Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 9:09 PM
83 online now:
Coyote, NoNukes (2 members, 81 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,095 Year: 24,936/28,606 Month: 2,237/1,786 Week: 452/647 Day: 57/79 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abraham's Covenant, Moses' Teaching, Joshua's Anointing & the appeal to authority.
Bailey
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 1 of 8 (518818)
08-08-2009 4:40 PM


The Sumerian, the Israelite, and the Jew ...

First off, biblically speaking, Abram - or Abraham, was not a 'Jew', or Yuhdean.

Neither was Moses - he was, if not Hyskos, Yisraeli, specifically of Levite descent. Both, as well as Yeshua, were certainly not 'Christian' or 'Catholic'.

Ironically, the only one who is technically a 'Jew', is all but rejected as such by the numerous and variant traditions associated around that culture.

Moving on, popular Yuhdaic traditions, Levitical and otherwise, often claim to derive certain authority upon distinct bodies of ancient scripture texts.

The text is prearranged in a way that will attempt to better establish specific doctrine, much like the ambiguity employed when creating political ads.

A similar dynamic is then employed by most all of Levitical Christianity (Levite Catholics, Levite Protestants, Levite Mormons, Levite JW's, etc., etc.).

quote:
Human sacrifice is the act of killing human beings as part of a religious ritual (ritual killing). Its typology closely parallels the various practices of ritual slaughter of animals (animal sacrifice) and of religious sacrifice in general. Human sacrifice has been practiced in various cultures throughout history. Victims were typically ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or the deceased, for example as a propitiatory offering, or as a retainer sacrifice when the King servants die in order to continue to serve their master in the next life. Closely related practices found in some tribal societies are cannibalism and headhunting.

Link

This phenomena apparently trickles throughout all of Levitical evangelical Christianity and the many other traditions requiring the acknowledgement and acceptance of an innocent human, without spot or blemish, sacrificed as an act of propitiation or worship to obtain salvation, eternal life or continuous living.

A harmonious bond that many of these specific traditions share in common is their appeal to, first, Abraham’s covenant with God and, second, his authority.

These components are then later meshed with various sacrificial Levitical doctrines assisting in the facilitation of exclusivity, membership dues and carnage.

Although Jewish tradition does not necessarily claim the man that has become widely supposed to be a Sumerian Prince as a ‘Jew’, a certain tendency appears quite evident wherein many from within the Abrahamic traditions attempt to associate him as such; of course, Ishmael & Co. assign him to Islam.

However, Abram, or Abraham, did not live in the days of the tribes of Yisrael - such as the tribe of Levi and the tribe of Yuhdah, being their great grandpa and all, and so, imho, it seems he may not easily or reasonably be considered a Levitical Jew, a Levitical Christian or a Levitical Catholic, biblically or otherwise, regardless of the aggressive force of appeal in this nature on behalf of ancient religions such as Yuhdaism, Christianity and Catholicism.

Similarly, the latter traditions derived from Levitical doctrines do not necessarily claim the Anointed One of the tribe of Yuhda called Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth as ‘other than Jewish’ - ie. Catholic, Protestant, etc.; yet, a certain trend among Abrahamic traditions is evident wherein many do just that.

However, Joshua the Anointed One, while noting 'salvation is of the Jews', does not appear easily depicted as a practitioner of Levitical tradition, whether it be the early versions promoted by the various ruling sects associated to the tribe of Yuhda, such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees or the latter devised versions employed by the Levitical Christian and Levitical Catholic. Abraham, Moses and Joshua were not Pharisees, Sadducees, Christians or Catholics.

Is it the sheer numbers who are indoctrinated into such beliefs that allow for the promotion and persistent, aggressive continuation of doctrines borrowing from conceptualizations such as 'Abraham was the first Jew and his covenant is Jewish' and 'Joshua's murder is a neccessary Levitical animal sacrifice'?

Reasonably, will not the same Levitical doctrines that were directly involved with the destruction of 1st and 2nd Temple Yuhdaism, also naturally lead to the ultimate destruction of Levitical Catholicism and the entirety of Levitical Christianity? And if so, how long will the Father endure such weak minded faith and continuous delusions of granduer before clearing His name of blasphemy? Is the Father not patient while waiting for His children to discern these issues?

