Why Sunday

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are missing consistently the same thing Paul's detractors missed. You think removal of the law means acceptance and allowance for sin. No. You miss the point as Esaias does that the problem with Law was not the Law. It was man's sin. And the METHOD of taking sinful men and making them merely refuse to sin and instead obey DOES NOT WORK. It works on paper alone. ANd by the same token, you confuse what it means to walk after the flesh as though it does not INCLUDE self making self-righteous through obedient works. the entire concept you overlook is that Law is good, but the method and serving manner of law makes it not work. You miss the entire concept that I presented in my thread about walking after the flesh being law-keeping.

Why not answer my post?
Your straw man argumentation is boorish and worthless.

Originally Posted by mfblume

No, it's 2 Corinthians 3.
Do you agree there were two old covenants between Ex 19 and Ex 20??

You have to specifically show the Decalogue being called the Old Covenant. Your false claim.

There is a covenant in Exodus 19 which becomes then “old covenant” in the context of Hebrews 8. By 70 AD the Temple is destroyed and Heb 8:13 is fulfilled.

The NT is consistently affirming the 10 Commandments.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Why not answer my post?

I thought I did.

You have to specifically show the Decalogue being called the Old Covenant.

It's called the ministration of death that was abolished in 2 Cor 3:13 because, as I said, Paul wrote of the engraving on tables of stones ( ten commandments) that was "done away," and spoke of the glory on Moses' face, which he had when he carried the ten commandments, fading away to illustrate that. And since the old covenant was said to vanish away in Heb 8, and that is the same thing as fading away and being done away or abolished, then it's the old covenant. Your exact-term theology is avoiding the obvious synonymous nature of the terms actually used.

There is a covenant in Exodus 19 which becomes then “old covenant” in the context of Hebrews 8. By 70 AD the Temple is destroyed and Heb 8:13 is fulfilled.

So the "covenant of Ex 20 is not the covenant of Ex 19, and only one of them is vanished according to Heb 8???

By the way, the vanishing away did not happen for any of it in AD70. It happened in Jeremiah's day as soon as Jeremiah wrote the words NEW COVENANT back in his day. It's from the perspective of his day, not the day Henbrews 8 was written.

Show me where and how my words are a strawman argument.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

By the way, the vanishing away did not happen for any of it in AD70. It happened in Jeremiah's day as soon as Jeremiah wrote the words NEW COVENANT back in his day. It's from the perspective of his day, not the day Henbrews 8 was written.

Nonsense.

Paul is speaking directly in the current time:

“Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Th claim this is a back-writing is a scholastic and English language absurdity, scholastic-gymnastic backflips.

Paul was precise with his words (e.g. “Now”) and tenses.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Nonsense.

Paul is speaking directly in the current time:

“Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Th claim this is a back-writing is a scholastic and English language absurdity, scholastic-gymnastic backflips.

Paul was precise with his words (e.g. “Now”) and tenses.

Sorry, but that sounds like the idea that Paul used present tense to note that sabbat "is" a shadow of things to come.

I maintain my position. Paul explained that when anyone makes a statement at any given time such as the news of a NEW thing, at that moment the old begins to vanish away. This maintains the comprehensive reading and the grammar involved.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I maintain my position. Paul explained that when anyone makes a statement at any given time such as the news of a NEW thing, at that moment the old begins to vanish away. This maintains the comprehensive reading and the grammar involved.

Where did Paul EXPLAIN this interpretation?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where did Paul EXPLAIN this interpretation?

You misunderstood my point. I meant to say that when Paul wrote ...

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

...he was explaining that when a Covenant is compared to another covenant that is NEW, that first covenant is then immiedately considered to be OLD. What else can it be if it's compared to a NEW COVENANT? When you talk to someobody about any given object, and explain that you are getting a NEW one, then that object first referenced is automatically considered to be OLD. And when people from that point on consider it to be old, they know it's soon going to be gone.

