What Is Anglicanism?
By The Rev'd Dr. John W. Yates II
February 2010
Having grown up in a small Episcopal church in North Carolina, I was raised on the old Book of Common Prayer - the words, canticles and cadences settled themselves into my mind and heart, and those early years have had a great impact on my faith. Since those days, I have learned more and more about our Anglican heritage, our heroes, our highs and lows. I find my theological home in the Anglicanism of Cranmer, Whitfield, Simeon, and Stott.
I am grateful for our rich and varied heritage. There's a great need for churches in our Anglican tradition in the world today. Why? Because we exhibit an unusual collection of characteristics. Every church is different. The Baptists have their great traditions, the Methodists have their great strengths, the Roman Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, they all have such strengths. But we're Anglican, and we're grateful for it, because it's something very, very special. Anglicanism at its best has always been known for several key qualities, some of which I list below:
-Anglicanism at its best is biblical. It finds its life and its teaching rooted in the word of God. We believe the word of God is true; not just that the Scriptures contain the word of God, but that they become the word of God spoken to us. We believe the Scriptures have authority and they're true, and we want to be biblical Christians.
-Anglicanism is sacramental. We value the sacraments, particularly of baptism and Holy Communion. We believe in the real presence of Christ in our midst. We don't think that we're just playing around with bread and wine and water. We believe that Christ is present in and through these elements, and we view them as a holy part of our life together. We're sacramental Christians.
-Anglicans, when they're at their best, are also evangelical. That means they're people who proclaim the good news of Christ to people who don't know the Lord. And every good Anglican church is seeing a little steady stream of new people coming in, who are coming to new faith, and finding new life in Jesus Christ.
-Anglicanism at its best is liturgical. That means that when we come together and worship God, we just don't do the latest fad that they're doing down the street. The way we worship God is rooted all the way back in the earliest days of the church. The first Anglican Christians came to England in the first century and started worshipping God there and laid roots in how we worship God and it was done in a particular Anglican way. The way our services are laid out, they're built on those early forms of worship. The liturgy, we make it important. We are committed to doing it the way it has been done through the ages. We bring new flavors to it, new emphases, but it's rooted in history.
-Anglicanism is worldwide. We're a catholic church. We're committed; we want to be linked closely to our brothers and sisters in the Two Thirds World. It's not just about us, it's about us together. We're a worldwide catholic church.
-Anglicanism is charismatic. That means we believe in, we're dependent upon the power of the Holy Spirit. We believe that the community of the church is to be a healing community, it's to be an exorcising community, and we believe in all the gifts of the Holy Spirit that are taught in the Holy Scriptures. We want them all to be manifest.
-Anglicanism is about accountability. We have bishops; we believe in bishops, we want bishops. We want them not only to teach us and pastor us; we want them to hold us accountable, to tell us when we're gone astray and to hold us up to our best.
-Anglicanism at its best is musical. We love good music; the best of ancient music and the best of modern music.
-Anglicanism engages the society and the world around it. We're not about being in our own little 'holy huddle.' We're about being involved in politics, we're about being involved in the issues of the community, we're about serving on school boards, and working in clinics and working in food kitchens. We're about society.
-Anglicanism is prayerful. Some of our major services are the services of Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer. Historically, Anglicans have met every day to pray to God. Anglicans go forward on their knees.
-Anglicanism at its best is a community of grace. There's something about Anglicanism that is particularly gracious, and I don't quite know what it is except that in 60 years of being part of the Anglican family, my experience has been that when we're together, we don't take ourselves so darn seriously. We are humble before God because we know we're all sinners. We know that we all kneel at the foot of the cross, and the ground is level there. And we know that God is doing such bigger things than we're doing. We're just a little part of it, and we believe the best of one another. We're not negative; we're gracious when we're at our best.
-Anglicanism loves children and Anglicanism is committed, not just to baptizing babies, but to beginning to work with them and make them disciples from the cradle to adulthood.
