Search results

When Paul said in Hebrews 10:9 "He taketh away the first", who is He, and what did He take away? Absolutely not. Under the definition of a testament (which dates back to ancient Biblical times, and which is actually a will and testament (Hebrews 9:15-17), there cannot be two concurrently...

I appreciate your willingness to respond. Because without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22). What Scripture claims that the sacrifices were sinful? It declares that they were taken away (Hebrews 10:9). Did God not have the right to determine and impose His...

Simplest!!! Of course. So these were expiatory sacrifices of atonement, which were taken away and replaced by the Second Sacrifice at Calvary (Hebrews 10:8-10) long ago. Taken away "once for all", never to reappear.

Simpler!! Covering/atonement of whom?

In post 10 you said: "As Ezekiel 45:20 says: they cover for those who make mistakes and for the simple minded." So which is it?

You can context all you want. No amount of context can evade what Bellarmine declared. Ascribing the names of Christ to anyone else, pontiff or otherwise, is the epitome of the abomination of desecration. Spiritual stupor and craven cowardice are the quintessence of what you are purveying.

Why are you afraid to answer the question? Which of the following names are "ascribed to the Pontiff"? Isaiah 9 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The...

Thirty-two English versions correctly say "atonement". Thirty-two.

So you now admit that this was an actual declaration, authored by Bellarmine. :laughing: :laughing: Which of the following names are "ascribed to the Pontiff"? Isaiah 9 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be...

Ezekiel 45:20 Hebrew 3722 [e] wə·ḵip·par·tem וְכִפַּרְתֶּ֖ם thus you shall make atonement Conj‑w | V‑Piel‑ConjPerf‑2mp Re. silly...check your mirror.

Hebrews 10 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By...

Scripture? :laughing:

Another scathing indictment to add to the existing plethora of scathing indictments. Thank God for the Reformation.

Yes, the "he" is obvious; he is Messiah. There is no Anti-Christ in Daniel 9 or anywhere in the OT. The word does not exist in OT Hebrew or Aramaic. The small "p" prince prophesied to come in Daniel 9:26 is the same small "p" prince who had come in Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is...

No one has better standing before men, Satan and his cohorts than he who declares that Christ is antichrist.

Thanks for the guffaw. The grammatical referent/antecedent of "he" is...? Hint: Not antichrist. Not a little horn. Not a bighorn. Messiah gets the last laugh.

From the Hebrew: 1396 [e] wə·hiḡ·bîr And he shall confirm No Little Horn, no insolent, no make, no change, no times, no Law. Simply he, Messiah the Prince, who confirms, causing to prevail, the New Covenant in His Blood at Calvary (Matthew 26:28).

Re. post 947: "False quote", eh? Ever heard the expression "Hoisted by his own petard"? Now you have. That would be you. Thanks for the entertainment. :D

Unsurprisingly, not an iota of supporting Scripture. Only the opinions of delusional eisegesis and malinterpretation. Described by Peter in actual Scripture 2 Peter 1:20 as "private interpretation".

Thanks and blessings, brother.