Challenge

[Mark C]

Maybe I'm missing something here. I guess what I'm asking is how can the Mosaic law be followed, as written, when the necessary elements have passed away? It seems to me you'd end up with a lot of improv...

Or, you "do your best to obey Him", David. On this we finally agree.

His summary (Love God, love your neighbor) and "choose life" still give us the essential elements for discernment.

Here's where I draw the bright line distinction:

It was ALWAYS that way!

You, or others I see frequently, might say that "keeping His commandments" (at least "perfectly") was impossible. But He said (Deut. 30) that it was NOT too hard for us, and then when He came to be our Redeemer, He even said Himself that we were to be "perfect"!

Thank God He sent a Comforter -- His Ruach HaKodesh -- to guide us!

No temple? I can't sacrifice two turtle doves. Since I'm not a king anyway, I don't worry about multiplying wives or horses. And finally, as has been noted, most of the "burdens" of "the Law" -- from bogus Pharasiac Sabbath restrictions to Pope-asiac priestly celibacy and Ishtar Sun-god-rise services -- were never part of His Written Word anyway.

And while we can, and should - as brothers in Him, knowing that iron sharpens iron - discuss His commandments, I don't presume to exercise authority over your house (either directly or through force of government arms), nor accept it from others. (As you no doubt recognize, however, Satan has other plans.)

So, a couple of sayings still summarize the situation for me:

"Shall we sin more, that grace might abound? God forbid!" And, of course,
"If you love Me, keep My commands."

 

[Anonymous]

Or, you "do your best to obey Him", David. On this we finally agree.

Yeah, I think we're in agreement here regardless. Obedience to Him is vital in our daily walk.

You, or others I see frequently, might say that "keeping His commandments" (at least "perfectly") was impossible. But He said (Deut. 30) that it was NOT too hard for us

Well, it depends on which "commandments" you're referring to. In this covenant, I believe we are to be under the law of Messiah, though not under the law of Moses. That's really the only distinction I see. Whether keeping His Old Covenant commandments perfectly was impossible or not, I think we can agree that only one person has ever actually managed it. It may not be too hard to attempt, but our track record so far is 100% failure.

"Shall we sin more, that grace might abound? God forbid!" And, of course,
"If you love Me, keep My commands."

Amen and amen!

Love in Him,
David

 

[^_^]

David, this is something I think you don't understand. Mosaic law was not Moshe's law, it was Yahweh's. It was the same law Yahushua (whom I think from my studying was actually Yahweh_shua, ie the one and the same person) upheld. He destroyed the law man put into place to replace his law (religion, where we are once again replacing his laws with man made code).

How do I keep his Torah? The same way any Israelite did in the diaspora when they were driven from the land by disobedience. Could they go to the temple when they were in captivity? Of course not, does that mean they went to hell? I am prepared in season and out of season to go where he leads. That's how Israel was always supposed to walk. Even Sampson, who's parents thought was being evil by taking a Philistine woman, did what Yahweh wanted him to. The prophet Hosea was told to take a prostitute, something that most church folks today would think is a sin. Yet it would have been a sin for Hosea not to be obedient. It's not as black and white as people want it to be, that's what's necessary to understand.
Do I fault a starving man in Africa for eating whatever animal comes his way? Nope. But I do fault a fat American who orders swine's flesh when totally acceptable flesh is right there on the menu. He is literally choosing to do what the word of Yahweh has spoken, and it's not out of necessity at all. To me, it sure looks like rebellion, but considering what churches teach today, I perceive it more as ignorance, and fault the blind leaders of the blind.

 

[Anonymous]

David, this is something I think you don't understand. Mosaic law was not Moshe's law, it was Yahweh's.

Well, here’s the thing. Either eating pork is sin, or it isn’t sin. It can’t be both and it can’t be “sort of” sin. If it’s sin, then we are required to take a stand against it just as with any other sin, such as adultery, stealing, or murder. If it’s not a sin, then it falls under personal liberty. For each verse you can show that says national Israel was forbidden to eat “unclean animals”, I can show twice as many passages that show it was permitted before Sinai, that it continued to be permitted for gentiles all along, and it was again permitted after Messiah. God is not the God of confusion, so something has to be wrong with our thinking somewhere.

