Can a Christians give blessings for a Jewish wedding?

[RileyG]

I rather give books that were authored by God and say this is the Word of God to the person I'm proclaiming the Gospel. How can I hand over mixed fiction/truths to them and tell then God wrote that? Same with 7 extra uninspired books.

I am not interested in arguing with you, and I sincerely apologize if I came off as rude. I also think we are getting off topic so I will not comment about this specific issue any longer.

God bless you

 

[ViaCrucis]

I rather give books that were authored by God and say this is the Word of God to the person I'm proclaiming the Gospel. How can I hand over mixed fiction/truths to them and tell then God wrote that? Same with 7 extra uninspired books.

Keep in mind that this is the Traditional Theology board, and so there are Christians here who accept the Deuterocanonicals as fully and divinely inspired Scripture, no different than the rest of the 66 Protocanonical books.

The question of the Deuterocanonicals has been part of a very long and ongoing discussion in the Christian Church. Some churches consider the matter firmly closed, either only accepting the 66 Protocanonicals (Christians in the Reformed wing of Protestantism, i.e. most Protestants today) and those who accept all (or at least most) of the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture (Catholics and Orthodox).

Lutherans don't have a position one way or the other, we consider the matter unresolved. I believe at least some Anglicans are also of the same position.

You are free to believe that only the Protocanonicals are Scripture, but attacking your brother and sister Christians for not sharing that opinion is unnecessary and goes against the spirit of the Traditional Theology board.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Or to Lutherans, just as an addendum.

Arminianism and Calvinism are really only two divisions within the Reformed side of Protestantism. Though "Reformed" generally means "Calvinist" in a modern context; Jacob Arminius himself was a Reformed theologian and the dispute between the Remonstrants (Arminians) and what would become orthodox Calvinism was firmly an inter-Reformed dispute.

-CryptoLutheran

Also interestingly I have read an article from a Baptist minister, whose views were inclined more to non-Calvinism than Calvinism, in which he argued that Baptist soteriology is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. And on this point I would have to occur given that the sacramental theology favored even by “Calvinist Baptists” as some people call them, historically known as Particular Baptists, such as Dr. Albert Mohler, who I regard as the foremost moral theologian in Western Christianity since the repose of Pope John Paul II and Dr. James Kennedy in 2005 and 2007 and the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI, is not compatible with that of John Calvin.

For instance, Calvin believed in the baptism of infants, in Baptismal regeneration (as far as I can tell , perhaps @hedrick can clarify this), and that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist. In contrast, Baptists tend to embrace a Memorialist or Zwinglian interpretation of the sacraments.

 

[The Liturgist]

Since Jesus and his Apostles were Jewish bar mitzvahs and everything, there should be no problem with giving a blessing in the synagogue. I mean they are kind of the chosen people. My Parish does ecumenical services all the time with the local Temple. Especially around the holidays.

That said historically the Roman Catholic church did prohibit praying with non-Christians. Now this is of course no longer the case.

Also I do wish we could consistently refer to Synagogues as such, given that only a minority of Reform congregations refer to their buildings as Temples, whereas Temple is the preferred nomenclature for the Church building among the Eastern Orthodox Christians, who we also cause problems for by referring to traditional Rabinnical Jews as “Orthodox Jews” even though it might be more appropriate, depending on the congregation, to refer to them using their own terminology, for example, the worship of Chassidic Jews is very different from that of many other Jews commonly referred to as Orthodox, and the term Orthodox is strictly speaking a comment on the style of worship rather than faith. And also in calling traditional Rabinnical Jews Orthodox, we are implicitly saying that other traditional forms of Judaism are heterodox, including such persecuted and ancient minorities as the Karaites and Ethiopian Beta Israel, both of whom had to flee to the State of Israel in the 20th century to escape Islamic persecution in Egypt and Syria, and to escape Communist persecution under the Derg in Ethiopia in the 1970s (there is a thrilling movie about that on Netflix called Red Sea Diving Resort), and both of whom have substantial doctrinal and liturgical differences, as well as differences in personal praxis and the correct interpretation of the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh, from traditional Rabinnical Jews (unfortunately including the Chief Rabinnate of Israel, who have sadly prohibited the Karaites from referring to their butchers and other food outlets as Kosher, despite the Karaites following Kosher, over a minor disagreement in the interpretation of Kosher, whereas a more tolerant approach would allow the use of the term “Karaite Kosher” while promoting similiar terms for other Jewish groups, since even within Rabinnical Judaism there is not a complete agreement on Kosher)*.

