Two Torahs

[Studyman]

And again Tabernacle and Temple sacrifices were unnecessary if this were true and the New Covenant was in place before there was a Tabernacle or a Temple.

I understand this is what you may believe or have been taught. But I was referring to what is actually written in both your and my Bible. And the Covenant which existed in Jeremiah's Time, was not the same Covenant God gave Abraham in Gen. 17 and again to Israel in Ex. 19.

This is just Biblical fact.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 states forgiveness of sins for simply being part of the New Covenant.

Again, you are in error regarding what the Old Covenant was, according to Scriptures. I would ask you a question. Who forgave Abraham's Sin? How did Abraham receive God's Laws?

The Scriptures were very important to Jesus and His Apostles. ALL of them, not just a few.

 

[daq]

So then the Temple sacrifices were not effective or necessary since before there was a Temple?
That doesn't make sense!

I understand such things in this manner: the Torah is spiritual, Romans 7:14a.

Therefore Paul, just like Nikodemos, went back into the womb of his mother and relearned everything according to the Testimony of Meshiah. Timothy also knew the sacred writings from a babe. The Prophets also teach these things from the Torah. Going all the way back to Habel: do you suppose he offered up a literal lamb or sheep to the Most High? That would be incorrect.

 

[Soyeong]

Once again...

The Lord God gave BOTH Torahs (Torah Moshe and Torah Moshiakh). Jeremiah 31:31-34 was speaking specifically of the new covenant... the Torah of Messiah (1 Corinthians 9:21).

In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul used a parallel statement to equate the Law of Messiah with the Law of Moses. Messiah spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so it wouldn’t make sense to think that the Law of Messiah is other than or contrary to what Messiah taught. The Messiah is one with the Father, so he is not in disagreement with what the Father has commanded. In John 14:24, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he did not teach his own law.

 

[JohnD70X7]

I understand this is what you may believe or have been taught. But I was referring to what is actually written in both your and my Bible. And the Covenant which existed in Jeremiah's Time, was not the same Covenant God gave Abraham in Gen. 17 and again to Israel in Ex. 19.

This is just Biblical fact.



Again, you are in error regarding what the Old Covenant was, according to Scriptures. I would ask you a question. Who forgave Abraham's Sin? How did Abraham receive God's Laws?

The Scriptures were very important to Jesus and His Apostles. ALL of them, not just a few.

Read Hebrews chapter 10.
It contrasts the Torah Moshe with the Torah Moshiakh.
It is with God and his Word that you are arguing... not me.

 

[JohnD70X7]

In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul used a parallel statement to equate the Law of Messiah with the Law of Moses. Messiah spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so it wouldn’t make sense to think that the Law of Messiah is other than or contrary to what Messiah taught. The Messiah is one with the Father, so he is not in disagreement with what the Father has commanded. In John 14:24, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he did not teach his own law.

1 Corinthians 9:21 (KJV)
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

The text persists.

John 14:24 (KJV)
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not MY sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

Jesus is saying the teaching (as you call it) IS his! And that it is under the authority of the Father the same as:

John 5:19 (KJV)
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Which the Son does as equally as the Father but only under the submission to the Father's authority.

John 5:43 (KJV)
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Philippians 2:10–11 (KJV)
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Studyman]

Read Hebrews chapter 10.
It contrasts the Torah Moshe with the Torah Moshiakh.
It is with God and his Word that you are arguing... not me.

Hebrews 10 exposes the religious philosophy being promoted in your posts. And refusing to answer simple questions or acknowledge scriptures others may post, is also telling.

Heb. 10: 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I have heard of this popular religious philosophy, that Jesus "Disowned" His Father's Laws, or came to destroy the Law and Prophets, and replace them with HIS own Laws.

The Christ "of the Bible" teaches no such thing. So my argument is with the Philosophy you are promoting, not the Christ of the Bible.

 

[Soyeong]

1 Corinthians 9:21 (KJV)
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Indeed, that verse uses a parallel statement to equated not being without the Law of God with being under the Law of Christ, and I've previously cited a number of instances where the Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God, so it is equating the Law of Christ with the Law of Moses.

