Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
impossibleVery true. The Covenant has the same LAW of God - as known to Jeremiah - but under the NEW Covenant it is written on the heart and mind.
Which means it is "STILL wrong to take God's name in vain" EVEN under the New Covenant.
As we all know... and indeed very obvious.
You asked for the verse. My consideration is based on the full sentence found in 3 verses.It looks like you are only looking at the one verse, verse 32and taking it completely out of context. He said it is different because He takes His Law and places it on our minds and hearts. Y'all do this with fullfilled in Matthew 5 you stop at fullfill and fill in the blanks with some bizarre doctrine that is not even within the context of the passage. Why do you do this? The context explains what the meaning of the passage.
True but the second covenant called the new covenant is open to the whole world without subscribing to Judaism.Both Covenants are for Israel
Yes it is. Trouble starts here when lots of Bible is either deleted, words defined to explain away the truth or disbelieved. Not a single one of your verses indicate continuance of the covenant given to Israel in the desert.This thread is about the decalogue being done away with. As in made irrelevant, isnt it?
Original post....
Jesus lived a perfect life adhering to the Law and died for our sins. That sounds fulfilling.
John 14:15
Romans 6:1
Matthew 5:17-20
Matthew 5-7
These verses tell me that the decalogue isnt irrelevent. Thats what im saying.
You dont like that?
Nope, you have yet to show any proof in context.You've been told and refuse to listen or believe.
God does nothing that he doesnt reveal to his prophets first, so where did the Prophets speak of one coming to abolish the laws of God. Fulfill can also mean to come and show how it was to be lived.This thread is about the decalogue being done away with. As in made irrelevant, isnt it?
Original post....
Jesus lived a perfect life adhering to the Law and died for our sins. That sounds fulfilling.
John 14:15
Romans 6:1
Matthew 5:17-20
Matthew 5-7
These verses tell me that the decalogue isnt irrelevent. Thats what im saying.
You dont like that?
I am starting to think you just plunk things out of the Bible without reading the context.I give you the verse from the Old Testament that tells us God would do away with Torah and you come up with this lame excuse. Oy! I have already posted 2Cor 3: 7-11 as proof that the 10 commandments were temporary. I am coming to believe that no matter if Jesus himself came and gave you the real Word straight from His mouth you would not accept it.
I could only imagine what would have happened to Paul if he was going around teaching the 10C's were only temporary, im sure that would have went really well back then lol . They wanted to kill him for teaching the commandments, so one could only image him saying dont worry about them now and how they would have reacted.I am starting to think you just plunk things out of the Bible without reading the context.
Please read the context and you will understand the meaning.
“Therefore I will return and take away
My grain in its time
And My new wine in its season,
And will take back My wool and My linen,
Given to cover her nakedness.
10 Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers,
And no one shall deliver her from My hand.
11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease,
Her feast days,
Her New Moons,
Her Sabbaths—
All her appointed feasts.
12 “And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees,
Of which she has said,
‘These are my wages that my lovers have given me.’
So I will make them a forest,
And the beasts of the field shall eat them.
13 I will punish her
For the days of the Baals to which she burned incense.
She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry,
And went after her lovers;
But Me she forgot,” says the Lord
Feel like we are going in a full circle now. Gentiles are grafted into Israel.Absolutely. Your idea is gentiles are excluded at least unless they submit to the previous covenant. Acts shows this is not true. Chapter 15 is all the proof necessary. You still might say no. Then I ask which, if any gentile was required to keep the law for salvation? Please quote the appropriate passage.
bugkiller
Thank you. Thats exactly what i mean with the scripture that i was referencing that we werent supposed to do that, thats all. thanks SAAN. Hope you other guys have fun debating, peaceIf I said im not here to abolish the traffic laws but to fulfill them, would that mean im here to show you how to obey them or say you can now run stop signs, red lights, and go 40mph over the limit. Its very clear what the context of fulfill Jesus was trying to use.
Chadasha (Hebrew) - renew or make right repairYou think of the word "new" as repeat. Simply not what it says. It says "not according to.." It does not say move the covenant. The "my law in v 33 can not be the same law covenant issued at Sinai. The NT is proof of this.
bugkiller
You come to that conclusion even with these context clues(bold are the context clues)? Fullfilled means to do the things written of Him in the law and prophets. I think He is pretty convincing that the way you understand it is the way He did NOT want us to understand it.I have no idea why you think v 32 is being taken out of context. I also have no idea why you think the word "fulfilled" is being abused. Fulfill is defined as -
to meet the requirements of: to bring to an end
bugkiller
Someone can't just take a sentence out of the Bible and make it say what they want it to say to fit their thology. They have to use the context, time, place, who it is written to and about. Please read the book of Jerimiah and you will see more clearly or better yet get a chronological Bible and read it all. Just a suggestion, it helped me to better understand prophecy.You asked for the verse. My consideration is based on the full sentence found in 3 verses.
When the electric company sends a notice of shut off would you fluff it off as something out of context?I am starting to think you just plunk things out of the Bible without reading the context.
When the electric company sends a notice of shut off would you fluff it off as something out of context?
Then I gave you 2Cor3:7-11 and you still refuse to comment on what it is telling us. Why are you refusing to comment on a passage of the Holy Writ that tells us the 10 commandments were temporary?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?