*This is reflected in the Ashkenazi having a gloss over the Sulchan Aruch, the Code of Jewish Law first compiled from the Talmud and Torah by a Sephardic Jew. The Sulchan Aruch presents the Law in simple bullet points and is the easiest way to learn how it is defined and interpreted. It is known among some Jews as “the Table,” and the Ashkenazim gloss that information and clarification based on the Ashkenaz understanding of those laws is referred to as “The Set Table.” This work by the way has been translated into English and is thrilling for those of us interested in Jewish studies, because among other things, it offers a clear guide to Sephardic and Ashkenaz praxis and clearly shows the variations between these forms of Judaism.

 

[tulipbee]

Keep in mind that this is the Traditional Theology board, and so there are Christians here who accept the Deuterocanonicals as fully and divinely inspired Scripture, no different than the rest of the 66 Protocanonical books.

The question of the Deuterocanonicals has been part of a very long and ongoing discussion in the Christian Church. Some churches consider the matter firmly closed, either only accepting the 66 Protocanonicals (Christians in the Reformed wing of Protestantism, i.e. most Protestants today) and those who accept all (or at least most) of the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture (Catholics and Orthodox).

Lutherans don't have a position one way or the other, we consider the matter unresolved. I believe at least some Anglicans are also of the same position.

You are free to believe that only the Protocanonicals are Scripture, but attacking your brother and sister Christians for not sharing that opinion is unnecessary and goes against the spirit of the Traditional Theology board.

-CryptoLutheran

deuterocanonical ... Pertaining to a second canon, or ecclesiastical writing of inferior authority; -- said of the Apocrypha, certain Epistles, etc.
Being of the second canon of the Old Testament of the Bible, and unaccepted by some Christians. A book which is part of the Apocrypha.
------------
I looked up some of the words you used, Deuterocanonicals, Protocanonicals. I've forgotten these.
I think RileyG used the wrong word, "arguing". Kind of a strong word used.
I was hoping someone would ask me why the 66 books is the most raw traditional theology. I guess I'm in the wrong place since "traditional" was still made by men, alone. Funny how Catholics look down at protestants for their traditional ways. Not very fair, isn't it?
Books "authored by God" is nothing traditional. It is as is. I'll leave this topic since I may have offended many traditional Men here. Catholics saying rude things to protectants is unfair like they're more right and holy. I hope some accept and look into why I think I could be right. Its better to prove me wrong rather than saying, "I don't want to argue". I wished he never replied. It was hurtful. I think most topics welcome debates or conversations.

heres the why of books before men could make the first tradition ever:
---------------------------------------
What is the so-called "heptadic" structure that Dr. Panin discovered? Simply stated it is this: genuine Scripture, both Hebrew and Greek. where the numbers equivalent with the letters are added up properly. at some point: word, sentence, paragraph, or chapter, will always be divisible by the number seven! And, beyond this, utilization of "place numbers" determines punctuation as well as proper chronology of the various books. This mathematical phenomena occurs and reoccurs only in Holy Scripture and thus rules out all that is spurious. For instance, the "Apocrypha", the fourteen books written during the 400 year "inter-testament" period between Malachi of the Old Testament and Matthew of the New, have no numerics whatsoever and are thereby revealed as being merely of man. Numerous Greek classical writings have also been checked with no evidence of Bible numerics found. Thus Dr. Panin determined that Scripture and only Scripture has this numeric "signature of Divinity" within it.
source at BIBLE NUMERICS EXAMINED -- PART 2
-----------------------------------
have a good day and May Jesus bless you on this glorious day.
Please allow God to be the actual author of the Bible.

 

[hedrick]

Also interestingly I have read an article from a Baptist minister, whose views were inclined more to non-Calvinism than Calvinism, in which he argued that Baptist soteriology is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. And on this point I would have to occur given that the sacramental theology favored even by “Calvinist Baptists” as some people call them, historically known as Particular Baptists, such as Dr. Albert Mohler, who I regard as the foremost moral theologian in Western Christianity since the repose of Pope John Paul II and Dr. James Kennedy in 2005 and 2007 and the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI, is not compatible with that of John Calvin.

