Who did Moses chat with?

[Frogster]

Unfortunately, how one decides to look at it is not nearly as imporatant as how it's suppose to be looked at.

The covenant was changed because the people screwed up, as Hebrews tells us. Thus it went from the people putting the law into their hearts, to God doing it.

Hebrews totally...totally goes against people trying to keep the old cov alive.

 

[from scratch]

I suppose one can look at it like that...tho I myself do not

http://www.christianforums.com/t7525782/
Did Christ come to establish a New or Renewed Covenant with Israel?

Luke 5:37 "And no one is casting young wine into OLD vessels, if yet no surely shall be ruined the wine, the young of the vessels and it shall be being poured out and its vessels shall be perishing .
38 but young wine into NEW/kainouV <2537> vessels is to be cast and both are preserved together.
39 and no one drinking old immediately is willing young, for he is saying, 'for the the OLD kind/mellow/crhstoteroV <5543> is'".
[Matt 9:17/Mark 2:22/Hebrews 8:13]

Good response.

 

[Frogster]

So you wish to deny Scripture. OK. Just don't expect me to do the same.

Now where is it that those rules are recommanded in the NC/NT? What does LK 16:16 say? And that isn't Paul BTW.

Is Jesus lying or is He mis quoted? We have Jesus saying a new (kainos) commandment.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I hear ya bubba..

kjv
2 cor 3;13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

From what I understand, MJs focus mainly on the 1st 5 books of the OT, the Torah, and very little on the NT, especially the Epistles of Paul

http://www.christianforums.com/t7599254-6/#post58746332

Originally Posted by yedida

is "fought" the word you wanted to use? Was it instead "fraught"? If so, yes, I'm pretty well-schooled in Torah. I don't read the NT so much anymore, so if those things are in there, they got by me last time I read it.
​

 

[Frogster]

From what I understand, MJs focus mainly on the 1st 5 books of the OT, the Torah, and very little on the NT, especially the Epistles of Paul

http://www.christianforums.com/t7599254-6/#post58746332

Originally Posted by yedida

is "fought" the word you wanted to use? Was it instead "fraught"? If so, yes, I'm pretty well-schooled in Torah. I don't read the NT so much anymore, so if those things are in there, they got by me last time I read it.
​

yup...i saw dat post...the jerusalem from earth seems more palatable for some.

 

[Stryder06]

Hebrews totally...totally goes against people trying to keep the old cov alive.

Hebrews is about the sacrifical system. It's about the majesty of Christ's ministry and how it did away with the earthly system. A cursory reading of the book reveals that.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hebrews is about the sacrifical system. It's about the majesty of Christ's ministry and how it did away with the earthly system. A cursory reading of the book reveals that.

Could be one reason I spent almost 2 yrs translating that book

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426625/#post53776624
Book of Hebrews verse by verse

20th December 2009, 02:50 PM

 

[from scratch]

going on to something else? do you not remember what you said?

"Jesus took possession/ownership of His commandments in John 15:10. Jesus didn't take ownership of His Father's commandments."

i'm not going on to something else, i'm addressing what you said! i wanted you to explain what you said, (the part i have bolded), against what paul said in 1cor 7! (but of course, you didn't, you just deflect, as usual)

Last time I checked the word my is possessive. If one possesses something it is at least in their control and ususally means they own it.

how say you? the verse (1cor 7:19) itself is talking about the law, and the whole chapter is talking about adultery specifically.

So is the subject matter marriage and adultery or the law? Is the focus sin or the law?

The point of the verse you reference is circumcision is the keeping of the law. Circumcision has nothing to do with marriage that I can see. Is Paul advocating an obligation to the law? How? I don't see anything requiring circumcision even in Romans 2. Why would Paul promote something he calls dung? Sure makes sense, doesn't it?

unlike you, i won't skirt the question. here's another instance where the author is talking about God's laws. he gives the definition of sin in verse 4, which is transgression of the law, (but you don't want to talk about that verse).

