PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Nothing New About the New Covenant



manichunter
Aug 13th 2008, 07:55 PM
Is there anything new about the new covenant?



The word translated as new is Kainos can mean mutltiple things:
new
as respects form
recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn

as respects substance
of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of

I say no, for a few reasons that have to deal with God from His prospective and mankind from our limited prospective.

I believe the Scirpture that says that Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And that Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and forever. This is the same Jesus who walked and ate dinner with Abraham, then danced with the Hebrew men in the flame. He is also the same Jesus who showed that He was already glorified by transfiguring Himself in all His glory before Peter, John, and James.

What is new from God's prospective. He had already redeemed mankind before He created mankind. It is now up to each individual to accept the invitation of redemption God has already prepared for even Adam before He breathe into his nosrtrils.

What was wrong with the old? Did not God prophesied to Eve that His seed would be the fix for her and Adam's sin and state of sin.

Christian dog love
Aug 13th 2008, 08:07 PM
well God created us in his image and then we messed up and so from that point on until Jesus died for all you had to make a blood offering year after year after year whereas today Jesus did it once for all so we don't have to do it year after year to be holy and right with GOD.

Bryan43
Aug 13th 2008, 08:13 PM
I agree.

remember what Christ did for both adam and eve right after they sinned?

He killed an innocent animal. and used that animals skin to "cover" the nakedness of them both.

this is the first picture of an innocent having to shed blood to cover the nakedness ( sin ) of mankind. and this covering up of redemption is what saves us.

Sold Out
Aug 13th 2008, 08:45 PM
Is there anything new about the new covenant?




The word translated as new is Kainos can mean mutltiple things:
new
as respects form
recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn

as respects substance
of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of



What was wrong with the old? Did not God prophesied to Eve that His seed would be the fix for her and Adam's sin and state of sin.

There are two greek words translated 'new', one of which you referenced here. Kainos is new, but not BRAND new...like if I bought a 2003 Ford car and I asked you to come look at my new car...well it's not brand new, but it's new to ME.

The other word translated new is 'neos', which would mean brand spanking new.

So your reasoning is correct....it is a new covenant for those who are putting it into practice, but not new in the sense that it never existed before.

manichunter
Aug 13th 2008, 09:01 PM
There are two greek words translated 'new', one of which you referenced here. Kainos is new, but not BRAND new...like if I bought a 2003 Ford car and I asked you to come look at my new car...well it's not brand new, but it's new to ME.

The other word translated new is 'neos', which would mean brand spanking new.

So your reasoning is correct....it is a new covenant for those who are putting it into practice, but not new in the sense that it never existed before.


The proper translation would be more like "New to you".

Brother Mark
Aug 13th 2008, 09:08 PM
Is there anything new about the new covenant?



The word translated as new is Kainos can mean mutltiple things:

new
as respects form

recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn


as respects substance

of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of



I say no, for a few reasons that have to deal with God from His prospective and mankind from our limited prospective.

One way to properly divide scripture, is to look at all of scripture. So while the word you use is interesting, there is also a word for "new" in the OT. Let's look there as well. Perhaps with the use of both words, we can better understand what God was saying.

Jer 31:31-33

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
KJV

This is what was quoted in Hebrews. Here's the Hebrew word for new.

OT:2319

OT:2319 chadash (khaw-dawsh'); from OT:2318; new:

KJV - fresh, new thing.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

It comes from the OT word

OT:2318

OT:2318 chadash (khaw-dash'); a primitive root; to be new; causatively, to rebuild:

KJV - renew, repair.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

So in a since, the old covenant was faulty and need to be replaced. If you wish to say, renewed, you can do so, but it clearly changed and is not the same. That is why the translators and most scholars prefer "new". It is a different covenant. We did not renew a contract. We got one that is different. The law was changed according to Hebrews and now we can all be priest. In context of Jeremiah, it says the covenant will be a different one from the old. Allow me to quote again...

Jer 31:31-32

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
KJV

The new covenant is not according to the old covenant. That is why we call it new. God did not renew the old covenant. He made a new one and kept the best of the old and put it in the new. The best being, he put in shadows of what his full intention was all along.



I believe the Scirpture that says that Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And that Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and forever. This is the same Jesus who walked and ate dinner with Abraham, then danced with the Hebrew men in the flame. He is also the same Jesus who showed that He was already glorified by transfiguring Himself in all His glory before Peter, John, and James.

I agree with this. People have always entered into covenant with God the same way, through faith.


What is new from God's prospective. He had already redeemed mankind before He created mankind. It is now up to each individual to accept the invitation of redemption God has already prepared for even Adam before He breathe into his nosrtrils.

What was wrong with the old? Did not God prophesied to Eve that His seed would be the fix for her and Adam's sin and state of sin.

There was plenty wrong with the old. The old did not allow God to live in man, in other words, the old covenant did not change man but the new one does. Under the old covenant, the best man could hope for was paradise. Under the new, we can be with God for eternity.

What God did do, was to shadow the new with the old. As a result, many of the old testament prophets began to understand that something better was coming and the labored for our benefit.

1 Peter 1:10-12
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven — things into which angels long to look.
NASB

They knew a Better was coming and were excited about it.

And for this reason, Hebrews repeatedly says we have a "better covenant".

NT:2908

NT:2908 kreisson (krice'-son); neuter of an alternate form of NT:2909; (as noun) better, i.e. greater advantage:

KJV - better.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

The new covenant is much better than the old in many, many ways. We are thankful for that. Was the new prophesied with Eve? Most certainly. But the Law of Moses is not the fulfillment of the prophesy given to Eve and that covenant is different than the covenant we have in Christ.

Praise God that he did not leave us under the old, for God, through Christ, accomplishes in us what the old covenant could not. We must be careful, for if we say the old covenant was enough, then we say Jesus blood is not needed.

manichunter
Aug 13th 2008, 09:29 PM
One way to properly divide scripture, is to look at all of scripture. So while the word you use is interesting, there is also a word for "new" in the OT. Let's look there as well. Perhaps with the use of both words, we can better understand what God was saying.

The new covenant is not according to the old covenant. That is why we call it new. God did not renew the old covenant. He made a new one and kept the best of the old and put it in the new. The best being, he put in shadows of what his full intention was all along.

I agree with this. People have always entered into covenant with God the same way, through faith.

There was plenty wrong with the old. The old did not allow God to live in man, in other words, the old covenant did not change man but the new one does. Under the old covenant, the best man could hope for was paradise. Under the new, we can be with God for eternity.

What God did do, was to shadow the new with the old. As a result, many of the old testament prophets began to understand that something better was coming and the labored for our benefit.

They knew a Better was coming and were excited about it.

And for this reason, Hebrews repeatedly says we have a "better covenant".

NT:2908

NT:2908 kreisson (krice'-son); neuter of an alternate form of NT:2909; (as noun) better, i.e. greater advantage:

KJV - better.

The new covenant is much better than the old in many, many ways. We are thankful for that. Was the new prophesied with Eve? Most certainly. But the Law of Moses is not the fulfillment of the prophesy given to Eve and that covenant is different than the covenant we have in Christ.

Praise God that he did not leave us under the old, for God, through Christ, accomplishes in us what the old covenant could not. We must be careful, for if we say the old covenant was enough, then we say Jesus blood is not needed.

I feel like giving you a hug. :pp A manly hug that is.

I would say that the shadows have not been done away with, I think the actual object the shadow was cast off of came to be manifested. Hence, what was not seen in its fulness can be seen as it is. However, I keep reminding myself of what Saul taught concerning even this covenant. He said that we currently see in this manner as Scripture indicate.


1Co 13:9-12 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+13:12&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.


We still only see the shadow of certain things. Until I fly or die, I will be hindered in my efforts to see God's fulness and glory found in His work of redemption for me. I beleive we brag to much as saints as to what we know and is true. We are still looking in the same manner as the first covenant saint except by the Holy Spirit; and He rules and not the other way of around. We can only know anything different from a shadow by the instruction of the Holy Spirit.

I would not look at the word better as in better quality but greater advantage. What is the advantage of this covenant? That the Holy Spirit abides within man to keep the covenant.


I will write more after you respond, because I can see a lot more of God's glory in our conversing ahead. Praise Yahweh........

manichunter
Aug 13th 2008, 09:44 PM
One way to properly divide scripture, is to look at all of scripture. So while the word you use is interesting, there is also a word for "new" in the OT. Let's look there as well. Perhaps with the use of both words, we can better understand what God was saying.

Jer 31:31-33

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
KJV

This is what was quoted in Hebrews. Here's the Hebrew word for new.

OT:2319

OT:2319 chadash (khaw-dawsh'); from OT:2318; new:

.

I am going to another level. I just turned on my T-bone. T-bone goes hard with a little Marvin Sapp on the side. I am having personal worship now, will be back after praise, the mood just hit me to sing and pray to the Most High. Be back after I finishing shouting................

Bryan43
Aug 13th 2008, 10:29 PM
Praise God that he did not leave us under the old, for God, through Christ, accomplishes in us what the old covenant could not. We must be careful, for if we say the old covenant was enough, then we say Jesus blood is not needed.

Amen, all the old covenant did was bring death, as paul stated. I brought us not only to know who the messiah would be, and what he would do. but it showed us our need for a savior.

Jesus fullfilling the old covenant did this. He is the only man who ever lived that can not be charged with breaking any of the laws of the covenant, Thus. according to pure justice. Jesus was then free to take the penalty that we all deserve for breaking the laws of the covenant ( spiritul death) in our place. and thus set us free from the penalty, this is called redemption.

Heb 8:3-6

For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.


As we see. the old covenant was a copy or shadow of the new.


shadow:
4639σκιά [skia /skee·ah/] n (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1) f (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn2). Apparently a primary word; TDNT (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn3) 7:394; TDNTA (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn4) 1044; GK (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn5) 5014; Seven occurrences; AV (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn6) translates as “shadow” seven times. 1 shadow. 1a shade caused by the interception of light. 1b an image cast by an object and representing the form of that object. 1c a sketch, outline, adumbration.

n (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref1)n: noun or neuter

f (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref2)f: feminine

TDNT (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref3)Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TDNTA (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref4)Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume

GK (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref5)Goodrick-Kohlenberger

AV (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref6)Authorized Version

Strong, James: Enhanced Strong's Lexicon. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1996, S. G4639

Copy, or in some translations example:


5262ὑπόδειγμα [hupodeigma /hoop·od·igue·mah/] n (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn1) n. From 5263; TDNT (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn2) 2:32; TDNTA (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn3) 141; GK (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn4) 5682; Six occurrences; AV (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftn5) translates as “example” four times, “pattern” once, and “ensample” once. 1 a sign suggestive of anything, delineation of a thing, representation, figure, copy. 2 an example: for imitation. 2a of the thing to be imitated. 2b for a warning, of a thing to be shunned.

n (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref1)n: noun or neuter

TDNT (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref2)Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TDNTA (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref3)Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume

GK (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref4)Goodrick-Kohlenberger

AV (http://bibleforums.org/#_ftnref5)Authorized Version

Strong, James: Enhanced Strong's Lexicon. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1996, S. G5262

timmyb
Aug 13th 2008, 10:38 PM
i say the 'new' covenant is not really new at all... it's just a continuation of God's plan... God hasn't forgotten his other covenants to Israel... the Messiah is a confirmation of God's covenant to Israel and at the same time an invitation to the world to cut covenant with God... Israel has no choice in the matter they will ALL call upon the Messiah and be saved because Scripture says it plainly, but the Gentiles have the option of cutting covenant with God

RogerW
Aug 13th 2008, 10:38 PM
Is there anything new about the new covenant?


The word translated as new is Kainos can mean mutltiple things:
new
as respects form
recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn

as respects substance
of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of

I say no, for a few reasons that have to deal with God from His prospective and mankind from our limited prospective.

I believe the Scirpture that says that Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And that Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and forever. This is the same Jesus who walked and ate dinner with Abraham, then danced with the Hebrew men in the flame. He is also the same Jesus who showed that He was already glorified by transfiguring Himself in all His glory before Peter, John, and James.

What is new from God's prospective. He had already redeemed mankind before He created mankind. It is now up to each individual to accept the invitation of redemption God has already prepared for even Adam before He breathe into his nosrtrils.

What was wrong with the old? Did not God prophesied to Eve that His seed would be the fix for her and Adam's sin and state of sin.

Greetings Manic,

In Dispensational theology one tends to think that the “Covenant of Grace” and salvation, or election, are the same thing. In other words, Dispensationalists believe that those in the Covenant of Grace have to be saved to be in covenant with God. This is a fundamental error in their Dispensational theology.

Dispensational theology tells us that Jeremiah is prophesying that the New Covenant to come is going to be different than the old Covenant in that it is in the heart. This is the New Testament writers’ point in Hebrews 8. Those in the New Testament church will be saved and regenerate. They are the only ones in the New Covenant. Jesus will radically bring about a new kind of way in dealing with men. There will be no more need to teach the law because God will teach it to men and write it on their hearts.

Pentecost shows us this when the Spirit comes and now dwells in men.
Some believe that Moses, and Israel in receiving the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, were receiving a new way of obedience. The Law was a tutor to point us to the need for Christ. The point of God’s law is that it demonstrates the duty of men in relation to the nature of God. The law of God is the perfect reflection of His nature and will, and binds all rational creatures to perfect conformity in character and conduct. But wicked men are sinners and cannot keep the law. The Messiah must come, and keep the law for us.

