What's new about the New Testament?

[Mark C]

My understanding: Torah is the authority. Nothing else is on the same level. I prefer to test all scripture against Torah...

Not only that, but "THE Torah" (meaning the five Books of Moshe) are almost without question THE most "vetted" Writings in all of human history. Copies with explicit "error correction and detection" faithfully rendered for millenia (with later copies, ie, the "Dead Sea Scrolls", among others, to confirm) leave virtually no doubt as to the level of certainty in what has been preserved (notwithstanding 'vowel-pointing,' parsing, etc, done much later).

Any honest scholarship of the Apostolic Writings will acknowledge multiple variants, which, while supportive, do have differences almost any decent Bible will show in footnotes.

But most importantly, when Shaul/Paul, or Yahushua, quotes Himself, you should KNOW He was speaking Hebrew, from the Original, as Written.

THAT part is then easy to check.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Perhaps it is slippery in terms of sliding away from the protestant tradition. The new and old testaments are man made divisions. The chapters and verses (and even some of the books) are man made divisions. Is it really that slippery to say that perhaps "apocryphal" is just another man made division?

My understanding: Torah is the authority. Nothing else is on the same level. I prefer to test all scripture against Torah than to rely on some council 500 odd years ago having made the right decisions on what books to keep or remove (especially when those same men started so many of the heinous doctrines we see today).

The slippery slope looms large when we start assigning legitimacy rankings to scripture and setting certain sections against others.

It isn’t a matter of Torah being more “legitimate” or taking precedence. The book is a unified, harmonized whole. The Torah is lessened without the the New Testament. The New Testament lacks a foundation without Torah.

The Torah commands sacrifices and a priesthood and a Tabernacle. We don’t have any it those things? Why? Is the Torah not eternal? Of course it is. The New Testament explains why those things are no longer in effect in the same form they were.

Without the book of Hebrews though we would be left with no explanation for why we were unable to obey Torah for almost 2,000 years. The Torah would look like it wasn’t an eternal command.

It isn’t necessary to reinvent the wheel every generation. The established canon of the Bible has stood for 2,000 years and in every age the consensus was always in support of what we currently have. Individual scholars would quibble about this book or that book for sure but the majority of the church did not.

And why would we worship a God who can’t publish an accurate book? The writings of all kinds of pagans have been preserved. Why would we doubt that the Creator of the Universe could preserve His Word?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Not only that, but "THE Torah" (meaning the five Books of Moshe) are almost without question THE most "vetted" Writings in all of human history. Copies with explicit "error correction and detection" faithfully rendered for millenia (with later copies, ie, the "Dead Sea Scrolls", among others, to confirm) leave virtually no doubt as to the level of certainty in what has been preserved (notwithstanding 'vowel-pointing,' parsing, etc, done much later).

Any honest scholarship of the Apostolic Writings will acknowledge multiple variants, which, while supportive, do have differences almost any decent Bible will show in footnotes.

But most importantly, when Shaul/Paul, or Yahushua, quotes Himself, you should KNOW He was speaking Hebrew, from the Original, as Written.

THAT part is then easy to check.

Here’s something I believe with all my heart. God broke the chains tying His Word to Hebrew. He translated in on purpose and for a reason.

He did not want His followers to cut off from the Bible the Muslims are cut off from the Quran. It is estimated that fewer than 60,000 scholars can read the Quran in classical Arabic without needing to consult translation tools. Over a billion Muslims can not interact with their scriptures directly.

In contrast God’s Word transcends human tongues. I don’t need highly trained experts to read it to me. Despite my lack of education I can read God’s instructions for myself.

 

[Mark C]

... I don’t need highly trained experts to read it [Scripture] to me. Despite my lack of education I can read God’s instructions for myself.

That certainly puts you WAY ahead of the vast majority of priests, popes, and licensed preachers...

 

[frederick]

My understanding: Torah is the authority. Nothing else is on the same level. I prefer to test all scripture against Torah than to rely on some council 500 odd years ago having made the right decisions on what books to keep or remove (especially when those same men started so many of the heinous doctrines we see today).

Are you serious! All Scripture is God breathed! Did God have bad breath and breathe out something that doesn't measure up to His own standards? When did God appoint anyone to stand in judgement over Him and His Holy Word which He breathed out?

Jesus Christ chose Paul, appointed him as apostle, and sent him to preach the gospel (Acts 9:15). Peter, another of those Jesus Christ Himself chose and sent out to preach, refers to Paul as a beloved brother who wrote epistles equal in authority to the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:14-16).

As @The Revolting Man has already pointed out, you are on a slippery slope, and that slope only descends downwards. Those who place themselves as judges of Holy Scripture are sliding on a dangerous slope.

 

[FollowingHim]

The Apocryphal books contain some helpful material, but do not seem to be the breathed out Word of God like the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament or the Twenty-Six of the New.

My simple point was that to read a continuous historical narrative, you need the Maccabees in the middle to fill in the gap, otherwise you jump from Judah returning to Israel under Babylon to suddenly the Romans are in charge and where on earth did that come from?

Which books are to be read as "God-breathed" vs "interesting commentary" is a less important matter that has little bearing on theology, because the apocryphal and canonical books are largely consistent on most doctrine. That is a separate discussion from the simple point I was making.

 

[Michael Moon]

The slippery slope looms large when we start assigning legitimacy rankings to scripture and setting certain sections against others.

Why? That's like saying a child understanding that his father has more authority than his mother leads him to being rebellious. It's a simple truth, what we do with varies by the person.

It isn’t a matter of Torah being more “legitimate” or taking precedence. The book is a unified, harmonized whole. The Torah is lessened without the the New Testament.

Torah is illustrated and explained by Lord Jesus in the new testament, yes. But, He never adds to it nor takes away. Yah did not need a second chance to give us His instruction, the Torah was (and is) sufficient.

The New Testament lacks a foundation without Torah.

Yes. All I am saying is that ALL scripture lacks a foundation without Torah. And as Torah is the foundation, it is what we base everything else on. We don't accept "scripture" that disagrees with Torah. Therefore Torah is the authority we look to in the judging of scripture.

The Torah commands sacrifices and a priesthood and a Tabernacle. We don’t have any it those things? Why? Is the Torah not eternal? Of course it is. The New Testament explains why those things are no longer in effect in the same form they were.

So does Torah. We don't do those things because according to Torah, they can only happen in conjunction with a Temple. But the Temple has been destroyed and we are in exile. Again, the new testament houses some great wisdom for how to live out our faith in exile, but it is still having to rely on the foundation and authority of The Torah.

Without the book of Hebrews though we would be left with no explanation for why we were unable to obey Torah for almost 2,000 years. The Torah would look like it wasn’t an eternal command.

I don't really understand this comment. Where in the Torah does it imply the Torah would perhaps be temporal? The only way I see us getting to that thought is by putting other scripture (which we misunderstood) on the same level as Torah.

It isn’t necessary to reinvent the wheel every generation. The established canon of the Bible has stood for 2,000 years and in every age the consensus was always in support of what we currently have. Individual scholars would quibble about this book or that book for sure but the majority of the church did not.

The majority of "the church" does alot of things I disagree with. I agree we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. Let's stick with what was given to us as the wheel (Torah) and we can accept additional wisdom (other scripture) as long as it is applied from said wheel.

And why would we worship a God who can’t publish an accurate book? The writings of all kinds of pagans have been preserved. Why would we doubt that the Creator of the Universe could preserve His Word?

I don't doubt that. We have His Torah. He published an accurate work. I just don't think we should add the commentaries of Paul to the back and call then one and the same.

I love the commentaries of Paul. He really has some great stuff to share. But his words aren't anywhere as dear to me as God's.

 

[Michael Moon]

Are you serious!

Quite.

All Scripture is God breathed!

Yes, and when Paul wrote that in a letter to Timothy he totally thought his own personal correspondences were on the same level as God's Instruction.

Did God have bad breath and breathe out something that doesn't measure up to His own standards? When did God appoint anyone to stand in judgement over Him and His Holy Word which He breathed out?

Apparently at whatever council you believe properly canonized scripture.

Apologies for the sarcasm. You are being quite flippant with the claim that I and others are trying to put ourselves in judgment over God Himself. I urge you to reconsider that line of debate.

