Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As 2nd Timothy 3 vs 16-17 says ALL Scripture ( whole Bible ) is inspired by God...............
Hebrews chapter 8 is about the tabernacle having a heavenly significance - Hebrews 8 vs 1-6
and the Old and New covenants are contrasted - Hebrews 8 vs 7-13
When 2nd Timothy 3 16-17 was written it's context was the OT only. There wasn't any NT scripture yet.
It isn't any kind of science. It's just something you made up.
No, actually it is a distillation of everything that Jesus and Paul were teaching about the New Covenant relation to Law. Jesus clearly gave a new paradign for living and for judgement when he gave an old "commandment" as the new basis by calling it a "New Commandment." The significance is lost on the controllers who want it all to be about their interpretation of Law. Paul reiterzted it when he declared intwo places at least that he was not subject to LAW, but that he would do nothing harmful to himself or others. Why do you think he had to rein in the Corinthians who took a part of the message about not being under Law and failed to understand that the principle of love does not allow behavior that is harmful?
You realize that in Matthew 5......Jesus had not been crucified, right? The Law was still in effect. He accomplished it, though. He didn't do away with it--he accomplished it. So the Law was fulfilled.
Romans 10 states that Christ is the end of the Law. Hebrews goes on from there and in the next several chapters talks about how Jesus is superior to the OT Law. He died once for all. So he, as the great High Priest, accomplished the Law, and then replaced it with a system of a 1-time sacrifice.
Oh is that right? But Jesus DIDN'T say that after his unexpected (yet predicted by him to his very own followers in most of the narratives) death, Paul would decide what the New Testament Law was, and that everything coming out of his mouth in any of the dozens of gospels (4 accepted by the Roman-payed Bishops) would be null and void and only applied to the Jews he was talking to for the time that he was alive. "Not a tad will pass only all these things are done!" Hello Jesus in Vizio's imagination, did you forget that not "all these things" are done?
"Listen to Paul in his supposed letters to the Churches his group helped fund in Rome and Judea" ~ SAID JESUS NOT EVER
Your god died needlessly, literally. The history you imagine as true could have been the right way and the Jesus fellow could have decided to fund good education based on an immortal and benign reign... Then all professes in the O.T. would be fulfilled... specifically if he legally changed his name to Immanuel ("God with us," a Jewish name and Jewish explicative) or perhaps to Mahershalalhashbaz (the name of the 2nd child foretold) "plunder speedeth" the ensnared sheep.
Read some history... The Catholic Scholars admit it (the NT was Their Idea, which they were called HERETICS for by the Conservative Jews who believed in OT only and Jesus as fullfilling that O.T. without any need for further adding of New Texts by Religious Human Hands)
2nd Timothy WAS ADDED as part of the CHOOSING of the religious letters and writings to include in the NEW TESTAMENT for VENERATION AS HISTORICAL PROOF by the Uneducated Layity and EDUCATING the CHRISTIAN LEADERS THAT COULD READ AND "INTERPRET CORRECTLY" to favor the Roman-sanctified Church (Roman Catholic) which moved to Constantinople as Roman Orthodox (calling themselves Catholic and "correctly" Catholics to that).
I think recently the Eastern Orthodox churches (after the falling of Constantinople and their miserable lack of power) have decided to join under the Vatican Catholic Church. That is of course, because the details aren't important, the money is.
2nd Timothy (i.e. The Second Letter Saved by the CHURCH and Addressed to Timothy and Assumed to be written by Paul as a simple correspondence to his friend Timothy) would not have been talking about the earliest versions of the four gospels, nor about the book of Acts. They weren't around.
Paul's Letters are dated earlier than any of the NON-PAULIAN venerated scripts.
Most militant Christians contort to see it as a Prophesy that talked about the OT and the New Testament canonized hundreds of years later (since Pauls letters are actually written 10-40 years after Jesus' supposed death.)
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Read some history... The Catholic Scholars admit it (the NT was Their Idea, which they were called HERETICS for by the Conservative Jews who believed in OT only and Jesus as fullfilling that O.T. without any need for further adding of New Texts by Religious Human Hands)
2nd Timothy WAS ADDED as part of the CHOOSING of the religious letters and writings to include in the NEW TESTAMENT for VENERATION AS HISTORICAL PROOF by the Uneducated Layity and EDUCATING the CHRISTIAN LEADERS THAT COULD READ AND "INTERPRET CORRECTLY" to favor the Roman-sanctified Church (Roman Catholic) which moved to Constantinople as Roman Orthodox (calling themselves Catholic and "correctly" Catholics to that).
I think recently the Eastern Orthodox churches (after the falling of Constantinople and their miserable lack of power) have decided to join under the Vatican Catholic Church. That is of course, because the details aren't important, the money is.
2nd Timothy (i.e. The Second Letter Saved by the CHURCH and Addressed to Timothy and Assumed to be written by Paul as a simple correspondence to his friend Timothy) would not have been talking about the earliest versions of the four gospels, nor about the book of Acts. They weren't around.
Paul's Letters are dated earlier than any of the NON-PAULIAN venerated scripts.
Most militant Christians contort to see it as a Prophesy that talked about the OT and the New Testament canonized hundreds of years later (since Pauls letters are actually written 10-40 years after Jesus' supposed death.)
I'm well aware of the timeline of the NT scripts. I'm also well aware that if Paul was not the salesman that he was, the flavor of Christianity that exists today would not be around, and it is questionable if any of the extant Christian sects of that time would have persevered. If so, most likely it would have been a gnostic flavor, and certainly a trinity would not be a keystone of belief.
I'm very familiar with the historicity of the Christian religion, which has nothing to do with any supposed Jesus.
I'm well aware of the timeline of the NT scripts. I'm also well aware that if Paul was not the salesman that he was, the flavor of Christianity that exists today would not be around, and it is questionable if any of the extant Christian sects of that time would have persevered. If so, most likely it would have been a gnostic flavor, and certainly a trinity would not be a keystone of belief.
I'm very familiar with the historicity of the Christian religion, which has nothing to do with any supposed Jesus.
By being amazed at eddie's statement and suggesting he had missed that the letters addressed to Timothy "are in the New Testament" I thought you were insinuating that the Timothy Letters were "of course" talking about the New Testament in which they are included, or the Bible versions (O.T. + N.T.) in which it is also included. Anyone could, of course, include Timothy in any book and say that Timothy is talking about that entire book, or even about ANY WRITING what so ever, since Yahweh is supposed to be in control of everything, including the existence and availability of writings.
How often we heard a apologists make the argument presented in Hebrews 8 when discussing issues like homosexuality and why Leviticus should apply versus the wearing of mixed cloth, and why it doesn't.
There is one problem.
Hebrews 8 is NOT Jesus speaking.
However, Matthew 5:17-18 it IS Jesus speaking. And it clearly states that nothing of the old law is eliminated.
In other words, the new covenant law argument is bogus.
What did G-d say about the New Covenant in the OT?...
What he is saying is that when that letter was allegedly written that the new testament did not exist so when Timothy mentioned scripture he was talking about the TaNaKh...
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
What did G-d say about the New Covenant in the OT?...
It has nothing to do with the topic... this is a NT issue. It says one thing in one place, and something else in another. The usual apologist quote is that the Moses law is defunct, and they forget about what Jesus said, as opposed to what Paul said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