The prophet Hosea was told to take a prostitute, something that most church folks today would think is a sin.

Most church folks would be wrong, but nobody would accuse most church folks of seriously studying Scripture. It wouldn’t have been a sin for Hosea to take a whore for a wife any more than it would be a sin for anyone else to take a whore for a wife. It simply wasn’t desirable to marry a whore. Even the ungodly want to take a virgin as a wife, not a zanah. But unless you’re going to marry a 12-year-old, it’d be slim pickings in our perverse culture to find an 18-year-old virgin in the church at all, let alone one who understands Biblical marriage. Thank God we aren’t limited to only marrying virgins or we’d really have a hard time finding even ONE good wife!

But I do fault a fat American who orders swine's flesh when totally acceptable flesh is right there on the menu.

Why do you think pork is unacceptable while beef is acceptable? When was this restriction ever expected of gentiles? Why would God command a Jewish man to deliberately sin by commanding him three times to eat pork? Is that His character – I mean, at all? Why didn’t the council at Jerusalem say not to eat pork when they said not to eat blood? Did it just slip their minds? Was it really asking too much to expect new believers to abstain from pork while at the same time asking them to abstain from whoring? Scripture will not contradict Scripture, so how do we explain the differences between these covenants?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

Why do you think pork is unacceptable while beef is acceptable?

This one's too easy...

When was this restriction ever expected of gentiles?

When they came out with the "mixed multitude" and when they lived as "strangers within the gates". And, of course...see below.

Why would God command a Jewish man to deliberately sin by commanding him three times to eat pork? Is that His character – I mean, at all?

Because He was teaching Him something - as Peter explained in the verses which follow immediately thereafter.

Why didn’t the council at Jerusalem say not to eat pork when they said not to eat blood? Did it just slip their minds? Was it really asking too much to expect new believers to abstain from pork while at the same time asking them to abstain from whoring? Scripture will not contradict Scripture, so how do we explain the differences between these covenants?

"Because Moses has been taught in every city" for generations, and is "read in the synagogues every Sabbath day". In other words, Acts 15 sets out the MINIMUM requirements to "clean 'em up" enough to get in the door. There they can learn the rest.

Just as it's "hard to find a virgin" nowadays, I'd expect a woman that I would consider as a wife to be willing to LEARN. Get her "cleaned up enough" to learn more of God's Word, and then EXPECT her to do better in the future! (And if she had other unhealthy habits - from smoking to eating things that weren't good for her, to other unsavory things - they can be turned away from.)


Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

Why would God command a Jewish man to deliberately sin by commanding him three times to eat pork? Is that His character – I mean, at all?

Because He was teaching Him something - as Peter explained in the verses which follow immediately thereafter.

Can you find any other example in Scripture where God commanded someone to clearly and specifically commit a sin - something God has clearly identified as sinful? For example, could you imagine God giving a man a vision to tell him to sleep with the guy next door, three times no less, in order to deliver a spiritual teaching about ANYTHING?? Is it His character to use immorality or command immorality to teach a spiritual truth?

Why didn’t the council at Jerusalem say not to eat pork when they said not to eat blood? Did it just slip their minds? Was it really asking too much to expect new believers to abstain from pork while at the same time asking them to abstain from whoring? Scripture will not contradict Scripture, so how do we explain the differences between these covenants?

"Because Moses has been taught in every city" for generations, and is "read in the synagogues every Sabbath day". In other words, Acts 15 sets out the MINIMUM requirements to "clean 'em up" enough to get in the door. There they can learn the rest.

So abstaining from blood is a minimum requirement, but there are plenty of other requirements? Since when is a requirement optional?

Rom. 14:14: "I know and am persuaded in the Master Yahushua that none at all is KOINOS (unclean) of itself. But to him who regards whatever to be KOINOS (unclean), to him it is KOINOS (unclean)."

I submit that if we believe it's unclean, we'd better not eat it!

Love in Him,
David

 

[^_^]

Yes, I can think of a place where Yahweh told a spirit to deliberately lie. It's how Ahab was convinced to go to battle so he would die.