The text persists.

John 14:24 (KJV)
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not MY sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

Jesus is saying the teaching (as you call it) IS his! And that it is under the authority of the Father the same as:

John 5:19 (KJV)
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Which the Son does as equally as the Father but only under the submission to the Father's authority.

John 5:43 (KJV)
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Philippians 2:10–11 (KJV)
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The ESV says teachings, but in any case, Jesus referred to his saying insofar as he spoke them, however, in the same breath he said that his sayings were not his own, but that of the Father who sent Him, so he was not speaking about creating his own sayings that are contrary to what the Father has said. Rather, Jesus being in submission to the Father's authority only further confirms that the same Father who gave the Law of Moses also sense Jesus to teach us how to obey it.

 

[JohnD70X7]

Hebrews 10 exposes the religious philosophy being promoted in your posts. And refusing to answer simple questions or acknowledge scriptures others may post, is also telling.

Spoken like one who is avoiding what the Bible texts say.
Typical.

 

[daq]

Galatians 4:21–31 (KJV)
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

I understand such things in this manner: the Torah is spiritual, Romans 7:14a.

Therefore Paul, just like Nikodemos, went back into the womb of his mother and relearned everything according to the Testimony of Meshiah. Timothy also knew the sacred writings from a babe. The Prophets also teach these things from the Torah.

Yerushalem of above is our mother covenant according to the passage you quoted, but it seems you might not have recognized that Horeb is the mountain of Elohim, that is, Horeb is of above, (of the mind), while Sinai is of below, (the physical). Moreover Gal 4:27, which you included in your quote, is a quote from Isa 54:1. Here is a little more from the context immediately following Paul's quote.

Isaiah 54:1-3 KJV
1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. [Gal 4:27]
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

Everything that is underlined is part of the Mishkan: the tent, the curtains, the cords, and the stakes. And this according to Paul is part of the figurative allegory of Yerushalem of above, our mother covenant, (for Paul is surely not a cherry picker and rather uses scripture quotes and references as a form of remez).

Galatians 1:15-16 KJV
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Paul clearly is not speaking about natural child birth in Gal 1:16 above. Paul, being "a Pharisee of Pharisees" according to his own testimony, was required to go back into the womb of his mother and relearn everything according to the Testimony of the Meshiah. Nikodemos, "the Teacher of Yisrael", no doubt eventually did the same, for he shows his love for the Master at the end of that Gospel account, (John 19:39), and defiles himself for seven days by a dead body at the Pesach, (which no Pharisee or Teacher of Yisrael would do except for someone who must have been greatly beloved).

The Galatians 4 passage is not talking about two completely different covenants, rather, it is juxtaposing two completely different views of the covenant: the one viewing the covenant according to the flesh and the physical is of below, and walks accordingly. The one coming to see and believe the correct understandings and interpretations of the covenant, according to the Testimony of the Meshiah, is of above, and walks accordingly. It should be clear enough from what Paul says about the flesh against the Spirit in Gal 4:29, for he even makes mention of the one born according to the flesh in that statement, But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now, and this sure sounds like a remez pointer back to the statement in John 3:6.

Allegory of the two covenants:
bondmaid -vs- freewoman
Hagar -vs- Sarah
Sinai -vs- Horeb
Yerushalem of above -vs- Yerushalem of below
Yishmael -vs- Yitzhak
the flesh -vs- the Spirit

Just because he doesn't mention Sarah, Horeb, or Yishmael, doesn't mean they aren't implied.

 

[JohnD70X7]

Yerushalem of above is our mother covenant according to the passage you quoted, but it seems you might not have recognized that Horeb is the mountain of Elohim, that is, Horeb is of above, (of the mind), while Sinai is of below, (the physical). Moreover Gal 4:27, which you included in your quote, is a quote from Isa 54:1. Here is a little more from the context immediately following Paul's quote.

Isaiah 54:1-3 KJV
1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. [Gal 4:27]
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

Everything that is underlined is part of the Mishkan: the tent, the curtains, the cords, and the stakes. And this according to Paul is part of the figurative allegory of Yerushalem of above, our mother covenant, (for Paul is surely not a cherry picker and rather uses scripture quotes and references as a form of remez).

Galatians 1:15-16 KJV
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Paul clearly is not speaking about natural child birth in Gal 1:16 above. Paul, being "a Pharisee of Pharisees" according to his own testimony, was required to go back into the womb of his mother and relearn everything according to the Testimony of the Meshiah. Nikodemos, "the Teacher of Yisrael", no doubt eventually did the same, for he shows his love for the Master at the end of that Gospel account, (John 19:39), and defiles himself for seven days by a dead body at the Pesach, (which no Pharisee or Teacher of Yisrael would do except for someone who must have been greatly beloved).

The Galatians 4 passage is not talking about two completely different covenants, rather, it is juxtaposing two completely different views of the covenant: the one viewing the covenant according to the flesh and the physical is of below, and walks accordingly. The one coming to see and believe the correct understandings and interpretations of the covenant, according to the Testimony of the Meshiah, is of above, and walks accordingly. It should be clear enough from what Paul says about the flesh against the Spirit in Gal 4:29, for he even makes mention of the one born according to the flesh in that statement, But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now, and this sure sounds like a remez pointer back to the statement in John 3:6.

Allegory of the two covenants:
bondmaid -vs- freewoman
Hagar -vs- Sarah
Sinai -vs- Horeb
Yerushalem of above -vs- Yerushalem of below
Yishmael -vs- Yitzhak
the flesh -vs- the Spirit

Just because he doesn't mention Sarah, Horeb, or Yishmael, doesn't mean they aren't implied.

Jeremiah 31:31–34 (KJV)
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.
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.

Traipse all around the Bible all you want, pose any scenario you want, you cannot avoid the contrast God himself makes between the two covenants.

 

[daq]

Jeremiah 31:31–34 (KJV)
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.
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.

Traipse all around the Bible all you want, pose any scenario you want, you cannot avoid the contrast God himself makes between the two covenants.

Apparently you chose not to study chapter three of the same Prophet as I suggested. The covenant isn't totally brand new but renewed, (in Meshiah), otherwise one cannot be placed among the sons, (Jer 3:19). Here are some more clues that the two passages are speaking of the same renewed covenant:

Jeremiah 3:6-12 KJV
6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
11 And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.
12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.

Jeremiah 31:18-22 KJV
18 I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.
19 Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.
20 Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD.
21 Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.
22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

I am speaking from contextual understanding: not from cherry-picked passages and clips stripped of the Logos. Accusing people of arguing with the Word of Elohim or with Elohim Himself is nothing more than an excuse for lack of scripture knowledge and understanding at other peoples' expense. It is tantamount to claiming that you know the Word of Elohim and others do not simply because they disagree with your interpretations and your understanding of the Word of Elohim.

 

[JohnD70X7]

The covenant isn't totally brand new but renewed, (in Meshiah),

Apparently you cannot comprehend Jeremiah 31:31-34.

I highlighted and underlined it for you.

Yet you deny the text / refuse to accept what God inspired the prophet to write.

That's on you.

 

[daq]

Apparently you cannot comprehend Jeremiah 31:31-34.

I highlighted and underlined it for you.

Yet you deny the text / refuse to accept what God inspired the prophet to write.

That's on you.

Apparently we do not have the same Teacher: but I am fine with that.

1 Samuel 11:14 KJV
14 Then said Samuel to the people, Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there.

Jeremiah 31:31 KJV
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:

H2318 חָדַשׁ chadash (chaw-dash') v.
1. to be new.
2. (causatively) to rebuild.
[a primitive root]
KJV: renew, repair.

H2319 חָדָשׁ chadash (chaw-dawsh') adj.
new.
[from H2318]
KJV: fresh, new thing.
Root(s): H2318

H2320 חֹדֶשׁ chodesh (cho'-desh) n-m.
1. the new moon.
2. (by implication) a month.
[from H2318]
KJV: month(-ly), new moon.
Root(s): H2318

These are all the same word, חדש, in the original Ashuri text from the time of Ezra.
You have the Masoretes and James Strong who created the above divisions.
I have the Testimony of the Meshiah which expounds this in the Gospels.

Jeremiah 31:31 OG LXX
31 (38:31) ιδου ημεραι ερχονται φησιν κυριος και διαθησομαι τω οικω ισραηλ και τω οικω ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 T/R
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτοις λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 N/A-W/H
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτους λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

This my Teacher of Righteousness and his definition of kainos-renewed in juxtaposition with neos-new:

Luke 5:37-39 T/R
37 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μηγε ρηξει ο νεος οινος τους ασκους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται
38 αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον και αμφοτεροι συντηρουνται
39 και ουδεις πιων παλαιον ευθεως θελει νεον λεγει γαρ ο παλαιος χρηστοτερος εστιν

Luke 5:37-39 N/A-W/H
37 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μη γε ρηξει ο οινος ο νεος τους ασκους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται
38 αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον
39 ουδεις πιων παλαιον θελει νεον λεγει γαρ ο παλαιος χρηστος εστιν

Luke 5:37-39 ASV
37 And no man putteth new [neos] wine into old wine-skins; else the new [neos] wine will burst the skins and itself will be spilled, and the skins will perish.
38 But new [neos] wine must be put into fresh [kainos] wine-skins.
39 And no man having drunk old wine desireth new [neos]; for he saith, The old is good.

Anyone who understands the process of making wine-skins knows that the skin formerly belonged to a living creature and therefore needs to be renewed-refreshed, (kainos), before the neos-new wine can be put into the wine-skin.

There is of course a whole lot more to this study and this passage, but the point here is clear enough to anyone who believes and bows to the Testimony of the Meshiah. And likewise the other companion passages, Mat 9:17 and Mark 2:22, are the same: neos-new -vs- kainos-renewed according to the Logos, the reasoning, the understanding, the mindset.

I therefore have the Logos-Reasoning of Meshiah in scripture context in support of what I believe and have offered here. What do you have? a text pointed by the Masoretes which is technically the most extensive commentary now embedded into the Hebrew text, and at that, only a mere one thousand years ago: and on top of that, thousands of words subdivided into many more words by the likes of James Strong, with his famous numbering system. We do not have the same Teacher and we do not read Hebrew the same way: you are relying on a third interpretation when you read any English translation of the Masoretic Hebrew text because that, in itself, is already a commentary-interpretation embedded into the ancient Hebrew text.

John 7:15-17 KJV
15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

 

[JohnD70X7]

Apparently we do not have the same Teacher: but I am fine with that.

1 Samuel 11:14 KJV
14 Then said Samuel to the people, Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there.

Jeremiah 31:31 KJV
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:

H2318 חָדַשׁ chadash (chaw-dash') v.
1. to be new.
2. (causatively) to rebuild.
[a primitive root]
KJV: renew, repair.

H2319 חָדָשׁ chadash (chaw-dawsh') adj.
new.
[from H2318]
KJV: fresh, new thing.
Root(s): H2318

H2320 חֹדֶשׁ chodesh (cho'-desh) n-m.
1. the new moon.
2. (by implication) a month.
[from H2318]
KJV: month(-ly), new moon.
Root(s): H2318

These are all the same word, חדש, in the original Ashuri text from the time of Ezra.
You have the Masoretes and James Strong who created the above divisions.
I have the Testimony of the Meshiah which expounds this in the Gospels.

Jeremiah 31:31 OG LXX
31 (38:31) ιδου ημεραι ερχονται φησιν κυριος και διαθησομαι τω οικω ισραηλ και τω οικω ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 T/R
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτοις λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 N/A-W/H
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτους λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

This my Teacher of Righteousness and his definition of kainos-renewed in juxtaposition with neos-new:

Luke 5:37-39 T/R
37 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μηγε ρηξει ο νεος οινος τους ασκους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται
38 αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον και αμφοτεροι συντηρουνται
39 και ουδεις πιων παλαιον ευθεως θελει νεον λεγει γαρ ο παλαιος χρηστοτερος εστιν

Luke 5:37-39 N/A-W/H
37 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μη γε ρηξει ο οινος ο νεος τους ασκους και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι απολουνται
38 αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον
39 ουδεις πιων παλαιον θελει νεον λεγει γαρ ο παλαιος χρηστος εστιν

Luke 5:37-39 ASV
37 And no man putteth new [neos] wine into old wine-skins; else the new [neos] wine will burst the skins and itself will be spilled, and the skins will perish.
38 But new [neos] wine must be put into fresh [kainos] wine-skins.
39 And no man having drunk old wine desireth new [neos]; for he saith, The old is good.

Anyone who understands the process of making wine-skins knows that the skin formerly belonged to a living creature and therefore needs to be renewed-refreshed, (kainos), before the neos-new wine can be put into the wine-skin.

There is of course a whole lot more to this study and this passage, but the point here is clear enough to anyone who believes and bows to the Testimony of the Meshiah. And likewise the other companion passages, Mat 9:17 and Mark 2:22, are the same: neos-new -vs- kainos-renewed according to the Logos, the reasoning, the understanding, the mindset.

I therefore have the Logos-Reasoning of Meshiah in scripture context in support of what I believe and have offered here. What do you have? a text pointed by the Masoretes which is technically the most extensive commentary now embedded into the Hebrew text, and at that, only a mere one thousand years ago: and on top of that, thousands of words subdivided into many more words by the likes of James Strong, with his famous numbering system. We do not have the same Teacher and we do not read Hebrew the same way: you are relying on a third interpretation when you read any English translation of the Masoretic Hebrew text because that, in itself, is already a commentary-interpretation embedded into the ancient Hebrew text.

John 7:15-17 KJV
15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Don't you see? Your bias is putting new wine (Torah Moshiakh) into the old wine skin of Torah Moshe...
Amazing...

 

[daq]

Don't you see? Your bias is putting new wine (Torah Moshiakh) into the old wine skin of Torah Moshe...
Amazing...

As suggested, I see much more to the saying than what I posted, in fact I did not even mention what I believe it means, and rather simply showed the usage of a mere two words for which the Meshiah expounds the meanings by his usage.

The wine-skin is your heart, which obviously must be renewed, unless you believe they had surgeons performing literal heart transplants in those days. The Kohen keeps the skin of the offering, and he takes it to Simon the Tanner, who turns the skin into what the Kohen desires it to be, whether it will be used for parchments, or a wine-skin, or whatever. As I said, the skin formerly belonged to a living creature and must be renewed, (kainos), refreshed, and repurposed.

So then, once the goat has been offered up, and the heart is ready for renewal and repurposing, the Master sends the man with the broken and contrite heart to Simon the Tanner. Surely you have a kid-goat to offer up for your Elder Brother? (Luke 15:29).

 

[Laureate]

The Apostle Paul clues us in on a subtle distinction made in the Tanakh:

1 Corinthians 9:19–21 (NASB95)
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

1. I am free from all men
2. I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.
3. To the Jews (those who are under the Law) I became as a Jew (as under the Law though not being myself under the Law), so that I might win Jews so that I might win those who are under the Law;
4. to Gentiles (those who are without law), as without law, though not being without the law of God specifically under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

Clearly there are two Laws (Torahs) referred to here.

• Torah Moshe (the Law of Moses)
• Torah Moshiakh (the Law of God)

The Torah of Moshé is the Torah which Alohym gave unto Moshé, thus according to this context, the Torah of Moshé is the Torah of Alohym.

I’m not saying that there are (or were) not two Torahs, I’m saying, you are trying to make a distinction here that simply does not exist.

 

[Laureate]

32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.
33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Torah Moshe convicts all of sin. Until the cross of Yeshua, it provided a temporal atonement with ritualistic sacrifice.
Torah Moshiakh provides eternal forgiveness for all sin.

Torah Moshe had to be sought, taught, and applied.
Torah Moshiakh is placed into the heart and sealed by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Deuteronomy 6:4-6

Hear, O Israel: Yahuah our alohâ is one Yahuah:

And you should love Yahuah your Alohâ with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.

