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.