For the Christians, what are the last words of Jesus (as)?

[Keltoi]

Well, the Bible has been torn apart over the centuries, and the reason it continues to "stand" is because many people are willing to overlook various issues of the Bible because they believe in the strength of its central message (well, the message of the New Testament anyways). It's a very powerful message, and it seems to transcend the very text that it is apparently based from. That's why the critique on the Bible doesn't really matter to most Christians; they don't really study the Bible as a "book" per say, but more for inspiration in their spiritual life.

People have tried to apply similar critiques to the Qur'an as they have to the Bible, but it has never succeeded. They have instead decided to attack the character of Muhammad because they don't find the same faults with the Qur'an as they do with the Bible.

When comparing the Bible to the Qu'ran it must be noted that the Bible was written by quite a few people over a long period of time. If the Qu'ran seems more focused in certain aspects that is largely due to the fact it was written in a short period of time, in comparison, and with only one author. (We won't debate who that author was here).

Yes, Christians have a different view of, and different expectations, of the Bible than Muslims do the Qu'ran. Christianity is about a personal spiritual connection with Christ. An internalized and personal spirituality.

 

[Dawud_uk]

I agree. We really must strike a balance when giving dawah to people of other faiths. We cannot focus solely on Islam, for that would not take into account what the other person believes. Likewise, we cannot focus solely on criticizing the other person's religion, because that might drive them away from God all together instead of bringing them closer to Islam.

It's a fine line to walk, but ultimately we just have to approach the conversation respectfully from both sides and treat it as a discussion, not as one person trying to ram one set of beliefs down another's throat.

i think if you look at my other posts you will see i do that, but this is a thread to discuss a specific contradiction in the bible and the contradictions in general which show it as a flawed and false faith.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace

....resist the temptation to criticise other faiths.

It's a good point. Religion is a sensative issue & we must be careful not to hurt others feelings.

In other forum , some Christians abuse our beloved Prophet (pbuh) on a daily basis . When we ( Muslims ) request them not to use nasty language , their answers are like these : but this is the truth ; I have no doubt in my mind, that there's nothing abusing him anywhere on this earth today like where he is right now - in hell etc etc.

May be , they are thinking they are doing a good job , they are telling Muslims the truth but to us - these are just hateful posts , they are spreading hatred . After telling us the " truth " about Muhammed (pbuh ) , when they tell me about their faith that Jesus (p) taught them to love all , then I just laugh.

I request all Muslims participants here not to hurt feelings of the minority participants. After going through the pain as a minority participants in other forums , I think I can feel the pain of others in this forum .

 

[Hafswa]

Great!



I am glad you are admitting to insinuating yourself with a topic not directed at you!



That doesn't address the subject matter or rebuts contents-- you merely stating your belief has no impact on the validity of what is written!


The death of God has nothing to do with Mosaic Law, from the lowest common denominator if the 'death of God' had roots in the OT, they would have been all over Christianity, instead they chose their OT in lieu of Paul's version of it!



Atonement for whom? Does God atone for his own self? I wasn't aware God needed to do that? you mistake my honesty for sarcasm.. that is actually the bottom line of your religion.. God comes and dies so you can go to heaven.. there is no need for major adjectives where none is needed!

Egyptian god of the underworld and of vegetation. Son of Nut and Geb. His birthplace was said to be Rosetau in the necropolis west of Memphis. Brother of Nephthys and Seth, and the brother and husband of Isis. Isis gave birth to Horus after his death, having impregnated herself with semen from his corpse. Osiris was depicted in human form wrapped up as a mummy, holding the crook and flail. He was often depicted with green skin, alluding to his role as a god of vegetation. He wore a crown known as the 'atef', composed of the tall conical white crown of Upper Egypt with red plumes on each side. Osiris had many cult centers, but the most important were at Abydos (Ibdju) in Upper Egypt, where the god's legend was reenacted in an annual festival, and at Busiris (Djedu) in the Nile delta.
One of the so-called "dying gods", he was the focus of a famous legend in which he was killed by the rival god Seth. At a banquet of the gods, Seth fooled Osiris into stepping into a coffin, which he promptly slammed shut and cast into the Nile. The coffin was born by the Nile to the delta town of Byblos, where it became enclosed in a tamarisk tree. Isis, the wife of Osiris, discovered the coffin and brought it back. (The story to this point is attested only by the Greek writer Plutarch, although Seth was identified as his murderer as early as the Pyramid era of the Old Kingdom.)

