ECT Old Covenant?

[Dan Emanuel]

...everything that the Lord Jesus Christ taught, while on earth, was Old Covenant. Matthew-John, at least prior to the death, burial, resurrection, was Old Covenant, not "the new covenant."

"before his resurrection"-=Old Covenant....

Matthew 5

37 ...let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.​

Old Covenant? And therefore a command that we Christian's can ignore, because its not written to us? Yes or no. This is open to anybody, its not a call-out thread.

If you say Yes, then why should we believe anything else you have to say?


Daniel

 

[john w]

Matthew 5

37 ...let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.​

Old Covenant? And therefore a command that we Christian's can ignore, because its not written to us? Yes or no. This is open to anybody, its not a call-out thread.

If you say Yes, then why should we believe anything else you have to say?


Daniel

"command that we Christian's can ignore, because its not written to us?"-you

False dichotomy, humanism.


Matthew-John, at least prior to the dbr, is Old Covenant. The Lord Jesus Christ taught the law, part of the OC, not the NC:

Hebrews 9 KJB


15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Which word do you not understand?


And you deceitfully spun my words, out of context, to my point I was making with poser/poster "god'sUNTruth's "argument." Knock it off.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And you deceitfully spun my words, out of context, to my point I was making with poser/poster "god'sUNTruth's "argument." Knock it off.

He must think he's talking to a jerk.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

"command that we Christian's can ignore, because its not written to us?"-you

False dichotomy, humanism...

Its a yes/no question, they'res no false dichotomy their. Its either true or false. It can't be both, which is what your implying by calling it a false dichotomy.

...Matthew-John, at least prior to the dbr, is Old Covenant. The Lord Jesus christ taught the law, part of the OC, not the NC:...

Right, thats what prompted my question.

...Hebrews 9 KJB

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Which word do you not understand?...

I understand all those word's. You understand my question, correct? Do you or do you not believe that you need to obey Matthew 5:37 KJV? Yes or no.

...And you deceitfully spun my words, out of context, to my point I was making with poser/poster "god'sUNTruth's "argument." Knock it off.

I don't think I did that. You're word's are self-contained their. They'res no context needed to know what you meant. And, you just repeated there essence above anyway, removing all doubt as to what I meant in quoting you're word's.


Daniel

 

[Dan Emanuel]

He must think he's talking to a jerk.

Absolutely not. I know that I'm not talking to a jerk.


Daniel

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Absolutely not. I know that I'm not talking to a jerk.


Daniel

I think you and john w may become friends, after a few Nectarine Crushes at Wally's.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

I think you and john w may become friends, after a few Nectarine Crushes at Wally's.

:chuckle:




Daniel

 

[DAN P]

Matthew 5

37 ...let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.​

Old Covenant? And therefore a command that we Christian's can ignore, because its not written to us? Yes or no. This is open to anybody, its not a call-out thread.

If you say Yes, then why should we believe anything else you have to say?


Daniel

Hi and lets play CONTEXT , if you will !!

In Matt 5:38 , by the way , right below verse 37 , is written ""Ye have heard that it hath been said , An eye for an eye , and a tooth for a tooth ,"

What do you say " Yea , Yea or do you say Nay , Nay ??

dan p

 

[john w]

Its a yes/no question, they'res no false dichotomy their. Its either true or false. It can't be both, which is what your implying by calling it a false dichotomy.
Right, thats what prompted my question.

Nope-"Old Covenant? And therefore a command that we Christian's can ignore, because its not written to us? Yes or no. "-you

False dichotomy.

Humanism.

I understand all those word's. You understand my question, correct? Do you or do you not believe that you need to obey Matthew 5:37 KJV? Yes or no.

Trap question, and quite irrelevant, to the argument, that I was addressing, with "god''sUNTruth.

Slower-understand these words?:

"And you deceitfully spun my words, out of context, to my point I was making with poser/poster "god'sUNTruth's "argument." Knock it off."-saint John W


Are you still beating your wife? Yes, or no?