Paul tells us in Galatians, the ceremonial and judicial Mosaic Law is simply a tutor, to be done away with later when Christ, the capstone, comes. So, we should remember the occupants of the covenant, if they obey, they are blessed, if they disobey they are cursed.

Christ fulfills the Law and the necessity to keep the Law for justification, and we now have the fulfilled Abrahamic promise seen in the freeness of the Gospel. But understand the Mosaic Covenant is not a Covenant of Works. It is a continuation of the Covenant of Grace, building up the building. Moses would have been a fool to teach Israel that salvation came by works. Nowhere do we find that God required them to work in order to be justified. The work of justification is through Christ alone. Their obedience as a covenant people, already assuming some of them were regenerate, required their sanctification – something they always messed up because of their sinful nature that hated to please God.

So God has one covenant plan through time – the Covenant of Grace, after the fall. Moses relied as much on grace and the promises to Abraham as Abraham did. 1 Peter 2:9 paraphrases what God said to Moses and Israel on Sinai.

The Hebrew word is not “new” but “renew” or “refresh.” Chadash a primitive root; to be new; causatively, to rebuild:--renew, repair. The covenant here is a renewing, or refreshing of the Abrahamic promise over the tutoring of the Mosaic covenant. So the covenant made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, one that the Messiah will bring in, is going to be the Abrahamic Covenant fulfilled.

Pentecost does not give us a new “Dispensation” of the Spirit regarding regeneration. Those who believe that Pentecost marked a changed in the way the Spirit works in the heart are very mistaken. Think about Jesus in John 3 with Nicodemas. What did he say to Nicodemas in verse 10? He said that Nicodemas was Israel’s teacher and he did not understand what it means to be born again. He was rebuking him because Nicodemas should have understood the Old Testament idea of being regenerated.

Hebrews 8 quotes the whole passage we read in Jeremiah. But what if you misunderstand Jeremiah 31? Will you ever understand Hebrew 8? Now we have the renewed covenant, the old Mosaic covenant is gone, and the writing is on the heart. But this is not new, it is the renewed covenant of Abraham, and that is an important point.

The text says we will not have any more teachers in this renewed covenant. But we have teachers today. The New Covenant is a “now and not yet” covenant. Like the Old Testament which was “now and not yet” in promise, we must take the text as it stands. In the New Covenant there will be no more teachers. Only in heaven will everyone know the Lord completely and in heaven there will be no teachers.


The renewed covenant made with the house of Israel and Judah is the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled in Christ. It is set in contrast to the ceremonial and judicial laws given at Sinai because the blood of bulls and goats do not really save. Jesus Christ inaugurates the coming of this new kingdom and renewed covenant. In doing so, the New Covenant is “now” for us, since we are saved; but it is also “not yet,” in that in heaven all people will know the Lord from the least to the greatest. There are teachers now in inaugurating the renewed covenant, but there will be no teachers then. There are saved people now, but the “knowing” is complete only in heaven. No church, anywhere, is made up of all regenerate people, and is without teachers or pastors.

Jeremiah 31 has some eschatological overtones to its fulfillment. We definitely have a “now” aspect of it – being saved and regenerate. But, we still need to get to heaven to experience the fullness of the “now and not yet” prophecy of Jeremiah 31. We are certainly experiencing salvation “now”, and I know I am saved, but I am also being saved, and will be saved and then glorified, so to speak. There is still a “not yet” part to come.

The law is written on the hearts of all men, that is why they have consciences now. The Spirit convicts them of sin. Yet, they cannot act in “good conscience” because they are defiled from within. So the Spirit changes them and the heart is made new. A new creation results. But even then, the sinful nature pulls them down and tries to entice them to sin. Only in heaven will we enjoy the ability to please God perfectly. Jeremiah is showing that the tablets of stone, the Law, is no match for the regenerated heart. And how glorious will the community of believers be when the whole community, form the least to the greatest is made whole and without sin! So now what do you do when you bring this different idea to Hebrews 8?

Hope this helps to clarify the New Covenant for you.

Many Blessings,
RW

dan p
Aug 13th 2008, 10:51 PM
I am an dispensationlist and I never use the term Covenant of Grace, because that is Covenant Theology. The 3 book where the New Covenant is used . In Jer 31:31 and Heb 8:8 and in Ezek 36:26,27. One brother mentioned that Old Covenant did not allow the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit , where the New Covenant does, very good point.

manichunter
Aug 13th 2008, 11:14 PM
Greetings Manic,

In Dispensational theology one tends to think that the “Covenant of Grace” and salvation, or election, are the same thing. In other words, Dispensationalists believe that those in the Covenant of Grace have to be saved to be in covenant with God. This is a fundamental error in their Dispensational theology.


Hope this helps to clarify the New Covenant for you.

Many Blessings,
RW

Excuse me while I cut and paste this stuff to my flash drive. Anyway what else has the Spirit told you about the fact that we still see through a glass dimly now even within this renewed covenant. Are we still looking at some shadows?

The devil plays with words at the detriment of the saints. We use words like new, old, better. All kind of wrong mindsets get established. If I have something better, then the old is bad and obselete. It is no longer good. It can sometimes be understood as this, hence become a stumble block to some. It almost establishes a mindset that we are better people than those of the old testament. I now most do not naturally think this, but it crepts in because the words we accept. Words are powerful and they create thoughts unconsciously.

What do also got to say about ........ I forgot now. will remember later.

Friend of I AM
Aug 13th 2008, 11:24 PM
Excuse me while I cut and paste this stuff to my flash drive. Anyway what else has the Spirit told you about the fact that we still see through a glass dimly now even within this renewed covenant.

The devil plays with words at the detriment of the saints. We use words like new, old, better. All kind of wrong mindsets get established. If I have something better, then the old is bad and obselete. It is no longer good. It can sometimes be understood as this, hence become a stumble block to some. It almost establishes a mindset that we are better people than those of the old testament. I now most do not naturally think this, but it crepts in because the words we accept. Words are powerful and they create thoughts unconsciously.

What do also got to say about ........ I forgot now. will remember later.

Well the old covenant was stated by Paul to be obselete - as it did not bring man to perfection, but only exposed his imperfection and his need for a savoir. This doesn't mean that the law itself was bad, as it partially represented God's Holiness..and helped us understand what sin was/is by bring us to Christ. As stated by Paul, we still use the law as a tutor in our walk..so the law is very helpful and beneficial to us even to this day. Still, the fullness of the gospel was brought to completion with Christ and his covenant of "grace" through his sacrafice on the cross, thus we don't have to worry every minute about not being able to keep the entirety of the law, Christ has already done this for us.

In Christ,

Stephen

manichunter
Aug 13th 2008, 11:26 PM
KJV - better.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

The new covenant is much better than the old in many, many ways. We are thankful for that. Was the new prophesied with Eve? Most certainly. But the Law of Moses is not the fulfillment of the prophesy given to Eve and that covenant is different than the covenant we have in Christ.

Praise God that he did not leave us under the old, for God, through Christ, accomplishes in us what the old covenant could not. We must be careful, for if we say the old covenant was enough, then we say Jesus blood is not needed.


Never responded back........... Anyway do you think us seeing through a glass dimly now still means that some things are still shadows to us........ better yet, all things are still shadows to us without the interpretation of the Holy Spirit to grant us true insight.

manichunter
Aug 13th 2008, 11:31 PM
Well the old covenant was stated by Paul to be obselete - as it did not bring man to perfection, but only exposed his imperfection and his need for a savoir. This doesn't mean that the law itself was bad, as it partially represented God's Holiness..and helped us understand what sin was/is by bring us to Christ. As stated by Paul, we still use the law as a tutor in our walk..so the law is very helpful and beneficial to us even to this day. Still, the fullness of the gospel was brought to completion with Christ and his covenant of "grace" through his sacrafice on the cross, thus we don't have to worry every minute about not being able to keep the entirety of the law, Christ has already done this for us.

In Christ,

Stephen

What parts of the law have proven to be the most beneficial to you? Have you been blessed by the principles of the sacrificial offering system?
What has grace from the Holy Spirit led you to understand about how Abraham shared in the same grace we live in today? :pp I endeavor to learn more. That Marvin Sapp "Never Would Have Made It" is going hard. I am better, much better, because I almost lost it all.

Friend of I AM
Aug 13th 2008, 11:38 PM
What parts of the law have proven to be the most beneficial to you? Have you been blessed by the principles of the sacrificial offering system?
What has grace from the Holy Spirit led you to understand about how Abraham shared in the same grace we live in today? :pp I endeavor to learn more. That Marvin Sapp "Never Would Have Made It" is going hard. I am better, much better, because I almost lost it all.

Oh all aspects of the law have helped mankind out. I think of the times before no law was implemented(times of Noah) Those were some real rough times that we're all blessed to not to have had to live through. The law actually also helped us investigate and discover many scientific endeavors, particulary those things relating to unclean animals, times when one should abstain from sexual relations, etc.

So there are definite benefits from a scientific/practical/philosophical perspective regarding the law. It is the primary reason why Christian societies have become so advanced over the years. Still with all of it's benefits(knowledge, power, etc) the law couldn't bring us to salvation and perfection..thus Christ's covenant represents the stronger of the two covenants..as He is the living embodiment of the law fulfilled and the Love that he exemplifies can't be bound by or restricted by anything.

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 12:32 AM
1Co 13:9-12 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+13:12&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

Agreed.


We still only see the shadow of certain things.
Until I fly or die, I will be hindered in my efforts to see God's fulness and glory found in His work of redemption for me. I beleive we brag to much as saints as to what we know and is true. We are still looking in the same manner as the first covenant saint except by the Holy Spirit; and He rules and not the other way of around. We can only know anything different from a shadow by the instruction of the Holy Spirit.Indeed, by the Holy Spirit we understand. The old covenant cannot be understood without the new, or direct revelation from God about the new covenant. He gave the revelation to many of the prophets and they preached about it but by looking through a glass darkly.


I would not look at the word better as in better quality but greater advantage. What is the advantage of this covenant? That the Holy Spirit abides within man to keep the covenant. But it is of better quality. That does not mean the law isn't good. It is. It is perfect. But it's ministry is one of death. The new covenant is better in every way because what the old covenant could not do, in that it was limited, Jesus did do.

watchinginawe
Aug 14th 2008, 01:20 PM
Is there anything new about the new covenant?
...
I say no, for a few reasons that have to deal with God from His prospective and mankind from our limited prospective.


I believe the Scirpture that says that Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And that Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and forever. This is the same Jesus who walked and ate dinner with Abraham, then danced with the Hebrew men in the flame. He is also the same Jesus who showed that He was already glorified by transfiguring Himself in all His glory before Peter, John, and James.

What is new from God's prospective. He had already redeemed mankind before He created mankind. It is now up to each individual to accept the invitation of redemption God has already prepared for even Adam before He breathe into his nosrtrils.

What was wrong with the old? Did not God prophesied to Eve that His seed would be the fix for her and Adam's sin and state of sin.There are some good posts in this thread.

manichunter, IMO what you propose above is the non-effectual cross we have been talking about. In different posts, I have attempted to present some of how Paul says this occurs. Paul talked about the offence of the cross ceasing and how that would cause the cross to be non-effectual. Paul talked about the power of God in the cross which can be made of none effect by parsing the message with words of wisdom of man, and here I present yet another way, the frustation of grace:

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

IMO, the above verse is completely applicable to this thread. If the Gospel is "second verse, same as the first", then Christ is dead in vain. Now maybe that isn't a problem with your theology as you seem to present some sort of "unified theory of grace".
The devil plays with words at the detriment of the saints. We use words like new, old, better. All kind of wrong mindsets get established. If I have something better, then the old is bad and obselete. It is no longer good. It can sometimes be understood as this, hence become a stumble block to some. It almost establishes a mindset that we are better people than those of the old testament. I now most do not naturally think this, but it crepts in because the words we accept. Words are powerful and they create thoughts unconsciously.You would have to ignore the New Testament almost entirely to not have the mindset you want to avoid. It is not "we" that use words like new, old, better. These are the promises of God in scripture!

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

In the above verse, how do you read "would justify" as "always justified"? :dunno:

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Looking at verse 14, we see that the promise is "the Spirit through faith". Is that a future promise or has that been accomplished? When? Or has that always been accomplished? If always accomplished, then Christ is dead in vain and the promise to and of Abraham was made in vain and of none effect.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

But Paul says above that no, the promise was NOT made of none effect by the giving of the law. And consequently, the law WAS NOT the promise. The promise was not accomplished in first covenant but still stood as the promise of God. For illustration purposes, I will give the same verse again from the NASB:

17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

If the first was equal and substantially the same as the second, then I don't understand Paul's concern and attention to the matter. I also don't understand the necessity of the promise to Abraham. I also don't understand the neccessity of the cross of Christ. This is how the cross loses the offence, this is how the cross becomes of none effect, this is how the cross of Christ is in vain, this is how the promise of and to Abraham is of none effect.

We must not frustrate the grace of God by making it of no consequence.

God Bless!

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 02:07 PM
If the first was equal and substantially the same as the second, then I don't understand Paul's concern and attention to the matter. I also don't understand the necessity of the promise to Abraham. I also don't understand the neccessity of the cross of Christ. This is how the cross loses the offence, this is how the cross becomes of none effect, this is how the cross of Christ is in vain, this is how the promise of and to Abraham is of none effect.

We must not frustrate the grace of God by making it of no consequence.

God Bless!


Why do people deny me the cross, just because I do not see the cross as they do. I do not see the cross as a stopping point, but a starting point. A starting point where I leave my own self of carnality behind and continue to walk in the Spirit towards the kingdom of God.