​

So I guess I'll leave that to the discerning reader to decide! and by the way that was your mere attempt at one story, not the lot! Ancient Egyptian religion was Paganistic, hence the pharoh was angry with what Moses brought!

lol.. the question is of dates really.. who is borrowing from whom?!


It doesn't bother you, yet you keep replying.. I have no agenda or propaganda on an Islamic forum, I assure you if I did, christian forums would be the first place I frequent.. I never thought of Christianity as a contender-- it is so silly to me on all levels.. and I believe that is why you have cults of Dawkin following in his own words:


In GD, Dawkins quotes Einstein as saying that he prefers not to call himself religious, because that implies “supernatural”. But Einstein acknowledged that behind everything “there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly”.
Dawkins admits: “If that’s what you call religion then I’m religious.” But when I suggest that, in this case, he is in touch with the transcendent, he accuses me of “playing with words”. He says: “If by transcendent you mean what Einstein believed then yes, but what I think, to come back on your statement that more intelligent and sophisticated religious people believe something close to what Einstein and I believe, that may be true, but they are a tiny minority of religious people in the world. It’s the majority of religious people in the world that we have to worry about.”





Once you make small Gods of men, and you advance and outgrow them you can only have atheism, or something 'bigger than God' when all Christians wake up to see is a meek God who dies after forsaking himself-- yet expects of people to believe that he'll save them through his 'atonement'

I agree.. it is your belief and 'praise' in the form of dance and clap and organs wasn't subscribed to you as part of the commandments-- there is nothing to think about it, other than laying for folks the obvious!
Then I hope with that we are done.. unless you want to purge yourself some more?


cheers

This might end up being my last post here but I have to say this:
I joined this forum to get enlightened about Islam and as told to MZ then, to seek if Islam was a way of life, a faith I could follow and if Muslimahs would really care about me as an individual or just the fact that I had become one of them.

This thread was started with a simple question, What were Jesus' last word. I have read through it so far and noted the accusations, quoations of individuals who do not even share either failth, the comparissons between one faith against the other ,tempers flaring and names given to the others religion and so on. None of us is conveying conviction about what we believe in. Its just a debate about what I believe in is the truth and yours is not. Quite childish I might say.
To both Christians-like me and Muslims, none of us here have displayed that attraction to ones belief. We all were on the same level. We are so busy defending our faiths rather than give accounts of why we believe in what we believe in like Woodrow did. If asked" if you were not born into the religons you are in would you be still in your religion ?" what would our answer be?

The rules of this forum stated that we are not here to push one into believeing any particular faith but in respect to each other, offer our opinions. Now when someone comes short of saying you are not welcome here, it makes me wonder why the creators of this forum have a section for comparative religion or even allow the users have questions addressed to Christians.

 

[rpwelton]

i think if you look at my other posts you will see i do that, but this is a thread to discuss a specific contradiction in the bible and the contradictions in general which show it as a flawed and false faith.

Fair enough. I wasn't necessarily speaking about you or anyone in particular, it was just a general observation that I had.

 

[Grace Seeker]

neither of the two points are considered contraversial or unusual, indeed many protestant historians use them precisely to show the corruption of the texts by the offical church going back through the history of christianity.

I disagree with this statement. What you list most definitley NOT generally accepted teaching. It is not accepted among protestant historians. It is not accepted among other Christian historians. It is not the main accepted teaching among secular historians. It is not accepted teaching. It may be a teaching that you can find, you may even find it to be the predominant teaching among certain select groups. But I repeat that it is not generally accepted teaching. And that lack of acceptance would make it first disputed, second unusual to find it suggested, and third controversial if it were to be suggested.


The only part of what you have written that I can accept as true are the following editted points:

the parts of the bible which we have today come from greek manuscripts

many other documents existed

[some of] these were destroyed in the west by the church authorities [or the] state

greek manuscripts were not the original teachings, someone who spoke aramaic taught it [first]

And when they spoke, they spoke in the language of their audience (we see that become normative in the life of the church as early as Pentecost, Acts 2). It follows that they would have also written in the language of their audience. As I have already said, the dominant language of the Roman Empire was Greek. You have to provide some convincing evidence (which you so far have not done) that the audience for the first written documents was more likely to be a Aramaic-reading audience, than a Greek-reading audience.