-Anglicanism also has a love for beauty, as Martyn, our bishop has said, we've always appreciated the value of aesthetics in Anglicanism. That's why you'll see so many beautiful Anglican houses of worship, that's why the furnishings are usually beautiful, that's why the way things are done are usually aesthetically pleasing. God catches our imagination through aesthetics. He speaks to us through beauty, and we learn to know God through the beauty of worship. So we're committed to reverence and beautiful aesthetics in worship.
I want to urge upon you faithfulness to this Anglican tradition and to these wonderful qualities. Listen to these encouraging words from Thomas Cranmer, the architect of the Book of Common Prayer and martyr for the Gospel: "If there were any word of God beside the Scripture, we could never be certain of God's Word; and if we be uncertain of God's Word, the devil might bring in among us a new word, a new doctrine, a new faith, a new church, a new god, yea himself to be god... If the Church and the Christian faith did not stay itself upon the Word of God certain, as upon a sure and strong foundation, no man could know whether he had a right faith, and whether he were in the true Church of Christ, or in the synagogue of Satan... Stand thou fast, and stay thy faith, whereupon thou shalt build all thy works, upon the strong rock of God's Word, written and contained within the Old Testament and the New, which is able sufficiently to instruct thee in all things needful to thy salvation, and to attainment of the kingdom of heaven."
---The Rev'd Dr. John W. Yates II, is Rector of The Falls Church in Falls Church, Virginia. Yates delivered this message at the investiture of David Hanke as rector of Restoration Anglican Church in Arlington.
| Poster | Thread |
|---|---|
| 1928BCP4Me | Posted: 2010/2/3 17:00 Updated: 2010/2/3 17:00 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/11/4 From: Posts: 26 |
Sir, I too remember when one could be proud to be Episcopalian. However, when we started using the 1979 BCP it ruined a once great church. By the way, ever wondered what happened to all those hippies and draft dodgers? They are now the House of Bishops.
|
| JAndrews | Posted: 2010/2/3 19:43 Updated: 2010/2/3 19:43 |
Not too shy to talk ![]() ![]() Joined: 2009/8/15 From: Posts: 35 |
These are each all wonderful things for a church to be. And I think Anglican churches should strive to be all of these. But I would like to see it demonstrated better that they have all been part of the tradition of Anglicanism.
For example, "charismatic," and "all the gifts." Personally, I probably "speak in tongues more than all of you", and I won't hide that I pray for a tongues/healing/prophecy revival in the Church, especially the Anglican church, constantly. However, that has only been part of Anglicanism after the Charismatic renewal. It's a good thing and should happen, but it's not part of "the tradition." Yet. But to make it part of the tradition, we have to start by understanding the tradition we've got. That was very incoherent but I hope I made my point clear :) |
| Kent_Wms | Posted: 2010/2/6 16:50 Updated: 2010/2/6 16:53 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/2/4 From: Arlington, VA Posts: 101 |
Joseph651,
Quote: 1. The Catholic Church alone upholds the canon of Holy Scripture as consisting of 73 books. The canon of both testaments was finalized in three Catholic Church councils over 1000 years before Martin Luther was even born. These 73 books were in the first Bible containing a New Testament, the Latin Vulgate, by Saint Jerome. The Catholic Church uses all 73 of these books even to today. Please educate me: To Which councils are you referring? Ecumenical? Provincial? I am aware of Augustine and the decrees of the provincial Councils of Carthage and Hippo about the books of the Apocrypha, but as provincial councils, they had no authority to speak for the church as a whole. Given that Jerome refused to translate the Apocrypha because they were not inspired (Against Rufinus, written in AD 401-402) and there is no evidence that he ever changed his mind, I am not sure why you appeal to Jerome to build your assertion about the question of how many books are in the New Testament. Tho the Vulgate may include the Apocrypha, it is not because Jerome thought they were of the standing as other 66 books. Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's opponent, shared the opinion that Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, "are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose," --Cajetan, Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. It was not till the counter-reformation (i.e., Trent) that the Roman Catholic Church officially defined its canon of what is God-breathed. In Christ grace and mercy, -Kent |