And as I said before, with Moshe, Yahweh spoke to him as a man would to another man, face to face. The others were in visions and dark (read hard to understand) sayings. Peter never once questioned whether or not he was actually supposed to eat those critters, he knew better. He realized there was a meaning to the vision. Not coincidently, the servants of Cornelius were at the door. It's in the book, I read it

 

[Mark C]

Can you find any other example in Scripture where God commanded someone to clearly and specifically commit a sin - something God has clearly identified as sinful?

You bet. The most obvious one even has a name: "the Akidah".

It was God asking Abraham to commit a murder, the sacrifice of his son, his only son.

And it was to teach a very important lesson indeed.

 

[Mark C]

I submit that if we believe it's unclean, we'd better not eat it!

I agree. To me, because God says so, and I believe Him, pigs and shellfish are (among other things) not food. I won't eat 'em.


But Yeshua also promised that we could even eat poison, and not be harmed. As a general rule, I don't test Him. But - as I've said before - in an emergency, I'd thankfully eat whatever He provided, and trust in Him to keep me from harm.


Love in Him,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

YPeter never once questioned whether or not he was actually supposed to eat those critters, he knew better. He realized there was a meaning to the vision. Not coincidently, the servants of Cornelius were at the door. It's in the book, I read it

I certainly understand the parable He was explaining. Do you see any relationship between the unclean animals and the unclean gentiles in His lesson? Could God have invited Peter to lay with an unclean pig in that blanket and still communicated the same truths, or was there some significant revelation being given regarding the relationship between the unclean animals and the unclean people? What spiritual truth do you suppose Jesus was trying to communicate to His disciples when he said nothing going into the mouth makes one unclean? Who eats pigs in Peter's time? Jews or gentiles? I have a hard time believing you can't discern the connection here.

Blessings,
David

 

[Anonymous]

Can you find any other example in Scripture where God commanded someone to clearly and specifically commit a sin - something God has clearly identified as sinful?

It was God asking Abraham to commit a murder, the sacrifice of his son, his only son.

Let me make sure I'm understanding what you're saying here. God commanded Abraham to commit MURDER, right? I mean, we both know murder is a sin and that's what you understand from that passage of Scripture?

Blessings in Him,
David

 

[^_^]

David, the oral law taught that in order to be righteous, you couldn't even eat with a gentile. That's why the vision was about food and not about laying with. Yet torah never forbade eating with a gentile, and even according to Jewish tradition, Abraham entertained strangers who would have been Gentiles. You are correct in assuming this was for that age as far as the vision was concerned, as every Jew I run into today will actually eat with me, but the records I've studied says that's not how it was then. How could truth spread when the leaders of the day then created an environment that wasn't outward looking. Yet even so, according to Scripture, Yahushua said the pharisees scoured the earth looking for a convert, then perverted him worse than he was in his first state. So it is with religion today. Lawlessness reigns, and it's not a good thing

 

[Anonymous]

David, the oral law taught that in order to be righteous, you couldn't even eat with a gentile. That's why the vision was about food and not about laying with.

Exactly, so what's the connection between unclean foods and unclean gentiles? The Jews understood they alone were God's chosen people, while the common folk, the gentiles, were unclean, common, dogs. Scripture already establishes the definition of food as "Every moving creature that lives is food for you...But do not eat flesh with its life, its blood." Food is never defined as animal droppings, tin cans or anything else that one might decide to try to ingest. We know that Noah already understood the distinction between the clean and the unclean, yet also was given all for food. That much has been clearly established in Genesis.

So, what's the connection between food and gentiles? What is God trying to tell Peter? What did Peter himself say the understanding was? If the gentiles were not to be considered unclean any longer, and nothing that enters their mouth can make them unclean, then why would the gentiles be subject to anything distinctly Mosaic? If the separation/partition still exists between Jew and gentile, then we're right back to saying what the Pharisees said in Acts 15, that to be saved, you must become Jewish, subject to Mosaic law. Has nobody read the book of Galatians??

Gal. 2:16: “knowing that a man is not declared right by works of NOMOS, but through belief in Yahushua Messiah, even we have believed in Messiah Yahushua, in order to be declared right by belief in Messiah and not by works of NOMOS, because by works of NOMOS no flesh shall be declared right.”

