Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Zionist Conspirator
Then why the need for this comment?

"There is a reason that both the chr*stian and liberal "new covenants" try to retain the central place in human history of the Jewish People; it is because that place so objective that it cannot be denied. This being the case, why this need to create continual "new covenants" on which to base our lives when one already exists? The Covenant of Sinai (which includes and finalized the Covenant of Noach for non-Jews) is the final, definitive Revelation of G-d to mankind to which all further revelations must defer for judgement. It neither allows for nor authorizes any "new covenents" that supercede it or change the Jewish mission from what it has always been. Since the centrality of `Am Yisra'el in history is so obvious, then the authentic Jewish Covenant should be equally obvious."

It may not have been the main attack, but it was an attack against Christianity just the same. You realize we judge Sinai according to Christ, not vice versa.

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; " (Heb. 1:1,2)

19 posted on 01/23/2006 9:52:04 AM PST by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: topcat54
It may not have been the main attack, but it was an attack against Christianity just the same. You realize we judge Sinai according to Christ, not vice versa.

You realize that Sinai came first and was already accepted and acknowledged to be the authentic Revelation of G-d. This means that when J*sus came along his claims had to submit to it. By accepting a latter "revelation" first and accepting a former, already accepted revelation only on the authority of a later revelation you are committing a logical fallacy known as "affirmation of the consequent." This is the same fallacy that evolutionists often commit.

The claims of J*sus are the topic in dispute. That being the case you cannot assume and invoke its authority in order to prove it.

This isn't that much different than Creationist quoting Romans to me and then saying that I now "know the truth" because I have just heard "scripture" when I don't acknowledge the "new testament as "scripture."

Okay. Nobody's going to comment on my digs at liberal Jews and their worship of the Holicaust. Maybe I posted this on the wrong forum. My apologies.

29 posted on 01/25/2006 9:14:18 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Shallach 'et `ammi veya`avduni!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson