.”
Just confirming this sentence means Jesus allows divorce in cases of adultery.
Just confirming this sentence means Jesus allows divorce in cases of adultery.
C
Cyklist
Guest
What I meant was just that the Hebrews passage says that blood sacrifice for the atonement of sins like in the OT times, is no longer needed - that that’s what meant by “useless rituals”.
Not eating pork isn’t a “ritual”.
Not eating pork isn’t a “ritual”.
Hermeneia commentary. UPDV Bible whole book of Acts omitted.
K
kkollwitz
Guest
Who has the authority to remove a book from the Bible?
C
Cyklist
Guest
“Scripture is a preparation for actually doing something.”
Source: christianforums.com/t7437907-post60790664/#post60790664
Source: christianforums.com/t7437907-post60790664/#post60790664
W
WTSherman
Guest
With this kind of question, I will tear my robes in frustration!
It was a time when human beings first became living souls and were still impressed by “burnt offerings” and that is how God communicated with them and made us men. We should try to reverence the Lord as much as they did then in some modern way!
It was a time when human beings first became living souls and were still impressed by “burnt offerings” and that is how God communicated with them and made us men. We should try to reverence the Lord as much as they did then in some modern way!
- Status