Jesus Christ chose Paul, appointed him as apostle, and sent him to preach the gospel (Acts 9:15). Peter, another of those Jesus Christ Himself chose and sent out to preach, refers to Paul as a beloved brother who wrote epistles equal in authority to the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:14-16).

That passage does not speak at all to the exact level of authority of Paul's passages. And again, I like Paul. Got nothing against the guy.

As @The Revolting Man has already pointed out, you are on a slippery slope,

By going to the source? The same source Paul based his writings on? That's a weird kind of trap God would put in His own work.

and that slope only descends downwards. Those who place themselves as judges of Holy Scripture are sliding on a dangerous slope.

Either this is a poor analogy, or another claim that I'm either going to he'll or going against God's will. Please cool it with the accusations @frederick . I really respect you, and have appreciated alot of your writings* on this forum. But we cannot have an edifying conversation if you continue to throw these kind of accusations.

 

[MemeFan]

Problem with slippery slope is simple.

If you allow something that is false/wrong and continue building on this eventually small-sized crap grow to be dinosaur sized crap.

Historical example:

Adam Smith created labor theory of value. Who did logical implication of this incorrect theory? Karl Marx.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Why? That's like saying a child understanding that his father has more authority than his mother leads him to being rebellious. It's a simple truth, what we do with varies by the person.

Torah is illustrated and explained by Lord Jesus in the new testament, yes. But, He never adds to it nor takes away. Yah did not need a second chance to give us His instruction, the Torah was (and is) sufficient.

Yes. All I am saying is that ALL scripture lacks a foundation without Torah. And as Torah is the foundation, it is what we base everything else on. We don't accept "scripture" that disagrees with Torah. Therefore Torah is the authority we look to in the judging of scripture.

So does Torah. We don't do those things because according to Torah, they can only happen in conjunction with a Temple. But the Temple has been destroyed and we are in exile. Again, the new testament houses some great wisdom for how to live out our faith in exile, but it is still having to rely on the foundation and authority of The Torah.

I don't really understand this comment. Where in the Torah does it imply the Torah would perhaps be temporal? The only way I see us getting to that thought is by putting other scripture (which we misunderstood) on the same level as Torah.

The majority of "the church" does alot of things I disagree with. I agree we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. Let's stick with what was given to us as the wheel (Torah) and we can accept additional wisdom (other scripture) as long as it is applied from said wheel.

I don't doubt that. We have His Torah. He published an accurate work. I just don't think we should add the commentaries of Paul to the back and call then one and the same.

I love the commentaries of Paul. He really has some great stuff to share. But his words aren't anywhere as dear to me as God's.

So you’re not on a slippery slope, you’ve slipped and are almost at the bottom of the ditch.

If Paul isn’t scripture then no New Testament writing can be trusted. And if no New Testament writing can be trusted then we can’t have faith in Jesus.

The Torah is not sufficient. I love the Torah but it doesn’t teach me about Jesus, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Baptism or Salvation for gentiles.

Without the New Testament my only options are Islam, an unpalatable one, or the religion of the Jews which adds massive amounts of material in the Talmud and has no explanation for 2,000 years of exile and a complete inability to restart the sacrifices in accordance with the Law if their exile were to end.

You understand that the Torah tied salvation to the Temple/Tabernacle. No Temple, no religion. The Jews haven’t been able to keep Torah for 2,000 years. By any measure that’s a dead religion. Without the New Testament the Torah is defunct.

It doesn’t matter if you eat clean, keep Sabbath and observe the feasts of you don’t have the sacrifices. Without the New Testament we don’t have the sacrifices.

 

[Michael Moon]

If Paul isn’t scripture then no New Testament writing can be trusted. And if no New Testament writing can be trusted then we can’t have faith in Jesus.

We have plenty of historical writings that show the truth of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of the prophesied Messiah. We can trust the gospels without any need to trust Paul.

But again, I believe Paul's writings to be scripture, but not because some council said so. That council is not what tells me Paul's epistles are good wisdom. Torah does. Paul's epistles line up with Torah, and he dillegently served the Messiah. I trust Paul.

But any authority in Paul's writings are second to Torah. Paul doesn't disagree with Torah, so this doesn't conflict at all! We judge wisdom and prophecy according to Torah. Paul's wisdom is great, so count it as scripture that's fine. But not die to any inherent authority of PAUL's writings, but because of the authority of The Torah Paul based his wisdom on.

