Was Judas present when Christ instituted Communion?
Comments
-
>>>By marrying into Judah, she became a Jew.
No, that is not how it works. The only way to be a Jew is to be a descendent of Abraham through Isaac.
>>>If what you say is correct, then your supposed Messiah King is a poseur--God says so.
David was a Jew because his father was a Jew. "Patrilinar" not "matrilinear".
0 -
By the way, if first gospel is to be believed, then Jesus was not a Jew.
0 -
George Somsel said:
Impossible. What you note from Ruth 1:4 shows Israelites (Jews, specifically) who left the land and took wives among a forbidden people. They took themselves outside the land and behaved outside the covenant. They would not have been allowed to bring their Moabite wives back into the land with any intention of participation in covenant life. Ruth forsook her Moabite identity and became more Jewish than the vast majority of Jews...more Jewish, for instance, than the nameless nobody who refused to redeem her and thus was relegated to eternal anonymity. His requirement, according to Tohraah, of removing his shoe was explicit identification of his refusal to "walk" in covenant.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
WoundedEgo said:
>>>By marrying into Judah, she became a Jew.
No, that is not how it works. The only way to be a Jew is to be a descendent of Abraham through Isaac.
>>>If what you say is correct, then your supposed Messiah King is a poseur--God says so.
David was a Jew because his father was a Jew. "Patrilinar" not "matrilinear".
- Did you ever consider proselytes?
- For the purpose of determining "Jewishness" the mother must be a Jew, not the father.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
WoundedEgo said:
By the way, if first gospel is to be believed, then Jesus was not a Jew.
If what you say is true, then Yeishuu`a was not the Messiah, because the scepter/staff/rod was to be for/from Judah (Gen. 49:10). YHWH, in contradistinction to your assertion, clearly thinks otherwise.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:WoundedEgo said:
If your question is "what tribe was Ruth a part of" then "she was a Moabitess."
She never became a Jew.
She "married" a Jew, and her son was a Jew. She remained a Moabieess.
Apparently you don't understand why your summation, however much it may seem to be logical to you on the surface, is utterly impossible. Her descendant was David, and he entered into the assembly, just she herself did. No Moabite is allowed to do that according to the explicit tohraah of YHWH. When she forsook her past to make covenant with YHWH and His people, she became one of them. By marrying into Judah, she became a Jew. If what you say is correct, then your supposed Messiah King is a poseur--God says so.
That part of the toraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah reflects a later development due to historical circumstances. It would seem, in fact that the book of Ruth was written in part to counter such a view just as Jonah was written to counter certain groups who held to Jewish exclusivity.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
David, what are you proposing? That Ruth became a Jew? Is that your point? Well, the scriptures are decidedly Patrilineal. A Jew is a descendent of Abraham, through his fathers.
Or are you saying that Ruth in wrong, and she did not produce David's anscestor to a Jew?
Or are you saying that it had been 10 generations?
Or are you saying that David was "conceived in iniquity" (which he himself confesses)?
What is the bottom line to your contention?
0 -
>>>Did you ever consider proselytes?
That's a bit anachronistic.
>>>For the purpose of determining "Jewishness" the mother must be a Jew, not the father.
In modern Jewry, perhaps, but not in the scriptures.
0 -
Ruth became a Jewess because she entered into covenant with a Jewish man, and gave birth (down the line) to the Jewish Messiah. Literal descendants of Abraham, and by extension, any of the twelve patriarchs, on the other hand were far more often than not (the vast majority) considered BY YHWH HIMSELF to be "false sons" (Isa. 1:4 & Deut. 32:5). These "false sons" who were "not His children" were physical descendants and yet they refused covenant obedience and were unilaterally rejected as "corrupt" and "perverted" and "twisted". These "seed of evildoers" could not be, from the spiritual perspective (the perspective YHWH cares about), the sons of Abraham because he is the father of the faithful. They could not be Israelites because the name Israel means "the upright (yaashaar) of God" (Deut. 32:4). Those who are twisted, by definition, are not upright.
Hebraic spelling of yaashar and Yisra'eil: yohdh/shin/reish & yohdh/shin/reish/aleph/laamedh
Ruth, walked uprightly...she BECAME a TRUE daughter of YHWH and TRUE daughter of Abraham.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David, you are quite an enigma! In your original post, didn't you argue that David and hence Jesus were "poseur" s because it was impossible for her to become a Jew? How is that now you aruge the opposite?
