[breakem]

The technique I used was meant to ellicit the response I am getting. And it worked. It points out the hypocracy of those who spent time explaining to me that some part of the Bible don't really apply. The hypocracy is that they don't see that when others post quotes with which they agree. This is waht I call the self-serving reading of the testaments. Many here are guilty of that.

[Skooz]

It points out the hypocracy of those who spent time explaining to me that some part of the Bible don't really apply.

The Bible is explicit when it points out which parts of the Bible "don't really apply." These are spelled out in the New Testament books of Galatians, Hebrews and, to a lesser extent, Acts and Romans.

It isn't up to anyone to determine which parts of the Bible with which we agree or disagree. The Bible states everything in that regard.

For instance, the Old Testament Mosaic Law required a High Priest to go into the Holy of Holies once a year to give an offering for the people. The book of Hebrews says that we no longer have an earthly high priest, because Jesus, by his sacrifice, has become our eternal high priest and his one-time offering is sufficient.

So, if you were to post something about a human high priest, a Christian would be correct in pointing out that we no longer have need of one.

If you sincerely want to learn more, you can read the requirements of the Mosaic Law in Exodus-Deuteronomy; then read Galatians and Hebrews. That would clear everything up.