It is a matter of having my cake and eating it to. You can't reconcile why I can have both. I know beyond a reasonable doubt that I have been to the cross and still til very moment carry my own. Where am I taking it should be the question. I have the cross and I need it daily.

I know I sound like an alien to most. However, it is about time out for religion, which is the point God is trying to make, not that it was ever a good time for religion within christianity. Dogma, dogma, and more dogma has not gotten us any where near the power believers should have. The proof is evident in the world. How could the end times come if not for the following away. It has always been the pattern of God to bring about total and collective judgment when the number of the righteous have become so small that the whole is considered corrupted and in need of cleansing. There is nothing new about the time ahead. We keep preaching the same messages and pushing the same gospel while the world grows darker and believers backslide. There needs to be a general call to repentance and the Elajah's have come. However, will the Phariesees of today listen to God's call for repentance, rebuke of traditions, and need for holiness.

Mainstream christian institutions have preached the gospel of salvation for a long time. Now comes these upstarts who challenge the old school message, trying to say we need to return to the 1st century roots of festivals and sabbaths. Who are they and where have they been for the last 19 hundren years. Do they not know that stuff is passed away. Well my joy in the Lord says different. Where as it might not make logical or theological sense, it does make a whole lot of sense to my spirit man who has never heard the voice of God so clearly and intimately.

It is time to go higher. I do not suppose to stop at the cross of Jesus. He said if I wanted to be His disciple, then I must deny myself, pick up my own cross, and follow him.

Why deny myself. If I did not deny myself I would not even come to the cross where he gives me my own cross to bear. Then I must receive my own cross as I am yoked together with Jesus to go on a journey towards the Kingdom of God.


I write this not out of anger, but sincerity. I want to explain my passion and charge.

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 02:27 PM
You are trying to insert righteousness through the Law of Moses though. You are going to have to keep the whole thing for that to work and you aren't nor can you. Goodness man... God isn't concerned in the Law. If the Law worked the way some folks think it does then the Jew wouldn't have been in the stink they were in. They could have offered up a goat or a bull and all would have been legally well with their world.

Didn't work that way though.

Isaiah 1

1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, concerning Judah and Jerusalem which he saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
2 Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth; For the LORD speaks, "Sons I have reared and brought up, But they have revolted against Me.
3 "An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master's manger, But Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
4 ¶Alas, sinful nation, People weighed down with iniquity, Offspring of evildoers, Sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the LORD, They have despised the Holy One of Israel, They have turned away from Him.
5 ¶Where will you be stricken again, As you continue in your rebellion? The whole head is sick, And the whole heart is faint.
6 From the sole of the foot even to the head There is nothing sound in it, Only bruises, welts, and raw wounds, Not pressed out or bandaged, Nor softened with oil.
7 ¶Your land is desolate, Your cities are burned with fire, Your fields -- strangers are devouring them in your presence; It is desolation, as overthrown by strangers.
8 And the daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, Like a watchman's hut in a cucumber field, like a besieged city.
9 Unless the LORD of hosts Had left us a few survivors, We would be like Sodom, We would be like Gomorrah.
10 ¶Hear the word of the LORD, You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the instruction of our God, You people of Gomorrah.
11 "What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, And the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats.
12 "When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
13 "Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies -- I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
14 "I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me. I am weary of bearing them.
15 "So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you, Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
16 ¶"Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil,
17 Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless; Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.
18 ¶"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.
19 "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land;
20 "But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword." Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Nothing legal could fix them. Even the prayers and festivals and feast had come to a point where they annoyed God. To them... that stuff made them righteous. It didn't. It can't. Wasn't intended to.

You are right... holiness has gotten lost somewhere and I scream that loudly myself. But it isn't found in days, feast, festivals, food, etc. It's either in your heart or it isn't.

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 03:08 PM
You are trying to insert righteousness through the Law of Moses though. You are going to have to keep the whole thing for that to work and you aren't nor can you. Goodness man... God isn't concerned in the Law. If the Law worked the way some folks think it does then the Jew wouldn't have been in the stink they were in. They could have offered up a goat or a bull and all would have been legally well with their world.

Didn't work that way though.

Isaiah 1

1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, concerning Judah and Jerusalem which he saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
2 Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth; For the LORD speaks, "Sons I have reared and brought up, But they have revolted against Me.
3 "An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master's manger, But Israel does not know, My people do not understand."
4 ¶Alas, sinful nation, People weighed down with iniquity, Offspring of evildoers, Sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the LORD, They have despised the Holy One of Israel, They have turned away from Him.
5 ¶Where will you be stricken again, As you continue in your rebellion? The whole head is sick, And the whole heart is faint.
6 From the sole of the foot even to the head There is nothing sound in it, Only bruises, welts, and raw wounds, Not pressed out or bandaged, Nor softened with oil.
7 ¶Your land is desolate, Your cities are burned with fire, Your fields -- strangers are devouring them in your presence; It is desolation, as overthrown by strangers.
8 And the daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, Like a watchman's hut in a cucumber field, like a besieged city.
9 Unless the LORD of hosts Had left us a few survivors, We would be like Sodom, We would be like Gomorrah.
10 ¶Hear the word of the LORD, You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the instruction of our God, You people of Gomorrah.
11 "What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, And the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats.
12 "When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
13 "Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies -- I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
14 "I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me. I am weary of bearing them.
15 "So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you, Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
16 ¶"Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil,
17 Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless; Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.
18 ¶"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.
19 "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land;
20 "But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword." Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Nothing legal could fix them. Even the prayers and festivals and feast had come to a point where they annoyed God. To them... that stuff made them righteous. It didn't. It can't. Wasn't intended to.

You are right... holiness has gotten lost somewhere and I scream that loudly myself. But it isn't found in days, feast, festivals, food, etc. It's either in your heart or it isn't.


This in not true. I am just as low as anyone else. None of this stuff proves me to be anything other than in Christ and of Christ. Like I said, I can have my cake and eat it to.

I do not and have said this many of times, that I do not adhere to the letter of the torah.

Why can't the festivals be spiritual and pertain to spritual principles? Why can't they still teach me things about my Messiah? Why can't they still reveal what He is to me and what He intends for me? Why can't they reveal to me the manner of holiness? If they can do any of these things, what is wrong with my observance of them. Do they not add good things that I would have missed out on if my participation would have been absent? I do not see harm for me to memorialized and celebrate Festivals that were instituted by God? What is the harm in any of the Festivals. How should a believer be offended by the Festivals? We still see through a glass dimly now, hence the shadows are still before us except by the unveiling of them by the Holy Spirit. Hence I still gain from the shadow as well as the body, until I am apprehended into His fulness at my glorification.

I find no righteousness in these things. They do not make me a better person than any other saint. My worth of righteousness is still like dirty rags. I have been through enough stuff to know to never claim my own righteousness other than that I have in Yeshua. However, He said be holy as I am holy. This I endeavor to do by His Spirit.


Have you yourself looked into these things as to their worth.


Na 1:15 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=na+1:15&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Behold, on the mountains The feet of him who brings good tidings, Who proclaims peace! O Judah, keep your appointed feasts, Perform your vows. For the wicked one shall no more pass through you; He is utterly cut off.

We can go back in forth all day regarding these type of Scripture, but that would not be to either of our profit.

Look to other things such as why God said what He said to Israel regarding Isaiah. Their heart was not right, hence they offered in vain. It was not that God did not approve of their sacrifices, but the condition of their heart.

Firstfruits
Aug 14th 2008, 03:19 PM
Is there anything new about the new covenant?




The word translated as new is Kainos can mean mutltiple things:
new
as respects form
recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn

as respects substance
of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of

I say no, for a few reasons that have to deal with God from His prospective and mankind from our limited prospective.

I believe the Scirpture that says that Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And that Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and forever. This is the same Jesus who walked and ate dinner with Abraham, then danced with the Hebrew men in the flame. He is also the same Jesus who showed that He was already glorified by transfiguring Himself in all His glory before Peter, John, and James.

What is new from God's prospective. He had already redeemed mankind before He created mankind. It is now up to each individual to accept the invitation of redemption God has already prepared for even Adam before He breathe into his nosrtrils.

What was wrong with the old? Did not God prophesied to Eve that His seed would be the fix for her and Adam's sin and state of sin.

If there is nothing new about the new covenant, can you explain the following?

Heb 7:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Heb 8:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Is the new covenant not better than the first?

Firstfruits

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 03:36 PM
If there is nothing new about the new covenant, can you explain the following?

Heb 7:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Heb 8:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Is the new covenant not better than the first?

Firstfruits

Do not understand the difference in the Greek word used in the Text. The word does not denote new as in brand new, but renewed or reestabished.

Firstfruits
Aug 14th 2008, 03:47 PM
Do not understand the difference in the Greek word used in the Text. The word does not denote new as in brand new, but renewed or reestabished.

However you look at it Is there a reason why the first covenant was changed?

Is there a disannulling of the commandment because of its weakness?

What was the fault with the first covenant?

Heb 7:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Heb 8:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Firstfruits

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 03:52 PM
This in not true. I am just as low as anyone else. None of this stuff proves me to be anything other than in Christ and of Christ. Like I said, I can have my cake and eat it to.

I do not and have said this many of times, that I do not adhere to the letter of the torah.

Why can't the festivals be spiritual and pertain to spritual principles? Why can't they still teach me things about my Messiah? Why can't they still reveal what He is to me and what He intends for me? Why can't they reveal to me the manner of holiness? If they can do any of these things, what is wrong with my observance of them. Do they not add good things that I would have missed out on if my participation would have been absent? I do not see harm for me to memorialized and celebrate Festivals that were instituted by God? What is the harm in any of the Festivals. How should a believer be offended by the Festivals? We still see through a glass dimly now, hence the shadows are still before us except by the unveiling of them by the Holy Spirit. Hence I still gain from the shadow as well as the body, until I am apprehended into His fulness at my glorification.

I find no righteousness in these things. They do not make me a better person than any other saint. My worth of righteousness is still like dirty rags. I have been through enough stuff to know to never claim my own righteousness other than that I have in Yeshua. However, He said be holy as I am holy. This I endeavor to do by His Spirit.


Have you yourself looked into these things as to their worth.


Na 1:15 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=na+1:15&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - Behold, on the mountains The feet of him who brings good tidings, Who proclaims peace! O Judah, keep your appointed feasts, Perform your vows. For the wicked one shall no more pass through you; He is utterly cut off.

We can go back in forth all day regarding these type of Scripture, but that would not be to either of our profit.

Look to other things such as why God said what He said to Israel regarding Isaiah. Their heart was not right, hence they offered in vain. It was not that God did not approve of their sacrifices, but the condition of their heart.You can look at the Festivals and all that until the cows come home! DO! Get in the Old Testament... no doubt! There is richness and much there to learn.

But what we hear is you follow it in the spirit of the law and yet we see you too talk about keeping it to the letter.

Do you eat pork and shellfish? Let's say you are allergic and can't... would you if you weren't? Or would you look to the law and call it unlawful? By not following the Law of Moses... why can't I not have my "cake and eat it too?" I do my friend and that cake is Christ. It isn't the Law of Moses Manichunter. It is His flesh I eat of and His blood that I drink. All of the promises to Abraham and every Jew living was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. I don't have to follow the Law of Moses to even be "more blessed" (which seems to be the logic of many followers of the Law). There is NO more blessing for following the Law as laid out by Moses. That blessing has already been fulfilled. There is no more looking forward to the Messiah which is what Abraham did. We now know Him... He lives in us. The tutor... we don't need it any longer. WHO CAN FREE ME? Jesus Christ.

Oh man if I could get people to actually see what Romans 7 is speaking of. A time when Paul was under the yoke of the Law. He wanted to do right but always seemed to do wrong. Why? The Law had no power to help him out of that bondage... it just held him there. But thanks be to Jesus Christ... He can now walk in the Spirit and no more the flesh. You don't need circumcised of flesh... circumcise the heart. You don't need the "Sabbath" as a holy day... you worship the Lord of the Sabbath and walk in Him every day. In Him is your spiritual rest. You don't need worry about that yoke... but I've seen guys going where you are my friend and they ultimately do get trapped in that bondage. God doesn't need you to fret over this, that and the other. Like that passage in Isaiah said... I don't CARE! Turn away from evil and do good. Take care of the widows and orphans. Wash yourself and make yourself clean.

One need but read the writings of Paul, Peter, John, James... the message is the same to the church. Wasn't about watch what you eat by golly! Be particular about what you wear by golly! On this day do this and that season do that... none of that. It was the same message Isaiah gave. Here is what God desires... not sacrifice but mercy. Not sacrifice but obedience.

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 03:57 PM
The old covenant is not "renewed" in the sense you are speaking of though Manic. It is a different covenant. An old lease was not renewed. But rather, it was improved upon greatly and a better covenant was given.

We are talking tomatoes and tomatoes here. :D

I say it was and you say it was. It was what? Renewed. God cannot be surprised or surprise Himself. :o


Jer 31:31 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jer+31:31&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
How does God refer to His book?
2Ch 34:30 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=2ch+34:30&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - The king went up to the house of the LORD, with all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem--the priests and the Levites, and all the people, great and small. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.

I have written multiple post revealing the greater plan of God's redemption was not piece meal but complete before man's creation. God has always had one covenant to redeem mankind that He has revealed by and by to us. To use the word renew does not even fully and properly add understanding to this covenant, let alone the word new. How can it be new if the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world and the Scripture foretell and foreshadow His coming and manifestation of redemption. Christ new covenant is better defined as the manifestation of what already was but new to us.