Isaiah 1:4 does not say that they were pretending to be sons, but rather that they were lousy sons. Ditto for Deut 32:5.
Ruth may have become a "daugther of Abraham" by faith, but NOT a Jewess. One is only a Jew by birth to a Jewish father.
When we meet Ruth, she has been married to a Jew, and is upright, but is ever "the Moabitess" - even after her second marriage:
Rth_1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.
Rth_2:2 And Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean ears of corn after him in whose sight I shall find grace. And she said unto her, Go, my daughter.
Rth_2:21 And Ruth the Moabitess said, He said unto me also, Thou shalt keep fast by my young men, until they have ended all my harvest.
Rth_4:5 Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
Rth_4:10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.0 -
WoundedEgo said:
>>>Did you ever consider proselytes?
That's a bit anachronistic.
>>>For the purpose of determining "Jewishness" the mother must be a Jew, not the father.
In modern Jewry, perhaps, but not in the scriptures.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Read the book of Ezra. The Foreign women and the children who were born to them had to be put away. The Samaritans who were considered to be "the people of the land" were rejected as Jews though from the beginning Jews were simply Canaanites. This was not something which first arose in the return from the Captivity or it would not have been accepted.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
David Paul said:
Ruth became a Jewess because she entered into covenant with a Jewish man, and gave birth (down the line) to the Jewish Messiah.
The point of this nice little romance is that even the great King David was not of unadulterated ancestry. Ruth, the Moabitess, goes out to the threshing floor and seduces Boaz (yes, that is what the "uncovering the feet" refers to). He is an honorable man who does the right thing and proceeds to regularize their relationship with the result that David is decended from his line. It says nothing about her becoming a Jew. There are quite a number of names in Israel which are compounded with -melech which references the god Molech. At one time there was considerable intermarriage which in time became prohibited.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
>>>You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Read the book of Ezra. The Foreign women and the children who were born to them had to be put away. The Samaritans who were considered to be "the people of the land" were rejected as Jews though from the beginning Jews were simply Canaanites. This was not something which first arose in the return from the Captivity or it would not have been accepted.
So are you saying that Jews never married non-Jews? And if they did, they had to be given a bill of divorce and sent away?
If so, then what about Ruth?
If not, I'm not able to decipher what you are saying. Please clarify. Thanks.
0 -
Any chance we can get this thread back on Logos?
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
WoundedEgo said:
So are you saying that Jews never married non-Jews? And if they did, they had to be given a bill of divorce and sent away?
If so, then what about Ruth?
Jews frequently married non-Jews. In time it became unacceptable (at least for the mother to be non-Jewish). As I said, the point of the Ruth romance is that even David was not of pure Aryan Jewish ancestry. It was not a story which was penned in the time of David and immediately thereafter when women from other backgrounds were routinely married. History changes the attitudes of people. My father would not admit that the family name is German due to the war in which he took part. I remember my mother telling me that I had better not marry a Japanese (this was when I was quite young, not years after the war).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
BillS said:
Any chance we can get this thread back on Logos?
Unlikely. Once these things become derailed, they're gone.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:BillS said:
Any chance we can get this thread back on Logos?
Unlikely. Once these things become derailed, they're gone.
LOL.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
WoundedEgo said:
David, you are quite an enigma! In your original post, didn't you argue that David and hence Jesus were "poseur" s because it was impossible for her to become a Jew? How is that now you aruge the opposite?
NO...that was your assertion. My counter was that IF you were correct in your assertions, THEN David and Jesus would be poseurs. I affirm that they both, along with Ruth, were Jewish.
WoundedEgo said:Isaiah 1:4 does not say that they were pretending to be sons, but rather that they were lousy sons. Ditto for Deut 32:5.
Ruth may have become a "daugther of Abraham" by faith, but NOT a Jewess. One is only a Jew by birth to a Jewish father.
When we meet Ruth, she has been married to a Jew, and is upright, but is ever "the Moabitess" - even after her second marriage:
Rth_1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.
Rth_2:2 And Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean ears of corn after him in whose sight I shall find grace. And she said unto her, Go, my daughter.
Rth_2:21 And Ruth the Moabitess said, He said unto me also, Thou shalt keep fast by my young men, until they have ended all my harvest.