I am curious if anyone recognizes, if any, the similarity, contrast or significance between the Levitical appeal by the tribe of Yuhda to a certain covenant authority derived from Abraham - and the Levitical Catholic, as well as general Levitical Christian, appeal to the covenant authority relegated to Joshua?

It appears blatantly obvious that Abraham did not practice ritualistic Levitical Yuhdaism in form (obey 613 ToRaH commands and additional oral doctrine commentaries or exchange funds and perform penal animal sacrifice, etc.) - and it was accredited to him as righteousness, and, being equally obvious, that Joshua/Yeshua the Anointed One of Nazareth did not practice ritualistic Levitical Christianity or Catholicism in form (ie. propagate the necessity of a human sacrifice in Levitical fashion to ascertain hope of being salvaged) and it was - by all accounts except the biblical Levites, unanimously accredited to him as righteousness, so then, are the Levitical doctrines which crept & found their way into many traditions associated with the various tribes of Yisrael, such as those subscribed to by various remnants of the tribe of Yuhda, and Levitical Catholics, as well as variant Levitical Christian sects, simply entertained as a result of their lack of faith in the Almighty Creator and the summated aggressive force of their persistence in delusion, perhaps combined with a lack of desire, discipline, encouragement and energy on behalf of those aptly suited to swiftly combat such rampant ignorance with reason, if not scripture?

If promoted, Bible Sudy .. Faith and Belief .. Coffee House??

One Love

Edited by Bailey, : pnct.


I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Bailey, posted 08-11-2009 6:53 PM Bailey has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11448
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 8 (518887)
08-09-2009 8:11 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Abraham's Covenant, Moses' Teaching, Joshua's Anointing & the appeal to authority. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Bailey
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 3 of 8 (519133)
08-11-2009 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bailey
08-08-2009 4:40 PM


The substance of covenants ...
Thank you for the discussion ...
Hope things are well with all.

This thread attempts to address the substance of a covenant, changing covenants and what occurs as people do transition from one covenant to another.

The Covenant theories - or doctrines, within scripture begin, traditionally, with the Edenic Covenant, taking construct within the Garden in Eden; followed by the Adamic Covenant formed with Adam; then the Noahide Covenant made with Noah, of which the Seven Noahide Laws pertain to, with the symbolgy of the rainbow; leading to the Abrahamic Covenant as well as the Mosaic Covenant. Finally, after the Davidic Covenant, the canonical bibles portray the last covenant established through Yeshua HaMashiach/Jesus the Christ, or Joshua the Anointed One.

This appears as an unbreakable covenant through which all the Father’s children may enjoy the right of passage within.

We are confronted with the assertion that every covenant mentioned lasts forever, providing all of the covenants initiated through the Father are eternally, or continuously, binding. So then, in this way, the individual covenants do not change. Is it written that the Father destroys one covenant, so He can give us another one? So then, in this way, each covenant is absorbed into the others as we grow from one to another.

We are confronted with some people who never grow, resting - and abiding, continuously in the old, as if seized by mental atrophy.

One Love

Edited by Bailey, : sp.


I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bailey, posted 08-08-2009 4:40 PM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Bailey, posted 08-13-2009 4:50 PM Bailey has responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 4 of 8 (519437)
08-13-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Bailey
08-11-2009 6:53 PM


Re: The substance of covenants ...
Thank you for the discussion ...
Hope things are well with all.

Is it written that the Father destroys one covenant, so He can give us another one?

So then, in this way, each covenant is absorbed into the others as we grow from one to another.

We are confronted with some people who never grow, resting - and abiding, continuously in the old, as if seized by mental atrophy.

It appears that each covenant precept may also stand alone. As an example: do not seep the child in his mother’s milk. Such wisdom is derived from the Mosaic Covenant, yet rooted in the Edenic Covenant which would appear comprised of two basic components. One being that it is pleasing to the Father when we strive to tend and keep the Garden and the other is to not eat of the certain Tree.

The Father created the milk of the mother to nourish and keep the health of the child, not to be used to bring about its destruction. So then, when we seep the child, or disciple - or student, in the mother’s milk, are we not breaking the Father’s commandment? Is not too much study wearisome?

The Father did not give teachings - or laws, that could not be kept. Every law He gave to Yisrael could be kept by anyone who wanted to keep them. The laws are not difficult to keep, although perhaps a challenge to keep from being forged, and the Father didn’t issue them as punishment of any sort, as tho He would punish the ones He loves.

