Search results

Again, sources the Bible cites authoritatively justifiably spark my interest.

@Wrangler It’s gotta be hard to lose like this, but just humble yourself. Don't be obstinate. Accept God’s Word.

Not sure what this means. 2 couples cannot be married and not be different beings? Are you saying God is no longer Husband to His People today? He no longer relates to His People as Husband? Is that your way out? What about "same yesterday today and forever"? Which verse of Scripture are you...

My point was that God was Husband to His People, which arguably would've included Jews who passed seamlessly from Old to New Covenant (eg, the prophetess in the Temple), and to whom God related and now still relates as Husband... and that Husband is Jesus. There really is. Old and New Covenant...

Oops! I didn't say He was "Mediator" I said Christ was "Husband"! Now, try arguing against my actual argument! Nope, doesn't work : the Moses and the Priests and the Prophets were all intermediaries and were not called "Husband" to God's People--the office of Husband to God's People is occupied...

"Contain", yes, but to now proceed from there and say "this is all there is" is ridiculous.

You must not have read what my position actually is if you find that inconsistent with what you think my position is.

Keeping in mind that it's the same God in both cases, as this is God getting another People for Himself Dt 32:21, Hos 1:19,10, etc--all the passages already cited.

1. I'm confident in my responses which anyone can read. 2. Desperate? No. Confident? Yes. LOL Also, I'm telling people to keep bringing it up. 3. First you said "what prophecy?" as if I hadn't provided the verses, then when I provide the verses "no time". I honestly thought because you went on...

Interesting : Paul denies circumcision (contained in the Law) is a Commandment of God 1 Corinthians 7:19.

More circular reasoning : "no biblical source substantiates". Can't deal with this. Anyone who is reasonable will see I've already addressed these things. Nothing left to say. Not repeating myself or talking to a brick wall.

Yeah, that's the difference between us : you entrust yourself to the men who compiled the Bible (men who certainly held to tradition-based concepts you would reject), I don't.

1. Yeah, the same Book says the Law was a shadow of things to come Hebrews 10:1--it's obviously talking about what the Sabbath "type" corresponds to--but as far as the keeping of the literal day, Paul says he worries for people who observe "days" Galatians 4:20. We're not under Law Romans 6:14...

OK I finally got this joke. LOL Luke's Gospel. Cool Hand Luke. LOL

Wrangler is running from this answer.

LOL! I missed that he said that.

Wasn't Luke Gentile?

Well, I guess that's "game, set, and match"--religious Jews are never wrong! In fact, Jesus was wrong for lambasting them in passages like Matthew 15, right? Are you putting your right shoe on first every morning as the rabbis command?

Everyone (@Christophany @kcnalp @ByGraceThroughFaith @Enoch111 @Pearl @tigger 2 @GISMYS_7), @Wrangler has conceded that he has no answer to this objection--that God was Husband to His People in the Old Covenant Jeremiah 31:32, and so Jesus is the Husband to God's People in the New Covenant...

I didn't say that. Why do you "twist everything to support" your view? If you're wrong, you're wrong--just accept it--but why would you misrepresent others' arguments to try to make it easier for your view to withstand scrutiny? You're not fooling me--and hopefully you're not able to deceive the...