Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Lulav]

I am not against learning from Torah, nor am I against what is taught in the Synagogue of the Messianic Jews (as long as it conforms to Scripture). I am against the Judiaizer belief that we must continue to keep the Law to be saved.

I don't believe that it is for salvation. But I do believe that it is for showing how we love the LORD by keeping his commandments. It's a heart issue

The rabbi and elders at the Messianic Synagogue here in Atlanta agree with me that we are not subject to the Law of Moses anymore. I just don’t attend there anymore because it is over an hour and a half to drive there, and that is too far to have my daughters (7 & 4 years) engaged in the children’s ministry.

Ah, I see the 'that is for me but not for you' way? Yet the Torah states that there is one law for the children of Israel and the foreigner or stranger who wishes to join.

I find it interesting that the law to keep Passover is that males must be circumcised. Maybe that's what those at the Jerusalem counsel thought about when bringing Gentiles into the fold. They had learned from John that Yeshua was the Passover lamb, the Lamb of God who would take the sins away. So in order to partake of him and be in him as he in us would require that covenant.

 

[ralliann]

Not necessarily, there is the harvest of souls and the gathering to Messiah which hasn't happened yet.

We are discussing a memorial feast which memorializes an event which already happened. Those events are spoken of in the covenant made in Genesis 15. Which is the covenant that God himself remembered to fulfill. Yes?
Ex 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

ok

When I said first covenant I was speaking of what some refer to as the Old Covenant.

Yes, I figured that since most do that. But Passover is a memorial sacrifice of God keeping the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 15, Which unleavened bread is the memorial feast of the same, the first fruit harvest memorial is the same.

I was talking about Shavuot


I don't know what you mean here. The things spoken concerning the fourth generation of Abraham's seed are given in Genesis 15.

While Genesis 15 is spoken of first, it does not include Isaac, Jacob, or the twelve patriarchs, sleeping with their fathers in this covenant.
As Joseph himself knew as well
Gen 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Ge 50:25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.
Recalled again in Exodus

Ex. 1:6 And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.

Ex. 13:19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.

You are speaking of something else or I just can't make heads or tails of what you are saying.

I am pointing out the things that belong to specific covenants. Which many, too many IMO, disregard the covenants made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Acts seven speaks concerning the same.
Hebrews 11 concerning the same
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are heirs in Genesis 17. A covenant made promising "KINGS".
Since they died before this king comes Abraham, Isaac Jacob and Joseph knew their inheritance came through resurrection from the dead.
Since these promises are to Abraham in Christ, we in Christ celebrate our passover Mememorial. It is Abrahamic not just Judaic.

 

[Doug Brents]

I don't believe that it is for salvation. But I do believe that it is for showing how we love the LORD by keeping his commandments. It's a heart issue

Then by all means, keep as much of them as you can (knowing that you can’t possibly keep all of them, because many of them REQUIRE the Levitical priesthood, and the Temple in Jerusalem).

Ah, I see the 'that is for me but not for you' way?

Not really sure what this means.

Yet the Torah states that there is one law for the children of Israel and the foreigner or stranger who wishes to join.

Yes, there is only one law today: the New Covenant law. But Gentiles don’t have to become Jews to be saved anymore. The foreigner or stranger doesn’t have to act like a Jew, but Jews and Gentiles both must begin to obey Christ.

I find it interesting that the law to keep Passover is that males must be circumcised. Maybe that's what those at the Jerusalem counsel thought about when bringing Gentiles into the fold. They had learned from John that Yeshua was the Passover lamb, the Lamb of God who would take the sins away. So in order to partake of him and be in him as he in us would require that covenant.

No, because physical circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant. The Holy Spirit circumcises our sin from us in Baptism in the New Covenant; it is not about the physical circumcision of the Old Covenant.