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 04:05 PM
I have written multiple post revealing the greater plan of God's redemption was not piece meal but complete before man's creation. God has always had one covenant to redeem mankind that He has revealed by and by to us. To use the word renew does not even fully and properly add understanding to this covenant, let alone the word new. How can it be new if the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world and the Scripture foretell and foreshadow His coming and manifestation of redemption. Christ new covenant is better defined as the manifestation of what already was but new to us.

The old covenant was unable to redeem in any way, shape or form. Hence, a new covenant was given.

Gal 2:21
21 "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
NASB

Righteousness never was granted through the covenant given to Israel through Moses. The end result of the covenant with Israel and the new covenant are vastly different.

Abraham was redeemed because of the new covenant, not the old one. Again, if the old covenant could redeem, then Christ died in vain.

The old covenant was helpless and inadequate when it came to making man right before God.

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 04:08 PM
Do not understand the difference in the Greek word used in the Text. The word does not denote new as in brand new, but renewed or reestabished.
Hebrews 8:6 *But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
7 *For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
8 *For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9 *NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10 *"FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM UPON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11 *"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, `KNOW THE LORD,´ FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12 *"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."
13 *When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Now... how do you make first equal "only/one and the same" while it clearly mentions the second?

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 04:11 PM
You can look at the Festivals and all that until the cows come home! DO! Get in the Old Testament... no doubt! There is richness and much there to learn.

But what we hear is you follow it in the spirit of the law and yet we see you too talk about keeping it to the letter.

Do you eat pork and shellfish? Let's say you are allergic and can't... would you if you weren't? Or would you look to the law and call it unlawful? By not following the Law of Moses... why can't I not have my "cake and eat it too?" I do my friend and that cake is Christ. It isn't the Law of Moses Manichunter. It is His flesh I eat of and His blood that I drink. All of the promises to Abraham and every Jew living was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. I don't have to follow the Law of Moses to even be "more blessed" (which seems to be the logic of many followers of the Law). There is NO more blessing for following the Law as laid out by Moses. That blessing has already been fulfilled. There is no more looking forward to the Messiah which is what Abraham did. We now know Him... He lives in us. The tutor... we don't need it any longer. WHO CAN FREE ME? Jesus Christ.

Oh man if I could get people to actually see what Romans 7 is speaking of. A time when Paul was under the yoke of the Law. He wanted to do right but always seemed to do wrong. Why? The Law had no power to help him out of that bondage... it just held him there. But thanks be to Jesus Christ... He can now walk in the Spirit and no more the flesh. You don't need circumcised of flesh... circumcise the heart. You don't need the "Sabbath" as a holy day... you worship the Lord of the Sabbath and walk in Him every day. In Him is your spiritual rest. You don't need worry about that yoke... but I've seen guys going where you are my friend and they ultimately do get trapped in that bondage. God doesn't need you to fret over this, that and the other. Like that passage in Isaiah said... I don't CARE! Turn away from evil and do good. Take care of the widows and orphans. Wash yourself and make yourself clean.

One need but read the writings of Paul, Peter, John, James... the message is the same to the church. Wasn't about watch what you eat by golly! Be particular about what you wear by golly! On this day do this and that season do that... none of that. It was the same message Isaiah gave. Here is what God desires... not sacrifice but mercy. Not sacrifice but obedience.

Obedience? I will go down stairs now and cook breakfast. I will make pancakes, eggs, and pork sausage. :rofl: For real, and not to prove a point other than I like the sausage. I will by no means feel condemned other feel I need to do a little exercise afterwards. Why do people think I am hung up on do that and don't do this. We are simply looking at things differently. Our prospectives and vantage points are not the same. This is not a bad thing at all. There is no need to condemn each other's message and calling. :hug: I know your zeal is real and honest. My zeal is no different.

I speak apples and other speak oranges, but it is all fruit. No biggy in it to me. I just have to accept this and continue in my calling and destiny.

I will not return to the letter of the law. My breakfast I ate yesterday and will eat today says so. This has been a promise to me from God, not of myself. I do not enough even attend to walk a fine line between the two, letter and spirit. I want to know the torah within the Spirit and bring it even farther out of the shadows. I do not have to see through the glass dimly and know in part if it also desire of by the Holy Spirit.

We should allow one another to be free as we follow Yeshau. As I stated, can anything good come from me observing the Festivals? I guess your answer is no, right. No problem for either one of us. I do not condemn you and I pray that I have not offended you in my observing them. :)

By the way glad to hear from you dear brother. :pp

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 04:17 PM
The old covenant was unable to redeem in any way, shape or form. Hence, a new covenant was given.

Gal 2:21
21 "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
NASB

Righteousness never was granted through the covenant given to Israel through Moses. The end result of the covenant with Israel and the new covenant are vastly different.

Abraham was redeemed because of the new covenant, not the old one. Again, if the old covenant could redeem, then Christ died in vain.

The old covenant was helpless and inadequate when it came to making man right before God.

We agree, hence my thread concerning the covenants of Abraham. It was always about the one true covenant that the others built up to. and manifested. However, the manifestation is not over. If I told you that the covenant we have now is not final yet, would you believe. There is yet one more manifestation to this greater covenant, the day of the wedding vows. The date of consumation when the engagement is done away with and we are bethrol no more. The day when no more covenants have to be made............. and all is finish regarding our redemption.

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 04:19 PM
We agree, hence my thread concerning the covenants of Abraham. It was always about the one true covenant that the others built up to. and manifested. However, the manifestation is not over. If I told you that the covenant we have now is not final yet, would you believe. There is yet one more manifestation to this greater covenant, the day of the wedding vows. The date of consumation when the engagement is done away with and we are bethrol no more. The day when no more covenants have to be made............. and all is finish regarding our redemption.

But the covenant God had with Abraham worked righteousness in Him in the sense the covenant was between God and Jesus and for Abraham's benefit. The covenant God had with Moses never was able to work righteousness. So the two covenants are different, and not the same at all.

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 04:28 PM
But the covenant God had with Abraham worked righteousness in Him in the sense the covenant was between God and Jesus and for Abraham's benefit. The covenant God had with Moses never was able to work righteousness. So the two covenants are different, and not the same at all.


So did Yahweh divorce Israel completely or did He divorce her and then remarry Israel? I think the truth is in Hosea, Jeremiah, and Revelation.

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 04:37 PM
Obedience? I will go down stairs now and cook breakfast. I will make pancakes, eggs, and pork sausage. :rofl: For real, and not to prove a point other than I like the sausage. I will by no means feel condemned other feel I need to do a little exercise afterwards. Why do people think I am hung up on do that and don't do this. We are simply looking at things differently. Our prospectives and vantage points are not the same. This is not a bad thing at all. There is no need to condemn each other's message and calling. :hug: I know your zeal is real and honest. My zeal is no different.

I speak apples and other speak oranges, but it is all fruit. No biggy in it to me. I just have to accept this and continue in my calling and destiny.

I will not return to the letter of the law. My breakfast I ate yesterday and will eat today says so. This has been a promise to me from God, not of myself. I do not enough even attend to walk a fine line between the two, letter and spirit. I want to know the torah within the Spirit and bring it even farther out of the shadows. I do not have to see through the glass dimly and know in part if it also desire of by the Holy Spirit.

We should allow one another to be free as we follow Yeshau. As I stated, can anything good come from me observing the Festivals? I guess your answer is no, right. No problem for either one of us. I do not condemn you and I pray that I have not offended you in my observing them. :)

By the way glad to hear from you dear brother. :pp
Then you need to stop talking apples when folks are talking oranges because you really are communicating things badly! Folks have been scratching their heads about you for a while now and still are. You come across as saying THIS and then after a bunch of post we find out you're just saying THAT. Ultimately... the more I learn of you what I see is a bit of hyper-spirtualizing the Old Testament. There are types and shadows BIG TIME! But one can get weird with that too. You come across as if you'd be terrorized at a slice of bacon. ;)

You haven't angered me at all. Just caused me more reason to scratch my head.

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 04:38 PM
So did Yahweh divorce Israel completely or did He divorce her and then remarry Israel? I think the truth is in Hosea, Jeremiah, and Revelation.

The thing is, the old Law of Moses was a different covenant unable to bring righteousness. The new covenant brought righteousness to Abraham and us. As PP pointed out above, there was a first and a second. They are different and not the same. Righteousness comes by the second yet never has, and never will come by the first. The first was weak in this sense.

Yet, we see before the Law of Moses came Abraham was considered righteous. Why? Because he saw Jesus day and rejoiced. Had those under the law of Moses seen the same thing they too would have been counted righteous, not because of the law of Moses but because of faith in God doing what he said he would do.

Finally, speaking of marriage, did not Paul teach in Romans 7 that we could either be married to the law or married to Christ but not both! ;)

Brother Mark
Aug 14th 2008, 04:41 PM
Then you need to stop talking apples when folks are talking oranges because you really are communicating things badly! Folks have been scratching their heads about you for a while now and still are. You come across as saying THIS and then after a bunch of post we find out you're just saying THAT. Ultimately... the more I learn of you what I see is a bit of hyper-spirtualizing the Old Testament. There are types and shadows BIG TIME! But one can get weird with that too. You come across as if you'd be terrorized at a slice of bacon. ;)

You haven't angered me at all. Just caused me more reason to scratch my head.

Manic, you and I have had this discussion before as well. Consider, that according to the law, in the mouth of two witnesses a matter was settled. You now have your two witnesses.

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 05:14 PM
Then you need to stop talking apples when folks are talking oranges because you really are communicating things badly! Folks have been scratching their heads about you for a while now and still are. You come across as saying THIS and then after a bunch of post we find out you're just saying THAT. Ultimately... the more I learn of you what I see is a bit of hyper-spirtualizing the Old Testament. There are types and shadows BIG TIME! But one can get weird with that too. You come across as if you'd be terrorized at a slice of bacon. ;)

You haven't angered me at all. Just caused me more reason to scratch my head.


Oh, I noticed that you did not even speak back............


That hurts. Okay I am over it.

I will do you and Mark a favor as to not be a stumbling block to you. I will let a progression of time go by for things to catch up before I keep spreading all this confusion. This is not my aim by any means. I attempt to share with people the things God has taught me, yes indeed, but not to their harm.

I hate lies as badly as you do. But there is something I must love greater than anything else, which is my brothers and sisters in Christ. Hence, I cannot love the desire to share more than the people of God. Threrefore my sharing must suffer as to not harm my brother. Relationships are what the kingdom is about more than anything else.

Have you ever been lied to by what others taught you to believe? How did you learn differently? :o

I by no means want to cause a stumbling block or let offenses grow. I know you say that you are not angered or fustrated, but the Holy Spirit says different. You are something "?", otherwise the Spirit would not say so. :eek:

I will obey the Spirit which says to me. I have caused offenses. I have caused fustration. I have caused anger. I have caused stumblings blocks. These offenses have been caused by my own disobedience, and also because of the hearts of others. What causes offenses in this matter, but to call a man a liar, even when you are not telling him face to face, but to his heart. I will not call any of you two a liar in your heart. My bad and my convictions rebuke me of sin. :cry:

My prayer is that things catch up, so that brothers can do some catching up. I will just hang around and be normal for a while. LOL :rofl:

My sausages are getting cold, so I am off to eat and prepare my Sunday message. LOTs of LOVe Pete................

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 06:11 PM
Oh, I noticed that you did not even speak back............


That hurts. Okay I am over it.

I will do you and Mark a favor as to not be a stumbling block to you. I will let a progression of time go by for things to catch up before I keep spreading all this confusion. This is not my aim by any means. I attempt to share with people the things God has taught me, yes indeed, but not to their harm.

I hate lies as badly as you do. But there is something I must love greater than anything else, which is my brothers and sisters in Christ. Hence, I cannot love the desire to share more than the people of God. Threrefore my sharing must suffer as to not harm my brother. Relationships are what the kingdom is about more than anything else.

Have you ever been lied to by what others taught you to believe? How did you learn differently? :o

I by no means want to cause a stumbling block or let offenses grow. I know you say that you are not angered or fustrated, but the Holy Spirit says different. You are something "?", otherwise the Spirit would not say so. :eek:

I will obey the Spirit which says to me. I have caused offenses. I have caused fustration. I have caused anger. I have caused stumblings blocks. These offenses have been caused by my own disobedience, and also because of the hearts of others. What causes offenses in this matter, but to call a man a liar, even when you are not telling him face to face, but to his heart. I will not call any of you two a liar in your heart. My bad and my convictions rebuke me of sin. :cry:

My prayer is that things catch up, so that brothers can do some catching up. I will just hang around and be normal for a while. LOL :rofl:

My sausages are getting cold, so I am off to eat and prepare my Sunday message. LOTs of LOVe Pete................
Ask around... if I was angered then you'd be knowing and if the Spirit didn't share that with you then you didn't hear from the Spirit. ;) I told you what I am. I am perplexed. You leave me scratching my head as I read things you say. You aren't a stumbling block for me all the drama aside. I am not looking out after me when I talk to you... you either. Not yet anyway. I am still perplexed... nothing more or less.

Now... I can tell you how your post come across and what they seem to be saying. That's all I can do and I assure you that there are many others that haven't a clue. Has nothing to do with their hearts being good or bad. It has to do with the way that you present things Manichunter. Not meant to offend you either but that's the way it is.