Rth_4:5 Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
Rth_4:10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.Ever the Moabitess, yeah...in the same way that Rahab is ever the harlot (Heb. 11:31). But, does that mean she WAS ever a harlot? No. The reference was an acknowledgment of a PAST that was LEFT BEHIND...i.e. a past which COULD be left behind. That is the point. Rahab left her harlotry behind. Ruth left her Moabitess past behind.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
>>>NO...that was your assertion. My counter was that IF you were correct in your assertions, THEN David and Jesus would be poseurs. I affirm that they both, along with Ruth, were Jewish.
But that is a non sequitur. David was a Jew because his father was a Jew. Jesus, the first gospel says, was *reckoned as* the son of Joseph (possibly suggesting that he was "legally" his son). But he was not, according to him, a Jew, nor David's son. However, the rest of scripture suggests that he was the naturally born descendent of David.
>>>Ever the Moabitess, yeah...in the same way that Rahab is ever the harlot (Heb. 11:31). But, does that mean she WAS ever a harlot? No. The reference was an acknowledgment of a PAST that was LEFT BEHIND...i.e. a past which COULD be left behind. That is the point. Rahab left her harlotry behind. Ruth left her Moabitess past behind.
No, she was never a Jewess, ever a Moabitess. Women were property of Jews, and they did not confer their heritage on the children they bore to their lords.
The comparison to Rahab isirrelevant as there is no indication that she ceased being a harlot in the places where she is referred to by that appendage.
0 -
The three of you all need to take an interest is argumentation analysis. You are working from very different premises which you never mention. Until you move the debate to the level of your differences, the discussion will go no where. Logos needs to provide us with a resource or two on applied reasoning. May I suggest the inexpensive A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston available for Kindle..
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Searching my Logos Library for critical NEAR thinking articles, found something to ponder:
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Interesting article...it sheds a bit of light, but not in the way many would suspect. The example given above, referring to the "married bachelors" is quite instructive. This is assumed, much like the well-known "square circle", to be an inherent contradiction, and thus an ipso facto impossibility. Generally speaking, this would be true if one were approaching elements of typical human concern. We are, however, decidedly NOT so engaged. Nevertheless, that is precisely what George and Wounded Ego are doing, approaching this subject as if it is an issue of history. It is not. It is an issue of YHWH's prophetic nature, will, and providence.
Both of them speak of the supposed "official" means test for determining "zera", in other words, the Hebraic concept of seed-hood. They both approach it from the physical & historical perspective, which is, unfortunately, the exact WRONG way to proceed. Scripture is quite clear that the proper means test of seed-hood is PRODUCING IN KIND. Israel, with only a few individual exceptions, never reproduced after the Spirit.
I have to end this, I will pick it up later this after noon. Sorry.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Interesting article...it sheds a bit of light, but not in the way many would suspect. The example given above, referring to the "married bachelors" is quite instructive. This is assumed, much like the well-known "square circle", to be an inherent contradiction, and thus an ipso facto impossibility. Generally speaking, this would be true if one were approaching elements of typical human concern. We are, however, decidedly NOT so engaged. Nevertheless, that is precisely what George and Wounded Ego are doing, approaching this subject as if it is an issue of history. It is not. It is an issue of YHWH's prophetic nature, will, and providence.
Both of them speak of the supposed "official" means test for determining "zera", in other words, the Hebraic concept of seed-hood. They both approach it from the physical & historical perspective, which is, unfortunately, the exact WRONG way to proceed. Scripture is quite clear that the proper means test of seed-hood is PRODUCING IN KIND. Israel, with only a few individual exceptions, never reproduced after the Spirit.
I have to end this, I will pick it up later this after noon. Sorry.
You seem to propose a non-literal interpretation of the text. I would go further than you. It is quite likely that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem of Judea (BTW: there is a Bethlehem in the vicinity of Nazareth). He may not have been in the lineage of David either. It is the tradition that the Messiah was to be from the Davidic line so the mythology of the Church had to conform to that—hence he is said to be born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Davidic line. It is simply a way to set forth the message that Jesus is the promised messiah. There is truth in the myth. In fact, myth is the ultimate truth.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
>>>Scripture is quite clear that the proper means test of seed-hood is PRODUCING IN KIND
For Paul, Abraham has two kinds of sons:
* the "natural branches" - those who are the physical descendents, faithful or not
* the "branches of the wild olive tree" that were "grafted into" him by virtue of their imitating his faith
The "natural branches" are Jews. The ingrafted branches are gentiles.
What we are discussing is whether or not Ruth became a Jew, not whether she became a saint. And the answer is, "No, she did not become a Jewess, but rather remained a Moabitess".