For instance, Calvin believed in the baptism of infants, in Baptismal regeneration (as far as I can tell , perhaps @hedrick can clarify this), and that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist. In contrast, Baptists tend to embrace a Memorialist or Zwinglian interpretation of the sacraments.

Here’s the first response from Google. Calvin and Baptism: Baptismal Regeneration or the Duplex Loquendi Modus? I think it might depend upon what you mean by baptismal regeneration. I’ll look at the Institutes myself later, but the article is consistent with what I remember.

 

[PloverWing]

I guess I'm in the wrong place since "traditional" was still made by men, alone.

Yes, this forum may not be the best fit for your beliefs. The idea of Traditional Theology is that we value Christian tradition, even though it was made by men and women, because we find the thoughts and actions of Christians of the past to be an important guide as we form our understanding of faith and practice here in the present.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, this forum may not be the best fit for your beliefs. The idea of Traditional Theology is that we value Christian tradition, even though it was made by men and women, because we find the thoughts and actions of Christians of the past to be an important guide as we form our understanding of faith and practice here in the present.

And furthermore some of us believe this tradition to be divinely inspired, for example, those members of Orthodox or Catholic beliefs. However, both views are welcome. And we do have Calvinist participants who are very active on this forum, for example, our beloved friend @hedrick .

Also @tulipbee it might interest you to know that among the Deuterocanonical books, John Calvin considered Baruch to actually be protocanon, in that he read and cited from it in the same way as the other 22 books of scripture. Of course the principle of semper reformanda does not require you to follow in his footsteps, but I also propose it does not require you to adhere to the specific canon of early Calvinists if you deem the canon worthy of reformation in order that the Gospel might be better proclaimed. This was my view when I was a Calvinist, and I still have strong Calvinist sympathies (hence my desire to among other things see a revival of traditional liturgical Congregationalism of the sort once seen at the King’s Weigh House in London under Rev. John Hunter, and my enthusiasm for Park Street Church in Boston).

Within Calvinism one of the prevailing schools of liturgical worship is Mercersburg Theology. There is also the Scoto-Catholic movement associated with the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian churches in the US. However, I myself also love the A Capella exclusive Psalmody of the Covenanting Presbyterians (the Reformed Presbyterian Church). I don’t agree with the interpretation of Scripture on which it is based, but I love the result in the form of the beautiful Psalter the RPCNA produced, which we use for singing the Psalms in my missions, as this is preferable I think to the responsorial reading of the Psalms.

I would actually love to see you join us; basically what makes Traditional Theology work is that we don’t criticize each others denominations, but rather respect the uniqueness of our respective churches. And on this basis we have even had a Baptist, @Der Alte , contribute some interesting content to this forum on the basis of his deep understanding of Koine Greek and his years of ministerial experience.

 

[tulipbee]

And furthermore some of us believe this tradition to be divinely inspired, for example, those members of Orthodox or Catholic beliefs. However, both views are welcome. And we do have Calvinist participants who are very active on this forum, for example, our beloved friend @hedrick .

Also @tulipbee it might interest you to know that among the Deuterocanonical books, John Calvin considered Baruch to actually be protocanon, in that he read and cited from it in the same way as the other 22 books of scripture. Of course the principle of semper reformanda does not require you to follow in his footsteps, but I also propose it does not require you to adhere to the specific canon of early Calvinists if you deem the canon worthy of reformation in order that the Gospel might be better proclaimed. This was my view when I was a Calvinist, and I still have strong Calvinist sympathies (hence my desire to among other things see a revival of traditional liturgical Congregationalism of the sort once seen at the King’s Weigh House in London under Rev. John Hunter, and my enthusiasm for Park Street Church in Boston).

Within Calvinism one of the prevailing schools of liturgical worship is Mercersburg Theology. There is also the Scoto-Catholic movement associated with the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian churches in the US. However, I myself also love the A Capella exclusive Psalmody of the Covenanting Presbyterians (the Reformed Presbyterian Church). I don’t agree with the interpretation of Scripture on which it is based, but I love the result in the form of the beautiful Psalter the RPCNA produced, which we use for singing the Psalms in my missions, as this is preferable I think to the responsorial reading of the Psalms.