Gal. 2:19: “For through NOMOS I died to NOMOS, in order to live to Elohim.”

Gal. 2:21: “I do not set aside the favour of Elohim, for if righteousness is through NOMOS, then Messiah died for naught.”

Gal. 3:2: “This only I wish to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of NOMOS, or by the hearing of belief?”

Gal. 3:5: “Is He, then, who is supplying the Spirit to you and working miracles among you, doing it by works of NOMOS, or by hearing of belief?”

Gal. 3:10: “For as many as are of works of NOMOS are under the curse, for it has been written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all that has been written in the book of NOMOS, to do them.”

Gal. 3:11: “And that no one is declared right by NOMOS before Elohim is clear, for “The righteous shall live by belief.”

Gal. 3:12: “And NOMOS is not of belief, but “The man who does them shall live by them.”

Gal. 3:13: “Messiah redeemed us from the curse of NOMOS, having become a curse for us - for it has been written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree.”

Gal. 3:17: “Now this I say, NOMOS, that came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously confirmed by Elohim in Messiah, so as to do away with the promise.”

Gal. 3:18: “For if the inheritance is by NOMOS, it is no longer by promise, but Elohim gave it to Abraham through a promise.”

Gal. 3:19: “Why, then, NOMOS? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. And it was ordained through messengers in the hand of a mediator.”

Gal. 3:21: “Is NOMOS then against the promises of Elohim? Let it not be! For if NOMOS had been given that was able to make alive, truly righteousness would have been by NOMOS.”

Gal. 3:23: “But before belief came, we were being guarded under NOMOS, having been shut up for the belief being about to be revealed.”

Gal. 3:24: “Therefore NOMOS became our trainer unto Messiah, in order to be declared right by belief.”

Gal. 4:4: “But when the completion of the time came, Elohim sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under NOMOS”

Gal. 4:5: “to redeem those who were under NOMOS, in order to receive the adoption as sons.”

Gal. 4:21: “Say to me, you who wish to be under NOMOS, do you not hear NOMOS?”

Gal. 5:3: “And I witness again to every man being circumcised that he is a debtor to do the entire NOMOS.”

Gal. 5:4: “You who are declared right by NOMOS have severed yourselves from Messiah, you have fallen from favour.”

Gal. 5:14: “For the entire NOMOS is completed in one word, in this, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”

Gal. 5:18: “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under NOMOS.”

Gal. 5:22-23: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trust-worthiness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no NOMOS.”

Gal. 6:2: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so complete NOMOS of Messiah.”

Gal. 6:13: “For those who are circumcised do not even watch over NOMOS, but they wish to have you circumcised so that they might boast in your flesh.”

This is every reference to the Greek word "nomos" I could find in Galatians. This word is usually translated as "law" or "torah". Perhaps if someone would care to give me the definition of this word, as they understand it, we could then examine these passages to see what is being taught about the end of "nomos" for believers in Messiah.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

Can you find any other example in Scripture where God commanded someone to clearly and specifically commit a sin - something God has clearly identified as sinful?

Please don't play word games with this, David.

You asked the above question. It has been answered.

The answer is clear, and it is one of the most important and prescient stories in all of Scripture.

Abraham was told by God to SACRIFICE his son, his son of promise. There's no way to deny that he was "clearly and specifically" commanded to do something which was beyond his ken.

Obedience to Him is not sin. But Abraham did not concern himself with HOW God would accomplish His purpose, and his faith was counted to him for righteousness.

 

[Anonymous]

Can you find any other example in Scripture where God commanded someone to clearly and specifically commit a sin - something God has clearly identified as sinful?

Please don't play word games with this, David.
You asked the above question. It has been answered.

I’m not playing word games, I’m just surprised by your position. If God commanded Abraham to murder, then God is a sinner by His own definitions and there’s no point in further discussions here. You don’t believe Jesus’ own words or actions because you think that would mean that Jesus was a sinner, but then you say that God commanded murder and don’t see a contradiction.