Look around at some of the things folks say to you... is it all of us? Or perhaps... you should go back to being normal at least a bit more when you type. ;)

Friend of I AM
Aug 14th 2008, 06:16 PM
We agree, hence my thread concerning the covenants of Abraham. It was always about the one true covenant that the others built up to. and manifested. However, the manifestation is not over. If I told you that the covenant we have now is not final yet, would you believe. There is yet one more manifestation to this greater covenant, the day of the wedding vows. The date of consumation when the engagement is done away with and we are bethrol no more. The day when no more covenants have to be made............. and all is finish regarding our redemption.

Very good and accurate post manic. God bless.

watchinginawe
Aug 14th 2008, 06:21 PM
Why do people deny me the cross, just because I do not see the cross as they do. I do not see the cross as a stopping point, but a starting point. A starting point where I leave my own self of carnality behind and continue to walk in the Spirit towards the kingdom of God. I don't (can't) deny you the cross. I only try to show how one might make the cross of none effect. As I have said before, it might not be a big deal to you if the cross is of none effect or not. I say this because in your posts, even in this thread, you insist that nothing new or different is marked by the cross. What then would be in effect by the cross?

Then you say above the cross is your starting point. That really is my point. What is different about the cross? Why isn't "before the foundation of the world" your starting point? Of course the cross isn't the stopping point. That isn't a controversial notion and I suspect most would agree with you. But compare all of that to this:
Is there anything new about the new covenant?
...
I say no, for a few reasons that have to deal with God from His prospective and mankind from our limited prospective.Why not start with the old covenant then? What makes the cross any kind of starting point when you posit the above? :dunno:

It is a matter of having my cake and eating it to. You can't reconcile why I can have both.
...
I know I sound like an alien to most.You mentioned earlier in the thread about the devil playing with words to the detriment of the saints. Paul worried about the same thing. Look at his advice about not spoiling the cross of Christ:

II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
We keep preaching the same messages and pushing the same gospel while the world grows darker and believers backslide. There needs to be a general call to repentance and the Elajah's have come. However, will the Phariesees of today listen to God's call for repentance, rebuke of traditions, and need for holiness.

Mainstream christian institutions have preached the gospel of salvation for a long time. Now comes these upstarts who challenge the old school message, trying to say we need to return to the 1st century roots of festivals and sabbaths. Who are they and where have they been for the last 19 hundren years. Do they not know that stuff is passed away. Well my joy in the Lord says different. Where as it might not make logical or theological sense, it does make a whole lot of sense to my spirit man who has never heard the voice of God so clearly and intimately.

It is time to go higher. I do not suppose to stop at the cross of Jesus. He said if I wanted to be His disciple, then I must deny myself, pick up my own cross, and follow him.

Why deny myself. If I did not deny myself I would not even come to the cross where he gives me my own cross to bear. Then I must receive my own cross as I am yoked together with Jesus to go on a journey towards the Kingdom of God.If I wrote all of the above, would it give someone the impression that I thought there was no difference between the covenants? Of course not. The above has not much to do with the subject at hand.

God Bless!

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 06:31 PM
Ask around... if I was angered then you'd be knowing and if the Spirit didn't share that with you then you didn't hear from the Spirit. ;) I told you what I am. I am perplexed. You leave me scratching my head as I read things you say. You aren't a stumbling block for me all the drama aside. I am not looking out after me when I talk to you... you either. Not yet anyway. I am still perplexed... nothing more or less.

Now... I can tell you how your post come across and what they seem to be saying. That's all I can do and I assure you that there are many others that haven't a clue. Has nothing to do with their hearts being good or bad. It has to do with the way that you present things Manichunter. Not meant to offend you either but that's the way it is.

Look around at some of the things folks say to you... is it all of us? Or perhaps... you should go back to being normal at least a bit more when you type. ;)

I meant stumbling block as in causing you to be perplexed I figure. The word perplexed leads to confusion. I did not want to appear to be causing chaos and harming others in the process. Nothing more or less, than trying to protect the hearts of others. If I still make young mistakes, my bad...........

As far what folks say about me. That actually encourages me somewhat to strive harder. Why? It just what I have learned to do when I hear certain words or attitudes. I do not even know why I have always gone against the grain and naysayers in my life. It is just in me to pioneer ahead.

Okay, we got pass that. On to the next things

Emanate
Aug 14th 2008, 06:34 PM
[quote=ProjectPeter;1749014] You don't need the "Sabbath" as a holy day... you worship the Lord of the Sabbath and walk in Him every day. In Him is your spiritual rest. You don't need worry about that yoke...



Sabbath a yoke? The very same yoke that God took upon himself in Genesis. I am not the hardest worker in the world, nor the most lazy, but I have never looked at rest as a "yoke". No, brother, the yoke is not Sabbath, it is the manmade regulations that people put on Sabbath that can make it very cumbersome (and I could write a book on that). The yoke is not in the law (lest that yoke is written on our hearts), it is in (as you say) using the law to attain righteousness. You are correct in saying that the law was never intended to make us righteous, however, man can, has and does made the law of liberty into nothing more than a yoke.

We should take note when we call Y'shua the Lord of the Sabbath and then claim we "don't need the Sabbath."

Y'shua is the Lord of All, not the Lord of what "we don't need"

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 06:35 PM
I meant stumbling block as in causing you to be perplexed I figure. The word perplexed leads to confusion. I did not want to appear to be causing chaos and harming others in the process. Nothing more or less, than trying to protect the hearts of others. If I still make young mistakes, my bad...........

As far what folks say about me. That actually encourages me somewhat to strive harder. Why? It just what I have learned to do when I hear certain words or attitudes. I do not even know why I have always gone against the grain and naysayers in my life. It is just in me to pioneer ahead.

Okay, we got pass that. On to the next thingsTry harder for what?

Firstfruits
Aug 14th 2008, 06:45 PM
Obedience? I will go down stairs now and cook breakfast. I will make pancakes, eggs, and pork sausage. :rofl: For real, and not to prove a point other than I like the sausage. I will by no means feel condemned other feel I need to do a little exercise afterwards. Why do people think I am hung up on do that and don't do this. We are simply looking at things differently. Our prospectives and vantage points are not the same. This is not a bad thing at all. There is no need to condemn each other's message and calling. :hug: I know your zeal is real and honest. My zeal is no different.

I speak apples and other speak oranges, but it is all fruit. No biggy in it to me. I just have to accept this and continue in my calling and destiny.

I will not return to the letter of the law. My breakfast I ate yesterday and will eat today says so. This has been a promise to me from God, not of myself. I do not enough even attend to walk a fine line between the two, letter and spirit. I want to know the torah within the Spirit and bring it even farther out of the shadows. I do not have to see through the glass dimly and know in part if it also desire of by the Holy Spirit.

We should allow one another to be free as we follow Yeshau. As I stated, can anything good come from me observing the Festivals? I guess your answer is no, right. No problem for either one of us. I do not condemn you and I pray that I have not offended you in my observing them. :)

By the way glad to hear from you dear brother. :pp

With the understanding that the law is not of faith; Gal 5:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Gal 6:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. Rom 9:32 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=32) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; Gal 2:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Please do not stumble from the truth of the Gospel.

Firstfruits

Emanate
Aug 14th 2008, 06:46 PM
Something I find intriguing:

When it is suggested that any person follow the Words that God called "eternal", "forever", and "sign on your forehead" they are met with replies such as :

"II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. "

I am shocked that those who suggest that any person follow the Words that God (YHVH) called "eternal", "forever", and "sign on your forehead" are considered beguiled by the serpent, while those who practice and defend practices with pagan origins (and condemn those that don't follow them) are known as being "biblical".

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 06:50 PM
[quote=ProjectPeter;1749014] You don't need the "Sabbath" as a holy day... you worship the Lord of the Sabbath and walk in Him every day. In Him is your spiritual rest. You don't need worry about that yoke...



Sabbath a yoke? The very same yoke that God took upon himself in Genesis. I am not the hardest worker in the world, nor the most lazy, but I have never looked at rest as a "yoke". No, brother, the yoke is not Sabbath, it is the manmade regulations that people put on Sabbath that can make it very cumbersome (and I could write a book on that). The yoke is not in the law (lest that yoke is written on our hearts), it is in (as you say) using the law to attain righteousness. You are correct in saying that the law was never intended to make us righteous, however, man can, has and does made the law of liberty into nothing more than a yoke.

We should take note when we call Y'shua the Lord of the Sabbath and then claim we "don't need the Sabbath."

Y'shua is the Lord of All, not the Lord of what "we don't need"
Speaking of that little legalist day as well. ;) We need a day of rest. It is stupid and foolish to not take a day of rest.

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 06:51 PM
:dunno:You mentioned earlier in the thread about the devil playing with words to the detriment of the saints. Paul worried about the same thing. Look at his advice about not spoiling the cross of Christ:

II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
God Bless!


I can show you better than tell you how the devil has played with the Scripture. How people have mistranlated words in the past in thought of their own theology. I have studied a few transcript from the reformation era and they do not line up with original manuscript, neither the Septuagint, New Testament Scripture and Tanakh.


Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=620) (5743 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5743)) therefore (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=686) a rest (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4520) to the people (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2992) of God. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316)
ara (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=686)apoleipetai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=620)(5743 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5743))sabbatismov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4520)tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588)law (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2992)tou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588)qeou; (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) (KJV)



The word Sabbatismov is tranlated before in older manuscripts as rest, hence some modern translation have made this obvious correction because it agrees with the word as it was all ways used in the old testament Septuagint as it applied to Sabbath. Someone decided in the King James to conviently leave that world out and just say rest.


Here are the modern corrected translations. I could show you other examples I picked up from my education and self-study. I lot of stuff was translated in line with the translators theology in mind.

Heb 4:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+4:9&translation=asv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) -There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God. (ASV)

Heb 4:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+4:9&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. (NAS)

Heb 4:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+4:9&translation=amp&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - So then, there is still awaiting a full and complete Sabbath-rest reserved for the [true] people of God; (Amplified)

The word rest in this verse \~sabbatismov\~ Sabbatism, is rendered keeping of a Sabbath. It is a different word from \~sabbaton\~ --the Sabbath; and it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and is not found in the Septuagint. It properly means, a keeping Sabbath-- from \~sabbatizw\~ to keep Sabbath. This word, not used in the New Testament, occurs frequently in the Septuagint, Exodus 16:30 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=ex+16:30); Leviticus 23:32 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=le+23:32); 26:35 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=le+26:35)2 Chronicles 36:21 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=2ch+36:21) and in 3 Esd. i. 58; 2 Mac. vi. 6.

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 06:55 PM
Try harder for what?


I don't know. It is my character, that is all I know. Every time I was told I could not do something or that I should stop something, that made me want to investigate why not. It is like a calling card to me to do something. I have been told this a lot of times in my line of work. :rofl:

Firstfruits
Aug 14th 2008, 06:56 PM
Something I find intriguing:

When it is suggested that any person follow the Words that God called "eternal", "forever", and "sign on your forehead" they are met with replies such as :

"II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. "

I am shocked that those who suggest that any person follow the Words that God (YHVH) called "eternal", "forever", and "sign on your forehead" are considered beguiled by the serpent, while those who practice and defend practices with pagan origins (and condemn those that don't follow them) are known as being "biblical".

The Gospel teaches us that being a Jew or being a Gentile means nothing and that it is only faith in Christ that we are made one, in one body.

Firstfruits

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 07:06 PM
[quote=Emanate;1749268]
Speaking of that little legalist day as well. ;) We need a day of rest. It is stupid and foolish to not take a day of rest.

No not you, say it is not sooooooooooooo :lol:

To tell the truth, I work on saturday evening before the sun goes down. I do not feel bad about it, but who would not want Saturday off. I will tell my boss next week, I want a transfer. I want Fri and Sat and not Thurs/Fri anymore

watchinginawe
Aug 14th 2008, 07:10 PM
Something I find intriguing:

When it is suggested that any person follow the Words that God called "eternal", "forever", and "sign on your forehead" they are met with replies such as :

"II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. "

I am shocked that those who suggest that any person follow the Words that God (YHVH) called "eternal", "forever", and "sign on your forehead" are considered beguiled by the serpent, while those who practice and defend practices with pagan origins (and condemn those that don't follow them) are known as being "biblical".What is amazing to me are those who sniff "sabbath" or whatever without reading the thread.

Topic of the thread:
Is there anything new about the new covenant?
...
I say no, for a few reasons that have to deal with God from His prospective and mankind from our limited prospective.manichunter's remarks regarding the devil playing with words at the detriment of the saints is regarding new, old, better, etc. I say these are the words of scripture and we should just stay with the simplicity in Christ.

So, what exactly is your point about? And also, while you are at it, catch me up with where in the thread that I was supposedly offering and defending pagan practices.

It seems certain that even though you are a new member you already have a past here.

God Bless!

watchinginawe
Aug 14th 2008, 07:20 PM
I can show you better than tell you how the devil has played with the Scripture. How people have mistranlated words in the past in thought of their own theology. I have studied a few transcript from the reformation era and they do not line up with original manuscript, neither the Septuagint, New Testament Scripture and Tanakh.



Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=620) (5743 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5743)) therefore (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=686) a rest (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4520) to the people (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2992) of God. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316)
ara (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=686)apoleipetai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=620)(5743 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5743))sabbatismov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4520)tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588)law (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2992)tou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588)qeou; (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) (KJV)




The word Sabbatismov is tranlated before in older manuscripts as rest, hence some modern translation have made this obvious correction because it agrees with the word as it was all ways used in the old testament Septuagint as it applied to Sabbath. Someone decided in the King James to conviently leave that world out and just say rest.