I would actually love to see you join us; basically what makes Traditional Theology work is that we don’t criticize each others denominations, but rather respect the uniqueness of our respective churches. And on this basis we have even had a Baptist, @Der Alte , contribute some interesting content to this forum on the basis of his deep understanding of Koine Greek and his years of ministerial experience.

I'm here. Calvin and Luther is right! All mankind is totally deprived . That means they must deny, due to not wanting to, God is the author of the bible. The best we all can do is to test the Bible. Since theres scientific proof God is the author, we must do 1000+ tests. Each tests results the same information. Thats means its physically pure. 100% is far as it can get. Being sinners, we just don't want to recognize God as the author. They change the meaning of, "authored by God". They give a new definition to what it means. Like Calvin states, they don't want it.
I provided some information here so those who secretly want to see the proofs themselves can figure it out. Some are looking into it with a calculator. Numbers sums up the same everytime, each time.
I'm ashamed that everyone here is defending their rights to free will.
I'm just a puppet with no freewill at all. The strings that moves my hands are expressing the puppetmaster's command to proclaim the Gospel to those that don't want to see the scientific proofs God is the author of those 66 books.
Calvin and Luther confirms men don't want to test the proofs.
They love their imaginations of artificial freewill. They all say, "Get Tulipbee outta here! Ban the Bee!". I'm just a bee hopping from one tulip to another, transferring pollen, the Gospel. Now you got it for growth. Test and confirm those proofs for yourselves. No one is watching. Calculate the proofs secretly and discover God really did physically author those books.
I would love to stay here but understanding Calvin and Luther, you guys don't want to know. All I read is, "Get outta here puppet, you're just dead wood and know nothing."
Thats right, I'm just a wooden puppet with a wig but don't underestimate the strings that moved me here. You won't accept the proofs. You can but won't . Calvin didn't say you "can't" , he said you "won't".

 

[ViaCrucis]

Perhaps the bee has been brought back to the hive that the bee might enjoy the nutritious and precious honey that is only available in the hive, and might learn from the other worker bees who serve the One and Only Head of that hive. Rejoice in the pure honey of God's word that is only found in the hive and share in it with your fellow worker bees who merely follow the orders of their Head.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tulipbee]

Perhaps the bee has been brought back to the hive that the bee might enjoy the nutritious and precious honey that is only available in the hive, and might learn from the other worker bees who serve the One and Only Head of that hive. Rejoice in the pure honey of God's word that is only found in the hive and share in it with your fellow worker bees who merely follow the orders of their Head.

-CryptoLutheran

I have a wooden head as a puppet. puppets Don't learn, they just follow the Holly Spirit via the strings.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have a wooden head as a puppet. puppets Don't learn, they just follow the Holly Spirit via the strings.

Well then hopefully Providence has led you to us that you might enjoy the nectar of the early Church.

I'm here. Calvin and Luther is right! All mankind is totally deprived . That means they must deny, due to not wanting to, God is the author of the bible. The best we all can do is to test the Bible. Since theres scientific proof God is the author, we must do 1000+ tests. Each tests results the same information. Thats means its physically pure. 100% is far as it can get. Being sinners, we just don't want to recognize God as the author. They change the meaning of, "authored by God". They give a new definition to what it means. Like Calvin states, they don't want it.
I provided some information here so those who secretly want to see the proofs themselves can figure it out. Some are looking into it with a calculator. Numbers sums up the same everytime, each time.
I'm ashamed that everyone here is defending their rights to free will.
I'm just a puppet with no freewill at all. The strings that moves my hands are expressing the puppetmaster's command to proclaim the Gospel to those that don't want to see the scientific proofs God is the author of those 66 books.
Calvin and Luther confirms men don't want to test the proofs.
They love their imaginations of artificial freewill. They all say, "Get Tulipbee outta here! Ban the Bee!". I'm just a bee hopping from one tulip to another, transferring pollen, the Gospel. Now you got it for growth. Test and confirm those proofs for yourselves. No one is watching. Calculate the proofs secretly and discover God really did physically author those books.
I would love to stay here but understanding Calvin and Luther, you guys don't want to know. All I read is, "Get outta here puppet, you're just dead wood and know nothing."
Thats right, I'm just a wooden puppet with a wig but don't underestimate the strings that moved me here. You won't accept the proofs. You can but won't . Calvin didn't say you "can't" , he said you "won't".