With all of our studies in patriarchy, has nobody noticed WHO was commanded to sacrifice Isaac? The single person on earth with the authority to take Isaac’s life? How old was Isaac at the time? Whose authority was Isaac under? Is it murder in Scripture if a master beats a slave and he dies? Is it murder in Scripture if a father forfeits his child’s life for disrespecting or striking him? Doesn't murder require the death penalty for the murderer? What exactly do you define as murder?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

I admit it, David - this is the kind of "I won't admit anything" gamesmanship that tends to aggravate me.

Why are you incapable of simply ADMITTING that "Yes, there are examples in Scripture of OTHER things that APPEAR to be God's 'command[ing] someone to clearly and specifically commit a sin'. Maybe I misinterpreted that vision of Peter"?


I also know God does not "tempt" people to sin - even though the KJV uses EXACTLY that word in the English:

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, [here] I [am].

And He said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. -- Gen 22


Abraham knew God's character, better than either of us probably, and knew that God would not command him to sin -- EVEN IF HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW. And Isaac, who trusted in both of them, went along voluntarily.

I don't think Abraham would have had any problem understanding Peter's vision either.

 

[Anonymous]

I admit it, David - this is the kind of "I won't admit anything" gamesmanship that tends to aggravate me.
Why are you incapable of simply ADMITTING that "Yes, there are examples in Scripture of OTHER things that APPEAR to be God's 'command[ing] someone to clearly and specifically commit a sin'.

I'm sorry. I’ll try to be more careful with my statements, because I think we’re making good progress here and I don’t want to aggravate you. I can certainly see that someone who does not understand the Biblical definition of murder could view the Gen. 22 passage as God commanding someone to commit murder, regardless of whether He intended to actually permit it.

My response would be that if God truly commands people to sin, even in jest, then He can command Peter, or anyone else, to sin as well. At that point, we have much bigger fish to fry (no pun intended) than worrying about whether gentiles must eat like Jews in the New Covenant. Had David been commanded to sacrifice Jonathan, then we’d have a real moral issue. But Abraham was in full authority of his son Isaac and his life belonged to Abraham. Our culture does not understand, let alone accept, patriarchal authority, but Abraham and Isaac understood their relational authority structure.

My question is really simple. Does God command people to commit sin? Yes or no? In relation to the subject of dietary laws, that’s all it boils down to.

And Isaac, who trusted in both of them, went along voluntarily.

Exactly, and why? Why not just rebel against Abraham's authority?

I don't think Abraham would have had any problem understanding Peter's vision either.

What would have likely confused Abraham was Peter's strong unwillingness to eat the meat, seeing as the dietary laws weren't going to be given for another 430 years and Abraham would have lacked the context of the vision. Of course, at this point in time, there was no Israel vs. gentile separation either, so it's likely that none of it would make sense to him (kind of like today). :lol:

Peace,
David

 

[Mark C]

I'll work up to the point, and address a couple of minor disagreements first.

...seeing as the dietary laws weren't going to be given for another 430 years...

I know you are aware that Noah knew the difference between "clean and unclean" animals, well before Abraham. (Indeed, just as the midrash teaches that Isaac was an adult, probably around 40 at the time of the Akidah, it may be that Abraham learned about God from Shem. I can't prove any of that sola scriptura, and it isn't the key issue. But, I have no doubt that Abraham knew the difference as well.)

Abraham's "faith was accounted to him for righteousness". I contend that it has nothing to do with his analysis, David. It doesn't matter whether he parsed words like "murder", or "sacrifice" or "offer him". It doesn't matter what Abraham expected - whether Isaac would be resurrected, whether his hand would be stayed, or whether some other miracle would occur. I believe he was excited to see how God would accomplish His purpose.

Abraham knew that what he had been asked to do WOULD NOT STAND - because he believed God, and His promise to Abraham that that promise would come through Isaac, and because he knew the character of God. He knew that the answer he gave his son, that "God would provide Himself a Lamb..." was True - even if he may not have at that time realized it would be one of the most profound prophecies in all of Scripture.

I contend you are missing the point here, perhaps deliberately, David.

Abraham's faith, and his obedience, is so dramatic precisely BECAUSE it represents an APPARENT contradiction! But it does not. It reflects his faith, and God's faithfulness to His Covenant.

