[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
( N) As usual, you reply to the lesser part and completely ignore the direct
question posed to you, because you cannot answer it...............I would have
thought that I have made it clear that I regard the "new covenant" of writing
directly into the Israelites hearts to be future tense.............The
"everlasting covenant," that I am talking of has NEVER been superceded or
removed.
(A) I did answerer several times.. the lesser part of yur question though is
the whole point...Which law did Jesus teach, you say you are his
follower....... Secondly, making the asertion that the " New Covenant"is in
the future when the L&P and Jesus plaily state and beanchmark otherwise dose
not make your case this only shows your error...Thirdly, Paul did not change
the covenant GOD DID!?.The covenant IS EVERLASTING. However, THEY BROKE
IT!?When any contract is broken there is no right to the terms of the BROKEN
contract!!!!!?.that is why there was a need for a New one.......You keep
missing that and the fact that Jesus and the L& P state this very Bluntly and
plainly! God specifically stated that GOD, not Paul, was going to "MAKE A NEW
COVENANT" and that the Jesus WAS THE FULLFILLMENT of the L&P!.. Your use of
scripture ignores all the rest of scripture and context?.I have already
addressed these.. You want to believe that the law is still in effect..and that
Paul was
a
liar?That is your decision, I have shown you your error but you will not hear
it. You have not nor can you show where I have miss used a single scripture
with scripture. You have established nothing except you are unstable, unlearned
and have a nak for twisting scripture void of any logic or context in these
matters.
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:As usual, you reply to the
lesser part and completely ignore the direct question posed to you, because you
cannot answer it. As regards reading the postings, Yet you persist in trying
to argue otherwise. The "everlasting covenant," that I am talking of has NEVER
been superceded or removed.
If I concede that you are allowed to quote Saul because I challenged you about
his teaching, then can we please have an answer to the question, which is
presented again here in red for your convenience:
Please read the following Hebrew scriptures:
(Gen 17:7 KJV) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy
seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be Elohiym
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
(Gen 17:8 KJV) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land
wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting
possession; and I will be their Elohiym.
(Gen 17:9 KJV) And Elohiym said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
(Gen 17:10 KJV) This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you
and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
(Gen 17:11 KJV) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it
shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
(Gen 17:12 KJV) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you,
every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought
with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
(Gen 17:13 KJV) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy
money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an
everlasting covenant.
(Gen 17:14 KJV) And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is
not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my
covenant.
Okay. Now this from the Greek, particularly verses 11 to 13:
(Rom 4:9 KJV) Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon
the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for
righteousness.
(Rom 4:10 KJV) How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in
uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
(Rom 4:11 KJV) And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might
be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that
righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
(Rom 4:12 KJV) And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the
circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father
Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
(Rom 4:13 KJV) For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was
not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness
of faith.
Okay?
Question: Who exactly is Saul of Tarsus that he is able to change a decree of
YeHVaH Elohiym?
Neville.
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with
Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
Other related posts:
