Key

Not saying that He can't do it, but here is why I don't think the task would be mediocre for Him. The Ten Commandments were originally written on stone by the finger of God for Moses to bring down the mountain to His people. Surely, if stone can be so easily carved, paper and pen would be even more so. To rely on men who are fallible, as demonstrated by the need to write down laws on stone to begin with, can be viewed as suspect by unbelievers, no? Arguments claiming "mediocre" should then also be suspect, no?

I have a friend that is overjoyed with Muslims being placed in concentration camps in China. He sees it as attacks on Islam, which he vehemently hates. While I'm appalled at this. He doesn't realize, these are people, regardless of religion, that are being persecuted. He also is apparently unaware the same is being done to Christians there.

Are you saying because someone doesn't believe in God, they shouldn't know right from wrong, or good from bad? That seems to be what your implying with your repetitious query.

Scary stuff. I wish you a speedy recovery to good health.

In mind, and prayers.

You may want to browse through old threads here, as a few members have left links to their blogs. Couldn't say how many are still active, nor how long it may take you to find them, though. Sorry. Wish I could be more helpful.

There was a book published with the translation of it about, at least, a year after it was found. The finding of missing fragments for the Book of Mary happened before that, so it got hidden in the news for awhile. Wish I had gotten it now. There was also a National Geographic collector's edition with all the Gnostic Gospels, which also covered a bit of the Book of Judas. (Again, wish I bought it.)

Maybe not, but dirty deeds apparently are. 😉

Yes, I have been reading your contributions, as well. Well written pieces.

Actually, they did, supposedly, recently find a "Book of Judas". Naturally, it is very old, tattered, and incomplete.

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been interested in reading the Nag Hammadi, or Gnostic Gospels for some time now, but haven't had the opportunity to immerse myself into them due to work and family obligations. So, I do thank you in sharing these with your insights.

I was thinking of PowerPoint, also, but it has been so long since I've used it, that I forgot it's name. LOL But, yes, that does have the capability to do what you ask. However, it's format may not be compatible on some systems, so be aware.

That would bring up another concept, as well. There are many who believe that it isn't meant to go through Jesus, at all, rather it should be to emulate Jesus to find favor with His father to be adopted, of sorts, by Him.

Sending my regards and well wishes.

I suppose that might in some way be construed as a covenant. Covenants, though, are often seen as a two way agreement. In the way of the Covenants covered in this thread, these agreements would be seen as, "if you obey these rules, then favor of God may be bestowed upon you. (Which may include everlasting last life beyond this world.)"

But the original context of the debate I mentioned, does not demonstrate relevance of any priests or what their roles were to each Covenant, which I had been impressioned to believe changed little, rather it was to state or question to whom the Covenants actually were relevant? Old Testament was a Covenant for the Hebrews, whilst the New Testament was a Covenant for the gentiles, the person informed. True, or not? Of course, within this thread has been posted a reply that there were actually more than two Covenants made in the Bible. Thoughts?

Also had a thought. Priest are no longer necessary as a "bridge" to God in Christianity, as Jesus became the intercessor or "bridge" upon our behalf. Priests are only to help our understanding of God and His teachings. Leviticus seems to outline the priesthoods, but does not specify that the Covenants are for them as the Covenants were established before the priests. Therefore, the priests are an inclusion with the people the Covenants were meant for.

My beliefs have varied little bits at a time, according to whatever facts and information I have learned over the years. It is a constant lesson of truth to adapt to its discovery and whether to accept it or not.

Still not understanding. Are you saying the Covenants were meant for priests and not His people? That would certainly eliminate any need for the people to really follow His Commandments then, wouldn't it, as they would only apply to priests, from what you're saying? The topic of this thread pertains to the biblical Covenants, not to any priesthoods, unless you can present some clear persuasion to prove the case otherwise.

I hope he is quite well, despite the wear of the situations down there. I do miss his cordial posts.

I wasn't asking, but merely restating in another way what the original question of the thread was.

Maybe my mistake, but I was under the impression she was one of the tech people working on this forum.

Has anyone tried messaging Amber about it?

Mark was referring to your misspelling, and was wondering if it was intentional. I didn't think it was, personally.

The question supposes that both entities are real, but wonders how we determine the difference. We know the one called the "great deceiver" is capable of mimicking anything the other can do. If, considering the Abrahamic God and Satan, the devil knows Scripture as well as God does, his answers to any question we might impose may not expose him as inauthentic. So, the puzzle remains: how do we determine the difference? Clearly, knowing Scripture wouldn't be enough for discovery.