I wonder what the curve for that looks like.
If you think Rust has zero rough edges you might have drunk too much kool aid.
In the future all emails and messages will have to include at least one element of offensiveness to prove you are not AI.
OP is a homo.
So then animal sacrifice is meant to be continued by Christians? The "did not come to abolish but fulfill" thing is really an explanation for abolishment. He didn't destroy the law but completed it, so it's done. And by law we basically mean Leviticus. So yes, Leviticus pretty much is irrelevant. By your argument and the argument embedded in OPs post Christians should still be stoning women and not eating pork.
How can you know which chapter of Matthew starts the sermon on the mount and not know pretty much the most core concept in Christian theology? Like that is almost the whole central point of Jesus is that he abolished the law by fulfilling it. That and salvation. That's like the two things.
Of course then why doesn't Israel do this?
They are ok with that.
decicelsisus. It would only be 0.1kC when water is boiling. That's not very fun.
Exactly. And you aren't a terrorist after you win your country back. That's like the British partnering with America to fight terrorism being ironic because of George Washington. Different era is different era. Whether people like it or not the Taliban run an actual government.
Is one of them Israel and other foreign governments? Also Pfizer?
Then for one day for no reason at all the cyber trucks rose up and...
I think that cuck's name is Whistlin Diesel.
It also doesn't make much sense in the particular context considering on a genetic level Palestinians are as Semitic as modern Ashkenazi jews. And it doesn't make much sense from a religious stand point because modern Judaism differs from ancient Judaism by about the same amount as Christianity or Islam does. Modern Judaism just has this dogma that Ancient Judaism was secretly observing their form of it even though if we don't take them at their word there isn't a lot of evidence of that.
So from a religious standpoint it doesn't make a lot of sense. And from an ethnic standpoint it makes even less sense.
And also we don't let Europeans say "these are our ethnic lands" without calling them racist. So then why would we let people who are like 2% ethnic ancient jewish retroactively claim ethnic ownership of some land without calling them racist? They will claim it's not about race and about religion. Ok, which is worse, a group of highly militant ethno-nationalists, or a group of highly militant theo-nationalists? Zionists are always one of two bad things and they will use arguments to play wackamole about which one to deflect the claims of one. Apparently if you are two bad things at once and it is unclear if you are both or just one of those things you get unlimited license to be both of those bad things.