'The Hope of His Calling'

geralduk said:
No problem.
Thank you for your frankness.

But I find that ' chewing the cud ' is a good way to digest .and no one can eat a loaf in one go.

In Christ
gerald
Click to expand...

Now that is an excellent response. Adding a pound of bologna does not make eating a loaf of bread easier.

Same thing applies to words and responses.
 
geralduk said:
Read it again : Greater love hath no man than a man who lays down his life for a freind .
This is simply n a statement of fact by the Lord and reflects or expresses a truth that has been recognised and known in all ages .
It is not stating that Adam or any one specific is mentioned in scripture . Though with a good search you may well find an example (?) But in truth in all wars for instance men have indeed have died to save another . and by 'save' I mean that they would continue to live and died so that they might . Even up to the present day and even by our enemies .
For instance it cannot be said that the German army did not fight without courage , skill and determination .It is certain that as in our forces indivisual soldiers died to save thier comrades from death. The great sadness was that they were fightign on the wrong side and for the wrong cause . But individuals loved a freind so much that they were willing to die ;take a bullet or rescue a wonded one but died as a result etc were or could be found in the German army as the British one or others.

That is what is meant by a man laying down his life for a freind .
But the Lord was using it as contrast to the Love of God in laying down his life for his enemy or for those who were at emnity with him.
While we were yet without strength , sinners etc.
"Here in is love ........." and God commends his love towards us... "
But then consider when the road to calvary actually started?
I would argue that it started with the words "let there be light "
For Jesus taight that no man starts to build a tower without first considering if he has the means to build it or no man goes to war unless he has the strength to do so .
Is it not written that God knows the end form the begining?
He knew full well that "the arm of flesh would fail"
He knew full well the terrible consequences that would fiollow and the end of it when Adam did eat of that tree of the knowldge fo good and evil.
Not that God willed that he would for ti was not the will of Godf that he should and expressed what HIS eternal will was . That "thou shalt not eat of it......."
He gave man the perfect liberty as sons of God (by creation) to choose any good they thought to do or find . "Of all the trees in the garden ye may freely eat "This included the tree of life.
He gave them no liberty to eat or to do evil.
Thus he knew what it would cost to redeem man and to 'save' him.
Is it not written that the first Adam "was a foreshadow of him who was to come"?
Thus in givign them a covering for sin or thier nakedness . he laid down and prepared then and by the sacrafice of animals later the truth that there is no remission of sins save by the sheddign of blood. But also gave a promise that the Son born of a woman but not of Adams seed would be the true lamb of God that would "take away the sin of the world" By bruisng the head of the serpent.
True it is that it does not lay it all out in the beginning . Wisdom dictated it be so.
and words b y thier very nature can only be said one word at a time or by parts.
My contention then is that there is no sound doctrine of scripture that cannot be found in the first book the book of beginnings.
Wher eit si first mentioned .
The laws of Moses as to the sacrafice of animals is therefore found ij the book of Genesis .
The lamb sacraficed and the blood put on the doors lintels and frame of the house is also found in the same place in its foundational truth .
The innocent dying for the guilty is also .
Thus the Love of God so "commended"and the mercy of God was first manifested and expressed in the garden of Eden .
For is it not written "love covers a multitude of sins"?
and was not the mercy of God expresseed when he first gave them a covering of animal skins and then the promise ?
Thus Pauls exposition in Hebrews as to the temporary nature of the animal sacrafices can also be found in the garden of Eden.
For if the sacrafice of an animal would have restored them to thier former estate why then the promise?