The Torah is not sufficient. I love the Torah but it doesn’t teach me about Jesus, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Baptism or Salvation for gentiles.

Torah is sufficient for what it is. We can have further explanations, I apologize if I made it seem like that was my position. But Torah has laid the foundation for all of those things. It is still the highest authority.

And salvation for the lost is a very common theme throughout most of Torah and the Prophets.

Without the New Testament my only options are Islam, an unpalatable one, or the religion of the Jews which adds massive amounts of material in the Talmud and has no explanation for 2,000 years of exile and a complete inability to restart the sacrifices in accordance with the Law if their exile were to end.

The Talmud came into existence the same way the catholic and then protestant canons did. Councils of men. I love me some councils, but authority rests upon Torah.

You understand that the Torah tied salvation to the Temple/Tabernacle. No Temple, no religion.

I simply don't understand why you think that.

The Jews haven’t been able to keep Torah for 2,000 years. By any measure that’s a dead religion. Without the New Testament the Torah is defunct.

I agree the Jewish religion is dead due to having rejected the Messiah. But God's Instructions and fuctioning the way He wants are certainly not defunct.

It doesn’t matter if you eat clean, keep Sabbath and observe the feasts if you don’t have the sacrifices.

I think obedience to God does matter, whether or not I can continue the sacrifices in this day.

Without the New Testament we don’t have the sacrifices.

How so?

 

[Mark C]

Wow. So much wrong in here it's hard to know where to start:

The Torah is not sufficient. I love the Torah but it doesn’t teach me about Jesus, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Baptism or Salvation for gentiles.

Try reading about the "Salvation of Yah" (Yahushua) using His Real Name. He's there on just about every page.

So is 'crucifixion' (well, see Deuteronomy 21:23) and LOTS of references to a "mikvah" (John got it there) and literally EVERYTHING necessary to make the case that the Torah Made Flesh came to 're-teach' after men had missed the point, and messed it up. Thus Acts 17:11.

And if no New Testament writing can be trusted then we can’t have faith in Jesus.

Good grief. But it helps to have faith in the Salvation - as promised! - of Yah. What was already Written when He walked the earth was sufficient for EVERY SINGLE PERSON who had 'eyes to see' and followed Him for what He was!

You understand that the Torah tied salvation to the Temple/Tabernacle.

NO!!!! But it did enable Him to "dwell among them." Until they essentially kicked HIM out, and then got kicked themselves out of the land. Where we STILL ARE!

No Temple, no religion. The Jews haven’t been able to keep Torah for 2,000 years. By any measure that’s a dead religion. Without the New Testament the Torah is defunct.

Oh, good grief. Is that your excuse for ignoring His Sabbaths, His moedim, which He said - REPEATEDLY - to "keep forever," "throughout your generations," and "in all your dwelling places"???

People who read and UNDERSTOOD what He had Written (including the prophets, BTW) were looking for Messiah long before He finally came. Or came again. And - like it or not - a big part of the reason that SO many 'jews' or "Torah-observant believers" have rejected a "jesus" who "did away with the Law," "nailed it to the cross", or just changed his own word in violation OF His Own Word, DID so, is because the Torah - repeatedly, again - said that such a fake could NOT be the promised Messiah.

The problem is NOT the "Apostolic Writings," or "Renewed Covenant" (Brit Chadashah in Hebrew) - it's a 'NEW' Testament which has been twised (I Peter 3:15-16 is right) to claim the "Olde" is Done Away With. That's a lie, of course, but it's a deadly one.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Wow. So much wrong in here it's hard to know where to start:

Try reading about the "Salvation of Yah" (Yahushua) using His Real Name. He's there on just about every page.

So is 'crucifixion' (well, see Deuteronomy 21:23) and LOTS of references to a "mikvah" (John got it there) and literally EVERYTHING necessary to make the case that the Torah Made Flesh came to 're-teach' after men had missed the point, and messed it up. Thus Acts 17:11.


Good grief. But it helps to have faith in the Salvation - as promised! - of Yah. What was already Written when He walked the earth was sufficient for EVERY SINGLE PERSON who had 'eyes to see' and followed Him for what He was!