Remember, the ToRaH was formed in writing to keep one from hurting themselves or others around them, supposing that if one did ‘X’, then ‘Z’ would be the result; causality. The Father says, 'Do not do this - I offer you Life and I offer you death, and I suggest Life.' Yet, if we have free will, we can do what we want to do.

When we do the things the Father established as such we should not do, there is sure to be damage in our lives and within the lives of those around us.

One issue with refering back to the writings in attempt to gain instruction is that the writings have apparently been tampered with. It is a documented fact canonized into the booklet of the Prophet Yirmiyahu as well as one often exposed by modern biblical scholarship.

This is an arena where the testimony of Joshua the Anointed One, even when not discussing the actual nature of this issue, may become indispensable.

One Love

Edited by Bailey, : sp.


I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Bailey, posted 08-11-2009 6:53 PM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Bailey, posted 08-15-2009 10:59 AM Bailey has responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 5 of 8 (519604)
08-15-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Bailey
08-13-2009 4:50 PM


Re: The substance of covenants ...
Thank you for the discussion ...
Hope things are well with all.

One issue with refering back to the writings in attempt to gain instruction is that the writings have apparently been tampered with. It is a documented fact canonized into the booklet of the Prophet Yirmiyahu as well as one often exposed by modern biblical scholarship.

This is an arena where the testimony of Joshua the Anointed One, even when not discussing the actual nature of this issue, may become indispensable.

Now consider, the Father always vindicates His Word; His Torah - His Teaching, His Shining Light … His Law. The Father is the vindication of His Teaching of Virtue and the Father and His Son are one. His Son came in the flesh and walked among us as the Word of Torah. Joshua came to set the Teaching upright. The word that explains what Joshua came to do can also be translated as ‘fill in’ or ‘fill up’, while ‘upright’ is a more proper term; that is to - make it right, so the people would now understand the way it should be … the way is was before it had become forged, distorted and corrupted by the preisthood.

In addition to the documented forgeries, there had been so much rabbinical binding and loosing along the way that the Teaching - or Law, was bent over and each new generation had not a clue as to what the original had been - so we see that the criticisms of today, so often exposed here at EvC, are not unjustified, or even new. Joshua walked the ToRaH for three and a half years and said, ‘Brit hadashah’ - I will ReNeW the Covenant.

This is not a NeW covenant.

Nowhere in the original language is it called, referred to and/or pointed to as a ‘new covenant’. The Greek word is ‘deyathaka’ and it means ‘the second attachment’. The Latin word is then ‘codicil’ and that means, as well, ‘an attachment to something’, and it can’t be attached to something dead or non existent. It seems when one proposes anything else, there is the sense they are changing what Joshua came to do. When one proposes the work of Joshua the Anointed One as a ‘new testament’ - if you propose it to be any changing of the Father’s Word - even one jot or one tittle's worth ...

They have then commenced changing the purposes of what Joshua came to accomplish.

Joshua came to set the Teaching - or ToRaH or Law, upright and add to it a codicil.

One Love


I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Bailey, posted 08-13-2009 4:50 PM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Bailey, posted 08-21-2009 9:04 AM Bailey has not yet responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 6 of 8 (520380)
08-21-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Bailey
08-15-2009 10:59 AM


Re: The substance of covenants ...
Thank you for the discussion ...
Hope things are well with all.

Joshua came to set the Teaching - or ToRaH or Law, upright and add to it a codicil.

So then, why are we confronted by ‘Replacement’ theologists and ‘Displacement’ theologists?

The sectarian Replacement churches/camp primarily asserts that all the prophesies referring to Yisrael and Joshua pertain to them because they are now Yisrael. According to their teaching, Yisrael was saved, blessed, and was favored by the Father right up until Joshua was murdered. Up to that point, people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Mary and Joseph were saved. Then Joshua refused aggressive defense, allowing Himself to be murdered at the cross, and so, now all those people became unsaved.

It seems kind of silly to write or say, but it’s silly to even think about it, really; much less promote?

They teach that if the Yuhdaic traditions do not add Joshua to their Covenant, they are now unsaved. So they were unsaved out of the Abrahamic Covenant? In other words, the Jews who were saved by the Abrahamic Covenant now had to come out of the Abrahamic Covenant and be ‘converted’ to ‘Christianity’ so they could be regrafted into the Abrahamic Covenant.

This doesn’t sound silly?

