Oh man. You actually edited my post to remove the verse I quoted from Heb 8. When ***** like you actually remove supporting evidence from others' posts there's no hope of dialogue. You've just proven you're a snobby self righteous cocksucking *****.
Actually, I just shortened all the crap and quoted the exact same passage from a different translation, the point being exactly the same. Here's your quote:
"By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
Note that just like my quote in a different translation, it says the exact same thing: that the covenant is new. Note further how it does NOT state the law is new. Now go re-read my previous post on how you can't seem to comprehend the difference between the two. Alternately, find me a quote that states the law is new, changed, or why.
In other words: you're finding bullshit reasons to whine about how everyone else sucks instead of of actually addressing the real points. Again.
Let me know if you still are confused with the difference between law and agreement.
The cross is a symbol of a murder weapon used at the conclusion of severe torture. If Jesus was tortured and then shot with a gun, would you wear an outline of a gun around your neck?
You keep proving how ******* stoopid you are. The Cross was used explicitly for terrorism and was torture in and of itself. The victims suffocated to death and it was a long slow, excruciating death meant to send a message to. others. Jesus took the most ostensible tool of terrorism and used it to show that violence and rule by fear and military dominance could be answered with non-violence and that God's justice was not about vengence. But don't let such.....basic information stew your little world you ******* useless *****.
Oh I see now! You have enlightened me. Now I know the cross was used as "a long slow, excruciating death". See I had it wrong by calling it "the conclusion of severe torture". Somehow "long slow excruciating death" and "torture" are different in your head. That's amazing.
And you say it's different because it was terrorism. So perhaps I should rephrase my question: if Jesus was killed in a terrorist car bomb, would you wear a Kia symbol around your neck?
Hey I have another great idea: How bout instead of addressing the actual topic, you come up with irrelevant name calling, preach about crap no one mentioned, exalt Jesus in unrelated methods, and then continue to fellate yourself into believing everyone else is wrong for no particular reason whatsoever. Cuz hey, we all gotta do what we're good at, right?
Why I Am Not A CurveLight