 

[BobRyan]

The Spiritual OLD Covenant: (Eden)

The original "Old Covenant" is the one made in Eden and it is of the Gal 3 form "Obey and live".​

It includes the moral law of God -- so then "do not take God's name in vain" - which means that taking God's name in vain has always been a sin.​

​

Rom 3:19-23 says that this is the covenant under which ALL are condemned for ALL have sinned. All are "under" the condemnation of the Law as sinners.​

​

That is the arrangement of the "old Covenant". All mankind is condemned under it - and so all need the Gospel Rom 3:19-21​

===========================================

Types of the spiritual OLD Covenant

Nation Covenant with Israel -

1. The Ten Commandments are also part of this covenant as well The It is not at an individual level - rather it is at the nation level.
   • So then those at Sinai who were "Coveting"
   • or "angry with a brother" at Sinai - when the nation covenant was given --- were not breaking the nation covenant.
2. Only national apostasy (of worshiping the calf idol for example, or refusing to go into Caanan at God's command)

 

[Studyman]

The Spiritual OLD Covenant: (Eden)

The original "Old Covenant" is the one made in Eden and it is of the Gal 3 form "Obey and live".​

It includes the moral law of God -- so then "do not take God's name in vain" - which means that taking God's name in vain has always been a sin.​

​

Rom 3:19-23 says that this is the covenant under which ALL are condemned for ALL have sinned. All are "under" the condemnation of the Law as sinners.​

​

That is the arrangement of the "old Covenant". All mankind is condemned under it - and so all need the Gospel Rom 3:19-21​

===========================================

Types of the spiritual OLD Covenant

Nation Covenant with Israel -

1. The Ten Commandments are also part of this covenant as well The It is not at an individual level - rather it is at the nation level.
   • So then those at Sinai who were "Coveting"
   • or "angry with a brother" at Sinai - when the nation covenant was given --- were not breaking the nation covenant.
2. Only national apostasy (of worshiping the calf idol for example, or refusing to go into Caanan at God's command)

What if the Old Covenant that was changed is not about the Law at all, as we are taught by this world's religions.

Jer. 31: 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:

Jer. 31: 31 (CLV) Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Yahweh, And I have made with the house of Israel And with the house of Judah a new covenant, 32 Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day of My laying hold on their hand, To bring them out of the land of Egypt, In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them--an affirmation of Yahweh.

Heb. 8: 9 (KJV)Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Paul said the Law/Covenant he was speaking to was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham, "Because of Transgression" and was only to be in place "until the Seed should come".

In God's definition of His own Covenant, HE said this.

Jer. 31:33 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. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

In HIS Description of His own Covenant, there is no mention of a change, abolition, or removal of HIS LAWS at all. It seems the only thing that changed were two things.

#1. How His Laws are administered.

#2. How forgiveness of transgression of those Laws were provided for.

Prior to the Rock of Israel becoming a man in the Person of Jesus, and after the Children of Israel of Israel sinned against God, there was a Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi, that provided for both of these things. "After those days", which I believe is speaking to the Days after the Messiah arrives, the manner in which God's Laws are received, and the manner in which the Priest of God provides for forgiveness has changed, as God promised.

It seems according to what the Scriptures teach, it was this Priesthood Covenant that changed, not God's commandments, statutes and judgments.

This would certainly explain why the first Church of God under HIS New Priest continued in God's Sabbaths, and Holy feasts, but didn't give tithes to the Levite Priests, as per the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi.

 

[Lulav]

Then by all means, keep as much of them as you can (knowing that you can’t possibly keep all of them, because many of them REQUIRE the Levitical priesthood, and the Temple in Jerusalem).

Wow, do you speak to your children that way about your rules?

Not really sure what this means.

There are some who are Jewish, many in fact that play ' keep away'. They don't want the Goyim to have what they have and tightly hold onto it. And the Goyim have gladly picked up on it seeing they don't have to do as the Jews do they are free to do whatever and eat whatever etc they want. This is one of the main reasons that the Jews don't believe. If you want to be part of that then so be it. I am only debating you here in hope that you come into the light.


Thy WORD (Torah) is a lamp to my feet and t a light unto my path......

Yes, there is only one law today: the New Covenant law. But Gentiles don’t have to become Jews to be saved anymore. The foreigner or stranger doesn’t have to act like a Jew, but Jews and Gentiles both must begin to obey Christ.

I am speaking of what is written in the Torah which is still for today, just like in Abraham's day.
It's not about Salvation which you keep saying.
You don't have to act like anyone, but keep the commandments of the LORD that he gave his people.
That doesn't make you a Jew but makes you one of his people, one of his children.
Jews would had he not been made to look like an imposter, no Jew in his right mind would believe the LORD would send them a Messiah to teach them to forsake Moses, circumcision and keeping the ways of the LORD.

No, because physical circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant. The Holy Spirit circumcises our sin from us in Baptism in the New Covenant; it is not about the physical circumcision of the Old Covenant.

Perpetual Covenants don't disappear. Circumcision, Passover........

 

[ralliann]

Wow, do you speak to your children that way about your rules?

Lulav, what kind of answer is this? You do not because you cannot keep the law as Moses wrote in scripture. Whose rules are you speaking of? I don't ask to be snarky, I am sincerly asking you an honest question here. Post temple Judaism does not even defend keeping the law as Moses wrote, or scripture demands.

There are some who are Jewish, many in fact that play ' keep away'. They don't want the Goyim to have what they have and tightly hold onto it. And the Goyim have gladly picked up on it seeing they don't have to do as the Jews do they are free to do whatever and eat whatever etc they want. This is one of the main reasons that the Jews don't believe. If you want to be part of that then so be it. I am only debating you here in hope that you come into the light.


Thy WORD (Torah) is a lamp to my feet and t a light unto my path......

I am speaking of what is written in the Torah which is still for today, just like in Abraham's day.

Abraham was not given Torah which is by Moses. Law that was prior to Moses was RETAINED in Moses law.
De 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
We know this law was 430 after Abraham.

It's not about Salvation which you keep saying.
You don't have to act like anyone, but keep the commandments of the LORD that he gave his people.
That doesn't make you a Jew but makes you one of his people, one of his children.
Jews would had he not been made to look like an imposter, no Jew in his right mind would believe the LORD would send them a Messiah to teach them to forsake Moses, circumcision and keeping the ways of the LORD.


Perpetual Covenants don't disappear. Circumcision, Passover........

There are no perpetual priests or temple from Moses.

 

[BobRyan]

What if the Old Covenant that was changed is not about the Law at all, as we are taught by this world's religions.

The Law is not an agreement - it is the rules that God sets up. He does not do it in negotiation or "if you do this for Me - then I will have the command put in stone - to not take God's name in vain". Law is not a contract or an agreement.

The old covenant is not "edited" or changed. In Jer 31:32 it is broken when one party fails to comply with the agreement

Jer. 31: 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:

That is clearly a broken covenant - not an altered one.

Heb. 8: 9 (KJV)Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Indeed it is not the nation covenant made at Sinai - and is not the individual old "covenant" made with Adam and Eve in Eden.

Both of which were broken by humans failing to keep their part of it.

Paul said the Law/Covenant he was speaking to was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham, "Because of Transgression" and was only to be in place "until the Seed should come".

Gal 1:5-9 says there is only one Gospel -- and then in Gal 3:8 we are told that the gospel was preached to Abraham.

The one and only Gospel covenant is the one in Jer 31:31-34

In God's definition of His own Covenant, HE said this.

Jer. 31:33 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. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

In HIS Description of His own Covenant, there is no mention of a change, abolition, or removal of HIS LAWS at all.

Agreed. The Law is in the Covenant - but it is not the covenant. And both new and old covenants include the same moral law of God that defines what sin is. Therefore it is "still a sin" today to take God's name in vain just as it was in the O.T.

It seems the only thing that changed were two things.

#1. How His Laws are administered.

#2. How forgiveness of transgression of those Laws were provided for.

Prior to the Rock of Israel becoming a man in the Person of Jesus, and after the Children of Israel of Israel sinned against God, there was a Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi, that provided for both of these things. "After those days", which I believe is speaking to the Days after the Messiah arrives, the manner in which God's Laws are received, and the manner in which the Priest of God provides for forgiveness has changed, as God promised.

It seems according to what the Scriptures teach, it was this Priesthood Covenant that changed, not God's commandments, statutes and judgments.

This would certainly explain why the first Church of God under HIS New Priest continued in God's Sabbaths, and Holy feasts, but didn't give tithes to the Levite Priests, as per the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi.

IT is true that the Priesthood changes Heb 7 -- when Christ becomes High Priest in heaven.
It is also true that the animal sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross - Heb 19:4-12

But the moral law of God remains - so it is still a sin to take God's name in vain today just as it would be for all eternity in the past.

 

[ralliann]

The Law is not an agreement - it is the rules that God sets up. He does not do it in negotiation or "if you do this for Me

What about this rule
Exodus19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

- then I will have the command put in stone - to not take God's name in vain". Law is not a contract or an agreement.

But that's what he did none the less.

The old covenant is not "edited" or changed. In Jer 31:32 it is broken when one party fails to comply with the agreement

What happens when the rules were kept by only one tribe?
Deut 33:8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
9 Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.
10 They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.
Jos 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance:

That is clearly a broken covenant - not an altered one.

Indeed it is not the nation covenant made at Sinai - and is not the individual old "covenant" made with Adam and Eve in Eden.

Both of which were broken by humans failing to keep their part of it.

Gal 1:5-9 says there is only one Gospel -- and then in Gal 3:8 we are told that the gospel was preached to Abraham.

The one and only Gospel covenant is the one in Jer 31:31-34

Agreed. The Law is in the Covenant - but it is not the covenant. And both new and old covenants include the same moral law of God that defines what sin is. Therefore it is "still a sin" today to take God's name in vain just as it was in the O.T.


IT is true that the Priesthood changes Heb 7 -- when Christ becomes High Priest in heaven.
It is also true that the animal sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross - Heb 19:4-12

But the moral law of God remains - so it is still a sin to take God's name in vain today just as it would be for all eternity in the past.

The high priesthood of the law changes because it was a priesthood made without an oath from God.

 

[Lulav]

Lulav, what kind of answer is this? You do not because you cannot keep the law as Moses wrote in scripture. Whose rules are you speaking of? I don't ask to be snarky, I am sincerly asking you an honest question here. Post temple Judaism does not even defend keeping the law as Moses wrote, or scripture demands.

Abraham was not given Torah which is by Moses. Law that was prior to Moses was RETAINED in Moses law.
De 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
We know this law was 430 after Abraham.

There are no perpetual priests or temple from Moses.

ralliann that post was specifically addressed to another poster, unless you are both? This isn't the first time you have stepped in and answered for another and then they don't answer themselves. Unless a post is open ended and not quoting someone else then I think you should let that poster answer for himself.

 

[ralliann]

ralliann that post was specifically addressed to another poster, unless you are both? This isn't the first time you have stepped in and answered for another and then they don't answer themselves. Unless a post is open ended and not quoting someone else then I think you should let that poster answer for himself.

I am asking you a question myself now. You do not keep the law as Moses wrote in scripture. So, what if someone else spoke a similar thing? I would not ask myself, If I were not interested in an answer to it, no matter who asked first. I simply am asking in sincerity. It is not a trick. This forum I believe is for all isn't it? Will you please answer MY question? Whos' rules are you talking about?

 

[Studyman]

The Law is not an agreement - it is the rules that God sets up. He does not do it in negotiation or "if you do this for Me - then I will have the command put in stone - to not take God's name in vain". Law is not a contract or an agreement.

Please read my post Bob, read what it says. I specifically said God's new covenant He made, that was prophesied to change and the old covenant he made, that changed, had nothing to do with altering His Laws. Only how they were administered, a how transgression of them was dealt with.

The old covenant is not "edited" or changed. In Jer 31:32 it is broken when one party fails to comply with the agreement

That is clearly a broken covenant - not an altered one.

The point I'm trying to make is the reason why God made a Priesthood covenant with Levi, was "BECAUSE" Israel broke God's Covenant.

It is this Priesthood Covenant that was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham, that was altered and changed, Not the Gospel of Christ given to Abraham. Abraham was justified "Apart" from this Law.

Indeed it is not the nation covenant made at Sinai - and is not the individual old "covenant" made with Adam and Eve in Eden.

Both of which were broken by humans failing to keep their part of it.

Gal 1:5-9 says there is only one Gospel -- and then in Gal 3:8 we are told that the gospel was preached to Abraham.

Abraham didn't break God's covenant, neither did Isaac, or Jacob, or Joseph. Either did Noah, Joshua or Caleb. Truly Abraham was given the same Gospel as Israel and us, but Abraham mixed Faith with the hearing, while most of Israel did not.

Paul says this "transgression" prompted God to "ADDED" a covenant/Law. A Law/Covenant Abraham did not have, as he was justified apart from this Law/Covenant.

This was the Covenant God made with Israel, "Because they transgressed", that was changed. They didn't want God speaking to them, they wanted other men, and God accommodated them with a Carnal Priesthood, a Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron", that was put in place "Till the Seed should come". God's Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek".

Mal. 2: 4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. 5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.

Ex. 32: 26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

The one and only Gospel covenant is the one in Jer 31:31-34

No Bob, there was a Covenant Israel transgressed, and another Covenant God made "Because of Transgression". Paul says so in Gal. 3. God says so in Jer. 31.

Jer. 31: 31 (CLV) Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Yahweh, And I have made with the house of Israel And with the house of Judah a new covenant, 32 Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day of My laying hold on their hand, To bring them out of the land of Egypt, In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them--an affirmation of Yahweh.

Heb. 8: 9 (KJV)Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

This is the "ADDED" LAW/Covenant God made on Israel's behalf, in His Tender Mercies, rather than wiping them out for their Transgressions", as HE did to Sodom.

Agreed. The Law is in the Covenant - but it is not the covenant. And both new and old covenants include the same moral law of God that defines what sin is. Therefore it is "still a sin" today to take God's name in vain just as it was in the O.T.

Absolutely, God's definition of Sin didn't change and is as valid today, as it was in Abraham's time. That is why His sabbaths and Judgements are so important. But the manner in which HIS definition of Sin is administered, and the manner in which forgiveness of Sins is provided for, DID Change.

IT is true that the Priesthood changes Heb 7 -- when Christ becomes High Priest in heaven.
It is also true that the animal sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross - Heb 19:4-12

Yes, that is my point. God's Covenant with Abraham that HE gave to Abraham Children, did not change. God's Priesthood Covenant with Levi, on Israel's Behalf, "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham, made because Israel Transgressed God's Covenant with Abraham, which is to be in place until the Seed should come, DID Change. This LAW/Covenant was to lead men to the true Christ, the Rock of Israel. And it did for Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, the Wise Men. And when the Christ came, it became old and was ready to vanish.

I would argue that Jesus was god's Priest the moment HE came up out of the water, after HE was over 20 years old, as the scriptures teach. But this argument is for another time.

But the moral law of God remains - so it is still a sin to take God's name in vain today just as it would be for all eternity in the past.

Absolutely, that is my whole point Bob. It was the "Priesthood Covenant" that changed. Not God's "Instruction in Righteousness".

I don't know why you are even saying this to me, as my post never even implied that I believe the Laws, Statutes, Commandments, and Judgments of God doesn't remain.

Please read the post, I know you battle those who believe the Old Covenant is the Old Testament in varying degrees. But if you would read my post, you would know I am not even implying this.

 

[sparow]

2 Pet 3:10 says, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.”
I believe that “the day of the Lord” will be the day of His return, the Second Coming. And in that day, all the Earth, stars, space; all of this reality including time, will be destroyed in fire.