See how that works?

I don't think I did that. You're word's are self-contained their. They'res no context needed to know what you meant. And, you just repeated there essence above anyway, removing all doubt as to what I meant in quoting you're word's.

Yes you did, deceiver. She was "arguing" that we must only "obey Jesus" as He allegedly taught the NC in Matthew-John, prior to the dbr, but, at the same time, says we must "always obey Jesus."

Slower: The Saviour taught the OC, not the NC, at least prior to the dbr. Read her "argument."

You either are too lazy to read the posts between us, or you are stupid. Which is it?

 

[john w]

I think you and john w may become friends, after a few Nectarine Crushes at Wally's.

I reckon not, Mayor. I don't dig associating with spiders, snakes, "cherry pickers," and those who assert, like Daniel's not my brother, that Judas preached the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Hi and lets play CONTEXT , if you will !!

In Matt 5:38 , by the way , right below verse 37 , is written ""Ye have heard that it hath been said , An eye for an eye , and a tooth for a tooth ,"

What do you say " Yea , Yea or do you say Nay , Nay ??

dan p

How come you don't just answer the yes/no question?


Daniel

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Absolutely not. I know that I'm not talking to a jerk.


Daniel

All those in the new covenant recognize the same thing.

Ask what covenant John W and STP are under ?

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Christ taught the law of the new covenant in Mat.chs 5-6-7.

Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mat 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

 

[DAN P]

Christ taught the law of the new covenant in Mat.chs 5-6-7.

Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mat 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Hi and where does it mention the New Covenant /DIATHEKE in Matt . , chapters 5 ,6 ,7 ??

Christ was not yet dead , nor is Israel yet REGATHERED , so it is BOGUS what you have written !!

Tell all what is inclused , in the New Covenant !!:bang::bang:

dan p

 

[Danoh]

Matthew 8:

1. When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
2. And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Yep, looks like New Covenant to me. Yeah; sure...

Oh, wait; here it is - all the way near the end of Matthew; just four chapters before He is crucified....

Matthew 23:

1. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2. Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Nope; not there either.

Well, John W, STP, and Dan P, looks like we're going to have to throw away our Bibles, let God be a liar, and these fools be true.

I mean, they all assert that the New interprets the Old - what in the world was Jesus thinking, that He sent some guy off to obey Moses' Law of the Leper, Leviticus 14:1-3, etc.

:bang:

 

[Jacob]

Matthew 5

37 ...let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.​

Old Covenant? And therefore a command that we Christian's can ignore, because its not written to us? Yes or no. This is open to anybody, its not a call-out thread.

If you say Yes, then why should we believe anything else you have to say?

Daniel

This is a part of what Jesus taught. Are we reading it in context?

Matthew 5:37 NASB - 37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

...Are you still beating your wife? Yes, or no?


See how that works?...

I do see how that work's. Now I'll show you whether or not my question is that type of question.

You're question is: "Are you still beating your wife? Yes, or no?"

Its a yes/no question, like my question. Check!

You're question imply's something like the following though:

So we all know that you were beating you're wife; are you still doing that? or have you stopped?​

So its clear, that answering either Yes or No, agree's with the premise --essentially in saying No, your saying something like, "Yes, I was beating her, but No I'm not anymore. I've stopped beating her. I don't do that anymore."

So because you can't answer the question either Yes or No without agreeing to the implied message, the question is a trap. We all see that.

So is my question a trap? Here it is:

Matthew 5

37 ...let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.​

Old Covenant? And therefore a command that we Christian's can ignore, because its not written to us? Yes or no.

What does my question imply, if it does not mean what it say's (like you're question about wife-beating)? I'll take the 1st shot at it:

Is Matthew 5:37 KJV written to the Church? Yes or no.

...Yes you did, deceiver...

I am a deceiver; I admit it. I intentionally deceive people sometime's, and sometime's I inadvertently do. I am a deceiver.