We all regard Sacred Scripture as the inspired written word of God, a verbal icon of the Word. Every part of it, including those books some call Deuterocanonical (the Orthodox draw no distinction between any of the 30 or so books of the Old Testament, whereas the Roman Catholics refer to them as Deuterocanonical, the Lutherans have an open canon, Calvin had a 23 book Old Testament canon which included Baruch, and the Anglicans who still use the 39 Articles, excluding of course those living in the United States, regard the “Apocrypha” as being read for edification but not as a source of doctrine, according to Article VI) our Lord showed the Disciples to be about Him when He opened the Books at the end of the Gospel According to Luke, after having become known to them in the breaking of bread (the Eucharist).

Now, while inspired and of God, looking at the original Greek and Hebrew does allow us to see the creative hand of the Holy Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles who wrote the individual books under divine inspiration, and the differences between the writing of, for instance, the authors who chronicled Genesis, the Exodus from Egypt to the Promised Land, and the lives of the Patriarchs such as Saints Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, the Holy Prophets St. Moses*, St. Samuel, King David, King Solomon, the diverse books of St. John the Apostle and St. Luke the Evangelist, and the Pauline Epistles. These distinctions are extremely beautiful and demonstrate how God inspires us to reveal Him in resplendent beauty.


*Some of us believe Moses wrote the substantial part of the Pentateuch or Torah, whereas others believe in the Three Source hypothesis, however, we do know there must have been at least one additional author who recorded the repose of Moses and his burial by God on the mountain - also there is a certain stylistic similarity between the five books known as the Torah and the Book of Joshua, which has for many centuries caused some Western Christian scholars to talk about these six books forming a greater Hexateuch, something which makes sense to me, particularly considering additional historical books mentioned in the Torah which neatly attach to the timeline and which are found in the Ethiopic Old Testament, on which I personally take the minority view that it comprises the most complete Old Testament source. Part of the beauty of the Traditional Theology forum is this is the one forum on CF.com where members freely discuss theology without polemics despite holding to a certain diversity of ideas concerning those aspects of Christianity where a multiplicity of opinions among denominations and individuals exists.

What unites us in Traditional Theology is our love for the Early Church and its history, together with certain traditions handed down therefrom, especially those pertaining to the Liturgy and the lives of the Fathers and Mothers of the Early Church, such as St. Gregory the Illuminator, who baptized the Armenians and St. Nino the Enlightener, a most pious Cappadocian woman who, building on the success of St. Gregory, went on to baptize the Kingdom of Iberia, now known as Georgia.

 

[tulipbee]

Well then hopefully Providence has led you to us that you might enjoy the nectar of the early Church.




We all regard Sacred Scripture as the inspired written word of God, a verbal icon of the Word. Every part of it, including those books some call Deuterocanonical (the Orthodox draw no distinction between any of the 30 or so books of the Old Testament, whereas the Roman Catholics refer to them as Deuterocanonical, the Lutherans have an open canon, Calvin had a 23 book Old Testament canon which included Baruch, and the Anglicans who still use the 39 Articles, excluding of course those living in the United States, regard the “Apocrypha” as being read for edification but not as a source of doctrine, according to Article VI) our Lord showed the Disciples to be about Him when He opened the Books at the end of the Gospel According to Luke, after having become known to them in the breaking of bread (the Eucharist).

Now, while inspired and of God, looking at the original Greek and Hebrew does allow us to see the creative hand of the Holy Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles who wrote the individual books under divine inspiration, and the differences between the writing of, for instance, the authors who chronicled Genesis, the Exodus from Egypt to the Promised Land, and the lives of the Patriarchs such as Saints Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, the Holy Prophets St. Moses*, St. Samuel, King David, King Solomon, the diverse books of St. John the Apostle and St. Luke the Evangelist, and the Pauline Epistles. These distinctions are extremely beautiful and demonstrate how God inspires us to reveal Him in resplendent beauty.


*Some of us believe Moses wrote the substantial part of the Pentateuch or Torah, whereas others believe in the Three Source hypothesis, however, we do know there must have been at least one additional author who recorded the repose of Moses and his burial by God on the mountain - also there is a certain stylistic similarity between the five books known as the Torah and the Book of Joshua, which has for many centuries caused some Western Christian scholars to talk about these six books forming a greater Hexateuch, something which makes sense to me, particularly considering additional historical books mentioned in the Torah which neatly attach to the timeline and which are found in the Ethiopic Old Testament, on which I personally take the minority view that it comprises the most complete Old Testament source. Part of the beauty of the Traditional Theology forum is this is the one forum on CF.com where members freely discuss theology without polemics despite holding to a certain diversity of ideas concerning those aspects of Christianity where a multiplicity of opinions among denominations and individuals exists.