Your final statement: "but these originals where they existed were destroyed after translation, this is a matter of church policy at the time and is not hidden by the christian historians" is I believe more fiction than fact. Even the heretical (in my opinion) Nag Hammadi texts show that the first writings of the church were primarily Greek writings:

The contents of the Coptic-bound codices were written in Coptic, though the works were probably all translations from Greek. Most famous of these works must be the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete copy.

source wikipedia

 

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/peace



It's a good point. Religion is a sensative issue & we must be careful not to hurt others feelings.

In other forum , some Christians abuse our beloved Prophet (pbuh) on a daily basis . When we ( Muslims ) request them not to use nasty language , their answers are like these : but this is the truth ; I have no doubt in my mind, that there's nothing abusing him anywhere on this earth today like where he is right now - in hell etc etc.

May be , they are thinking they are doing a good job , they are telling Muslims the truth but to us - these are just hateful posts , they are spreading hatred . After telling us the " truth " about Muhammed (pbuh ) , when they tell me about their faith that Jesus (p) taught them to love all , then I just laugh.

I request all Muslims participants here not to hurt feelings of the minority participants. After going through the pain as a minority participants in other forums , I think I can feel the pain of others in this forum .

I don't know which particular other forums you are referring to; but, with some saddness, I will agree that with respect to LI many Muslims here seem to be more "Christian" than supposed Christians on some other forums I have visited in the way they relate to people who believe differently than themselves.

 

[Grace Seeker]

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance,

a question to the christians, what are the last words of jesus christ (upon him be peace)?

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance,

Accepting, as I do, the written record found in the New Testament to be the closest thing we have to an authoritative source in this regard, it appears we have a choice between two accounts:

Matthew 28

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Acts 1

4On one occasion, while he [Jesus] was eating with them [his disciples], he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

But since then, Jesus has continued to speak:
1. To Paul on the road to Damascus.
2. To John giving him the book of Revelation.
3. To Christians (and I suspect even to non-Christians) till this day, through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

 

[rpwelton]

But since then, Jesus has continued to speak:
1. To Paul on the road to Damascus.
2. To John giving him the book of Revelation.
3. To Christians (and I suspect even to non-Christians) till this day, through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

In regards to those 3 points, is it possible for someone now to claim they received revelation from Jesus? If not, why was the testimony of Paul accepted?

 

[Grace Seeker]

In regards to those 3 points, is it possible for someone now to claim they received revelation from Jesus? If not, why was the testimony of Paul accepted?

You want the long or short answer?

Short answer: Yes, it is possible for some now to claim that they received revelation from Jesus. In fact, people do it all of the time. Whether they would be accepted or not is a completely different issue.


Expanding on that: Most generally people speak of some sort of specific revelation that they have. "God told me to go see my neighbor, that he needed my help, and when I got there I found him laying on the floor unable to get up." Others, such as us pastors, look for God's general guidance in preparinig a message and often speak of receiving some sort of revelation from God regarding that message, but again it is specific to a particular congregation at a particular place and time.

The early church found the writings of the Apostle Paul spoke not only to those churches to which he directed his letters, but to others as well. And so they saved, copied, and circulated them. And over time we found that they still spoke to succeeding generations. In this context they became a part of the corpus of writings that churches universally collected, as they did the gospels supposedly authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Of course there was more than just these writing that made their way into the collection of writings that were valued by churches. There were also letters by Peter, Jude, John, James, Clement, Barnabas (btw, the letters of Barnabas are not the same as what is called the Gospel of Barnabas), the Didache, the Gospel of Peter, the story the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. Eventually, the Church felt a need to codify that while all of these writings might have some value, that certain writings were perceived to be useful for church law (i.e. canon, for "canon" means "law" or "standard") as a standard for faith and practice. Rather quickly actually, long before Nicea or the council of Constantinople, the church came into agreement to accept the 27 books we currently do as canonical and then this consensus was ratified at these ecumenical councils. Of course other writings continued to be read, even in the worship services of the church -- which is why I laugh when people suggest that the church tried to exclude everything else, we only excluded that which was in fact not accepted as truly representative of the faith of the existing church. And many books and individuals are still used by God to speak to us today, but unless there is some sort of groundswell movement within the Church as a whole the canon of scripture is closed.

Hope that helps some. If it doesn't answer your actual question, pose it in some different way and I'll try again.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings and peace be with you Muslim Woman;

I know you mean well, but Dr. Zakir’s wisecracks will only leave me with atheism.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

I am surprised.