Here are the modern corrected translations. I could show you other examples I picked up from my education and self-study. I lot of stuff was translated in line with the translators theology in mind.

Heb 4:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+4:9&translation=asv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) -There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God. (ASV)

Heb 4:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+4:9&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. (NAS)

Heb 4:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+4:9&translation=amp&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - So then, there is still awaiting a full and complete Sabbath-rest reserved for the [true] people of God; (Amplified)

The word rest in this verse \~sabbatismov\~ Sabbatism, is rendered keeping of a Sabbath. It is a different word from \~sabbaton\~ --the Sabbath; and it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and is not found in the Septuagint. It properly means, a keeping Sabbath-- from \~sabbatizw\~ to keep Sabbath. This word, not used in the New Testament, occurs frequently in the Septuagint, Exodus 16:30 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=ex+16:30); Leviticus 23:32 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=le+23:32); 26:35 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=le+26:35)2 Chronicles 36:21 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=2ch+36:21) and in 3 Esd. i. 58; 2 Mac. vi. 6. I appreciate the post and information manichunter, but again, what does this have to do with whether the new covenant is "Second verse, same as the first" or not?

If the scriptures offer "new, old, better, promises", etc., then it is not "we" that use those words, it is scripture.

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

I'll ask again, in accordance with the topic of the thread. When were all nations blessed? Did the scripture foresee a time truthfully? Was it different than when Abraham was given the promise? Does the "new" by existance make the other "old"? Is the "new" "better".

Hebrews 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.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

I'm sure the devil is wreaking havoc with the above. ;)

God Bless!

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 07:29 PM
Topic of the thread:manichunter's remarks regarding the devil playing with words at the detriment of the saints is regarding new, old, better, etc. I say these are the words of scripture and we should just stay with the simplicity in Christ.

So, what exactly is your point about? And also, while you are at it, catch me up with where in the thread that I was supposedly offering and defending pagan practices.

It seems certain that even though you are a new member you already have a past here.

God Bless!

You said something regarding word play before I think and I did not have the time at that moment to as such. Say I did it today. Maybe I am wrong, maybe it was someone else. Maybe it was brotherMark. I would have to go back make sure. The Spirit says it was Mark, so my apologies dear brother.

However, you did say something to that effect in this recent post. Are you saying how we translate the manuscripts is not important? I believe that some people who translated had bad intentions in their translating. That is why I do my translerating as much as possible. I got completely upset and discouraged in the early 90's after buying a concordance and then studying with it on my own. This got even more crazy after going to seminary school............. Those braniacs are still finding new words to put and take out of the original manuscripts. LOL :rofl:

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 07:31 PM
I appreciate the post and information manichunter, but again, what does this have to do with whether the new covenant is "Second verse, same as the first" or not?

If the scriptures offer "new, old, better, promises", etc., then it is not "we" that use those words, it is scripture.

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

I'll ask again, in accordance with the topic of the thread. When were all nations blessed? Did the scripture foresee a time truthfully? Was it different than when Abraham was given the promise? Does the "new" by existance make the other "old"? Is the "new" "better".

Hebrews 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.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

I'm sure the devil is wreaking havoc with the above. ;)

God Bless!

I was trying to show that the Greek word for brand new is not the one used in this text when it refers to the second covenant.

Emanate
Aug 14th 2008, 07:38 PM
who cares about the Greek when the "New" Covenenant was first mentioned in Hebrew?

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 07:40 PM
who cares about the Greek when the "New" Covenenant was first mentioned in Hebrew?


Uh... What do you mean by this kind sir.............

Mograce2U
Aug 14th 2008, 07:41 PM
Something I find intriguing:

When it is suggested that any person follow the Words that God called "eternal", "forever", and "sign on your forehead" they are met with replies such as :

"II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. "

I am shocked that those who suggest that any person follow the Words that God (YHVH) called "eternal", "forever", and "sign on your forehead" are considered beguiled by the serpent, while those who practice and defend practices with pagan origins (and condemn those that don't follow them) are known as being "biblical".


We should take note when we call Y'shua the Lord of the Sabbath and then claim we "don't need the Sabbath."

Y'shua is the Lord of All, not the Lord of what "we don't need"
What makes a sabbath day of rest for the flesh eternal is when it takes on its true spiritual identity. It is not the practice of having your flesh rest once a week that is eternal (other than as it gives us a picture thru death ie.), it is the life which the Lord of the Sabbath brings to us that gives us true rest from all works of the flesh.

This is what I see is the difference that Manichunter only hinted at when he spoke of the covenant of Abraham as being what the new covenant "restored" to us. The promise first given to Adam was of life in place of death from sin. In Abraham the promise was further revealed that eternal life was shown to be after death. The Mosaic covenant given in the meantime was to deal with sin until the Promise arrived. It is under the ministration of His new covenant that life is received, by which the Holy Spirit is given as the seal/deposit of our hope in that life. The new covenant thus brings us the promise of Abraham as well as replaces the old Mosaic system. Because our sins have been forgiven and the law which ministered death to sin has been superceded by the covenant which ministers life by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore the picture in the Mosaic covenant & its sacrifices dealt with sin and the need for forgiveness & mercy to be extended. That covenant could not annul the promise given to Abraham which Christ wrought for us. We have forgiveness and can now walk in the newness of His resurrected life, with the Spirit guiding us into all righteousness and peace with God. Under Moses that peace was not yet come and so wrath had to be averted from the people because of sin. Their reconciliation was not permanent with God while sacrifices were in place, for the fear of judgment and the curse of the law were always present. And so their atonement was repeated over and over in order to keep the people walking in faith for the hope they had in Abraham's promise.

We not only have the atonement, we have forgiveness, and we have peace with God and joy in the presence of the Holy Spirit. We do not face condemnation under the priesthood of Christ because our sins have been judged at the cross. This is the promise Israel was waiting for to come and it is here!

We have been married to the Lamb because we are His flesh in this world whom He has infused with His own eternal life. Our hope is thus far better as we walk in this new life by His Spirit who comforts us with this knowledge. Knowing that He is sanctifying us by His Spirit to prepare us for the life to come when this life is over.

Our memorial is thus the cross, because it is there we discovered we have life in His name, because He is risen we know that we will be too - by the same power that raised Him which He possesses. Moses was only able to succour this earthly life for the people of God, but Christ gives life everlasting to all who call upon His name. That is the difference in why this new covenant has replaced that old temporary one that passed away. And why we need not go back to that old way which could never give eternal life but only worked death to the flesh because of sin. That penalty has been paid by the blood of Jesus so that we could be set free to serve the Lord in the newness of this spiritual life which bears eternal fruit in the life we have been given to the glory of God.

Israel's promised redemption has come from the Son which she brought forth as was promised to Abraham would be the case. That she might have the resurrection she hoped in by faith. And in Adam's hope we see that is how the promise given to Abraham was for the whole world from the very beginning. It is in this new covenant that our hope has thus been secured for us. The everlasting covenant of Christ.

Emanate
Aug 14th 2008, 07:42 PM
[quote=watchinginawe;1749346]
Hebrews 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.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

quote]


Context, Context, Context.

is the above scripture speaking abuot "the law" or the priesthood?
hint: "more excellent" ministry

Though we do have to finally admit, there is something new in the Renewed Covenant

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 07:46 PM
I definitely add that we will enjoy the finalizing of the covenant yet to establish when we go to the place He has prepared for us. The bridegroom is in route and we will no longer be a bride, but a wife. A bride is not the same thing as wife. A bride does not have all the same rights and priveleges of a wife. I guess someone could start that thread......

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 07:46 PM
I don't know. It is my character, that is all I know. Every time I was told I could not do something or that I should stop something, that made me want to investigate why not. It is like a calling card to me to do something. I have been told this a lot of times in my line of work. :rofl:Sometimes though... that can be a bad thing. ;)

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 07:49 PM
[quote=ProjectPeter;1749297]

No not you, say it is not sooooooooooooo :lol:

To tell the truth, I work on saturday evening before the sun goes down. I do not feel bad about it, but who would not want Saturday off. I will tell my boss next week, I want a transfer. I want Fri and Sat and not Thurs/Fri anymore
Folks need to take it off. God created it for man. Man has made it a super-duper holy day but that wasn't it's design. It was to rest. Chill out... relax. Good for you!

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 07:51 PM
Sometimes though... that can be a bad thing. ;)

I have a few cuts on my face and hands to prove that big time. I guest I have not learn to stop being me, MANIC. I am actually what they call a pretty boy who has always tried to have a harder image in my youth. Far be it of me now however. I still got a lot of energy and zeal.

It shows the most in worship. Doing church, whenever I lead praise and worship, I have to hold myself back or I will start a Jimmy Swagart crying and shouting session by myself. I do a good job, but then others break down under the Spirit. My pastor who is a little bit more reserve, just keeps and eye on me. The other pastor (his wife) chuckles as she does the same thing as me most of the time.

Emanate
Aug 14th 2008, 07:53 PM
Manic only that the New Covenant was written in Jeremiah 31. And the writer of Hebrews was certainly not expressing a Greek idea when he mentioned Jeremiah. He was referring to the Hebrew language found in his (or most likely his synagogue's) copy of the Tanak.

manichunter
Aug 14th 2008, 07:56 PM
Manic only that the New Covenant was written in Jeremiah 31. And the writer of Hebrews was certainly not expressing a Greek idea when he mentioned Jeremiah. He was referring to the Hebrew language found in his (or most likely his synagogue's) copy of the Tanak.

Gotcha, I went with you now, and you know this man, I am still suffering from Bernie Mack withdrawals.........

ProjectPeter
Aug 14th 2008, 07:56 PM
I have a few cuts on my face and hands to prove that big time. I guest I have not learn to stop being me, MANIC. I am actually what they call a pretty boy who has always tried to have a harder image in my youth. Far be it of me now however. I still got a lot of energy and zeal.

It shows the most in worship. Doing church, whenever I lead praise and worship, I have to hold myself back or I will start a Jimmy Swagart crying and shouting session by myself. I do a good job, but then others break down under the Spirit. My pastor who is a little bit more reserve, just keeps and eye on me. The other pastor (his wife) chuckles as she does the same thing as me most of the time.Zeal I would never discourage! Just remember that zeal sometimes launches us when instead we should be still or be quiet. That I can testify about many a time over the years. :rolleyes:

simple
Aug 15th 2008, 04:04 AM
I believe that the old covanant is still valid for everyone. Jesus said (Mat.5:17 Do not think that i came to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.) in verse 18 he says "NONE of the law shall pass away untill heaven and earth shall pass away", but since we as sinful humans could never live up to it , Jesus came to be the fulfillment for anyone who believes in him. The new covanant means that since Jesus paid the price for our sins there is no division (the vail was torn in two) between God and man,so now the Holy Spirit lives in us hence, the word is in our hearts.(Jesus is the word John 1:1)
Simple

Firstfruits
Aug 15th 2008, 11:04 AM
I believe that the old covanant is still valid for everyone. Jesus said (Mat.5:17 Do not think that i came to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.) in verse 18 he says "NONE of the law shall pass away untill heaven and earth shall pass away", but since we as sinful humans could never live up to it , Jesus came to be the fulfillment for anyone who believes in him. The new covanant means that since Jesus paid the price for our sins there is no division (the vail was torn in two) between God and man,so now the Holy Spirit lives in us hence, the word is in our hearts.(Jesus is the word John 1:1)
Simple

This is Christs explanation of what he said in Matthew 5:17.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, these are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, And in the prophets, And in the psalms, concerning me.

Firstfruits

Brother Mark
Aug 15th 2008, 11:10 AM
I believe that the old covanant is still valid for everyone. Jesus said (Mat.5:17 Do not think that i came to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.) in verse 18 he says "NONE of the law shall pass away untill heaven and earth shall pass away", but since we as sinful humans could never live up to it , Jesus came to be the fulfillment for anyone who believes in him. The new covanant means that since Jesus paid the price for our sins there is no division (the vail was torn in two) between God and man,so now the Holy Spirit lives in us hence, the word is in our hearts.(Jesus is the word John 1:1)
Simple

I understand what you are saying. But think about this for a moment. If not one jot or tittle from the law has passed away, then would we not still be required to offer animal sacrifices for sin even though Christ has died? For the law required such an offering. So if animal sacrifices are no longer required, then can we not say that at least a jot and a tittle have passed away?

valleybldr
Aug 15th 2008, 11:35 AM
I understand what you are saying. But think about this for a moment. If not one jot or tittle from the law has passed away, then would we not still be required to offer animal sacrifices for sin even though Christ has died? For the law required such an offering. So if animal sacrifices are no longer required, then can we not say that at least a jot and a tittle have passed away? (Physical) Temple = sacrifices (past/future) and no temple = no sacrifices (now). todd

Brother Mark
Aug 15th 2008, 12:00 PM
(Physical) Temple = sacrifices (past/future) and no temple = no sacrifices (now). todd

Did God honor the sacrifices of the Jews in the physical temple? Are they to still be offered if a temple is rebuilt?

There is no other offering for sin than Jesus. Just as the sacrificial system changed when a temple was built, it was changed when Jesus died. Israel made sin sacrifices a LONG time before a temple was ever constructed.

valleybldr
Aug 15th 2008, 12:04 PM
Did God honor the sacrifices of the Jews in the physical temple? Are they to still be offered if a temple is rebuilt?

