100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Where in the Genesis is Jesus | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Mon 08/01/11 08:43 AM
|
|
God is referenced many times including as I said earlier in the first line of Genesis. So if you accept that Jesus is God then that's where he is mentioned. you could also accept that Gomer Pyle is God and is mention under another name in Genesis...which is why you are require to provide proof beyond faith and delusion that Gomer Pyle and/or Jesus are mention in Genesis On the other hand if you are looking for an explicit reference to Jesus in the Old Testament there is none. None at all. It is all in the New Testament. wrong slowhand....it doesn't require that the name of Jesus or reference to Jesus be mention in genesis, Cowboy tried that when he "google cut and paste" definitions from the dictionary.... all you have to do is show that another God entity other than "God the father" existed in Genesis ...so far no one has I don't think that Gomer Pyle or looking for "other Gods" in the Old Testament is any kind of credible rebuttal to my points.  s1owhand...only points you need to make is to point to some evidence of another God entity beyond God the Father or Gomer pyle...next you're be claiming That Aunt Bee is Lord God in Genesis 2:7 ... you guys have got to stop running to wikipedia and those Satan websites looking for loop holes to place Jesus into The Old Testament So they're Satan websites? lol merriam-webster the "average" dictionary people use - 3. A person or thing of supreme value - 4. A powerful ruler |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So they're Satan websites? lol merriam-webster the "average" dictionary people use - 3. A person or thing of supreme value - 4. A powerful ruler perhaps merriam-webster was praising Baal but anyway anytime you as a Christian have to run to a website book or science to explain something in the bible instead of finding the explanation in the bible itself is a lack of faith..... these websites can twist a passage in the bible to mean anything you want it to mean which are why they are called Satan websites |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So they're Satan websites? lol merriam-webster the "average" dictionary people use - 3. A person or thing of supreme value - 4. A powerful ruler perhaps merriam-webster was praising Baal but anyway anytime you as a Christian have to run to a website book or science to explain something in the bible instead of finding the explanation in the bible itself is a lack of faith..... these websites can twist a passage in the bible to mean anything you want it to mean which are why they are called Satan websites What in the world are you talking about? I got no passage from anyone nor anywhere. It's a DEFINITION, from the DICTIONARY. You know that book they have for definitions of words? They use it to teach our kids the definitions of words, yeah that book. THE DICTIONARY. It's not a "Christian" dictionary, it's not a tool used for Christians, it's a DICTIONARY for the DEFINITIONS of words. LoL, you're funny Funches. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What in the world are you talking about? I got no passage from anyone nor anywhere. It's a DEFINITION, from the DICTIONARY. You know that book they have for definitions of words? They use it to teach our kids the definitions of words, yeah that book. THE DICTIONARY. It's not a "Christian" dictionary, it's not a tool used for Christians, it's a DICTIONARY for the DEFINITIONS of words. LoL, you're funny Funches. yes the dictionary is not a tool for Christians...supposedly the bible is the tool for Christians... which is why it doesn't say much about a Christian that have to run to the dictionary to find the definition for Jesus because they couldn't find one in the bible |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What in the world are you talking about? I got no passage from anyone nor anywhere. It's a DEFINITION, from the DICTIONARY. You know that book they have for definitions of words? They use it to teach our kids the definitions of words, yeah that book. THE DICTIONARY. It's not a "Christian" dictionary, it's not a tool used for Christians, it's a DICTIONARY for the DEFINITIONS of words. LoL, you're funny Funches. yes the dictionary is not a tool for Christians...supposedly the bible is the tool for Christians... which is why it doesn't say much about a Christian that have to run to the dictionary to find the definition for Jesus because they couldn't find one in the bible Not finding a definition for Jesus. Finding a definition for us so we can understand what JESUS is saying. The dictionary is a tool for anyone and everyone, weather they are Christian or other. A dictionary tells of the definitions of WORDS. So if one wish to understand the WORDS of someone, they can use the dictionary to find the definition(s) of these WORDS they seek the knowledge of. Again, has nothing to do with being a Christian or not. Words are words, they mean the same thing for Christians, Buddhists, Catholics, Atheists, or any other person. A word is a word. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not finding a definition for Jesus. Finding a definition for us so we can understand what JESUS is saying. dude... the definition you "google cut and paste" from the dictionary said that many hispanics was named Jesus....where in the New Testament did Jesus try to make anyone understand that ..... so stop making up stuff ....and stop allowing "Google" to be God I posted a topic a long long time ago in a thread far far away that was named "A.I. will become I AM" ....it was about how Technology will become God .... everytime you use "The Thoughts of Google" to explain what's not in the bible you full fill the prophecy of "A.I. is now I AM" when the bible claim that the Meek shall inherit the Earth....they could easily now be referring to Robotics Lifeforms because of technology John 1:1 shall be re-written John 1:1....In The Beginning was Google and Google was with God and Google was God, Google was with God from The Beginning,no bible passage can be quoted without Google and Google became Flesh Google is THe Light and the way no one can get to God without Google |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but anyway "The Word" made into Flesh.....in Genesis would apply to Adam not Jesus ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but now that's we got it straight that:
that according to the belief "God the father" is the creator of everything and that "The Lord God" was the only entity mention in Genesis 2:7 as the creator of man and no other Godheads were mention therefore since the father is the creator of everything, the father have to be "The Lord God" that was mention in Genesis 2:7 and not Jesus the son unless you have evidence of another Godhead mention in Gensis 2:7 ..then it's time to move on |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not finding a definition for Jesus. Finding a definition for us so we can understand what JESUS is saying. dude... the definition you "google cut and paste" from the dictionary said that many hispanics was named Jesus....where in the New Testament did Jesus try to make anyone understand that ..... so stop making up stuff ....and stop allowing "Google" to be God I posted a topic a long long time ago in a thread far far away that was named "A.I. will become I AM" ....it was about how Technology will become God .... everytime you use "The Thoughts of Google" to explain what's not in the bible you full fill the prophecy of "A.I. is now I AM" when the bible claim that the Meek shall inherit the Earth....they could easily now be referring to Robotics Lifeforms because of technology John 1:1 shall be re-written John 1:1....In The Beginning was Google and Google was with God and Google was God, Google was with God from The Beginning,no bible passage can be quoted without Google and Google became Flesh Google is THe Light and the way no one can get to God without Google What in the world are you talking about funches? The bible isn't a dictionary, it doesn't give definitions of words. Only gives us instructions in form of words. If one wishes to know the meaning of the instructions, they would then have to know the meaning of the words. And not take them out of context as you're now trying to do with the word. dude... the definition you "google cut and paste" from the dictionary said that many hispanics was named Jesus....where in the New Testament did Jesus try to make anyone understand that Please show me in my post in the definition it speaks anything about hispanics, or even Jesus in particular. Again, what in the world are you talking about? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Tue 08/02/11 11:19 AM
|
|
but anyway "The Word" made into Flesh.....in Genesis would apply to Adam not Jesus .... but anyway "The Word" was not made into flesh at this time. "The Word" is a title, it's not a pamphlet, it's not a book, it's not anything of such. It is a "title" of a being. In Genesis Jesus was still "The Word". The books in the bible are arranged chronologically. Jesus had not walked the Earth at that time, Jesus again was still "The Word". Even as "The Word" Jesus has always been our lord. The name Jesus was given to him by Marry and Joseph when he was born of the flesh on Earth. Before then he was LORD God, eg., reason why it's capitalised in the bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but now that's we got it straight that: that according to the belief "God the father" is the creator of everything and that "The Lord God" was the only entity mention in Genesis 2:7 as the creator of man and no other Godheads were mention therefore since the father is the creator of everything, the father have to be "The Lord God" that was mention in Genesis 2:7 and not Jesus the son unless you have evidence of another Godhead mention in Gensis 2:7 ..then it's time to move on Please show us where it specifically says God our father created EVERYTHING. Please, share the verse with us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but now that's we got it straight that: that according to the belief "God the father" is the creator of everything and that "The Lord God" was the only entity mention in Genesis 2:7 as the creator of man and no other Godheads were mention therefore since the father is the creator of everything, the father have to be "The Lord God" that was mention in Genesis 2:7 and not Jesus the son unless you have evidence of another Godhead mention in Gensis 2:7 ..then it's time to move on Please show us where it specifically says God our father created EVERYTHING. Please, share the verse with us. Here's some more verse that state Jesus as our "God". Not as our "father" but as our "God". And as I have shown the definition of God is supreme being, a powerful ruler. That's cause Jesus is OUR lord, he is the king of kings, lord of lords, he is our "God". Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us. Isaiah 44:6 - 6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but now that's we got it straight that: that according to the belief "God the father" is the creator of everything and that "The Lord God" was the only entity mention in Genesis 2:7 as the creator of man and no other Godheads were mention therefore since the father is the creator of everything, the father have to be "The Lord God" that was mention in Genesis 2:7 and not Jesus the son unless you have evidence of another Godhead mention in Gensis 2:7 ..then it's time to move on Please show us where it specifically says God our father created EVERYTHING. Please, share the verse with us. nope, I will end this debate about Genesis 2:7 by sharing a verse that you yourself posted in which you yourself claim that God is the creator of everything and that God was even the creator of Jesus POSTED BY COWBOY God created everything in existence. If God didn't create it, in this case Jesus. Then explain this please. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/291858?page=24 post 4 I told you that you contradict everything you post as if you are three different people.....now you and Cowboy 2 can have loads of fun arguing with Cowboy 3 about who is the creator of everything while I continue my quest to find where in the Genesis is Jesus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where in the Genesis is Jesus? Why would you think that Jesus should be in Genesis? Jesus didn't even agree with the teachings of the Torah. He clearly renounced those teachings in favor of teachings moral values that were more along the lines of Mahayana Buddhism which was quite popular in Jesus' day. Jesus renounced the seeking of revenge as was taught in the Torah, via "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Jesus taught instead that people should forgive one another and turn the other cheek (a metaphor meaning not to seek revenge as was taught in the Torah) Jesus renounced that judging of others and taught people no to judge others. Yet the Torah commanded people to judge others by asking them to stone sinners to death. It would be impossible to stone someone to death as a "sinner" if you had not first judged them to be a "sinner". So once again Jesus rebuked the teachings of the Torah. Clearly Jesus could not have been party to those teachings as he was himself clearly not in agreement with those teachings. The Torah taught people to stone sinners and heathens to death, and even unruly children! Jesus suggested that only those who are themselves without sin should cast the first stone. He knew that this would solve the problem because people who are indeed without sin are not the kind of people to throw stones. So once again he rebuked the teachings of the Torah. About the only thing in the Torah that Jesus appears to have agreed with was the verse, "I said, ye are Gods". Obviously if Jesus was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist that would fit right in with his spiritual views. Jesus also taught "I and the Father are One", but when challenged over that he responded with the above, "It is not written in your law, 'I said, ye are Gods'."? That's about the only place he actually used the Torah to support his views and teachings.  So I don't understand why anyone would be searching in Genesis for Jesus. Jesus clearly renounced the vast majority of teachings from those Hebrew Scriptures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but now that's we got it straight that: that according to the belief "God the father" is the creator of everything and that "The Lord God" was the only entity mention in Genesis 2:7 as the creator of man and no other Godheads were mention therefore since the father is the creator of everything, the father have to be "The Lord God" that was mention in Genesis 2:7 and not Jesus the son unless you have evidence of another Godhead mention in Gensis 2:7 ..then it's time to move on Please show us where it specifically says God our father created EVERYTHING. Please, share the verse with us. nope, I will end this debate about Genesis 2:7 by sharing a verse that you yourself posted in which you yourself claim that God is the creator of everything and that God was even the creator of Jesus POSTED BY COWBOY God created everything in existence. If God didn't create it, in this case Jesus. Then explain this please. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/291858?page=24 post 4 I told you that you contradict everything you post as if you are three different people.....now you and Cowboy 2 can have loads of fun arguing with Cowboy 3 about who is the creator of everything while I continue my quest to find where in the Genesis is Jesus Now you're just trying to argue. I never said God our father created everything. I said "God" created everything. In this case we would be talking about lord "GOD". You try so hard to find contradictions in people's posts and or problems in their posts to argue about and throughout the bible. It's quite funny and amusing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where in the Genesis is Jesus? Why would you think that Jesus should be in Genesis? Jesus didn't even agree with the teachings of the Torah. He clearly renounced those teachings in favor of teachings moral values that were more along the lines of Mahayana Buddhism which was quite popular in Jesus' day. Jesus renounced the seeking of revenge as was taught in the Torah, via "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Jesus taught instead that people should forgive one another and turn the other cheek (a metaphor meaning not to seek revenge as was taught in the Torah) Jesus renounced that judging of others and taught people no to judge others. Yet the Torah commanded people to judge others by asking them to stone sinners to death. It would be impossible to stone someone to death as a "sinner" if you had not first judged them to be a "sinner". So once again Jesus rebuked the teachings of the Torah. Clearly Jesus could not have been party to those teachings as he was himself clearly not in agreement with those teachings. The Torah taught people to stone sinners and heathens to death, and even unruly children! Jesus suggested that only those who are themselves without sin should cast the first stone. He knew that this would solve the problem because people who are indeed without sin are not the kind of people to throw stones. So once again he rebuked the teachings of the Torah. About the only thing in the Torah that Jesus appears to have agreed with was the verse, "I said, ye are Gods". Obviously if Jesus was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist that would fit right in with his spiritual views. Jesus also taught "I and the Father are One", but when challenged over that he responded with the above, "It is not written in your law, 'I said, ye are Gods'."? That's about the only place he actually used the Torah to support his views and teachings. So I don't understand why anyone would be searching in Genesis for Jesus. Jesus clearly renounced the vast majority of teachings from those Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus didn't specifically "renounce" The torah/old testament. Renounce - 1. To give up (a title, for example), especially by formal announcement. 2. To reject; disown. Jesus wasn't "giving up" or "rejecting" anything. Nor was he disowning it. He followed the old covenant. The old covenant prophesied Jesus coming, he came. Thus finishing the prophecies in the old covenant, thus finishing/completing the old covenant. It was finished, completed, finalised. Jesus didn't teach differently then the old covenant just because, or because he didn't agree with it. It was finalised. It was time to move on with the plan. To go to the next step. Which was the new covenant Jesus brought to us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where in the Genesis is Jesus? Why would you think that Jesus should be in Genesis? Jesus didn't even agree with the teachings of the Torah. He clearly renounced those teachings in favor of teachings moral values that were more along the lines of Mahayana Buddhism which was quite popular in Jesus' day. Jesus renounced the seeking of revenge as was taught in the Torah, via "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Jesus taught instead that people should forgive one another and turn the other cheek (a metaphor meaning not to seek revenge as was taught in the Torah) Jesus renounced that judging of others and taught people no to judge others. Yet the Torah commanded people to judge others by asking them to stone sinners to death. It would be impossible to stone someone to death as a "sinner" if you had not first judged them to be a "sinner". So once again Jesus rebuked the teachings of the Torah. Clearly Jesus could not have been party to those teachings as he was himself clearly not in agreement with those teachings. The Torah taught people to stone sinners and heathens to death, and even unruly children! Jesus suggested that only those who are themselves without sin should cast the first stone. He knew that this would solve the problem because people who are indeed without sin are not the kind of people to throw stones. So once again he rebuked the teachings of the Torah. About the only thing in the Torah that Jesus appears to have agreed with was the verse, "I said, ye are Gods". Obviously if Jesus was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist that would fit right in with his spiritual views. Jesus also taught "I and the Father are One", but when challenged over that he responded with the above, "It is not written in your law, 'I said, ye are Gods'."? That's about the only place he actually used the Torah to support his views and teachings. So I don't understand why anyone would be searching in Genesis for Jesus. Jesus clearly renounced the vast majority of teachings from those Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus didn't specifically "renounce" The torah/old testament. Renounce - 1. To give up (a title, for example), especially by formal announcement. 2. To reject; disown. Jesus wasn't "giving up" or "rejecting" anything. Nor was he disowning it. He followed the old covenant. The old covenant prophesied Jesus coming, he came. Thus finishing the prophecies in the old covenant, thus finishing/completing the old covenant. It was finished, completed, finalised. Jesus didn't teach differently then the old covenant just because, or because he didn't agree with it. It was finalised. It was time to move on with the plan. To go to the next step. Which was the new covenant Jesus brought to us. Jesus clearly renounced the teachings of the Torah via his own teachings which are in complete opposition to the teachings of the Torah. So his actions speak louder than words, and therefore no actual words of renouncement are necessary. His actions and teachings speak for themselves. Jesus could not have been the son of the God of Abraham. Jesus' teachings didn't even agree with the teachings attributed to that God. So his renouncement of the Torah is carved the stone of his own life's actions, karma, and teachings. It's a done deal. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where in the Genesis is Jesus? Why would you think that Jesus should be in Genesis? Jesus didn't even agree with the teachings of the Torah. He clearly renounced those teachings in favor of teachings moral values that were more along the lines of Mahayana Buddhism which was quite popular in Jesus' day. Jesus renounced the seeking of revenge as was taught in the Torah, via "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Jesus taught instead that people should forgive one another and turn the other cheek (a metaphor meaning not to seek revenge as was taught in the Torah) Jesus renounced that judging of others and taught people no to judge others. Yet the Torah commanded people to judge others by asking them to stone sinners to death. It would be impossible to stone someone to death as a "sinner" if you had not first judged them to be a "sinner". So once again Jesus rebuked the teachings of the Torah. Clearly Jesus could not have been party to those teachings as he was himself clearly not in agreement with those teachings. The Torah taught people to stone sinners and heathens to death, and even unruly children! Jesus suggested that only those who are themselves without sin should cast the first stone. He knew that this would solve the problem because people who are indeed without sin are not the kind of people to throw stones. So once again he rebuked the teachings of the Torah. About the only thing in the Torah that Jesus appears to have agreed with was the verse, "I said, ye are Gods". Obviously if Jesus was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist that would fit right in with his spiritual views. Jesus also taught "I and the Father are One", but when challenged over that he responded with the above, "It is not written in your law, 'I said, ye are Gods'."? That's about the only place he actually used the Torah to support his views and teachings. So I don't understand why anyone would be searching in Genesis for Jesus. Jesus clearly renounced the vast majority of teachings from those Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus didn't specifically "renounce" The torah/old testament. Renounce - 1. To give up (a title, for example), especially by formal announcement. 2. To reject; disown. Jesus wasn't "giving up" or "rejecting" anything. Nor was he disowning it. He followed the old covenant. The old covenant prophesied Jesus coming, he came. Thus finishing the prophecies in the old covenant, thus finishing/completing the old covenant. It was finished, completed, finalised. Jesus didn't teach differently then the old covenant just because, or because he didn't agree with it. It was finalised. It was time to move on with the plan. To go to the next step. Which was the new covenant Jesus brought to us. Jesus clearly renounced the teachings of the Torah via his own teachings which are in complete opposition to the teachings of the Torah. So his actions speak louder than words, and therefore no actual words of renouncement are necessary. His actions and teachings speak for themselves. Jesus could not have been the son of the God of Abraham. Jesus' teachings didn't even agree with the teachings attributed to that God. So his renouncement of the Torah is carved the stone of his own life's actions, karma, and teachings. It's a done deal. This is why the old covenant doesn't hold power over us any more. ===================== Hebrews 8:6-8 6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah ======================== God found fault in the first covenant,s o he decided to complete it and bring forth a new covenant he seen was much better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where in the Genesis is Jesus? Why would you think that Jesus should be in Genesis? Jesus didn't even agree with the teachings of the Torah. He clearly renounced those teachings in favor of teachings moral values that were more along the lines of Mahayana Buddhism which was quite popular in Jesus' day. Jesus renounced the seeking of revenge as was taught in the Torah, via "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Jesus taught instead that people should forgive one another and turn the other cheek (a metaphor meaning not to seek revenge as was taught in the Torah) Jesus renounced that judging of others and taught people no to judge others. Yet the Torah commanded people to judge others by asking them to stone sinners to death. It would be impossible to stone someone to death as a "sinner" if you had not first judged them to be a "sinner". So once again Jesus rebuked the teachings of the Torah. Clearly Jesus could not have been party to those teachings as he was himself clearly not in agreement with those teachings. The Torah taught people to stone sinners and heathens to death, and even unruly children! Jesus suggested that only those who are themselves without sin should cast the first stone. He knew that this would solve the problem because people who are indeed without sin are not the kind of people to throw stones. So once again he rebuked the teachings of the Torah. About the only thing in the Torah that Jesus appears to have agreed with was the verse, "I said, ye are Gods". Obviously if Jesus was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist that would fit right in with his spiritual views. Jesus also taught "I and the Father are One", but when challenged over that he responded with the above, "It is not written in your law, 'I said, ye are Gods'."? That's about the only place he actually used the Torah to support his views and teachings. So I don't understand why anyone would be searching in Genesis for Jesus. Jesus clearly renounced the vast majority of teachings from those Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus didn't specifically "renounce" The torah/old testament. Renounce - 1. To give up (a title, for example), especially by formal announcement. 2. To reject; disown. Jesus wasn't "giving up" or "rejecting" anything. Nor was he disowning it. He followed the old covenant. The old covenant prophesied Jesus coming, he came. Thus finishing the prophecies in the old covenant, thus finishing/completing the old covenant. It was finished, completed, finalised. Jesus didn't teach differently then the old covenant just because, or because he didn't agree with it. It was finalised. It was time to move on with the plan. To go to the next step. Which was the new covenant Jesus brought to us. Jesus clearly renounced the teachings of the Torah via his own teachings which are in complete opposition to the teachings of the Torah. So his actions speak louder than words, and therefore no actual words of renouncement are necessary. His actions and teachings speak for themselves. Jesus could not have been the son of the God of Abraham. Jesus' teachings didn't even agree with the teachings attributed to that God. So his renouncement of the Torah is carved the stone of his own life's actions, karma, and teachings. It's a done deal. This is why the old covenant doesn't hold power over us any more. ===================== Hebrews 8:6-8 6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah ======================== God found fault in the first covenant,s o he decided to complete it and bring forth a new covenant he seen was much better. So no, it's not that Jesus seen fault in the old covenant. Nor was HE renouncing anything. He was not discarding the old covenant, he was not making it except. He was fulfilling the prophecies. The laws given to us only hold power over us until the prophecies inside of them are fulfilled. After they are fulfilled, God will move to the next step. The coming, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the old covenant, bringing it to an end. And again with the ending of the first covenant, the covenant Jesus brought with his blood took place of the fulfilled one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God found fault in the first covenant,s o he decided to complete it and bring forth a new covenant he seen was much better. So in order for you to salvage Jesus as the son of God, you need to have a faulty God who had faults in his original covenant? I thought God was supposed to be all-perfect, all-wise, and without flaw. How could such a perfect God have created a faulty covenant in the first place? This sounds like a really desperate attempt to keep an un-salvageable story afloat. I personally don't find it to be impressive since it requires that I believe the original God faulty. That just can't be made to fly as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
|