In the same way, Peter's vision is dramatic because it represented an apparent contradiction, but also is not. God "changes not", and He was teaching Peter in a way that made His point clear. And it had no more to do with food than the Akidah did with murder:
"What God hath cleansed, call not thou common.


Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

I know you are aware that Noah knew the difference between "clean and unclean" animals, well before Abraham.

Sure, I think we're in complete agreement that Noah (and probably Abraham) knew the distinction between clean and unclean animals. The point we seem to be having problems with is that Noah, at least after the flood, was told by God Himself that all the animals (both clean and unclean) were given to them (the gentiles, the whole human race) for food. Therefore, the same was true for Abraham as was for Noah. Nothing changed for any group of people except for the nation of Israel for a season. For them, if it was unsuitable for sacrifice, it was unsuitable for food.

Abraham's "faith was accounted to him for righteousness". I contend that it has nothing to do with his analysis, David. It doesn't matter whether he parsed words like "murder", or "sacrifice" or "offer him". It doesn't matter what Abraham expected - whether Isaac would be resurrected, whether his hand would be stayed, or whether some other miracle would occur. I believe he was excited to see how God would accomplish His purpose.

I agree that Abraham's faith was credited as righteousness, and I agree that the terminology of words is not the issue. Abraham did not see God's command as sinful because he was acting within his rightful authority as Isaac's father. I disagree that Abraham would have been "excited" at the prospect of losing his only son, however. He simply had faith that God would make a way regardless. He knew God could be trusted to accomplish what He set out to accomplish.

I contend you are missing the point here, perhaps deliberately, David.

Abraham's faith, and his obedience, is so dramatic precisely BECAUSE it represents an APPARENT contradiction! But it does not. It reflects his faith, and God's faithfulness to His Covenant.

The apparent contradiction was simply that God said the promise would come through Isaac and now Isaac was to be sacrificed. Abraham certainly wouldn't have been thinking that God was telling him to commit a sin. There is no contradiction in God's character, nor in His morality.

In the same way, Peter's vision is dramatic because it represented an apparent contradiction, but also is not. God "changes not", and He was teaching Peter in a way that made His point clear.

Just about every time I see someone trying to justify obedience to obsolete law, the infamous "God changes not" phrase is given. But the same God that "changes not" -- CHANGED -- from "Every moving creature that lives is food for you. I have given you all, as I gave the green plants." given to Noah. If God is so tied up in a box that He cannot require different things from different people in different times, then I submit He could not have given the dietary laws to Israel in the first place, since "God changes not"! This line of reasoning is fairly ridiculous.

Adam: Gen. 1:29 (plants)
Noah: Gen. 9:3 (plants and animals)
Moses: Lev. 11 (plants and clean animals)
Jesus: Romans 14:14 (none is unclean)

"If you love Me, keep My commands."

Sure, which ones?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

Sigh. Is this just a poor choice of wording, or is there a disconnect here?

I disagree that Abraham would have been "excited" at the prospect of losing his only son, however...

I certainly never said anything of the sort, and I don't believe he feared any such thing.

He trusted God to keep His Covenant.



Obfuscation aside, this still stands:

Can you find any other example in Scripture where God commanded someone to clearly and specifically commit a sin - something God has clearly identified as sinful?

Answer - Genesis 22, just for the most obvious example. And no, don't try "eisegesis" here, either, or further deflection. I'm not accusing God, by any Name, of violating His own Word, as Written, or His Covenants -- as has been outlined.

Your question about Peter's vision is refuted, because any understanding of His test of Abraham is far simpler to apply to Acts 10 in the same way, particular since Peter tells us himself what the vision means.

I can't help but note, in all this discussion, a simple fact that has also been ignored:

Avoiding pork and shellfish is, without question, simply HEALTHIER than eating them (from DNA and disease vectors, to harmful enzymes, to poisons absorbed in the flesh of animals designed, and never evidently modified in two millenia, to be scavengers). It's almost like our Designer was trying to tell us something. Do you deny that it's just possible (since He says so anyway) that He might just give us information for our good?


"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..."

Blessings,

Mark