There is no other offering for sin than Jesus. Just as the sacrificial system changed when a temple was built, it was changed when Jesus died. Israel made sin sacrifices a LONG time before a temple was ever constructed. ....and Christians, like Paul, made sacrifices after "the cross." That does not replace or diminish what Jesus did on the stake. todd

Brother Mark
Aug 15th 2008, 12:36 PM
....and Christians, like Paul, made sacrifices after "the cross." That does not replace or diminish what Jesus did on the stake. todd


Heb 10:18

18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.
NASB

In this context, we can better understand what he meant when he wrote...

Heb 8:13

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
NASB

timmyb
Aug 15th 2008, 03:51 PM
Zeal I would never discourage! Just remember that zeal sometimes launches us when instead we should be still or be quiet. That I can testify about many a time over the years. :rolleyes:

but you should never throw a wet blanket over a hot fire... that's where we kill new believers as a church..

i had to teach someone about zeal and mistakes by using ping pong as a teaching tool.... while you may not be that good your zeal keeps you practicing, and not only that but as you gain skill and confidence you going and you find you are hitting the table more often... but even the most skilled players miss the table every now and then... the point is not about your mistakes, the point is keep going... manic, keep going, make mistakes, learn from them... little league baseball players and major leaguers have this one thing in common... they both strike out... but that doesn't stop them from getting back in the game and getting a hit... and zeal working with God's spirit inspires you to not give up...

Mograce2U
Aug 15th 2008, 05:00 PM
but you should never throw a wet blanket over a hot fire... that's where we kill new believers as a church..

i had to teach someone about zeal and mistakes by using ping pong as a teaching tool.... while you may not be that good your zeal keeps you practicing, and not only that but as you gain skill and confidence you going and you find you are hitting the table more often... but even the most skilled players miss the table every now and then... the point is not about your mistakes, the point is keep going... manic, keep going, make mistakes, learn from them... little league baseball players and major leaguers have this one thing in common... they both strike out... but that doesn't stop them from getting back in the game and getting a hit... and zeal working with God's spirit inspires you to not give up...Interesting analogy - except that zeal without knowlege will not carry you very far. Zealous for the truth however will. If we are to hone our skills/gifts then playing by the rules is a good thing to go by. Even a good player no matter how ambitious can be disqualified if he doesn't.

manichunter
Aug 15th 2008, 10:13 PM
Did God honor the sacrifices of the Jews in the physical temple? Are they to still be offered if a temple is rebuilt?

There is no other offering for sin than Jesus. Just as the sacrificial system changed when a temple was built, it was changed when Jesus died. Israel made sin sacrifices a LONG time before a temple was ever constructed.

In acts Paul did pay for an animal sacrifiice for a group of vow makers and himself. Why? I do not know yet.

Mograce2U
Aug 15th 2008, 10:21 PM
In acts Paul did pay for an animal sacrifiice for a group of vow makers and himself. Why? I do not know yet.The four men were under a vow but Paul was not, though he went thru the rituals for the 7 days, shaved his head and showed himself openly in the temple. The reason was so that his accusers would have nothing against the law to lay on him. They were spreading the rumor that he was teaching the people to forsake the law of Moses by telling them not to circumcise their children. If you go thru the rest of the story and his trial, they never did accuse of him breaking any particular law whether Jewish or Roman. They tried to make out that he was some sort of rebel leader against Rome but none of their charges held up to investigation.

Brother Mark
Aug 15th 2008, 10:21 PM
In acts Paul did pay for an animal sacrifiice for a group of vow makers and himself. Why? I do not know yet.

For the same reason that Samuel offered a sacrifice when he anointed David king... because people were out to kill him and it gave him cover. Also, that particular sacrifice was about a vow(even though Paul did not take it), and not a sin sacrifice. ;)

manichunter
Aug 15th 2008, 10:29 PM
The four men were under a vow but Paul was not, though he went thru the rituals for the 7 days, shaved his head and showed himself openly in the temple. The reason was so that his accusers would have nothing against the law to lay on him. They were spreading the rumor that he was teaching the people to forsake the law of Moses by telling them not to circumcise their children. If you go thru the rest of the story and his trial, they never did accuse of him breaking the law.

Paul himself was made a part of the vow and he endorsed Jewish people continuing to get circumcised by his participation, not Gentiles. Gentiles were not required to get circumcised. They also committed animal sacrifices as a part of the requirements for the vow to be received by God. Check the text and old testament requirements for a vow offering and thank offering. This is about the clearest text that shows that Paul observed Torah.

Acts 21 20 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+21:20&t=asv&sr=1&l=en) And they, when they heard it, glorified God; and they said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law: 21 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+21:21&t=asv&sr=1&l=en) and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs. 22 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+21:22&t=asv&sr=1&l=en) What is it therefore? They will certainly hear that thou art come. 23 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+21:23&t=asv&sr=1&l=en) Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men that have a vow on them; 24 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+21:24&t=asv&sr=1&l=en) these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law. 25 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+21:25&t=asv&sr=1&l=en) But as touching the Gentiles that have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication. 26 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+21:26&t=asv&sr=1&l=en) Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them went into the temple, declaring the fulfilment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them.

manichunter
Aug 15th 2008, 10:31 PM
For the same reason that Samuel offered a sacrifice when he anointed David king... because people were out to kill him and it gave him cover. Also, that particular sacrifice was about a vow(even though Paul did not take it), and not a sin sacrifice. ;)

I just highlighted the part in a previous text that shows that Paul was also a participate. He had an bullock sacrificed for him as well.

Brother Mark
Aug 15th 2008, 10:38 PM
Paul himself was made a part of the vow and he endorsed Jewish people continuing to get circumcised by his participation, not Gentiles. Gentiles were not required to get circumcised. They also committed animal sacrifices as a part of the requirements for the vow to be received by God. Check the text and old testament requirements for a vow offering and thank offering. This is about the clearest text that shows that Paul observed Torah.

IMO, he did it not to be observant, but to have cover, just as Samuel did in the OT when he anointed David. But even so, we can see where Timothy was circumcised, not because of the law, but rather for the sake of the Jews. Timothy of course, having a Jewish mother would be considered Jewish. It is telling to me that Paul circumcised him, not because of the law, but rather because of the Jews. IMO, that is why he offered the sacrifice for the vow.

Acts 16:1-3

16 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
NASB

And of course, we also have Titus who was told not to be circumcised by Paul.

Gal 2:1-6

2 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
NASB

Paul would not surrender the freedom he had in Jesus nor did he encourage Titus to either, by being circumcised.

But as you say, for a certainty Gentiles are not under the law of Moses.

Brother Mark
Aug 15th 2008, 10:40 PM
I just highlighted the part in a previous text that shows that Paul was also a participate. He had an bullock sacrificed for him as well.

He participated and was purified. But where does it say he took the vow? Also, we must keep in mind what Paul said concerning the law and being married to Christ. One must die to the law in order to be betrothed to Jesus. But, being all things to all men, he would do Jewish things in order to have a ministry to the Jews. That's why he had Timothy circumcised. Otherwise, the Jews would not listen to him. But he stood firm with Titus.

manichunter
Aug 15th 2008, 11:16 PM
He participated and was purified. But where does it say he took the vow? Also, we must keep in mind what Paul said concerning the law and being married to Christ. One must die to the law in order to be betrothed to Jesus. But, being all things to all men, he would do Jewish things in order to have a ministry to the Jews. That's why he had Timothy circumcised. Otherwise, the Jews would not listen to him. But he stood firm with Titus.

Timothy was a Jew by birth, because His mother was Jewish, but his father was Greek. Apparently, Timothy or his father never saw fit for it, until Timothy became a believer. Paul showed in Acts by him participating in the vow that it was okay for the Jews, not Gentiles to continue in the practice of circumcision. That is what the whole matter was about.

It plainly says it in the text that Paul was asked to be a part of the whole vow all the way til the animals were sacrificed. , and purify thyself with them.

Now the cover part, suggest that Paul and others were engaging in a lie through deception, hence secret sin. I do not think this is the case at all.

Mograce2U
Aug 15th 2008, 11:36 PM
Timothy was a Jew by birth, because His mother was Jewish, but his father was Greek. Apparently, Timothy or his father never saw fit for it, until Timothy became a believer. Paul showed in Acts by him participating in the vow that it was okay for the Jews, not Gentiles to continue in the practice of circumcision. That is what the whole matter was about.

It plainly says it in the text that Paul was asked to be a part of the whole vow all the way til the animals were sacrificed. , and purify thyself with them.

Now the cover part, suggest that Paul and others were engaging in a lie through deception, hence secret sin. I do not think this is the case at all.What Paul did was not done for himself, it was done so that their accusations against him would be unfounded. (Like it was with Jesus: "They hated me without a cause") Since they saw him in the temple they could not truthfully accuse him of "not keeping the law". Which is what they were trying to say.

Which was why he had Timothy circumcised and also why Titus a Greek was not. It was not because one has to BECOME Jewish in order to be saved, but to not put a stumbling block before those to whom this was an issue. Paul's faith was not stumbled in the least by this outward observance of the law. But had Titus been encouraged to do what Timothy did, it would have been an offense against his profession of faith in the saving grace of God. The law was not an issue to Paul, but it was to these Jews.

Brother Mark
Aug 15th 2008, 11:37 PM
Timothy was a Jew by birth, because His mother was Jewish, but his father was Greek. Apparently, Timothy or his father never saw fit for it, until Timothy became a believer. Paul showed in Acts by him participating in the vow that it was okay for the Jews, not Gentiles to continue in the practice of circumcision. That is what the whole matter was about.

It plainly says it in the text that Paul was asked to be a part of the whole vow all the way til the animals were sacrificed. , and purify thyself with them.

Now the cover part, suggest that Paul and others were engaging in a lie through deception, hence secret sin. I do not think this is the case at all.

Secret sin? Have you read what God instructed Samuel to do when he was afraid of anointing David King because of Saul?

Yes, Timothy was a Jew. But he did not circumcise Timothy because of the law. He did it because of the Jews. IMO, Paul chose his battles wisely. In wanting to witness to the Jews with a Jew, he had him circumcised. When he wanted to witness to them with a Gentile, it didn't matter because Jews don't expect Gentiles to keep the law.

The purity routine did not mean he had taken a vow. But it's OK if we disagree on that.

simple
Aug 16th 2008, 03:47 AM
I understand what you are saying. But think about this for a moment. If not one jot or tittle from the law has passed away, then would we not still be required to offer animal sacrifices for sin even though Christ has died? For the law required such an offering. So if animal sacrifices are no longer required, then can we not say that at least a jot and a tittle have passed away?
Yes! That law is still valid. Animals were not the center of this law it was blood that paid for sin. A blood sacrifice IS still required for sin! But Jesus blood replaces the amimal blood for those who believe in him.
So no jots or tittles have passed away.

Emanate
Aug 16th 2008, 04:05 AM
manichunter,

remember, there is only one sacrifice that was for sin. the majority of sacrices had nothing to do with sin. Paul was sacrificing for the end of the nazirite vow (Acts 21). this particular sacrifice had zero zip nada to do with sin. you are are the right path, my brother.

manichunter
Aug 16th 2008, 04:40 AM
manichunter,

remember, there is only one sacrifice that was for sin. the majority of sacrices had nothing to do with sin. Paul was sacrificing for the end of the nazirite vow (Acts 21). this particular sacrifice had zero zip nada to do with sin. you are are the right path, my brother.

Yes I know of the vow offerings, free offerings, and thank offerings. I teach a class on the sacrificial offering system. I have taught it for a while, but I still keep learning more.

Mograce2U
Aug 16th 2008, 01:58 PM
Secret sin? Have you read what God instructed Samuel to do when he was afraid of anointing David King because of Saul?

Yes, Timothy was a Jew. But he did not circumcise Timothy because of the law. He did it because of the Jews. IMO, Paul chose his battles wisely. In wanting to witness to the Jews with a Jew, he had him circumcised. When he wanted to witness to them with a Gentile, it didn't matter because Jews don't expect Gentiles to keep the law.

The purity routine did not mean he had taken a vow. But it's OK if we disagree on that.Since the temple was still standing in that day, the law and its purpose was still in effect for the unsaved Jew. This is the remnant Paul was zealous to reach with the gospel and would not have wanted to offend them since they had not come to faith in Christ yet. I think that is important to understand concerning his actions to those Jews. And the text also says that those who brought this issue up were believers.

I think during the time the temple was still standing and the judgment of God had not yet fallen, things concerning the faith were still precarious for the saints. Hence the warnings to stay faithful and not fall away as the Judaizers were still filling up their sins. This pattern is also seen in the time of the Babylon captivity. Sin must reach its fullness, and then God pours out His wrath to remove the wicked and deliver the saints.

Firstfruits
Aug 16th 2008, 02:04 PM
Is there anything new about the new covenant?




The word translated as new is Kainos can mean mutltiple things:
new
as respects form
recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn

as respects substance
of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of

I say no, for a few reasons that have to deal with God from His prospective and mankind from our limited prospective.

I believe the Scirpture that says that Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And that Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and forever. This is the same Jesus who walked and ate dinner with Abraham, then danced with the Hebrew men in the flame. He is also the same Jesus who showed that He was already glorified by transfiguring Himself in all His glory before Peter, John, and James.

What is new from God's prospective. He had already redeemed mankind before He created mankind. It is now up to each individual to accept the invitation of redemption God has already prepared for even Adam before He breathe into his nosrtrils.

What was wrong with the old? Did not God prophesied to Eve that His seed would be the fix for her and Adam's sin and state of sin.

Under the law there was no mercy, as there is with the new covenant.