The first resurrection occurs at this same time. Then the thousand years, which is the wedding celebration of Christ and his bride (the church) occurs in heaven. Then the second resurrection occurs, and then Judgment and the second death.

From what I can tell, the prophecies in Daniel were all fulfilled in Christ’s first coming. Christ is the stone that was cut out without hands, meaning, he is not of this world, and that stone fell to earth, during the reign of the kings of the fourth kingdom, which was Rome.

I believe you take the scriptures too literally; I on he other hand create abstracts from abstraction. I believe that Peter, in 2 Pet 3:10, is describing, as a type, what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah when the volcano erupted.


One of the main features of Daniel is to establish time frames, complete to the very end of time. Rome has not Gone away, not the gold head, not the silver chest, not the bronze belly and not the feet of iron and clay, the beast and it's image are present at the end.

 

[Lulav]

I am asking you a question myself now. You do not keep the law as Moses wrote in scripture.

That is not a question, it's a statement wrapped around an accusation.

So, what if someone else spoke a similar thing?

You were quoting my answers to someone else.

I would not ask myself, If I were not interested in an answer to it, no matter who asked first.

I don't know what answer you are looking for.

I simply am asking in sincerity. It is not a trick. This forum I believe is for all isn't it?

Yes, but I believe that it is rather rude to assume to answer for someone else. and you weren't just asking a question you started off with

"Lulav, what kind of answer is this? You do not because you cannot keep the law as Moses wrote in scripture."​

Another accusation.

Will you please answer MY question? Whos' rules are you talking about?

OK,it can be generalized even though it was a response to something Doug said. However to make it easier for all to understand what I was speaking of let's see the actual quote and answer from myself.

--------------------------------

Then by all means, keep as much of them as you can (knowing that you can’t possibly keep all of them, because many of them REQUIRE the Levitical priesthood, and the Temple in Jerusalem).

Wow, do you speak to your children that way about your rules?

---------------------------------

So I'm pretty sure it can be seen that I was asking DOUG if he talked to his children that way about the rules he made for them to follow. You know like, don't stick a fork into a socket or look both ways before crossing the street, or eat all your vegetables, things like that a loving parent teaches their children to do because they love them and care about their welfare. I'm sure he wouldn't preface it by saying what he said above.

His answer to me you actually echoed in your accusation

"I am asking you a question myself now. You do not keep the law as Moses wrote in scripture."

So I'm asking you, how do you know what I do?

 

[BobRyan]

Please read my post Bob, read what it says. I specifically said God's new covenant He made, that was prophesied to change and the old covenant he made, that changed, had nothing to do with altering His Laws.

I think we agree with not altering/editing God's Laws - -

My point is that the covenants are also not changed/altered.

The texts you quoted show where the OC is broken because of man's rebellion. I was just pointing out that even though that is the case - it is still all all humans are lost. That OC still exists in its "obey and live" form and in that form condemns all humans.

The point I'm trying to make is the reason why God made a Priesthood covenant with Levi, was "BECAUSE" Israel broke God's Covenant.

My understanding is that God was going to have a priesthood at Sinai either way.

His first choice was the first born from every family.

But after the rebellion at Sinai - He dropped that first arrangement and turned to the tribe of Levi and specifically the descendants of Aaron.

 

[Doug Brents]

Wow, do you speak to your children that way about your rules?

No, because my daughters are 4 and 7 and still under my household. But as Scripture says, the Old Covenant was our tutor/nanny/school master to bring us to Christ. Now that we have Christ, we are not under the nanny anymore. When my daughters are grown and out of my house, they will no longer be subject to my “nanny” rules, but will still be subject to the laws that they represented.

In other words, we are no longer subject to the Old Covenant’s details, but are still subject to the law of God which is represented by the New Covenant.

There are some who are Jewish, many in fact that play ' keep away'. They don't want the Goyim to have what they have and tightly hold onto it. And the Goyim have gladly picked up on it seeing they don't have to do as the Jews do they are free to do whatever and eat whatever etc they want. This is one of the main reasons that the Jews don't believe. If you want to be part of that then so be it. I am only debating you here in hope that you come into the light.

I understand the problem the Jews have today. But you, and they have it backwards. The freedom of the Gentiles is also the freedom of the Jews, if they had the faith to accept it.

Thy WORD (Torah) is a lamp to my feet and t a light unto my path......

Before the end of the first century, that sentence would have been correct. But since then, all of the letters and books of the New Covenant had been written and widely circulated. And while the Old Testament is still a light to illuminate God, it is not the standard of obedience required of us today.

I am speaking of what is written in the Torah which is still for today, just like in Abraham's day.

Not true, but we have been through that over and over.

It's not about Salvation which you keep saying.
You don't have to act like anyone, but keep the commandments of the LORD that he gave his people.
That doesn't make you a Jew but makes you one of his people, one of his children.
Jews would had he not been made to look like an imposter, no Jew in his right mind would believe the LORD would send them a Messiah to teach them to forsake Moses, circumcision and keeping the ways of the LORD.

But that is the thing. They confused the keeping of the Law with honoring God. They now honor the Law as their god, as the Pharisees did in Jesus’ day.

Perpetual Covenants don't disappear. Circumcision, Passover........

No, they just get changed into new things that commemorate better promises.
Circumcision is now done by the Holy Spirit to our hearts during baptism.
Passover is now Communion. Yes, I still eat Passover annually, but I celebrate Jesus’ death and resurrection as often as I eat the bread and drink the cup of Communion (usually weekly).

 

[BobRyan]

No, they just get changed into new thing

Covenants don't "get changed" - they either end, are replaced , or are broken.

The law of the old covenant still condemns all mankind as sinners as Paul points out in Rom 3:19-20

 

[BobRyan]

Before the end of the first century, that sentence would have been correct. But since then, all of the letters and books of the New Covenant had been written and widely circulated.

The New Covenant - is Old Testament Jer 31:31-34 and is quoted verbatim - unchanged in the New Testament Heb 8:6-12

 

[Doug Brents]

I believe you take the scriptures too literally; I on he other hand create abstracts from abstraction. I believe that Peter, in 2 Pet 3:10, is describing, as a type, what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah when the volcano erupted.

Ok, so there will be a volcano that melts the heavens (the moon, sun and stars)?

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.”
I don’t believe it is too literal to say that this indicates the complete destruction of all of creation, because following the thousand year wedding celebration in Heaven, Rev 21:1 says, “Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.”
When did they pass away? At the second coming as described in 2 Peter.

One of the main features of Daniel is to establish time frames, complete to the very end of time. Rome has not Gone away, not the gold head, not the silver chest, not the bronze belly and not the feet of iron and clay, the beast and it's image are present at the end.

I know this has been debated for centuries, but I believe that Dan 2 says directly that it was fulfilled at Jesus’ first coming when He established His kingdom on Earth (Dan 2:44-45)). Jesus, the rock cut from the mountain without hands, fell on earth during the time of the kings of the fourth kingdom in the king's dream. That is the kings of Rome (fourth kingdom) which followed the Greek Empire (third kingdom), which followed the Medo/Persian (second kingdom), which followed the Babylonian Empire of which Nebuchadnezzar was king (the first kingdom). Thus the Kingdom of God was established by Jesus during the first century.

And I believe that Dan 7 was also fulfilled when Jesus was on Earth the first time 2000 years ago. The four beasts are, I believe, the same four kingdoms of Dan 2.

 

[Doug Brents]

Covenants don't "get changed" - they either end, are replaced , or are broken.

The law of the old covenant still condemns all mankind as sinners as Paul points out in Rom 3:19-20

As I have said many times, the Old Covenant, and all the parts of it, were replaced by the New Covenant. All of the Old Covenant concepts, ideas, laws and mandates were a shadow of the things to come, Passover was replaced by the better Last Supper, commemorating a better sacrifice. Etc.