Likewise, when Jeremiah wrote that a new covenant was coming, all of his readers at THAT MOMENT of reading understood the Covenant from Sinai as an OLD one, and one that would soon be gone. When would it be gone? When the NEW one arrived.

Like this explaination:


JAMIESON,FAUSSET AND BROWN

made ... old — “hath (at the time of speaking the prophecy) antiquated the first covenant.” From the time of God’s mention of a NEW covenant (since God’s words are all realities) the first covenant might be regarded as ever dwindling away, until its complete abolition on the actual introduction of the Gospel. Both covenants cannot exist side by side. Mark how verbal inspiration is proved in Paul’s argument turning wholly on the one word “NEW” (covenant), occurring but once in the Old Testament.

that which decayeth — Greek, “that which is being antiquated,” namely, at the time when Jeremiah spake. For in Paul’s time, according to his view, the new had absolutely set aside the old covenant. The Greek for (Kaine) New (Testament) implies that it is of a different kind and supersedes the old: not merely recent (Greek, “nea”). Compare Hos 3:4, Hos 3:5.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You misunderstood my point. I meant to say that when Paul wrote ...

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

...he was explaining that when a Covenant is compared to another covenant that is NEW, that first covenant is then immiedately considered to be OLD. What else can it be if it's compared to a NEW COVENANT? When you talk to someobody about any given object, and explain that you are getting a NEW one, then that object first referenced is automatically considered to be OLD. And when people from that point on consider it to be old, they know it's soon going to be gone.

Likewise, when Jeremiah wrote that a new covenant was coming, all of his readers at THAT MOMENT of reading understood the Covenant from Sinai as an OLD one, and one that would soon be gone. When would it be gone? When the NEW one arrived.

Like this explaination:


JAMIESON,FAUSSET AND BROWN

made ... old — “hath (at the time of speaking the prophecy) antiquated the first covenant.” From the time of God’s mention of a NEW covenant (since God’s words are all realities) the first covenant might be regarded as ever dwindling away, until its complete abolition on the actual introduction of the Gospel. Both covenants cannot exist side by side. Mark how verbal inspiration is proved in Paul’s argument turning wholly on the one word “NEW” (covenant), occurring but once in the Old Testament.

that which decayeth — Greek, “that which is being antiquated,” namely, at the time when Jeremiah spake. For in Paul’s time, according to his view, the new had absolutely set aside the old covenant. The Greek for (Kaine) New (Testament) implies that it is of a different kind and supersedes the old: not merely recent (Greek, “nea”). Compare Hos 3:4, Hos 3:5.

Thank you! This is basically what I was hoping you would elaborate on.

When God said through Jeremiah that He was going to make a new covenant, it is clear that God reckoned the existing covenant as old. Not just old in age, or in the fact it was "before" the new covenant, but that it was old in the sense of - as Paul says - becoming old and feeble and ready to be set aside. The reason is because Israel was constantly breaking the covenant, it was basically doing them no good. They had themselves rendered it essentially useless by their shenanigans and disobedience. Thus, the need for a new one that could actually get something done.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Show me where and how my words are a strawman argument.

You had a whole paragraph where you pretended to state my beliefs, without a single quote. Esaias highlighted one example. And I have limited time for debating trick nonsense.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Ok, it looks like we are moving towards a hair pulling contest. Which makes for a thread to resemble a James LeDeay discussion on the Hebrew copy of the Revelation. So, I’ll ask the question for both sides. Why Sunday?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Ok, it looks like we are moving towards a hair pulling contest. Which makes for a thread to resemble a James LeDeay discussion on the Hebrew copy of the Revelation. So, I’ll ask the question for both sides. Why Sunday?

For the modern, because it is easy to go along with what everybody else does, and it avoids rocking the boat and getting funny looks (or worse) from friends and relations.

Originally, because all pagan religions (including pagan forms of "Christianity" like trinitarianism etc) worship the Sun god, Baal, and Sunday was dedicated to the Sun, so there ya go.