Heb 10:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Firstfruits

Brother Mark
Aug 16th 2008, 02:05 PM
Yes! That law is still valid. Animals were not the center of this law it was blood that paid for sin. A blood sacrifice IS still required for sin! But Jesus blood replaces the amimal blood for those who believe in him.
So no jots or tittles have passed away.

Sorry simple, but the letter of the law required not just any animal, but a very specific animal. Jesus was foreshadowed by the letter. But we no longer live by the letter, but the Spirit. The letter did pass away concerning offering an animal sacrifice for sin.

Brother Mark
Aug 16th 2008, 02:08 PM
Since the temple was still standing in that day, the law and its purpose was still in effect for the unsaved Jew. This is the remnant Paul was zealous to reach with the gospel and would not have wanted to offend them since they had not come to faith in Christ yet. I think that is important to understand concerning his actions to those Jews. And the text also says that those who brought this issue up were believers.

I agree. That's also why he had Timothy circumcised. He didn't want anything to hinder his witness to the Jews. But Titus, a Gentile, had no need to be circumcised as a witness to them.


I think during the time the temple was still standing and the judgment of God had not yet fallen, things concerning the faith were still precarious for the saints. Hence the warnings to stay faithful and not fall away as the Judaizers were still filling up their sins. This pattern is also seen in the time of the Babylon captivity. Sin must reach its fullness, and then God pours out His wrath to remove the wicked and deliver the saints.Consider too the prayer of Jesus to forgive them. But the curse was "on us and our children". Perhaps, God being slow to anger, waited till many of them were gone before he poured out his wrath upon the offspring of the offenders. For neither the offenders nor the offspring repented. As you say, God always waits till the fullness occurs. He is patient, very patient with the unbeliever.

manichunter
Aug 17th 2008, 02:51 AM
Under the law there was no mercy, as there is with the new covenant.

Heb 10:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Firstfruits

David, Moses, Hezekiah, and few others who lived bytrust had grace and mercy from God, because the just have always lived by trust. The torah was always suppose to produce trust.

simple
Aug 17th 2008, 03:22 AM
Sorry simple, but the letter of the law required not just any animal, but a very specific animal. Jesus was foreshadowed by the letter. But we no longer live by the letter, but the Spirit. The letter did pass away concerning offering an animal sacrifice for sin.
Brother Mark.
There were different animals according to the sin but they ALL required blood to be shed. If i accept that the letter of the law passed away then i have to believe that Jesus lied when he said that statment in Mat 5:17,18. And if Jesus lied then he died in sin and was not a perfect sacrifice, which means we are all lost and on our own. (to be judged under the law)
This is the reason he gives the warning in verse 19.

Ethnikos
Aug 17th 2008, 04:18 AM
Brother Mark.
There were different animals according to the sin but they ALL required blood to be shed.
Acts 24:17 "Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings;
18 in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar But there were some Jews from Asia--
When the Apostles were in Jerusalem, they seemed to not have any problem with the Jewish laws.

valleybldr
Aug 17th 2008, 01:05 PM
Acts 24:17 "Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings;
18 in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar But there were some Jews from Asia--
When the Apostles were in Jerusalem, they seemed to not have any problem with the Jewish laws. Many of the Torah's commands only apply in "the Land." todd

Brother Mark
Aug 17th 2008, 11:00 PM
Brother Mark.
There were different animals according to the sin but they ALL required blood to be shed. If i accept that the letter of the law passed away then i have to believe that Jesus lied when he said that statment in Mat 5:17,18. And if Jesus lied then he died in sin and was not a perfect sacrifice, which means we are all lost and on our own. (to be judged under the law)
This is the reason he gives the warning in verse 19.

He didn't lie in Mat 5. Let's look at the passage...

Matt 5:18

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
KJV

When he fulfilled the law, then the jot and tittle passed away. That is why Paul writes over and over again about living by the Spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is that a sacrifice is needed and blood is required. The letter is that an animal has to be used.

Hebrews says that the law of the priesthood changed. Then, does that not mean that the letter concerning levite priest has passed away? For now, we can all be priest whereas before, only a Levite could be a priest.

So jots and tittles have passed away. But the Spirit of the law lives on.

manichunter
Aug 18th 2008, 04:11 AM
He didn't lie in Mat 5. Let's look at the passage...

Matt 5:18

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
KJV

When he fulfilled the law, then the jot and tittle passed away. That is why Paul writes over and over again about living by the Spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is that a sacrifice is needed and blood is required. The letter is that an animal has to be used.

Hebrews says that the law of the priesthood changed. Then, does that not mean that the letter concerning levite priest has passed away? For now, we can all be priest whereas before, only a Levite could be a priest.

So jots and tittles have passed away. But the Spirit of the law lives on.

I write this not to disagree but to add. ALL has not been fulfilled yet.

Brother Mark
Aug 18th 2008, 11:49 AM
I write this not to disagree but to add. ALL has not been fulfilled yet.

All of scripture has not. But all of what Jesus was speaking of has, else we would still be under the EXACT letter of the law and we are not. But that which has been fulfilled allowed a change in the law, i.e. the letter of the law.

If a jot nor tittle could pass away, then there could be no change in the law concerning the priesthood. So enough was fulfilled for God to do away with the jot and tittle that said only Levites could be priest.

So then the question becomes, what did Jesus mean when he said "till all be fulfilled"? I think he meant all fulfilled concerning his mission on the earth.

manichunter
Aug 19th 2008, 01:20 AM
All of scripture has not. But all of what Jesus was speaking of has, else we would still be under the EXACT letter of the law and we are not. But that which has been fulfilled allowed a change in the law, i.e. the letter of the law.

If a jot nor tittle could pass away, then there could be no change in the law concerning the priesthood. So enough was fulfilled for God to do away with the jot and tittle that said only Levites could be priest.

So then the question becomes, what did Jesus mean when he said "till all be fulfilled"? I think he meant all fulfilled concerning his mission on the earth.

yes the priesthood has changed. . we agree on this, we all are priest now.

simple
Aug 19th 2008, 02:55 AM
He didn't lie in Mat 5. Let's look at the passage...

Matt 5:18

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
KJV

When he fulfilled the law, then the jot and tittle passed away. That is why Paul writes over and over again about living by the Spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is that a sacrifice is needed and blood is required. The letter is that an animal has to be used.

Hebrews says that the law of the priesthood changed. Then, does that not mean that the letter concerning levite priest has passed away? For now, we can all be priest whereas before, only a Levite could be a priest.

So jots and tittles have passed away. But the Spirit of the law lives on.

Truth is not relevant, The law is either gone or still there.
Heaven and earth have not passed away, The all be fulfilled comes in Rev.21:6 when Jesus says it is done! KJV
An amimal was not the requirement,it was the persons blood that was required. The animal was a scapegoat as long as it was perfect.
If the law( jots and tittles) have passed away. Then there is Nothing to condem us. therefore no need for grace. And no need to live by the spirit of the law for it is not there to condem us.
I believe that they go hand in hand and can not be seperated. the only difference is that now we have the GRACE of forgiveness,by the blood of Christ.

simple
Aug 19th 2008, 03:21 AM
The priesthood was only for mans benefit. Neither covenant was founded on it. We went from needing to be rightious before GOD(like Abraham) to the glorious GRACE of Christ redeeming blood.

manichunter
Dec 5th 2008, 11:22 PM
The priesthood was only for mans benefit. Neither covenant was founded on it. We went from needing to be rightious before GOD(like Abraham) to the glorious GRACE of Christ redeeming blood.

Simply put as the name implies

RANGER65
Dec 5th 2008, 11:51 PM
"2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. :hmm::hmm::hmm:

Simply put in Verse 4 Christ ended something and if something ended that would mean somthing else began. What you ask? Men no longer had to fulfill the letter of the Law, under the "NEW" agreement men had to fulfill the spirit of the law through faith. Hmmmm. I can;t wait for the rebuttle.

RogerW
Dec 6th 2008, 03:54 AM
I can show you better than tell you how the devil has played with the Scripture. How people have mistranlated words in the past in thought of their own theology. I have studied a few transcript from the reformation era and they do not line up with original manuscript, neither the Septuagint, New Testament Scripture and Tanakh.



Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=620) (5743 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5743)) therefore (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=686) a rest (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4520) to the people (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2992) of God. (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316)
ara (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=686)apoleipetai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=620)(5743 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5743))sabbatismov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4520)tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588)law (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2992)tou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588)qeou; (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) (KJV)

The word Sabbatismov is tranlated before in older manuscripts as rest, hence some modern translation have made this obvious correction because it agrees with the word as it was all ways used in the old testament Septuagint as it applied to Sabbath. Someone decided in the King James to conviently leave that world out and just say rest.


Here are the modern corrected translations. I could show you other examples I picked up from my education and self-study. I lot of stuff was translated in line with the translators theology in mind.

Heb 4:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+4:9&translation=asv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) -There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God. (ASV)

Heb 4:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+4:9&translation=nas&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. (NAS)

Heb 4:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=heb+4:9&translation=amp&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - So then, there is still awaiting a full and complete Sabbath-rest reserved for the [true] people of God; (Amplified)

The word rest in this verse \~sabbatismov\~ Sabbatism, is rendered keeping of a Sabbath. It is a different word from \~sabbaton\~ --the Sabbath; and it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and is not found in the Septuagint. It properly means, a keeping Sabbath-- from \~sabbatizw\~ to keep Sabbath. This word, not used in the New Testament, occurs frequently in the Septuagint, Exodus 16:30 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=ex+16:30); Leviticus 23:32 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=le+23:32); 26:35 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=le+26:35)2 Chronicles 36:21 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?passage=2ch+36:21) and in 3 Esd. i. 58; 2 Mac. vi. 6.

Greetings Manichunter,

The KJV has translated Heb 4:9 correct. The word translated "rest" comes from the Greek word sabbatismos a "sabbatism", i.e. (figuratively) the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven):--rest.

The verse is saying, "Consquently a sabbatism (rest) is left for the people of God." Just as the KJV has translated.

The modern versions are saying, "There remains a day (sabbath) of rest (sabbatism) for the people of God." This is quite wrong! For Christ is now our sabbatism or rest. We rest in Him, not only on one day, but everyday. This is proven by the following verses. Christ had a work to do in preaching the gospel and in obtaining the salvation and redemption of His people. This work was given to Him and He finished it. he ceased from His works never to do them again. He is seated, having entered His rest, as God ceased from the works of creation when He had finished them. This rest is applied to the believer who ceases from a religion of works and by faith rests in Christ.

Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

May we strive by faith (seeking the Lord and looking only to Him) to enter with Him into that rest. This rest of peace and joy in Christ is not full for many of us. We enter into it more and more by faith, prayer, hearing the Word and attendance on the ordinances of Christ.

Many Blessings,
RW

manichunter
Dec 6th 2008, 08:17 AM
"2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. :hmm::hmm::hmm:

Simply put in Verse 4 Christ ended something and if something ended that would mean somthing else began. What you ask? Men no longer had to fulfill the letter of the Law, under the "NEW" agreement men had to fulfill the spirit of the law through faith. Hmmmm. I can;t wait for the rebuttle.

There is no rebuttal or disagreement. I simply know that there is nothing new or old as it relates to Yahweh. I also know that it has always been a manner of faith in like that makes Abraham a predecessor for the trust I should demonstrate.

I will not go into a discussion with someone who already knows the truth and is confident in it. It is a matter of how far one has been down the road. A person can only tell a tale in honesty based on how far they have journed down the road of truth. Hence, I agree with you, you are right, because even I have seen the same sights you have seen and enjoyed the same prospective view of things. It is also like climbing a mountain, each step is a discovery of things that grant new prospectives and emblems of the mountain. Hence, our individual revelations very based on the windows Yahweh have allowed us to see through and the knowledge He has shared with us in communion.


Hence, how can I disagree with you, if you have not seen what I seen and made up your own mind after you have both seen and judged the next thing discovered down the path.

This is the new thing I have recently discovered from the Spirit. It is a individual thing first before it is a group thing. All of the great patriarchs discovered the things of Yahweh outside of the norms of any institutional order of mankind. Mankind's conventional wisdom and thoughts have always found themselves in conflict with what he did not previously know or understood. This was no different for the patriarchs, the faithful prophets, and Yeshua's disciples. It is no different today. The doctrines of man have once again refused to go any farther down the road in this journey for truth just as the Sanhedrin did during the times of our Savior.

manichunter
Dec 6th 2008, 08:30 AM
Greetings Manichunter,


Many Blessings,
RW
Dear fellow servant, I hear you.......

I come into conflict with this following statement which is a popular saying, belief, and doctrinal halmark.

For Christ is now our sabbatism or rest

This statement is not Scripture. It is a teaching taught from stripulating a meaning from Scripture. Scripture never says that Christ is our Sabbath Rest. It was something that was implied from Scripture that has become doctrine. I agree that we are to find soul rest in Yeshua, but He as a person did not become a day. The day grants us details of His person and gifts towards mankind. What I am to do when I am not given a positive and lawful command to stop something. Scripture is lawful, but doctrine can be unlawful if we teach in error. We simply have not seen the same things and judged them for what they were.

RANGER65
Dec 6th 2008, 02:55 PM
I was answering the question: Is there anything "NEW" - I am open to hearing your thoughts as long as they lead to the smple truth that Jesus told Nicodemus in Jihn Chpt 3. Back to the question...It is always the same with the two in one theology. Nothing New. If something ends that would calssify as "The Old" if something begins "The New". Maybe that should not be your arguments leading question because the bible itself names "The OLD agreement" and "THE NEW agreement". It brings automatic push-back.:kiss::pray: