Search results

It's fact not whatever you choose to call it. Words have specific meaning. Don't argue with me because you don't like it, argue with God, it's his word not mine.

Christ for the new. The old was between the living God and Israel Also, … a covenant is an agreement between two parties, whereas a testament is a declaration made by the testator that is written down and becomes enforced after the

You somehow miss the point of effectivity of the new covenant. That's the entire matter as relates to this issue. The sabbath was OT not NT. It related to that only as well as to Jews, not Christians. The ushering in of the NT upon the death of Jesus (Hebrews 9) means that the sabbath is no...

You lost me in your logic or lack thereof. These verses clearly define when a Covenant ends and the other, the new, begins. Jesus words were spoken while he was alive, under the old covenant which relates to the sabbath and its applicability. The sabbath no longer had pertinence after his death...

When Jesus was alive, the OT was still in effect. The NT didn't begin until his death. Read Hebrews 9:16-17 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the...

Yes, and when he said that, the OT was still in effect, so the idea of the sabbath or Sunday shouldn't even be a consideration or discussed. It's clear that the disciples gathered together to worship on the 1st day of the week subsequent to Jesus's death, when the NT was in effect.

Sin is sin, in its simplest terms, irregardless of how egregious or not it may be, because even the most mundane sin separates one from God.

A "prophesy class"? Not scriptural by any stretch of the imagination nor does it make sense. It's a joke and you've been scammed.

The scripture should be a sufficient answer to your posted question Matthew 26:24 24The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

God speaks to us through his written word today and only that way.

The only thing that was valid was their coming to the Lord of their own volition and being baptized into Christ accordingly. Anything prior to that was meaningless.

What you've provided is exactly the opposite. It's reasons why baptism of infants is unnecessary. And there's no prohibition cited against it, but when you examine all pertinent scriptures related to salvation, it becomes very apparent that it is unscriptural and makes no sense. And you...

Not at all a good point but a very presumptive one that would go against many other scriptures.

What does that mean or imply? You're reading into it something that's not there and that would be contrary to many other scriptures.

There are no instances of infants being baptized in the bible, nor do such baptisms make scriptural sense, since the first requirement prior to being baptized, is belief which infants are incapable of. They also can't repent of sin nor have any sin to repent of. Infant baptism is a useless, man...

Man-made lables are silly and irrelevant.

Too bad. No one has a choice.

What you've described, or the realization you've seemingly reached, is the crux of the fallacy of the so-called gifts of the Spirit people claim they have today, which they justify solely by their speaking in so-called "tongues". Their proof of the gifts being active today, is tongues only, and...

As a supplemental note, I recall working with someone named Mike Murphy many years ago. Not sure if it was at GD or GM; it's been a long, long time ago.

Haven't been there in a while but I have gotten a number of bibles there over the years.