So I never said (in fact quite the opposite) that all sound doctrines can be found in thier as a matter "of developed doctrine"
What I said initialy was that the Lord got his doctrine as did Paul FROM the OT and hat all the doctrines they taught cant be found in the OT .First as FOUNDATIONAL truth and develioped through out the OT .
Or as Pauls says "God who in sundry times and in divers WAYS spoke by the prophets ........"
Who only spoke in PARTS .
"Hath in the last days spake by His Son"
What He spake by His Son neither contradicts nor overtunes what he spake in times past .
Though Jesus did not but carry the message (as a Prophet) he WAS the message .
Thus what was first spoken of in parts through out the Old Testament was spoken perfectly in the NEW.
Did not the Lord himself "start at Moses"? speaking of all those things concerning himself to the two on the road to emaus .
Where is the Lord first mentioned?
I would argue that indirectly with the verse that says "The VOICE of the Lord God walked in the cool of the evening."
Some using other versions would deny it.
be that as it may .
It is beyond all dispute that the Lord is first mentioned as the one BORN of a woman but not of Adams seed .
Who would come and bruise the head of the serpent which was fatal to it .
But in the proceess hsi heal woulod be bruised (not 'fatal' )

The book of genesis is in very truth the book of beginnings and what was sown there whther of the seed of the woman or the seed of the serpent would as all seeds do grow . From a two leafed littel upshoot .That LOOKS no different from each other .
But as they grow one seed produces wheat and another tares a\nd so on .
The fruit then or the fullment of all that was started in the first book then has its end or can be found in the ;last book.
If you want to understand the last book properly then you needs must understand the first book.
For it by thier fruits shall ye know them. and the fruit is determined by the seed that is sown .
Thus God beign" a husbandman " knows the harvest by the seed that is sown.
Weeds grow quickly and farst.
The good seed needs both good "preperation " of the soil and then fed and watered.
It took 4000 years for God to prepare the soil.
So that the earth could recieve the seed that would then be sown in it.

"Unless a seed fall into the ground and die it abideth alolne........................."
Jospeh who was one was 'sown' in Egypt .
After 400 years two and a hal;f million + came out .

Just a thought .

in Christ
gerald
Click to expand...
So, to boil down your extremely long thought, I assume you are saying that this doctrine is hidden in an obvious way in the book of Genesis. In other words, one can extrapolate this doctrine from much of Genesis.
I do not see it there, although I see how you got there. I just don't see a correlation between animal sacrifice to cover sins, and freely giving of your own life for that of others.

Jesus does say this is a "new" commandment. Who is it new for? Jesus is directing this to the disciples. Why would this be new for them after His 3 years of teaching? He doesn't quote from the OT to explain it. I think we need to take Jesus at His word that this is a new commandment.
I don't think there is anything wrong with Jesus instituting a new commandment, especially since these are the first Christians and this command is for Christians.
Another new doctrine Jesus taught was that God's only begotten son would be the vehicle to redeem man and pay his debt.
This again, you can find hints to in the book of Isaiah and Psalms, but it was never taught by any of the prophets.
 
Big Moose said:
So, to boil down your extremely long thought, I assume you are saying that this doctrine is hidden in an obvious way in the book of Genesis. In other words, one can extrapolate this doctrine from much of Genesis.
I do not see it there, although I see how you got there. I just don't see a correlation between animal sacrifice to cover sins, and freely giving of your own life for that of others.

Jesus does say this is a "new" commandment. Who is it new for? Jesus is directing this to the disciples. Why would this be new for them after His 3 years of teaching? He doesn't quote from the OT to explain it. I think we need to take Jesus at His word that this is a new commandment.
I don't think there is anything wrong with Jesus instituting a new commandment, especially since these are the first Christians and this command is for Christians.
Another new doctrine Jesus taught was that God's only begotten son would be the vehicle to redeem man and pay his debt.
This again, you can find hints to in the book of Isaiah and Psalms, but it was never taught by any of the prophets.
Click to expand...

