Why Sunday

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

It is only your confused, circular, ignorant fantasy that the Ten Commandments atr called the “old covenant”.

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith,
A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

You are missing consistently the same thing Paul's detractors missed. You think removal of the law means acceptance and allowance for sin. No. You miss the point as Esaias does that the problem with Law was not the Law. It was man's sin. And the METHOD of taking sinful men and making them merely refuse to sin and instead obey DOES NOT WORK. It works on paper alone. ANd by the same token, you confuse what it means to walk after the flesh as though it does not INCLUDE self making self-righteous through obedient works. the entire concept you overlook is that Law is good, but the method and serving manner of law makes it not work. You miss the entire concept that I presented in my thread about walking after the flesh being law-keeping.

[mfblume]

I notice you shifted the goalpost there from Jeremiah and Hebrews to Romans. I said Jeremiah said nothing about ability, you denied that and promptly left Jeremiah in the dust. That's a common tactic I've seen with antisabbatarians. They get pinned on a point or scripture and jump to another as if nobody will notice what just happened.

I am using no tactic as though I am distracting. Hebrews 8 quoted Jer 31. And the entire point of irresistible compulsion to sin is what Romans is about in chapters 6 through 8.

I did not leave Jeremiah in the dust. I showed how the alternate reading in Hebrews 8 reveals his thoughts, and how it must be understood as I explained due to the overall message of Romans 6-8.

Pinned on a point? LOL

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are missing consistently the same thing Paul's detractors missed. You think removal of the law means acceptance and allowance for sin. No. You miss the point as Esaias does that the problem with Law was not the Law. It was man's sin. And the METHOD of taking sinful men and making them merely refuse to sin and instead obey DOES NOT WORK. It works on paper alone. ANd by the same token, you confuse what it means to walk after the flesh as though it does not INCLUDE self making self-righteous through obedient works. the entire concept you overlook is that Law is good, but the method and serving manner of law makes it not work. You miss the entire concept that I presented in my thread about walking after the flesh being law-keeping.

Why not answer my post?
Your straw man argumentation is boorish and worthless.

Originally Posted by mfblume

No, it's 2 Corinthians 3.
Do you agree there were two old covenants between Ex 19 and Ex 20??

You have to specifically show the Decalogue being called the Old Covenant. Your false claim.

There is a covenant in Exodus 19 which becomes then “old covenant” in the context of Hebrews 8. By 70 AD the Temple is destroyed and Heb 8:13 is fulfilled.

The NT is consistently affirming the 10 Commandments.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Why not answer my post?

I thought I did.

You have to specifically show the Decalogue being called the Old Covenant.

It's called the ministration of death that was abolished in 2 Cor 3:13 because, as I said, Paul wrote of the engraving on tables of stones ( ten commandments) that was "done away," and spoke of the glory on Moses' face, which he had when he carried the ten commandments, fading away to illustrate that. And since the old covenant was said to vanish away in Heb 8, and that is the same thing as fading away and being done away or abolished, then it's the old covenant. Your exact-term theology is avoiding the obvious synonymous nature of the terms actually used.

There is a covenant in Exodus 19 which becomes then “old covenant” in the context of Hebrews 8. By 70 AD the Temple is destroyed and Heb 8:13 is fulfilled.

So the "covenant of Ex 20 is not the covenant of Ex 19, and only one of them is vanished according to Heb 8???

By the way, the vanishing away did not happen for any of it in AD70. It happened in Jeremiah's day as soon as Jeremiah wrote the words NEW COVENANT back in his day. It's from the perspective of his day, not the day Henbrews 8 was written.

Show me where and how my words are a strawman argument.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

You can often tell how fundamental and important is a Bible belief by noticing how convoluted and shifty and illogical are the arguments marshaled in opposition.

You wish. If you'd actually read my full posts instead of thinking you already saw those points earlier, you would not honestly say that. When you get done patting each others' backs, we can dialogue!

The New Testament affirms the RIGHTEOUSNESS of the commandments.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I am using no tactic as though I am distracting. Hebrews 8 quoted Jer 31. And the entire point of irresistible compulsion to sin is what Romans is about in chapters 6 through 8.

I did not leave Jeremiah in the dust. I showed how the alternate reading in Hebrews 8 reveals his thoughts, and how it must be understood as I explained due to the overall message of Romans 6-8.

Pinned on a point? LOL

The simple truth is Jeremiah said nothing about ability or inability. Ability and inability are an INTERPRETATION YOU DERIVE FROM ROMANS, NOT THE WORDS OF JEREMIAH. My original point on this was that you said Jeremiah taught inability, which is observably false: Jeremiah said nothing about ability or inability.

Romans does not tell us what Jeremiah SAID. Going to Romans to prove inability does NOTHING to prove the proposition "Jeremiah talked about inability." It is literally IRRELEVANT to THAT proposition.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You miss the point as Esaias does that the problem with Law was not the Law. It was man's sin.

That's funny, because that has been almost the ENTIRE BASIS of my disagreements with you concerning the 4th commandment. I most certainly do not "miss the point that the law's problem is man, not the law itself." The law can identify what is sin (like Sabbath breaking) but cannot make anyone do or be anything. Like a dictionary, it defines the words but can't make anyone speak correctly.

The cross, however, produces what the law could not. It causes idolaters to give up their idolatry, it causes thieves to stop stealing and restore, it causes haters to quit hating, and yes it causes Sabbath breakers to quit breaking the Sabbath.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You keep forgetting that the 4th commandment is not violated by keeping it spiritually and resting in Christ, but fuflilled. Let's at least try to remember that after so many weeks of it being emphasized.

Can you remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, doing your work on the other 6 days and not doing your work on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, "spiritually", while NOT remembering the Sabbath day to keep it holy, while doing work on that day instead of the other six?

If you can, then you can honour your father and mother, "spiritually", while not actually doing anything for them.

[Esaias]

I have read literally REAMS of pages "explaining" why a person doesn't have to get baptised to be saved. But it all gets refuted with two very simple observations:

1. The Bible never speaks the way the antibaptism crowd speaks (no "pray Jesus into your heart", or "accept Jesus as your personal lord and saviour", and no "baptism doesn't save you").

2. The Bible says the exact opposite to what the antibaptists say ("baptism doth also now save us", etc).

Short and simple and SOLID proof the antibaptists are flat wrong. No need to get bogged down and lost in the volume of words.

I find the same to be true with antisabbatarian arguments. Funny about that.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You wish. If you'd actually read my full posts

All 500 convoluted rambling, repetitive dodgeball posts?