This comment makes you sound, not like one who is seeking the truth, but as one who is desperate to hold onto his current life no matter what.

What will you tell God?

 

[Dawud_uk]

I disagree with this statement. What you list most definitley NOT generally accepted teaching. It is not accepted among protestant historians. It is not accepted among other Christian historians. It is not the main accepted teaching among secular historians. It is not accepted teaching. It may be a teaching that you can find, you may even find it to be the predominant teaching among certain select groups. But I repeat that it is not generally accepted teaching. And that lack of acceptance would make it first disputed, second unusual to find it suggested, and third controversial if it were to be suggested.


The only part of what you have written that I can accept as true are the following editted points:





And when they spoke, they spoke in the language of their audience (we see that become normative in the life of the church as early as Pentecost, Acts 2). It follows that they would have also written in the language of their audience. As I have already said, the dominant language of the Roman Empire was Greek. You have to provide some convincing evidence (which you so far have not done) that the audience for the first written documents was more likely to be a Aramaic-reading audience, than a Greek-reading audience.


Your final statement: "but these originals where they existed were destroyed after translation, this is a matter of church policy at the time and is not hidden by the christian historians" is I believe more fiction than fact. Even the heretical (in my opinion) Nag Hammadi texts show that the first writings of the church were primarily Greek writings:

jesus christ, the man you believe to be God is reported to have said, in the book you believe in be the true acount and true book of God.

"I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Matthew 15:24

jesus christ (peace be upon him) was preaching to jews, the language they all spoke was aramaic not greek.

for the first 50 years or so of christianity it was centred upon the jews, all but one of the disciples of jesus having nothing to do with saul of tarsus (paul), only barnabus having any time for him at all.

the rest followed the reported commands of jesus, that when he was gone to follow his disciple james who indeed led a jewish christian church in the holy lands.

they did accept converts but insisted they stick to the laws of moses (peace be upon him), such as being circumcised, the laws that had not been abrogated by the new prophet from God, Jesus Christ.

paul went his own way, and the rest is history. but the original language of the christians was not greek.

RE the coptic christians, well the language of alexandria was greek at this time, but you have to look at the bloody battles between the trinitarian and unitarian chrisitans in north africa to see the full history there.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Hafswa;

This might end up being my last post here but I have to say this:
I joined this forum to get enlightened about Islam and as told to MZ then, to seek if Islam was a way of life, a faith I could follow and if Muslimahs would really care about me as an individual or just the fact that I had become one of them.

This thread was started with a simple question, What were Jesus' last word. I have read through it so far and noted the accusations, quoations of individuals who do not even share either failth, the comparissons between one faith against the other ,tempers flaring and names given to the others religion and so on. None of us is conveying conviction about what we believe in. Its just a debate about what I believe in is the truth and yours is not. Quite childish I might say.
To both Christians-like me and Muslims, none of us here have displayed that attraction to ones belief. We all were on the same level. We are so busy defending our faiths rather than give accounts of why we believe in what we believe in like Woodrow did. If asked" if you were not born into the religons you are in would you be still in your religion ?" what would our answer be?

The rules of this forum stated that we are not here to push one into believeing any particular faith but in respect to each other, offer our opinions. Now when someone comes short of saying you are not welcome here, it makes me wonder why the creators of this forum have a section for comparative religion or even allow the users have questions addressed to Christians

You are in my prayers.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith understanding and friendship.

Eric

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you AntiKarateKid;

I am surprised.

This comment makes you sound, not like one who is seeking the truth, but as one who is desperate to hold onto his current life no matter what.

What will you tell God?

We will both struggle when we stand before God, there is a need to pray for each other.

In the spirit of praying to One God.

Eric

 

[glo]

This thread was started with a simple question, What were Jesus' last word. I have read through it so far and noted the accusations, quoations of individuals who do not even share either failth, the comparissons between one faith against the other ,tempers flaring and names given to the others religion and so on. None of us is conveying conviction about what we believe in. Its just a debate about what I believe in is the truth and yours is not. Quite childish I might say.
To both Christians-like me and Muslims, none of us here have displayed that attraction to ones belief. We all were on the same level. We are so busy defending our faiths rather than give accounts of why we believe in what we believe in like Woodrow did. If asked" if you were not born into the religons you are in would you be still in your religion ?" what would our answer be?

The rules of this forum stated that we are not here to push one into believeing any particular faith but in respect to each other, offer our opinions. Now when someone comes short of saying you are not welcome here, it makes me wonder why the creators of this forum have a section for comparative religion or even allow the users have questions addressed to Christians.