A long thought is better than a short one .
Though oen can think it over a long period of time or in one go .
I do not understand your last conclusion in your last two sentences.
One the foundational thought that jesus Himself reproved the two disciples on the road to Emaus
"oh fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ not to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory"? Luke 24:25-26
27 "and BEGINNING at Moses and all the prophets he expounded unto them in ALL the scriptures the things concerning himself "
It is therefor taught but as the scriptures say of it "In sundry times and in divers ways "
The fall of man did not catch God unawares or unexpectedly ,The Salvation of God who is Jesus Christ was preordained from before the foundations of the world .Even as it is said "As of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Rev 13 :8
The lamb slain by Abel was but a foreshadow of Him who was to come and was promised by God in the garden and which is why his offerring was accepted and Caines was not.
For Cain rejected the blood of the lamb and thus found no place of repentance.
Moses wrote by inspiration of God the book of Genesis as also the first 5 books ,
Jesus " Beginning at Moses......................."
and who else fits the description of a single ("IT") male ("HE") child born of a woman ,but not of Adams seed ? Who would destroy the works of the devil? Who in bruising the head of the serpent would sufffer in doing so by being bruised in his heel?
With hindsight which is not denied it clearly speaks of the Lord Himself . Who would come as "the Lamb that woudl take away the sin of the world."
and what of the lamb sacraficed in Egypt and the blood shed on the doorposts and lintels?
What of the substitute sacrafice given by God instead of Issac?
This OP is called the hope of his calling . Even by the argument of the poster and others ,Did not Abraham die in that hope? as did others as listed in Hebrews by Paul?
The New testament has depths ,breadths and hights to it that we cannot know unless it is seen in the light of the Old testement .
and if we do but read the Old we are left unfinished or as pauls says "were not made perfect withiut us"
In truth how can we know Him "who is from the beginning" if we do not learn to swim in its waters ?

in Christ
gerald
 
'That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs,
and of the same body,
and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel:
Whereof I was made a minister,
according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me
by the effectual working of His power.
Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given,
that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,
which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God,
Who created all things by Jesus Christ:
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places
might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
According to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:'
(Eph 3:6-11)

* Why don't you believe what is actually written for our learning, @geralduk? The knowledge concerning the mystery of the Church of the One Body, was, HID IN GOD, until the moment of it's revelation. That revelation was not made known until at least 40 years following the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Following the final laying aside (temporarily) of the nation of Israel in unbelief.

May His Name be glorified, and our wondrous God and Father honoured for His wondrous love and grace.
His timing was perfect.

Praise His Name!
In Christ Jesus
Chris
 
I was not suggesting that Jesus was "wrong" to present a new commandment . and if he said it was a new commandment so it was .
But strangely all that he said and did was new and had never been seen before . But then again he was the first born of a new creation. and the old is passing away .

in Christ
gerald
 
Complete said:
'That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs,
and of the same body,
and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel:
Whereof I was made a minister,
according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me
by the effectual working of His power.
Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given,
that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,
which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God,
Who created all things by Jesus Christ:
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places
might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
According to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:'
(Eph 3:6-11)

* Why don't you believe what is actually written for our learning, @geralduk? The knowledge concerning the mystery of the Church of the One Body, was, HID IN GOD, until the moment of it's revelation. That revelation was not made known until at least 40 years following the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Following the final laying aside (temporarily) of the nation of Israel in unbelief.

May His Name be glorified, and our wondrous God and Father honoured for His wondrous love and grace.
His timing was perfect.

Praise His Name!
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Click to expand...

There are a number of things written in the Old testament that were sealed and only to be understood "in the last days" .
They too in that regard were hid in God.
But you cannot say nor does it that Pauls revelation cannot be checked out by scripture or proved .
For not only do you give place to the devil to work his mischeif and lead people to think they can get revelations over and above scriupture or that need not be verified by scripture .
No one knows anything unless God reveals it to their understanding .
This bombshell to the Jewish mind that God would make of twain one in a new body is not out of the 'blue' for God always prepares the ground first. Paul was given the understanding of it.
There is a great difference between knowing scripture and understanding scripture .

in Christ
gerald
 
Major said:
Now that is an excellent response. Adding a pound of bologna does not make eating a loaf of bread easier.

