Search results

Um, no, I didn’t. You are again employing the fallacy of anachronism… and your closing sentence makes no sense.

The Torah is more than the Mosaic Law. Irrelevant and totally missing the point. The word "only" is not there. You're adding to Scripture... again. No, it is not. There isn't a single verse that connects obeying the terms of the Sinai covenant with believing in Jesus. No, by doing so we...

No, a straw man (argument) is a simplified misrepresentation of an argument. My statement is straightforward. Wrong; the Mosaic covenant has no bearing whatsoever on Jacob's actions. Your argument is a fallacy of anachronism.

The obvious end to your argument is that Christians must still attend the temple three times a year and make physical sacrifices through a priest. You're either under the whole Sinai covenant, or none of it.

Jeremiah doesn't say "Mosaic". Let's not be adding to God's word. Given my point above, your point falls flat. If I make a contract with one person, and a different contract with another person, is the second person bound to the terms of the first contract? No. In the same way, the Mosaic law...

That means you believe all Christians (males, anyway) must be circumcised, for to partake of the Passover Lamb (Jesus), one must, in your view, be circumcised. Your error is that you don't rightly discern between the old (Sinai) covenant and the covenant in Christ's blood. They are DISTINCT...

There is no reconciliation for sin other than the crucifixion… nor will there be.

Recently, I’ve been listening to many YouTube videos of Pacific naval encounters during WWII, one of which is story of the Franklin. That background knowledge made your story all the more interesting. Thanks your sharing. If anyone is interested, the YT channel is called ‘Drachinifel’ and the...

Happy Incarnation Celebration to all! Yeah… ‘Merry Christmas’ is easier to say. 😊

While she certainly did much good through her mission work, His absence from her life is alarming. I read somewhere that she wasn't even certain that she was saved. That's just sad.

It seems that many people read the word "angel" and assign certain characteristics instead of taking the word at its simplest meaning: messenger. "Angel" is a role, not an identity. So having the pre-incarnate Jesus appear in the role of a messenger from the Father is legitimate. It neither...

You seem to be confusing one ordinance with the Law as a whole. Physical circumcision was required under the Law, but it was given to Abram and his household before that. It was codified under the Sinai covenant. Jesus did not "change" any part of the Sinai covenant. He explained it more fully...

During the time of Jesus' ministry on Earth, the Jews were still under the Law. Jesus' message was about the Law to those for whom the Law was relevant. He wasn't saying anything about "no longer"; that came after His death and resurrection. Rather, He was basically saying, "You think the law is...

Matthew 5: 17 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." That is not "Christ changed nothing of the OT". Jesus is contrasting the letter of the Law with the spirit of the Law. The Pharisees enforced the letter...

Are you certain that "head" here means "authority"?

The New Testament books were written in Greek, and elohim is a Hebrew word.

Outside of a politician's speech, that's probably the most egregious example I've come across of defining your terms to suit your agenda. Try starting with "storm" instead of "object". Fine. The explanation you provided previously is laughably inadequate, so yes, it fails miserably.

You might want to do a little research on this. The answer might surprise you.

Do you want to finish your sentence before I respond further?

You quote it, but you clearly don't grasp the implications. Perhaps you need to meditate on Paul's message.