| artistree | Posted: 2010/2/9 0:06 Updated: 2010/2/9 0:08 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/2/16 From: Lake Tomahawk Wisconsin Posts: 410 |
Dear Kent,
Th entire Church until the time of Jerome used the Septuagint as their Old Testament, including the Apostles. The Greek Septuagint contains all of the deurtero-canonical books. There are more than 300 quotes within the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers in which these men quote from these books, claiming them are Scripture. It was Jerome, without permission from the Pope, when he was given the task of translating the Old Testament into the Latin Vulgate, who was suckered by the Jews to use the Masoretic Text instead of the Septuagint. When he moved to Bethleham to study, he decided to ditch the Greek in favor of the Hebrew Maoretic. Augustine was extremely critical of Jerome for doing this. The Latin Vulgate was resisted by most of the Church because it was not based on the Bible of the Apostles, the Septuagint, but eventually, because of other historical events, became the offical translation of the Western Church. Jerome was wrong and Augustine was right and the Pope made a big mistake by allowing this to happen because now our Old Testaments do not, in large, match up with our New Testaments when the New quotes the Old. We should go back the the Septuagint as the base for our Old Testament translations, the same Bible that the Apostles used and which cantains all of the books. It was the Jews who threw out the books in question around 100 AD, not the Christians.Your Bible should contain all of the books...they are pure treasure to read and live by. St. Paul quotes by paraphrase, very heavily from these books in question...you should too. Blessings, Br. Artistree |
| Kent_Wms | Posted: 2010/2/20 22:17 Updated: 2010/2/20 22:26 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/2/4 From: Arlington, VA Posts: 101 |
Artistree,
With all due respect to the Apostolic and the Ante-Nicene Fathers, their writings are not God-breathed, i.e., not revelation from God. As such, any assertions they make must be arrived at by reasoning from recorded revelation, i.e., Scripture. Though the Apostles quoted from various books in the LXX, it does not follow that every book that the LXX group included were viewed as Scripture. BTW, mere quoting does not establish something as Scripture, since the Jesus and the Apostles quoted other sources outside of LXX as well. They distinguished Scripture by such phrases as "It is written" and "thus says the Lord." Jerome made it clear what he thought the Church of his day thought about the Apocrypha: CCEL -- NPNF, Vol. 6, St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jeromes Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel Quote: "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." Jerome refused to translate the Deuterocanonical books because the books were not part of the Hebrew canon nor what the Church considered Scripture. His position was that of Athanasius CCEL - Anthanasius Paschal Letter 39, verse 7 Quote: But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these [39 OT Books] not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. I don't know what of Augustine's writings you are referring to, but who is right about which writings are God-breathed and therefore serve as The Rule ( for defining and measuring doctrine? Augustine or Athanasius? The Apocrypha, errors and all, may serve to edify the Church, just not serve to define her doctrines (e.g., Purgatory). In Christ's grace and mercy, -Kent |
| artistree | Posted: 2010/2/22 2:22 Updated: 2010/2/22 2:24 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/2/16 From: Lake Tomahawk Wisconsin Posts: 410 |
Dear Kent,
St. Paul said that the Old Testament Septuagint was inspired and God Breathed, the version of the Bible that Timothy was raised on and all the Apostles who wrote New Testament Epistiles quote from. Since the Septuagint contains all the books of the Old Testament. I must hold to the Canon that St. Paul said is Inspired. You should too. The vast majority of Christians have always held these books to be inspired. By the way, these books in no way support the doctrine of purgatory. Blessings, Artistree Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-22 |
| Kent_Wms | Posted: 2010/2/22 10:44 Updated: 2010/2/22 10:44 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/2/4 From: Arlington, VA Posts: 101 |
Artistree,