The sectarian Displacement churches/camp simply never recognized Yuhdaism or their role in the Teaching. They contend that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are all primitive Christians, not Jews. In this way, all the blessings belong to Christians through the lineage of Abraham, and, that excludes the Jews. Jews are pagans on the outside of the Father’s Law. Of course there were some Jews like Judas Iscariot among them, who they are more than willing to make walk the plank.

Thankfully, we are confronted by some pretty weird, insane theology that appears to make absolutely no sense.

One Love


I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Bailey, posted 08-15-2009 10:59 AM Bailey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 9:26 AM Bailey has responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 533 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 7 of 8 (522912)
09-06-2009 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bailey
08-21-2009 9:04 AM


Re: The substance of covenants ...
I agree with you on some of what you say about covenants. The whole early church believe Jesus came to "fill up" the old covenant. That left a lot of room for figurative interpretation, and for suggesting things were misunderstood and wrong. For example, they said sacrifices were something God didn't need. They were added just to pull the Israelites' carnal minds back to God on a regular basis, and food laws were understood to mean that Christians are to fellowship with those who ruminate on the Word of God and separate from the world.

However, the idea that the covenant passed from the Israelites to the Gentiles has a pretty solid basis in history and Scripture. Jesus told the Pharisees that God would take the kingdom of God away from them and give it to a nation more worthy.

I'm not sure how this makes Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob suddenly unsaved.

Paul definitely believed the Law couldn't be kept by unredeemed man--at least in general. The offering of Christ was to provide the Spirit for all followers of the new covenant--call it renewed if you want, bu the result is the same--which followers of the old covenant did not have.

That Spirit and the accompanying grace are so that the righteous requirement of the Law will be fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit rather than attempting to follow the Law on their own.

Whether you call that a renewed or a new covenant, that's different than what was happening in old Israel.


Proof of Evolution for those who love God's creation
Christian History for Everyman
Rose Creek Village, where I live
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bailey, posted 08-21-2009 9:04 AM Bailey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Bailey, posted 09-07-2009 2:17 PM truthlover has not yet responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 844 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 8 of 8 (522999)
09-07-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by truthlover
09-06-2009 9:26 AM


Re: The substance of covenants ...
Thank you for the response brutha truthlover.
I hope things are well with you & yours ...

I agree with you on some of what you say about covenants.

I appreciate the encouragement. Although, as I'm sure is evident, I am no expert in the field of covenant theology. This thread is more of an attempt to begin unraveling the notion of a covenant. Also, perhaps, to attain a better understanding of what the covenants were intended to convey to the original partipants within them. There is the sense that these various covenants have gone through a process of chinese whispers ...

Chinese whispers (Wikipedia, 2009)

In the game variously known as Chinese whispers,[1] Telephone, Broken Telephone, Whisper Down the Lane, Gossip, Arab Phone (from the French Le téléphone arabe), and Stille Post (Silent Post), the first player whispers a phrase or sentence to the next player. Each player successively whispers what that player believes he or she heard to the next. The last player announces the statement to the entire group.

Errors typically accumulate in the retellings, so the statement announced by the last player differs significantly, and often amusingly, from the one uttered by the first. The game is often played by children as a party game or in the playground. It is often invoked as a metaphor for cumulative error, especially the inaccuracies as rumours or gossip spread,[2] or, more generally, for the unreliability of human recollection.

In the United States, "Telephone" is the most common name for the game.[2] The name "Chinese whispers" reflects the former stereotype in Europe of the Chinese language as being incomprehensible.[3] It is little-used in the United States and may be considered offensive.[4] It remains the common British name for the game.[5]

[some emphasis mine]

I'm wondering, at this point, what the first guy heard and, moreover, what the Father said ...

The whole early church believe Jesus came to "fill up" the old covenant.

Perhaps the early church was on track with that notion. It seems that way to me, as far as I can tell; to 'fill up' and add a new command perhaps. Whether I hold to what many will then contend as their definition of 'fill up' is another ball of wax. I tend to gravitate towards what sista dawn presents within her response to brutha holy in Definition (Message 126 of thread Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral in forum Social Issues and Creation/Evolution) ...

quote:
Fulfilling the law means that he interpreted them correctly, nothing more.