...She was "arguing" that we must only "obey Jesus" as He allegedly taught the NC in Matthew-John, prior to the dbr, but, at the same time, says we must "always obey Jesus."

Slower: The Saviour taught the OC, not the NC, at least prior to the dbr. Read her "argument."

You either are too lazy to read the posts between us, or you are stupid. Which is it?

False dichotomy!

God's Truth is somewhere along the man-to-woman spectrum or continuum. G.T. has never positively identified as either man or woman. We all know --including G.T. --that if G.T. is a woman that they are disobeying Pauls counsel that we not allow women to teach men the faith. We all know that, so its not some secret thats going to pop out sometime in the future. Its known. Its a known known. What none of us know except for G.T. is where along the man-to-woman spectrum G.T. is. So if your position against G.T. is in anyway dependent upon G.T. being a woman, and it turn's out that G.T. is not a woman, you've lost the argument/"argument," in reality.

Your treading on thin ice.

Maybe.

Just remember that I admit to being a deceiver.

:e4e:


Daniel

 

[john w]

I do see how that work's. Now I'll show you whether or not my question is that type of question.

You're question is: "Are you still beating your wife? Yes, or no?"

Its a yes/no question, like my question. Check!

You're question imply's something like the following though:

So we all know that you were beating you're wife; are you still doing that? or have you stopped?​

So its clear, that answering either Yes or No, agree's with the premise --essentially in saying No, your saying something like, "Yes, I was beating her, but No I'm not anymore. I've stopped beating her. I don't do that anymore."

So because you can't answer the question either Yes or No without agreeing to the implied message, the question is a trap. We all see that.

So is my question a trap? Here it is:

​

What does my question imply, if it does not mean what it say's (like you're question about wife-beating)? I'll take the 1st shot at it:

Is Matthew 5:37 KJV written to the Church? Yes or no.
I am a deceiver; I admit it. I intentionally deceive people sometime's, and sometime's I inadvertently do. I am a deceiver.
False dichotomy!

God's Truth is somewhere along the man-to-woman spectrum or continuum. G.T. has never positively identified as either man or woman. We all know --including G.T. --that if G.T. is a woman that they are disobeying Pauls counsel that we not allow women to teach men the faith. We all know that, so its not some secret thats going to pop out sometime in the future. Its known. Its a known known. What none of us know except for G.T. is where along the man-to-woman spectrum G.T. is. So if your position against G.T. is in anyway dependent upon G.T. being a woman, and it turn's out that G.T. is not a woman, you've lost the argument/"argument," in reality.

Your treading on thin ice.

Maybe.

Just remember that I admit to being a deceiver.

:e4e:


Daniel

The deceiving mutt, whom I pummeled in another thread, as he bowed out, being bloodied, did not read the exchange I had with the other poster, so, in deceit, he misquotes me, and spams a disjointed mass of scribble, as he is tangled in a mess of ropes, and yarns, and strings, and cobwebs, and neurons, resulting in a twisted pretzel.

"I am a deceiver; I admit it. I intentionally deceive people sometime's, and sometime's I inadvertently do. I am a deceiver."-you

Correct.


I dismissed you earlier, Col. Klink. Sit down.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

The deceiving mutt, whom I pummeled in another thread, as he bowed out, being bloodied, did not read the exchange I had with the other poster, so, in deceit, he misquotes me, and spams a disjointed mass of scribble, as he is tangled in a mess of ropes, and yarns, and strings, and cobwebs, and neurons, resulting in a twisted pretzel.

"I am a deceiver; I admit it. I intentionally deceive people sometime's, and sometime's I inadvertently do. I am a deceiver."-you

Correct.


I dismissed you earlier, Col. Klink. Sit down.

So no answer then.

Is G.T. still posting, or did you shut them down for good. :/


Daniel

1.0

 

[john w]

Christ taught the law of the new covenant in Mat.chs 5-6-7.

Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mat 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

"the law of the new covenant"-source:Judges 21:25 KJV


Made up-no such "concept" in the book.