NO!!!! But it did enable Him to "dwell among them." Until they essentially kicked HIM out, and then got kicked themselves out of the land. Where we STILL ARE!


Oh, good grief. Is that your excuse for ignoring His Sabbaths, His moedim, which He said - REPEATEDLY - to "keep forever," "throughout your generations," and "in all your dwelling places"???

People who read and UNDERSTOOD what He had Written (including the prophets, BTW) were looking for Messiah long before He finally came. Or came again. And - like it or not - a big part of the reason that SO many 'jews' or "Torah-observant believers" have rejected a "jesus" who "did away with the Law," "nailed it to the cross", or just changed his own word in violation OF His Own Word, DID so, is because the Torah - repeatedly, again - said that such a fake could NOT be the promised Messiah.

The problem is NOT the "Apostolic Writings," or "Renewed Covenant" (Brit Chadashah in Hebrew) - it's a 'NEW' Testament which has been twised (I Peter 3:15-16 is right) to claim the "Olde" is Done Away With. That's a lie, of course, but it's a deadly

I keep the feasts and all of the sabbaths. I might keep them more strictly than you.

 

[The Revolting Man]

We have plenty of historical writings that show the truth of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of the prophesied Messiah. We can trust the gospels without any need to trust Paul.

But again, I believe Paul's writings to be scripture, but not because some council said so. That council is not what tells me Paul's epistles are good wisdom. Torah does. Paul's epistles line up with Torah, and he dillegently served the Messiah. I trust Paul.

But any authority in Paul's writings are second to Torah. Paul doesn't disagree with Torah, so this doesn't conflict at all! We judge wisdom and prophecy according to Torah. Paul's wisdom is great, so count it as scripture that's fine. But not die to any inherent authority of PAUL's writings, but because of the authority of The Torah Paul based his wisdom on.

Torah is sufficient for what it is. We can have further explanations, I apologize if I made it seem like that was my position. But Torah has laid the foundation for all of those things. It is still the highest authority.

And salvation for the lost is a very common theme throughout most of Torah and the Prophets.

The Talmud came into existence the same way the catholic and then protestant canons did. Councils of men. I love me some councils, but authority rests upon Torah.

I simply don't understand why you think that.

I agree the Jewish religion is dead due to having rejected the Messiah. But God's Instructions and fuctioning the way He wants are certainly not defunct.

I think obedience to God does matter, whether or not I can continue the sacrifices in this day.

How so?

Alright, this may be a case of you not knowing what you don’t know. I’m going to start a new thread for this tonight.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Wow. So much wrong in here it's hard to know where to start:

Try reading about the "Salvation of Yah" (Yahushua) using His Real Name. He's there on just about every page.

So is 'crucifixion' (well, see Deuteronomy 21:23) and LOTS of references to a "mikvah" (John got it there) and literally EVERYTHING necessary to make the case that the Torah Made Flesh came to 're-teach' after men had missed the point, and messed it up. Thus Acts 17:11.


Good grief. But it helps to have faith in the Salvation - as promised! - of Yah. What was already Written when He walked the earth was sufficient for EVERY SINGLE PERSON who had 'eyes to see' and followed Him for what He was!

NO!!!! But it did enable Him to "dwell among them." Until they essentially kicked HIM out, and then got kicked themselves out of the land. Where we STILL ARE!


Oh, good grief. Is that your excuse for ignoring His Sabbaths, His moedim, which He said - REPEATEDLY - to "keep forever," "throughout your generations," and "in all your dwelling places"???

People who read and UNDERSTOOD what He had Written (including the prophets, BTW) were looking for Messiah long before He finally came. Or came again. And - like it or not - a big part of the reason that SO many 'jews' or "Torah-observant believers" have rejected a "jesus" who "did away with the Law," "nailed it to the cross", or just changed his own word in violation OF His Own Word, DID so, is because the Torah - repeatedly, again - said that such a fake could NOT be the promised Messiah.

The problem is NOT the "Apostolic Writings," or "Renewed Covenant" (Brit Chadashah in Hebrew) - it's a 'NEW' Testament which has been twised (I Peter 3:15-16 is right) to claim the "Olde" is Done Away With. That's a lie, of course, but it's a deadly one.

And yes salvation, forgiveness for sins, was tied to the High Priest and the Temple sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. That was the day when the people’s sins were forgiven. You know this.

 

[Mark C]

I keep the feasts and all of the sabbaths. I might keep them more strictly than you.

Not even remotely the point.

 

[Mark C]

And yes salvation, forgiveness for sins, was tied to the High Priest and the Temple sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. That was the day when the people’s sins were forgiven. You know this.

Better than you do, obviously. Because, WRONG. (And maybe too much 'whore synagogue' in this case. Read Hebrews 9:7, fer cryin' out loud. If you don't get what is spelled out so clearly all through Leviticus chapters 4 and 5, for various cases, the key word is right there!)

There is a BIG difference - consistent throughout His Torah - between "unintentional sin," for which specific offerings are prescribed, and INTENTIONAL sin, 'rebellion' to Him, for which - guess what? - restitution must be made, but NO so-called 'sacrifice' is specified.

Well, except for One. And you have to connect-the-dots to see it.

You gloss over the vital details, and miss the whole point.

(I've gone through this every single year, at least once, for parsha "Vayikra". And it's ALL over His Word!!!!!
Isaiah 1:22-20, Hosea chapter 6, Psalm 40, Psalm 51, Micah 6:6-8:

https://markniwot.com/?p=2395 most recently, this year )

Honestly, it amazes me to see people so ignorant of the Foundations, and proud of their rebellion to Him, while proclaiming their 'salvation' in the form of a 'sacrifice' they don't really even understand.

Maybe that's why Shaul said, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," (Phil. 2:12. It helps to get His Name right...) It connects directly, I suggest, to the 'scariest verses in the Book' - Matthew 7:21-23.

Paul even repeats what He says. How do you know what "iniquity" is [hint: Torah-less-ness] if 'the foundations be destroyed'?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Better than you do, obviously. Because, WRONG. (And maybe too much 'whore synagogue' in this case. Read Hebrews 9:7, fer cryin' out loud. If you don't get what is spelled out so clearly all through Leviticus chapters 4 and 5, for various cases, the key word is right there!)

There is a BIG difference - consistent throughout His Torah - between "unintentional sin," for which specific offerings are prescribed, and INTENTIONAL sin, 'rebellion' to Him, for which - guess what? - restitution must be made, but NO so-called 'sacrifice' is specified.

Well, except for One. And you have to connect-the-dots to see it.

You gloss over the vital details, and miss the whole point.

(I've gone through this every single year, at least once, for parsha "Vayikra". And it's ALL over His Word!!!!!
Isaiah 1:22-20, Hosea chapter 6, Psalm 40, Psalm 51, Micah 6:6-8:

https://markniwot.com/?p=2395 most recently, this year )

Honestly, it amazes me to see people so ignorant of the Foundations, and proud of their rebellion to Him, while proclaiming their 'salvation' in the form of a 'sacrifice' they don't really even understand.

Maybe that's why Shaul said, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," (Phil. 2:12. It helps to get His Name right...) It connects directly, I suggest, to the 'scariest verses in the Book' - Matthew 7:21-23.

Paul even repeats what He says. How do you know what "iniquity" is [hint: Torah-less-ness] if 'the foundations be destroyed'?

Again, I think you have too much knowledge for your understanding. And you’re not just coming it and saying what you believe. If sacrifices weren’t tied to the forgiveness of sins then I freely admit I’m apparently greatly deceived. Please, make the case. There is clearly something I don’t know. I got stuck on “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins” but we all know what a simpleton I am.

 

[PeteR]

Not even remotely the point.

Possibly true, but it does demonstrate that you don't know your audience. Maybe you should consider building some relationships before trying to knock heads..

 

[Mark C]

Possibly true, but it does demonstrate that you don't know your audience. Maybe you should consider building some relationships before trying to knock heads..

My "audience" are folks seeking Truth, not just argument for the sake of contention.

Please, make the case. There is clearly something I don’t know.

Obviously. And I've given a link with all the information that answers EXACTLY those questions -- IFF you are actually sincere, instead of just...whatever it looks like. (The rest of that witty rejoinder above didn't even make SENSE...)

Did you even bother to look up a single one of the five-plus references I already gave you, before asking for more you won't read?

"Simpletons," after all, do get hung up on verses they don't understand taken out of context.