How did I skirt the question? Isn't the issue the commandments and specifically the 10 Cs. Is that what I John 3:23 is saying? How? Please explain.

Now you say that I skirt the issue by refusing to discuss v 4. In using this verse one is defining and limiting sin to the violation of the law. How can this idea be so? We have an equal statement in Romans 14:23 saying whatsoever is not of faith is sin. This doesn't refer to the law. We also have Rom 5:13 that clearly says sin was in the world before the law. If that is so sin can't be only the violation of the law.

I what you really mean that I choose to consider the rest of the Scripture when I think about I John 3:4?

in verse 10 john says:

Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

It doesn't say whoever doesn't observe the law. Righteouness doesn't come by the law. see Rom 3:21, Gal 2:21, 3:21 and Phil 3:9. Same goes about Cain's righteousness referred to in v 12 below.

this goes to psalms 119:172. he talks about one of the commandments in verse 12

in verse 22, he's talking about pleasing God by keeping His Commandments (see matt 19:17-19).

Again you have a problem with the pronouns. I sure wished sometimes there were no such things. It would make understing lots easier. I've addressed Mat 19:17-19 several times before. One must again consider not only the immediate context but the rest of Scripture as well. Your intention here makes Jesus lie (John 10)when He says one must come through Him to get into heaven or have access to God the Father, IOW possess salvation.

and then when you get to verse 23, you want to hinge the christian faith on the one verse? you need to get real. you see?

And you wish to hang the all the Christian faith on obedience to a superceded law that no longer has jurisdiction by the use of v 4. The point of v 23 is the covenant has changed and so did the requirements of God. Now talk about who is real.

it doesn't make sense to be preaching keeping God's commandments and then kick them to the curb, just to make a point for from scratch.

Where does from scratch promote keeping the commmandmnts? Please cite. I clearly don't promote sin which isn't the same thing as promoting obligation to the law for the Christian.

john says what he did in verse 23, because before that time we didn't have a Son we could "hang our hat" on. so, it is only appropriate that he stated such.

Isn't this saying that Jesus didn't issue the 10 Cs? I think so.

but not as, "this is it", and forget the "ten".

now, if you could answer my question to you as to 1Cor 7:19! (this is about the eighth thread i've asked you to explain this verse and you have not to this day!)

Is my response above adequate?

i've answered you, how about you answer me.

 

[Stryder06]

Edit: don't feel like doing this anymore. lol

 

[Stryder06]

So you wish to deny Scripture. OK. Just don't expect me to do the same.

Now where is it that those rules are recommanded in the NC/NT? What does LK 16:16 say? And that isn't Paul BTW.

Is Jesus lying or is He mis quoted? We have Jesus saying a new (kainos) commandment.

I'll admit that I'm still not sure what Luke 16:16 means. I think it's interesting though that in verse 17 Christ says that heaven and earth will pass away before something from the law changes. So either Christ is confused, or He's not saying what you think He is.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'll admit that I'm still not sure what Luke 16:16 means. I think it's interesting though that in verse 17 Christ says that heaven and earth will pass away before something from the law changes. So either Christ is confused, or He's not saying what you think He is.

God nor Christ are the authors of confusion [except perhaps to the Jews today?]

1 Corinthians 14:33 for not is of tulmuts/confusion/akatastasiaV <181> the God, but of peace
as in all the Outcalleds of the Saints.

Luke 21:9 Whenever yet ye should be hearing battles and tumults/akatastasiaV <181> no may be being dismayed, for is binding these to be becoming
but not immediately the end

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

 

[JohnRabbit]

How do the Jews look at it?
Oh I forgot, they are still waiting on their own Messiah to bring the NC to them...silly me

LLOJ, that was not necessarily funny!

 

[JohnRabbit]

shame on you!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ, that was not necessarily funny!

But is it true? That is the question

 

[from scratch]

"it was said of old", well, Who do you think said it (ex 20, deut 5)? and Jesus is not teaching commandments?

