Because Jesus did not say He fulfilled Abraham's covenant, Jesus said He fulfilled all of the Law. And the Law is the Old Covenant, which is talked about in Jeremiah 31:33 and the New Covenant that God would be makinig with them to replace the Old Covenant.
You have missed my point or again, I have failed to explain it properly. You asked, in essence, why I can say we are children of God NOW and still not fully be in the covenant described in Jer. 31 and Heb. 8. My answer is to say that Abraham was a child of God but many aspects of the covenant made with him not only didn't happen in his lifetime... they still haven't happened in OURS.
Why would we want to read the Old Testament every Saturday when it is all a shadow to the grand orchestra, Jesus Christ!
We are to walk like Abraham, which is by faith. I already spoke concerning this in my first response, but you would not listen. Walking by faith is only by hoping and believing things that are not yet realized but promised. This is the law of faith Paul spoke of. As strangers and sojourners in this world and this life. Israel already attained under Moses and Joshua the first covenant promised land.
I was actually quoting Scripture. But, again, OK.
Have a great life and be blessed.
OH, I though we were supposed to walk like Jesus walked, which was also by faith. By the way, Genesis 26:5 says Abraham kept the law and commandments... so perhaps our modern definition of faith (which we treat like belief but is really hear God and do what He says) needs adjusting. In any event... be well...
In light of Hebrews 8:13 I don't understand how the renewed covenant argument can be valid. The numerals 1 and 2 are completely different.
It could be because you don't accept Luke 24:44 as true. It's a statement directly related to Matthew 5:17-18. Here's the text:
G3501 neos/nehos includes the word regenerate in its definition which would convey renew. G2537 kainos does not. The definition for kainos includes: unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of, neos doesn't. To say both convey the same is error even though the word "new" appears in both definitions. Greek needs no discussion to what is meant. English does when a technical point is being made especially for words with less letters. For instance consider the word "go."
It's impossible for Abraham to have kept the law issued at Mt Sinai because it came 430 years after him (Galatians 3:17). Besides that Moses says it wasn't given to him in Deuteronomy 5:3.
Your statement is true. However it seems you wish to delete the NT we call Scripture. With no NT there's no such thing as redemption/salvation.
Any male joining the covenant given to Israel has to be circumcised and no longer is a stranger but as one born in the land (a Jew). See Exodus 12:48. So the whole argument about there being a mixed multitude at Mt Sinai is an error. Moses wrote God said "call the children of Israel." There's never anything about a mixed multitude being called.
You refusing Luke 24:44 as truth right along with other evidence in the NT that indeed Jeremiah 31:31-33 is fulfilled and we currently have that new covenant.
No pro gracer here promotes immoral activity that I've read. If you care to check this is only promoted by the law contingency.
You take a historical statement to be a command to attend the synagogue. Do you attend a Jewish synagogue? If so do they preach Jesus as Messiah? Be honest.