What unites us in Traditional Theology is our love for the Early Church and its history, together with certain traditions handed down therefrom, especially those pertaining to the Liturgy and the lives of the Fathers and Mothers of the Early Church, such as St. Gregory the Illuminator, who baptized the Armenians and St. Nino the Enlightener, a most pious Cappadocian woman who, building on the success of St. Gregory, went on to baptize the Kingdom of Iberia, now known as Georgia.

The dancing, rotten to the core, puppet is here as it already happened (and pre-banned) and said today's pope is the wrong man to obey nor the head of the church.

You won't seek which books are inspired as God written them himself. See the scientific proofs to discover some self claimed scared books weren't even authored by God but by men alone, without the Creator's permissions. Link already provided .
Moses wrote some books by himself. Moses wrote some books under trance while God moved his pen. They thought Moses carved the Ten Commandments but moses said, "no, not this time. God did."
Like tongues, Paul can speak, "Look at this sexy girl" on his own. Paul can speak in tongues under God's inspirations. Paul spoke both times. Both wordings came out of Paul's mouth. One is from God, one is from man. Both still Paul. Some self claimed whatever books are from just men alone like fiction authors. They sound godly, for profit and fame.
You say all wordings are tongues. you won't know what you're talking about. You can but for a few seconds, You'll switch back to men's doctrines called traditions, early fathers

Men added books. men took away books. add substract. put it back in. take it back out. add, take. in out. BUT.... Today it happened. God lead men to complete the Bible. The final happened today. The Bible, as it is today, shows the proofs inside itself.
The skeptics thought they debunked Theomatics.
Theomatics UNdebunked

They, debunkers or early selfclaimed fathers claimed too many "reminders"
How much more natural can you get?
But they didn't see the hidden waves.
What writers can think like that?
This proves only God can think like that.
Case closed !
https://images.hive.blog/p/2FFvzA2z...y5Q4G8qWu1nwMBzn32WxpSS?format=match&mode=fit
What unites me in Traditional Theology is my love for the Bible which is purely authored by God not early organizations, denominations or club built by early men. There are no difference between Billy Graham and early fathers (except the disciples), both are just men, sinners. Same thing.

What we now know is the sinful puppet is proclaiming the complete Bible being authored, inspired or written by God Himself.

The rest fights not to be told God is the Boss and in pure control.
The bible is a closed book to the rest. They won't even admit God saving his enemies.
I'm so sadden this much denial God authors books. I'm the only one fighting for God, not for the brainless me, the corrupted puppet, a sinner.
The strings that moves me has been saddened on men's denial.
He called and NONE answered. NONE is not some, None isn't a few. None means none. 0, zero. Thats why you guys must return to the books God wrote for truths. Not man's self-claimed truths.
The puppet is a NONE, like the rest.
Please note you can't add or subtract from or to God's Word like common men do, the early denominations. Doing that is a big no no.









https://images.hive.blog/p/2FFvzA2z...y5Q4G8qWu1nwMBzn32WxpSS?format=match&mode=fit

 

[tulipbee]

You can't just run to the library and pick and choose books on your own and say its all written by one author.
It's illegal.
Was illegal in the early times but they did it away.
The Protestants will put them back on the shelves where they belong.
Don't be taking books of your choice and say its authored by God.
He don't like that.

 

[The Liturgist]

You can't just run to the library and pick and choose books on your own and say its all written by one author.
It's illegal.
Was illegal in the early times but they did it away.
The Protestants will put them back on the shelves where they belong.
Don't be taking books of your choice and say its authored by God.
He don't like that.

Please take a look at the Statement of Purpose for this forum, because while we do invite you to participate in this forum according to the spirit of the Statement of Purpose, it is important that you read that and post accordingly.

God bless you.

 

[tulipbee]

Please take a look at the Statement of Purpose for this forum, because while we do invite you to participate in this forum according to the spirit of the Statement of Purpose, it is important that you read that and post accordingly.

God bless you.

Ok, I will. I'll move on. Thanks for listening.