..which, technically, is not against any law given to Moses. All the prohibitions about disassociation with Gentiles began after Israel's release from the Babylonian captivity.Jesus speaks with women of another tribe.
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
When our anointed Savior blessed the Samaritan woman, this was a foreshadow of what was to occur.
..which, also, is not prohibited in the law given to Moses. I mean, yes. People became unclean, themselves, if they came in contact with a leper, or anything the leper touched, but it wasn't a sin. Our anointed Savior, also, did what was necessary, showing that even the sick deserve love and compassion, and that not everyone sick was judged by "God". If they were, they couldn't be healed.Jesus touches lepers.
Well, hopefully, I've demonstrated that your perception is a wrong one, from the answers I've provided in this post. Even when he allowed his apostles to pick corn on the Sabbath, he picked none, himself. During those moments, though, he proved that necessity overshadowed adherence.Jesus fails many times to keep the Law of Moses as it is written.
I denied nothing. Reading the text, we can see that the covenant was between Father and every living thing on earth. All I said, though, was that the covenant with Noah and every living thing was different than the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Call it "splitting hairs" if you want, but it is what it is. Father is Father and that's the way it is. That's why I quoted a verse that proves that Father would make promises by His own name, because there was none greater to swear by.You are hair splitting about covenants. God makes a covenant with Noah yet you deny it.
It's sad that you feel that way considering that Father stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son and provided them an animal to sacrifice. It's also sad, too, that you feel that way considering that when it came to His own son, Father didn't withhold him from us, knowing that it was imperative that a substitute pay the price for our sins, and only a substitute that identifies with us identically. And you call the same "God" "sadistic."What kind of sadistic God would do such a thing as with Abraham? Such a God is unworthy of worship.