That is correct. Not only from examining the statements Jesus, but also considering LK 16:16. So what is the truth? Evidently Luke if fibbing.

Matthew 5:27-28(NKJV)
27“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ (ex 20:14, deut 5:18)
28But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

no longer was physically committing the act was the requirement, but He adds that, if one thinks of the act, one has committed the offense! no one knew anything about that until the Christ laid it down. now, if that's not teaching, i don't know what is.

IOW Jesus changed the law. It doesn't matter where it is changed. The law didn't include a matter of the heart as a trangression thereof. Otherwise Jesus couldn't make that statement.

i thought i gave you scripture to show what i was talking about, in the term fulfill, i guess you missed it, (go back and reread).

Then Jesus didn't fulfil all righteousness contrary to His testimony in LK 24:44.

all things concerning Him is not fulfilled! if you read a little further you will get more meaning on the verse, not proof texting like you did.

Luke 24:46-48(NKJV)
46Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48And you are witnesses of these things.

Jesus clarifies what He's talking about. all the things that was written about Him, verses 46 and 47, was fulfilled, and He noted that the disciples were witnesses to those events. but, what about the scripture that was written about Him that has not been fulfilled?

Not so fast there. When were these words said?

example:
in luke 4:17-21, Jesus talks about fulfilling the prophecy of isaiah 61. but notice:

Isaiah 61:1-2(NKJV)
1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

He didn't read the part i have bolded because the time for the fulfillment of that part of the verse is yet future (lk 21:22). notice it! Jesus stopped in mid sentence of verse two!

Duly noted. And you should note that the day of vengeance doesn't apply to Jesus.

You should also note that chapter 21 is about end time events and not thing pertaining to Jesus. This is spelled out in Mat 5 and clarified in LK 24:44. You're demanding that the Mat 5 reference pertain to every prophecy in Scripture which it doesn't.

again, it doesn't matter what you think (2pet 1:20). what matters is what the bible says!

My you're funny. Sorry couldn't pass that up.

moses wrote deut 18:15 and Jesus said that moses wrote of Him, (Jn 1:45, 5:46), not paul. so, maybe you need to back up and rethink that paul stuff.

What did Jesus write? Wouldn't that be like Moses in this instance? Indeed Moses did write of Jesus such as Gen 1:26 and 3:15. I know that isn't complete and that isn't my purpose.

and again, who do we believe? you or Jesus?

Jesus for sure!

ditto! can't argue against that!

romans 10:4 is one of those verses that can support your position or mine. so, i thought it was agreed on this forum not to use it for that reason. and as far as lk 16:16 is concerned, if you're using this verse to say that the law is done away, then, we have to admit that we're back to law by verse 18!

NOPE marriage and adultery was before the law. The law itself and Jesus both testify to this fact.

you may think you did, but you didn't!

Matter of opinion, I guess.

 

[Stryder06]

Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament...

Rev 12:17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God (So which commandments are these?), and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God (Which ones are these?) and the faith of Jesus.

Rev 15:5 And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened (Wonder why it's called the temple of the tabrenacle of the testimony? Could that be another reference to the Ark of the Covenant? HMMMMMMM?)

Rev 15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


What's sad is how easily all of these verses will be ignored. With that, I'm finished here.

 

[from scratch]

Unfortunately, how one decides to look at it is not nearly as imporatant as how it's suppose to be looked at.

The covenant was changed because the people screwed up, as Hebrews tells us. Thus it went from the people putting the law into their hearts, to God doing it.

Not really since all things were before the world existed.

God had a plan and this is shown clearly in Isa 28:10.

 

[JohnRabbit]

in post 178 you said to lion, "quit wasting your time!", yet you still argued after that post, please explain the logic, I am confused now?

of course you are!

 

[from scratch]

If it was renewed, that how come James said no Moses for the church in Acts 15? Would not what is written on the heart internally, have to also be acted out externally?

Interesting and a valid point.

 

[from scratch]

Hebrews totally...totally goes against people trying to keep the old cov alive.