I do accept the canon that I think that Paul said is inspired. I know Paul said that Scripture was inspired. I think we are in agreement on that point. The question is what did Paul mean by the term scripture: 1. Which books did he mean by the term? 2. Does the term include the translations and copies as well as the autographs of whichever books are in the answer to #1? If you are up to answering the questions, please help me by providing the citations of the evidence you are presenting. With respect to purgatory, I am aware that the RCC apologists dating back to Eck have referred to 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 as proof that purgatory exists. In Christ's grace and mercy, -Kent |
| artistree | Posted: 2010/2/22 23:22 Updated: 2010/2/22 23:22 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/2/16 From: Lake Tomahawk Wisconsin Posts: 410 |
Dear Kent
I think the real issue that has to be delt with is the question of which version of the Bible the Apostles used; the Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic Text, or possibly the Aramaic Targums, or another Hebrew text no longer in existence. The Deutercanonical books are a secondary issue. I have a simple test for you to take with your Bible at the end of this post to answer this question, to see if you are using the correct Old Testament. The key NT text regarding concerning this question is based on II Timothy 3:14-17 14 "But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Questions: 1. Which version of the Bible would Timothy have been raised on ? The Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic ? Since Timothy lived outside Palestine and his father was Greek, it is almost certain that Timothy had been raised learning the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. Very few people except for scribes and the priests could read Hebrew. 2. Which version of the Bible was Paul speaking of ,in context, when he said that all Scripture is inspired ? Certainly he was speaking of the Greek Version of the Old Testament since that is the Bible that Timothy had been raised on in the Greek speaking world where he lived. So again, Paul says that the Greek Septuigint is inspired. 3. Did the version of the Bible which Paul says is inspired contain the Deutrocanonical books of the Bible ? Everyone knows the answer to this question is Yes; The Septuagint contains all the books of the Bible, including the books that the Jews later removed. Note that Paul did NOT say, "All Scripture which you have learned from your youth is given by inspiration of God, except for books x,y, & z ". We can be certain that when Timothy read Paul's letter he assumed with good reason, that Paul meant the entire Greek Old Testament that he had learned from childhood, not just a portion of that Greek Old Testament Bible. If there is any question as to which version of the Bible Paul was speaking of when he said that Scripture is inspired, all we must do is test to see which version of the OT he quoted from when he wrote his epistles. Heres a simple test; look up Romans 2:24. In Romans 2:24 Paul quotes Isaiah 52: 5. Compare the two. Does the quote in Romans 2:24 read the same as Isaiah 52:5 in your Bible ? If the answer is no, they do not read the same, then which answer do you give: 1. Isaiah is not accurate and contains an error 2. Paul quotes inaccurately and therefore made a mistake. 3. The Old Testament version which you are using is incorrect. Lets do this same type of test on a larger scale including other authors of the NT using your Bible both Old and New Testaments. We will compare OT quotes in the NT with their counterparts in your Protestant OT. Look up these few texts ( I'll keep the list short, but long enough to make my point) We're trying to find out if the texts read the same, which they should if the NT writer is quoting correctly. Hebrews 1:6 ---- Deuteronomy 32:43 Hebrews 10:5----Psalm 40:6 Hebrews 11:21-----Genesis 47:31 Hebrews 13:6 -------Psalm 118:6 1 Peter 2:22--------Isaiah 53:9 1 Peter 4;18 ---------- Proverbs 11:31 Luke 4:17-19----------Isaiah 61:1-2 John 6:30,31 --------Psalm 7824 Acts 7:14 -------- Genesis 46:27 Now, if you are using the correct Old Testament, these comparative texts should read the same.... if both texts are inspired and without error. So here is my question to you: If your Bible does not read the same, how do you explain the differences in the quotes ? If you insist on your claim that the Protestant Old Testament is correct and without error, then do you admit that the NT writers are in error in misquoting the OT ? How do you explain that the Septuagint Greek Old Testament reads basically the same when the NT writers quote