To “fulfill” a law could simply mean doing what it says. But when Jesus contrasts “fulfilling” with “abolishing” the law, you know he is employing a rabbinic idiom. In this case, to “fulfill the Law” means to properly interpret the Torah. In contrast, the phrase, “abolish the Law” means the opposite—to cancel or nullify the Torah by misinterpreting it. Both of these idioms arise from the assigned task of every rabbi—to interpret just how the Torah applies to daily life. When rabbis disagreed, they would accuse each other of “nullifying” the Torah.

That left a lot of room for figurative interpretation, and for suggesting things were misunderstood and wrong.

You know that's right. It seems we are our own worst enemy when we refuse ourselves the joys of taking a definitive stance on a definition. So then, much like the game of politiks, the religious authoritarians then seem to take great strides towards employing an ever present sense of ambiguity in their games.

If words are Play-DohTM, we can form from them whatever definitions, and so - doctrines, we decide.

However, I do not contend words are Play-DohTM, but rather words.

So then, priestly doctrines and traditions are, perhaps, Play-DohTM.

However, not our Father's ToRaH.

For example, they said sacrifices were something God didn't need.

Do you feel as though sacrifices are something that the Father desires or needs? I don't.

For me, the idea that the Father requires any sort of sacrifice has been a challenging message to gleam through the prophetic booklets.

They were added just to pull the Israelites' carnal minds back to God on a regular basis, and food laws were understood to mean that Christians are to fellowship with those who ruminate on the Word of God and separate from the world.

Here's my take in a nutshell. The central theme of the priestly traditions consisted of various rituals, in particular the greatest ‘sacrament' of the sacrifice of animals. This religious system was condemned by the Prophets of ancient Yisrael as a hypocritical charade intended to divert the people into sterile activities and the hollowness of religion and its dogmas, and so subvert the pursuit of true justice in the land.

The priests, as described by the Prophets, were in bed with the government and with a rising oligarchy in the land, and were using the sterility of their hollow rituals and doctrines as a device to keep the population dulled and stupid, attempting to please the Father with religion and its hollow practices, while turning a blind eye to the gross injustices taking place in the land, the oppressions of the poor, and the greed that was running rampant at the time.

Sorta what we see today, no?

However, the idea that the covenant passed from the Israelites to the Gentiles has a pretty solid basis in history and Scripture.

Who it has passed to is perhaps the question at hand.

If I am to be dogmatic, it would seem I'd have to lend the covenant authority - even authority as a whole, to the commanding Roman Levites.

My conscience does not provide for that option.

Jesus told the Pharisees that God would take the kingdom of God away from them and give it to a nation more worthy.

Is there one? Being a lover of truth, do you honestly contend that the Roman Empire was - and is, somehow a nation more worthy than that of Yuhdea?

While I may or may not agree, I would respect your reasoning as to why or why not you hold to which ever view you have been persuaded to adhere to.

I'm not sure how this makes Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob suddenly unsaved.

lol - me either.

Paul definitely believed the Law couldn't be kept by unredeemed man--at least in general.

True indeed.

Yet, it seems that uncle Paul may have had a soft spot for nullifying the Prophets, as many Yuhdean's did. Imso, this tradition seems to be carried on most effectively throughout the myriad of levitical christian sects within our landscape that have since developed from Pauline - as opposed to Yeshuan, theology.

When considering the propensity of many traditions who employ uncle Paul's writings in their Play-Doh Fun FactoryTM ...

Do you think, if it were possible, that it may cause him to roll over in his grave?

The offering of Christ was to provide the Spirit for all followers of the new covenant--call it renewed if you want, but the result is the same--which followers of the old covenant did not have.

I feel, just as can be seen in christian circles, some practioners did and some indeed did not. In the end, it was - and is the ruling sects that sway the crowd.

Do you disagree?

That Spirit and the accompanying grace are so that the righteous requirement of the Law will be fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit rather than attempting to follow the Law on their own.

I like the sounds of that. I truly hope you'll expound on your understanding's regarding the various covenants that have been mentioned thus far.

Whether you call that a renewed or a new covenant, that's different than what was happening in old Israel.

I try to call 'em as I see 'em, but I would agree that the ruling sects of the ancient nation of Yuhdea, did not have their hearts or minds in a healthy place.

Although, I would as quickly agree that many within levitical christian sects do not have their priorities in order either.

In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace to you.

One Love

Edited by Bailey, : sp.

Edited by Bailey, : sp.

Edited by Bailey, : fixed link

Edited by Bailey, : added some links, etc ...


I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 9:26 AM truthlover has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014