Same thing applies to words and responses.
Click to expand...

What good is it .if scriptures are just flung back and forth like a tennis match?
The word of God has to be broken before it is digested .
and while the bones of our Lord were NOT broken. But kept whole .
He neverthless broke the bread to his disciples. and it was the breakign of the bread that not only made the hearts of the two on the road to Emaus" burn within them" but it was when the Lord broke the bread "that there eyes were opened"

You may think then what I write is a load of bologna but you would be mistaken to think so and while there may be faults in presentation and exact grammer etc what is said is not .
At the table of the Lord the bread is to every ones hand . but the meat and other food is passed around the table and each takes his fill and passes it on or across .
That in the wisdom of God is how every joint supplieth .
Was it not Isiah who having been given food to eat went to sleep without finishing it?
Yet was woken up and told to eat it all for the journey ahead was a long one .

in Christ
gerald
 
I would draw your atention also as a way of both contrast and instruction as to how how things are hid and things revealed .

I Cor 2:8-
"For none of the princes of this world knew, for had they known it ,they would not have crucified the Lord of glory......................"

in Christ
gerald
 
geralduk said:
What good is it .if scriptures are just flung back and forth like a tennis match?
The word of God has to be broken before it is digested .
and while the bones of our Lord were NOT broken. But kept whole .
He neverthless broke the bread to his disciples. and it was the breakign of the bread that not only made the hearts of the two on the road to Emaus" burn within them" but it was when the Lord broke the bread "that there eyes were opened"

You may think then what I write is a load of bologna but you would be mistaken to think so and while there may be faults in presentation and exact grammer etc what is said is not .
At the table of the Lord the bread is to every ones hand . but the meat and other food is passed around the table and each takes his fill and passes it on or across .
That in the wisdom of God is how every joint supplieth .
Was it not Isiah who having been given food to eat went to sleep without finishing it?
Yet was woken up and told to eat it all for the journey ahead was a long one .

in Christ
gerald
Click to expand...

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I think. By observation I am saying that your responses are too long (IMO) and you are so un-focused in your thoughts that I can not focus on what the original response was about.

You would get better conversation by "focusing" on one thing at a time like a rifle bullet instead of the buck shot out of a shotgun.
 
Marilyn C said:
Hi Big Moose,

And your scriptures to say that those Jesus was talking to were the first Christians?

Marilyn.
Click to expand...
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. One specifically is Matthew 4:18-22. Who else were Christ's first followers? They were at least among the first.
They were the first to be taught that good work could be done on the Sabbath. That Jesus the Messiah would be put to death, not be the immediate conqueror which they were all taught by OT scripture. I would call them the first Christians.
But I guess it depends on how you define the word Christian.
 
Big Moose said:
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. One specifically is Matthew 4:18-22. Who else were Christ's first followers? They were at least among the first.
They were the first to be taught that good work could be done on the Sabbath. That Jesus the Messiah would be put to death, not be the immediate conqueror which they were all taught by OT scripture. I would call them the first Christians.
But I guess it depends on how you define the word Christian.
Click to expand...

Actualy as the Lord himself taught ;David ate of the bread in the Holy place that by the law only the priests could eat ,let alone enter .
and the example he used was of the Old Testement how by the law a man was free to pull out aneighbours sheep or cattle if they had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath day and he said if then a man can do that on the sabbath alwfully how much the more can a man or a woman of Israel be dleivered from bondage?
It was as much as a totally wrong intererpretation of the law and its function (as explianed by Paul in Romans ) by the pharasses etc that was at fault and much the same reason of some who get bogged down about the Sabbath today.
The righteosness that is not of the law but is of faith goes as far back as Abraham even unto Abel.
What can be said is that in the New Testament what was foreshadowed in the Old testament was manifested in the new or the substance was seen known seen and felt .
The Word became flesh ..
The word or title of christian was first used as a derision and it was first used by unbelievers who recognised some as being followers of Christ . Not a name or title given by ones self .
"By this shall they know ye are my disciples ........................"
In Christ
gerald
 
Major said:
It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I think. By observation I am saying that your responses are too long (IMO) and you are so un-focused in your thoughts that I can not focus on what the original response was about.