Greetings, Hafswa

Like you, I dislike those threads which lead to endless debates, and I avoid them whenever I can.

I think the problem with this thread is that the 'simple question' at the beginning was never meant to be a question at all.
It was really meant to be 'a trap' to lead into criticising and degrading the faith of others. That, in turn, lead to people defending their own beliefs and views ... and so the cycle continues.

I am very happy to answer any questions about my faith, as long as they are genuine. I don't think this one was a genuine question ...

I often find that I have more peaceful and informative conversations via PMs, rather than in the public forums, where things can get unfriendly quite easily.

Hope you are doing okay.

Peace

 

[Muslim Woman]

In the name of Allah , the Most Gracious , Ever Merciful

Salaam/ Peace

This might end up being my last post here...

imsad

I hope , u mean last post in this thread but not in the forum . If u mean u are leaving us , then my request is take a short leave & do come back :statisfie

 

[Grace Seeker]

jesus christ, the man you believe to be God is reported to have said, in the book you believe in be the true acount and true book of God.

"I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Matthew 15:24

jesus christ (peace be upon him) was preaching to jews, the language they all spoke was aramaic not greek.

I'm amazed at how you continue to think that is relevant. It is not. Look at how many on this board speak something else as their native language, yet everyone posts in English. Why? Becuase that is our mutually shared language. In the time of the composition of the New Testament, the mutually shared language was not Aramaic, but Greek. It was the language of every day commerce, and of any sort of writing meant to be read by people outside of your own immediate group.

for the first 50 years or so of christianity it was centred upon the jews, all but one of the disciples of jesus having nothing to do with saul of tarsus (paul), only barnabus having any time for him at all.

the rest followed the reported commands of jesus, that when he was gone to follow his disciple james who indeed led a jewish christian church in the holy lands.

they did accept converts but insisted they stick to the laws of moses (peace be upon him), such as being circumcised, the laws that had not been abrogated by the new prophet from God, Jesus Christ.

Again, not true. The book of acts shows that they did not require circumcision:

Acts 15

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

13When they finished, James spoke up:
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.​

These events, and the establishment of churches in Asia minor, Greece, and Rome, are well within the first 50 years of Christianity. What you propose as facts simply do not stand up to historical scrutiny.

 

[Dawud_uk]

I'm amazed at how you continue to think that is relevant. It is not. Look at how many on this board speak something else as their native language, yet everyone posts in English. Why? Becuase that is our mutually shared language. In the time of the composition of the New Testament, the mutually shared language was not Aramaic, but Greek. It was the language of every day commerce, and of any sort of writing meant to be read by people outside of your own immediate group.



Again, not true. The book of acts shows that they did not require circumcision:



These events, and the establishment of churches in Asia minor, Greece, and Rome, are well within the first 50 years of Christianity. What you propose as facts simply do not stand up to historical scrutiny.

this is getting to be a very interesting discussion but it is going way off topic! could i suggest you start another thread on this and we continue there?

 

[Grace Seeker]

this is getting to be a very interesting discussion but it is going way off topic!

True enough. You will note that I tried to get us back on topic with my post #168 above. rpwelton choose to respond to it, you could have as well.

But hey, it's your thread. I figure if you want to go off on these other tangents that's up to you. I'm only responding to the points you've made, don't make them and I'll have nothing to respond to.

 

[Hafswa]

Greetings, Hafswa

Like you, I dislike those threads which lead to endless debates, and I avoid them whenever I can.

I think the problem with this thread is that the 'simple question' at the beginning was never meant to be a question at all.
It was really meant to be 'a trap' to lead into criticising and degrading the faith of others. That, in turn, lead to people defending their own beliefs and views ... and so the cycle continues.

I am very happy to answer any questions about my faith, as long as they are genuine. I don't think this one was a genuine question ...

I often find that I have more peaceful and informative conversations via PMs, rather than in the public forums, where things can get unfriendly quite easily.

Hope you are doing okay.

Peace

Glo, Thank you for the advice. I agree, the trap seemed to unfold later as the thread continued to grow. Later on I realised that such debates as much as they are geared at trying to shake our faith, make us raise up and state like Paul in Romans 1:16" I am not ashamed of the Gospel beacaue it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, first to the Jew then to the Gentile" . I am doing fine now Even managed to comment on some posts later on .
Thank you again and Bless you.