Search results

You're right. It's unpersuasive. If we were to try to 'piece together' the New Covenant from just the Old Testament, what would we 'come up' with? It's a good thing that God did not leave that task for us to do, instead He provided Twelve Apostles. He trained them and taught them...

This is what I quoted (excerpted), Jeremiah 31:34 " for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Are you trying to tell me that this doesn't sound like "Paul's Gospel of the uncircumcision" to you? (1st Corinthians 15:3 " ...Christ died for our sins according to...

No. Just the excerpt I quoted. The one I excerpted does.

But not necessarily exclusively.

Sad theological misunderstanding on the part of the priest.

Just sounds like "Paul's Gospel to the uncircumcision" to me.

You some sort of universalist? Saying it doesn't make it so. I know that. What I do not know but that you all seem so certain of, is that the New Covenant definitely doesn't involve or include Gentiles, and isn't related to "Paul's Gospel to the uncircumcision." I don't know that.

The Gospel of Mark is known to originate with Peter. Mark 14:23 " And [Jesus] took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." So Peter knew by then, by the time...

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

There isn't any necessary reason to not believe in six days.

I believe the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had 'rings' in its trunk, it doesn't mean I think the thing is billions of years old. God said "I just made this" so it doesn't matter how many 'rings' are in its trunk to me, He made it with rings is all. I don't have any problem with that...

Basically yeah.

Nice. And we can just call that "marriage". We are Christians after all. ;) :D :)

Nope. Now you're equivocating. I never said that the Elect are the same as the remnant that Paul's talking about in chapter 11, such that we can just consider them exact synonyms. You made that up.

But He did say to Peter (Peter was definitely there when this happened) after He Luke 22:19 "took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them," said, "This is my body which is given for you". This Jesus says in the context of that Peter is right there and that Jesus had already...

It's actually a worthy contention here. If morals are absolute then evolution is unlikely to be true, at least as commonly understood. Somehow morals must have evolved, but not just the cultural tradition of morality, but the actual absolute nature of particular morals, must have evolved...

But those are absolute numbers. Isn't Israel like 91% vaccinated? So that these absolute numbers are roughly equal between the vaccinated and unvaccinated means that the proportion or percentage of the unvaccinated with severe illness is like 10 times higher than among the vaccinated, doesn't it?

Why mention predestine if all that's meant is foreknow? "Predestine" means to set something in advance, why would you talk about presetting if the thing being set is going to be setting itself? It seems superfluous and basically meaningless if it's foreknowledge, to mention predestination, but...

What do these terms mean Marke?

Well, it was 'kind of' individuals, wasn't it? It was like a few thousand people, of the remnant, in chapter 11. That's only a small quantity of individuals, so does it stand to reason that individuals are predestined for saving faith?