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.
There you go again...why are you posting all of this when we have not even discussed it?
I'm revisiting this post for the second sentence. What commandments are you saying everyone says we can disregard? If it's the famous 10, what don't you understand about the covenant has changed, more like totally replaced?
Because it gives you the opportunity to discuss it.
You are correct about the New Covenant being a higher standard of conduct.
Therefore, the two covenants cannot be one and the same.
Nice work!
.
I don't think so. You claimed quotes. compare the passages. They aren't the same. You seem to be doing three things here which are violations of the rules you said you would go by.You asked a question. I answered it. It proved you wrong. Now you don't like the answer. SMH
You're free to tell us what BABerean2 missed.It is not different in that respect, it is expanded. It is still the base. I really think you need to read Jeremiah 31-33 with open eyes. Of course things have changed, I have never said differently. I mean there is no Temple so of course those laws can not be fulfilled as many others can't be.
You're free to tell us what BABerean2 missed.
I don't think so. You claimed quotes. compare the passages. They aren't the same. You seem to be doing three things here which are violations of the rules you said you would go by.
I don't think BABerean2 miss interpreted anything. You're the one with the objection.you are free to tell us how it has been mis-interpreted or whatever you claimed perviously
Sorry but I never said nor implied such. You said quotes, not me. I asked you about the context and even commented on it. Your claim is Jesus is promoting the law when in conversation Jesus said something similar. You're reaching for anything to prove there's only one covenant contrary to Jeremiah and only coming up empty.Not at all! You just disagree with the truth before you so you claim their meanings are not the same, which at their root are...
I don't think BABerean2 miss interpreted anything. You're the one with the objection.
Sorry but I never said nor implied such. You said quotes, not me. I asked you about the context and even commented on it. Your claim is Jesus is promoting the law when in conversation Jesus said something similar. You're reaching for anything to prove there's only one covenant contrary to Jeremiah and only coming up empty.
I asked you what BABerean2 missed. It doesn't matter if I said the same thing because I agree with BABerean2. So if you want to say I said it first what did I miss?YOU were the one that said it originally so stop trying to switch it to myself and BABerean2.
Claim anything you like. A claim doesn't make something true.Absolutely you did AND you are still doing it...they are the same context...from the law. You are blind and I am not going to waste any more time on your posts...all you want to do is argue.
I asked you what BABerean2 missed. It doesn't matter if I said the same thing because I agree with BABerean2. So if you want to say I said it first what did I miss?
Claim anything you like. A claim doesn't make something true.
If you want to tell us what Jeremiah 31 means so we can both be on the same page, please do.You didn't say the same thing. I said the same thing to you both. You said Jeremiah 31 was misinterpreted so I keep asking YOU what was misinterpreted and you keep deflecting!
Your claim is what you posted are really the OT passages by quote. I showed they aren't and talked about context which you refuse to acknowledge.You asked me to post NT and I did. It is simple for anyone who can read and understand the same context...except you...you just need to argue
It is not different in that respect, it is expanded. It is still the base. I really think you need to read Jeremiah 31-33 with open eyes. Compare that to Matthew 5:17-18 . Of course things have changed, I have never said differently. I mean there is no Temple so of course those laws can not be fulfilled as many others can't be. Here is a video for you
How do you deal with the verses below?
Heb 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
.
.....and I'd like to try to clarify some of these arguments.You're reaching for anything to prove there's only one covenant contrary to Jeremiah and only coming up empty.
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?