You twist the scriptures to suit your position as I have seen you do that in the past so it is pointless bringing up verses
You twist the scriptures to suit your position as I have seen you do that in the past so it is pointless bringing up verses
FresnoJoe (08-01-2015), victoryword (07-27-2015)
FresnoJoe (08-01-2015)
Cardinal TT, even if you refuse to discuss scriptures you ought to come clean on what is discussed in post #9 in this thread. Which is it ?
FresnoJoe (08-01-2015)
FresnoJoe (08-01-2015)
FresnoJoe (08-01-2015)
FresnoJoe (08-01-2015)
I don't think you can afford to answer simple questions. You accuse then when you don't get anywhere with that you just go cop out.
FresnoJoe (08-01-2015)
FresnoJoe (08-01-2015)
When you use the term legalistic it would appear that you are accusing me of advocating that one should adhere to and keep the law of Moses in order to be found righteous. In reality, you are accusing me of thinking of the new covenant as a legal document, meaning that God sets up rules and then he abides by those rules, rather than God making individual judgments at the very end after someone has died with the Holy Spirit and genuine faith, to see if he will consider them worthy of heaven.
Your making that an accusation is completely contrary to the way the Jews saw the power of covenant. To the degree that the author of the letter to the Hebrews declares the following, to make it beyond question that God really abides by the terms he has set up in his new covenant, without any exceptions or retractions :
Hebrews 6:13 When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself,
14 saying, “I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.”
15 And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised.
16 People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument.
17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.
18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.
19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,
20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
To a Jew, breaking an oath was a matter of sending oneself to eternal damnation. In time, this definition got watered down to where some types of oaths were considered less binding than others and the Pharisees talked about swearing by the temple not being valid but swearing by the gold in temple was. So the author of Hebrews makes God's oath as binding as it can possibly be since he swears by the highest authority there is, himself. Meaning we are back to the original Jewish definition of an oath as absolutely binding.
FresnoJoe (08-01-2015)