You would get better conversation by "focusing" on one thing at a time like a rifle bullet instead of the buck shot out of a shotgun.
Click to expand...

There are to date 475 views of this particular subject ,yet there are a comparative few who post on it.
Then not all may think as you do. or if then it is not for you then let it be for those who read the posts but do not post themselves, For my posts are not as rambling as you might think.

in Christ
gerald
 
Hi Big Moose,

That is an important point you said there bro, - (you said)`But I guess it depends on how you define the word Christian.`
The disciples certainly followed Jesus, (follower of Christ) & we follow Christ also. So I need to clarify what I am saying.

We know that Jesus came to Israel as their Messiah & taught his disciples concerning the coming kingdom rule of God that was promised to them - the millennial rule of Israel over the nations. The disciples still looked for this when Jesus was about to leave them.

`Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom (rule) to Israel?` (Acts 1: 6)

They later went on the declare that Jesus was Lord & Christ, (Acts 2: 36) but they never knew concerning the Body of Christ. This was a later revelation that was given to the Apostle Paul. The 12 disciples are those who walked with Him & they have a special calling to rule over Israel in the coming New heavens & New earth.

`Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed me will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.` (Matt. 19: 28)


Whereas the later apostles were given of the Lord when He ascended. They were given to the Body of Christ to equip the believers.

`When He ascended ....He himself gave some to be apostles....for the equipping of the saints..` (Eph. 4: 9 - 12)

Marilyn.
 
Marilyn C said:
Hi Big Moose,

That is an important point you said there bro, - (you said)`But I guess it depends on how you define the word Christian.`
The disciples certainly followed Jesus, (follower of Christ) & we follow Christ also. So I need to clarify what I am saying.

We know that Jesus came to Israel as their Messiah & taught his disciples concerning the coming kingdom rule of God that was promised to them - the millennial rule of Israel over the nations. The disciples still looked for this when Jesus was about to leave them.

`Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom (rule) to Israel?` (Acts 1: 6)

They later went on the declare that Jesus was Lord & Christ, (Acts 2: 36) but they never knew concerning the Body of Christ. This was a later revelation that was given to the Apostle Paul. The 12 disciples are those who walked with Him & they have a special calling to rule over Israel in the coming New heavens & New earth.

`Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed me will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.` (Matt. 19: 28)


Whereas the later apostles were given of the Lord when He ascended. They were given to the Body of Christ to equip the believers.

`When He ascended ....He himself gave some to be apostles....for the equipping of the saints..` (Eph. 4: 9 - 12)

Marilyn.
Click to expand...
The Matthew 19:28 verse caught my eye. At the time Judas Iscariot was still in the 12. I often wondered why they needed to fill his spot after Jesus ascended. This would be one very good reason.
This makes me wonder why Jesus didn't fill the 12th spot Himself after resurrection. I would think they were all too busy learning what they needed to continue the work of the Gospel. I would think there was much supernatural growth in the disciples at that time.
 
Hi Big Moose,

Some good observations there. Reading Acts 1 to do with choosing Matthias, there is a further explanation -

`Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in & out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.` (Acts 1: 21 & 22)

And we see that the 12 disciples witnessed of Jesus telling the men of Israel that He is the Lord & the Christ, & how God raised Him up from the dead. Even Stephen spoke to the people of Israel of their history & how they were stiff necked.

Sometimes I think we look back & think, well the church started then, but really the disciples were just witnessing to the people of Israel of Christ & how He rose from the dead. It wasn`t until much later that the blessing of the Holy Spirit was passed over to the Gentiles (ch. 10) & much later that the Apostle Paul was given the revelation of what the Lord was doing - building His called out ones, His Body.