0 -
George Somsel said:David Paul said:
Interesting article...it sheds a bit of light, but not in the way many would suspect. The example given above, referring to the "married bachelors" is quite instructive. This is assumed, much like the well-known "square circle", to be an inherent contradiction, and thus an ipso facto impossibility. Generally speaking, this would be true if one were approaching elements of typical human concern. We are, however, decidedly NOT so engaged. Nevertheless, that is precisely what George and Wounded Ego are doing, approaching this subject as if it is an issue of history. It is not. It is an issue of YHWH's prophetic nature, will, and providence.
Both of them speak of the supposed "official" means test for determining "zera", in other words, the Hebraic concept of seed-hood. They both approach it from the physical & historical perspective, which is, unfortunately, the exact WRONG way to proceed. Scripture is quite clear that the proper means test of seed-hood is PRODUCING IN KIND. Israel, with only a few individual exceptions, never reproduced after the Spirit.
I have to end this, I will pick it up later this after noon. Sorry.
You seem to propose a non-literal interpretation of the text. I would go further than you. It is quite likely that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem of Judea (BTW: there is a Bethlehem in the vicinity of Nazareth). He may not have been in the lineage of David either. It is the tradition that the Messiah was to be from the Davidic line so the mythology of the Church had to conform to that—hence he is said to be born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Davidic line. It is simply a way to set forth the message that Jesus is the promised messiah. There is truth in the myth. In fact, myth is the ultimate truth.
In fact, Jesus seemed to deny His "Davidic" ancestry. [H] (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)
(And I assume everyone knows the "three sets of 14 generations" = "David" numerology.)
Optimistically Egalitarian (Galatians 3:28)
0 -
>>>In fact, Jesus seemed to deny His "Davidic" ancestry.
(Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)In this vein, there is a startling prophecy:
Isa_11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Rom_15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
Does that mean that Jesus would "support" (be the origin of) David's father, rather than springing from him?
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
0 -
WoundedEgo said:
>>>In fact, Jesus seemed to deny His "Davidic" ancestry.
(Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)In this vein, there is a startling prophecy:
Isa_11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Rom_15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
Does that mean that Jesus would "support" (be the origin of) David's father, rather than springing from him?
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Apparently you have no understanding of the mythological or theological understanding of the text. Let me give you an example from Paul
“Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of the one who is married.”” (Galatians 4:21–27, NRSV)
Paul does not take the text absolutely literally but rather uses it in order to set forth his message. Mythology, or a theological interpretation, is simply the delineation of the principles underlying what the text literally states.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Until you move the debate to the level of your differences, the discussion will go no where. Logos needs to provide us with a resource or two on applied reasoning.
[Y] The discussion is interesting but going nowhere.... (highlight is mine)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
This is not "mythology", but rather "allegory" as Paul says in the text you cite:
...Now this is an allegory:..
You can't [legitimately] use the "mythology hermeneutic" to say that Ruth was metaphysically a Jew.
0 -
WoundedEgo said:
This is not "mythology", but rather "allegory" as Paul says in the text you cite:
...Now this is an allegory:..
You can't [legitimately] use the "mythology hermeneutic" to say that Ruth was metaphysically a Jew.
Mythology sets forth a theological view in story form. Greek mythology spoke of Chaos which split into Gaia and Ouranos. This was not simply an interesting story to tell to children. It was rather a setting forth of their cosmological views. Out of a split in Chaos arose the heaven and the earth. While I have an innate antipathy to much of allegory, one must not therefore reject the significance of the underlying concepts. Do you really think that the gospels (and other scriptures) are simply about setting forth dry and sterile historical facts? You must learn to understand the message underlying the text.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
>>>...Do you really think that the gospels (and other scriptures) are simply about setting forth dry and sterile historical facts? You must learn to understand the message underlying the text.
That is a straw man.
0 -
WoundedEgo said:
>>>...Do you really think that the gospels (and other scriptures) are simply about setting forth dry and sterile historical facts? You must learn to understand the message underlying the text.
That is a straw man.
No, it's the truth.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
>>>No, it's the truth.
That also is a straw man.
0 -
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Wonder about continuing theological discussion (with truthful straw man volleys) at a web site that hosts those discussions: e.g. http://www.theologyonline.com/
Praying for friendly forum focus for using Logos Bible Software, which could include Logos resource(s) to consider for research and study.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0