the Old Testament ? Does that not imply that the Apostles, and Jesus, used the Septuagint when they quoted Scripture ? Yet you say that Christians should not use the Greek version of the Old Testament but use the Protestant OT instead. On what basis should we reject the Bible that the Apostles approved ? By the way, Roman Catholics also use the Masoretic Old Testament text in their translations of Old Testament, although they retained the deutro-canonical books. The Jews coned Jerome into using the Masoretic Text in his translation of the Vulgate. I am an Anglican, but I use the Eastern Orthodox Greek Old Testament English translation for my Old Testament. ( Orthodox Study Bible, and I use the NETS ...New English Translation of the Septuigint). blessings, Artistree |
| Kent_Wms | Posted: 2010/2/24 1:51 Updated: 2010/2/24 1:51 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/2/4 From: Arlington, VA Posts: 101 |
Artistree,
Your test proves what is not in dispute: Jesus and the Apostles used a Greek translation of texts that were originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic. In fact it is clear that in some cases the New Testament writers used wording from, or ideas unique to, the Septuagint. Questions: Quote: 1. Which version of the Bible would Timothy have been raised on ? The Greek Septuagint, or the Hebrew Masoretic ? Since Timothy lived outside Palestine and his father was Greek, it is almost certain that Timothy had been raised learning the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. Very few people except for scribes and the priests could read Hebrew. Answer 1. Timothy would most likely have been taught the Scriptures in Greek. That is not to say that he was taught that all Greek translations of Hebrew/Aramaic religious works were Scripture. Did you really mean to ask if Timothy would have learn from the Masoretic Text – a work that did not exist until the 7th century? Quote: 2. Which version of the Bible was Paul speaking of ,in context, when he said that all Scripture is inspired ? Certainly he was speaking of the Greek Version of the Old Testament since that is the Bible that Timothy had been raised on in the Greek speaking world where he lived. So again, Paul says that the Greek Septuigint [sic] is inspired. Answer 2. Paul, having learned the Scriptures in Hebrew as well as Greek, was referring to the original writings as given by God’s inspiration, not translations – particularly since there were variants in the LXX. This question illustrates where you make an error by equating the LXX which a collection of translated religious materials on numerous scrolls with a subset of its contents: part to the whole fallacy. Very much like having a Scofield study bible, and treating to the entire bound collection, notes and all, as the Word of God. Most of it is, just not all of it – some people don’t know, or can’t tell, the difference. Quote: 3. Did the version of the Bible which Paul says is inspired contain the Deutrocanonical [sic] books of the Bible? Everyone knows the answer to this question is Yes; The Septuagint contains all the books of the Bible, including the books that the Jews later removed. Answer 3. You have answered your own question. However, NT writers did not use the term Septuagint, but rather scrolls, books, and parchment. You have not shown that the collection of writings that we refer to as the Septuagint was, as a whole, considered Scripture. Part of it, yes, but not all of it. The fact that the Apostles and the early Church made use of Greek translations of Scripture to teach and learn does not equate to ascribing scriptural status to every item contained in whatever collection of Jewish religious and historical writings that were translated into Greek along with those items that were regarded as Scripture. Quote: Note that Paul did NOT say, "All Scripture which you have learned from your youth is given by inspiration of God, except for books x,y, & z ". Agreed. Not in dispute. We disagree on which scrolls and books Paul meant when he used the term Scripture. If we take your reasoning, that because Timothy could only be said to learn Scripture if he learned it directly from those writings that were truly inspired, then non-(Koine) Greek speakers have a problem, because we can’t learn the Scriptures from a translation of the Scriptures, but only from the “real” versions of the Scriptures that are inspired. Do you see the difficulty of your position? If Greek speakers couldn’t learn the Scriptures from a translation that was not God-breathed, then neither can English speakers learn the Scriptures from an English translation of the Greek! Quote: If there