Marilyn.
 
Hi Big Moose,

Another thought concerning the 12 disciples - Apostles. Because these 12 had to have walked with the Lord when he was on earth, people have thought that therefore there can be no more Apostles. However we know that when the Lord ascended He gave ...some Apostles... for the equiping of the saints.

So the 12 Apostles had to have witnessed the Lord`s resurrection & then eventually they will be 12 rulers over the 12 tribes of Israel.

The ascension Apostles are those that have a deep knowledge of our Lord for the Body of Christ. I do not believe they are CEO`s of organisations as some groups today try & make out.

Marilyn.
 
Last edited:
The replacement Apostle was not Methias but Paul.
and it is another recorded act of Peter that in the wisdom of God showed he was not the rock upon which the church would be built on.
For he chose by lot as those who make such claims do also .
But he was it could be arguing choosing by the Old Testement way which was passing away.
It is God who both calls and makes an Apostle and thier authority is not of men but of God and of Gods choosing as also the spiritual power is from above not of earth .
It was Paul then whos life and ministry who laid down the pattern of an Apostle and while we will never get another Paul any Apostle must in some measure fit the pattern .

in Christ
gerald
 
Hi geralduk,


Now you said,
`The replacement Apostle was not Methias but Paul.`
Click to expand...


It seems to me that you may not have realized these 2 important points in God`s word.


  1. Specific Requirements.


    To be the one included with the other 11 disciples God required that he have been with the Lord from the baptism of John & been a witness of Christ`s resurrection & ascension. Paul was not with the Lord during His earthly ministry, & thus could not qualify with the 11 as a witness of the Lord`s resurrection & ascension etc.


    `Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in & out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when he was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.` (Acts 1: 21 & 22)



  2. Jesus` choice.


    When the disciples sought to have a replacement for Judas, we see that it is not the choice of man but through prayer & the casting of lots, since the Holy Spirit was not as yet given personally. Thus Christ made His choice known through this well used method in Israel.


    `And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, & Matthias. And they prayed & said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two YOU HAVE CHOSEN to take part in this ministry & apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his place.”


    And they cast their lots, & the lot fell on MATTHIAS. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.` (Acts 1: 23 – 26)


    Marilyn.

 
Marilyn C said:
Hi geralduk,


Now you said,


It seems to me that you may not have realized these 2 important points in God`s word.


  1. Specific Requirements.


    To be the one included with the other 11 disciples God required that he have been with the Lord from the baptism of John & been a witness of Christ`s resurrection & ascension. Paul was not with the Lord during His earthly ministry, & thus could not qualify with the 11 as a witness of the Lord`s resurrection & ascension etc.


    `Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in & out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when he was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.` (Acts 1: 21 & 22)



  2. Jesus` choice.


    When the disciples sought to have a replacement for Judas, we see that it is not the choice of man but through prayer & the casting of lots, since the Holy Spirit was not as yet given personally. Thus Christ made His choice known through this well used method in Israel.


    `And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, & Matthias. And they prayed & said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two YOU HAVE CHOSEN to take part in this ministry & apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his place.”


    And they cast their lots, & the lot fell on MATTHIAS. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.` (Acts 1: 23 – 26)


    Marilyn.
Click to expand...
Hi Marylin
A very reasonable objection save for two points .
EVERY true BORN child of God is a witness to the resurection .Though not all are Apostles .Though some assert it as if they could be .
and are you not quoting Peters reasoning as to why he should cast lots?
An argument based upon a false premise no matter how logical will arrive at a false conclusion.
It is no use praying to God for him to choose out of the ones you have already chosen.
A lot of modern praying is like that .
as also a lot of 'choosing' Not only in Rome.
Peter was indeed choosing a well worn path, but the ways of Israel were passign away .
But he as was often the case spoke to quickly .

in Christ
gerald
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top