.png "Menu")
Is Judah Maccabee the Archangel Michael in the Book of Daniel? (Dn. 12:1-5)
Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Ezequiel 4:18, Hebreus 9:12, Apocalipse 22:10.
Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?
Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?
Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?
Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?