is any question as to which version of the Bible Paul was speaking of when he said that Scripture is inspired, all we must do is test to see which version of the OT he quoted from when he wrote his epistles. It is anachronistic to speak of a version of the Old Testament during Jesus’s day. There were books/scrolls – lots of them. Some considered as Scripture and treated as such, others were respected but not considered “the Word of the Lord.” Just to show that I did take your test. BTW, let us be careful not to apply our accuracy standards of today for reporting history and quoting passages of Scripture to the writers of the New Testament 2000 years ago. They did not have copies of Scripture sitting on their shelves. Often quotes, for lack of a better term, were memory joggers and often summarized the intent of the passages being referenced. When numbers are used, they may be comparative, rounded, approximate, hyperbole, or may have been figured using different methods. Each passage has to be examined in context. ====================================================== Romans 2:24 Quote: For just as it is written, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” Isaiah 52: 5 Quote: And now, what do we have here?” says the Lord. “Indeed my people have been carried away for nothing, those who rule over them taunt,” says the Lord, “and my name is constantly slandered all day long. ================================================== Hebrews 1:6 Quote: But when he again brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him!” Ps 97:7 Quote: All who worship idols are ashamed, those who boast about worthless idols. All the gods bow down before him. ============================ Hebrews 10:5 Quote: So when he came into the world, he said, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me Psalm 40:6 Quote: Receiving sacrifices and offerings are not your primary concern. You make that quite clear to me! You do not ask for burnt sacrifices and sin offerings. ============================ Hebrews 11:21 Quote: By faith Jacob, as he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph and worshiped as he leaned on his staff Genesis 47:31 Quote: Jacob said, “Swear to me that you will do so.” So Joseph gave him his word. Then Israel bowed down at the head of his bed. ============================ Hebrews 13:6 Quote: So we can say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper, and I will not be afraid. What can man do to me? ” Psalm 118:6 Quote: The Lord is on my side, I am not afraid! What can people do to me? ============================ 1 Peter 2:22 Quote: He committed no sin nor was deceit found in his mouth. Isaiah 53:9 Quote: They intended to bury him with criminals, but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb, because he had committed no violent deeds, nor had he spoken deceitfully ============================ 1 Peter 4:18 Quote: And if the righteous are barely saved, what will become of the ungodly and sinners? Proverbs 11:31 Quote: If the righteous are recompensed on earth, how much more the wicked sinner! The LXX introduces a new idea: “If the righteous be scarcely saved” ============================ Luke 4:17-19 Quote: and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” A quotation from Isa 61:1-2a. Within the citation is a line from Isa 58:6, with its reference to setting the oppressed free. Isaiah 61:1-2 Quote: The spirit of the sovereign Lord is upon me, because the Lord has chosen me. He has commissioned me to encourage the poor, to help the brokenhearted, to decree the release of captives, and the freeing of prisoners, to announce the year when the Lord will show his favor, the day when our God will seek vengeance, to console all who mourn, Isaiah 58:6 Quote: No, this is the kind of fast I want. I want you to remove the sinful chains, to tear away the ropes of the burdensome yoke, to set free the oppressed, and to break every burdensome yoke. ============================ John 6:30,31 Quote: So they said to him, “Then what miraculous sign will you perform, so that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our ancestors 1 ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Psalm 78:24 Quote: He rained down manna for them to eat; he gave them the grain of heaven. ============================ Acts 7:14 Quote: So Joseph sent a message 1 and invited 2 his father Jacob and all his relatives to come, seventy-five people 3 in all. Genesis 46:27 Quote: Counting the two sons 1 of Joseph who were born to him in Egypt, all the people of the household of Jacob who were in Egypt numbered seventy ================ whew! In Christ's grace and mercy, -Kent |