And these Words, which I command you this day, shall Be In Your Heart:

Deuteronomy 30:10-16

If you shall listen unto the voice of Yahuah your Alohym, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if you turn unto Yahuah your Alohâ with all your Heart, and with all your soul.

For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not hidden from you, neither is it Far Off.

It is not in heaven, that you need to say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

Neither is it beyond the sea, that you need say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

But the word is very Near unto you, In Your Mouth, and In Your Heart, that you may do it.

See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to Love Yahuah your Alohâ, to Walk in His Ways, and to Keep His Commandments and His Statutes and His Judgments, that you may live and multiply: and Yahuah your Alohâ shall bless you in the land where you are going to possess it.

So you see, the New Covenant is not actually New after all, it is however a Renewing of a Covenant that was not kept.

Carefully note the emphasis …His Ways….His Commandments….His Statutes, not Moshe’s Ways, Commandments or Statutes.

Those who are Near are those who Take Hold of the Covenant and those who are Far are those who yet remain outside the Covenant of Grace.

Is not the Law of H’meshiakh the Law of Love? And yet he says that the two greatest commandments [i.e., Love Yahuah with all of our substance and Love our neighbor as (we Love) ourselves] is the Gist upon which hinges all of the commandments of the Torah.

Now though there be two Laws, there is not two Loves, an act either falls under the parameters and jurisdiction of (the one and only) Love or it does not, and anything outside of those parameters and jurisdiction posing as Love is a Fraudulent misinterpretation.

Where it reads, .,..they shall all Know Me, from the Least of them unto the Greatest of them.., is an indirect reference to Father Abvraham (the Father of our Faith and heir of the World, who was the first Called to Work in the Vineyard, wherefore he also shall be Last Called to Work in the Vineyard), aka Aliyahu (who comes to declare the Great and Dreadful Day (which No Man can Declare, and he (says Yeshuah) shall restore everything).

 

[Laureate]

Law of Moses = Law from God part A [the baptism of fire]

Law of Christ = Law of God part B [the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which fulfills part A through the imputed righteousness of Christ]

There's messiah and then there's Messiah...

There is only one Anointed being and the Many members of his anointed body, whatsoever you do unto the Least of these you do unto him.

 

[Laureate]

One thing that Jeremiah made absolutely clear was that the New Covenant would not be like the Old Covenant which was broken by the people.

Jeremiah 31:31–32 (KJV)
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:

View attachment 333166

The Covenant that was Broken is not the Covenant of the Torah, but the Covenant which pertains to the Keeping of the Torah, I.e., the Priestly Covenant.

What does the scriptures say concerning the reason why Yahuah raptured the children of Ishrael unto his heavenly abode? Was it not to make them a special cadre, a nation of priests? And if a nation of priests, then was it not for the intent to mediate the reconciliation of the World unto Yahuah? (nothing new here), but what happened?

They were supposed to go up and enter the mountain (as per Song of Merriam) when the trumpet sounded long, but their fear caused them to disobey the instructions of Yahuah, and they made a plea to not Hear the Voice of Yahuah, but instead let him speak through a Mediator, which was what they were called to be, aughhhhh.

This gave rise to the Levitical priesthood, who were taken as a ransom instead of all the firstborn of Ishrael [whom Yahuah declared (to Pharaoh) was his firstborn], yet the Aaroni priesthood presided above them, because Aaron was an actual firstborn, and Levi was not.

So here we are with a slight change of plans, the goal of the Levitical priesthood was to prepare the children of Ishrael to take hold of the Covenant which Yahuah had intended for them to take hold of, this is also why Levi had no inheritance amongst the children of Ishrael, because they were not apart of the original plan, thus the Levitical priesthood was a contingency plan of action to bring the children of Ishrael up to snuff.

They (as a nation) fell short of taking hold of the intended Covenant, and mind you, one can not Divorce someone whom they are not married to, and this is the case with the intended Covenant, yet it was their Agreement to heed the Contingent priesthood that they Did Take Hold of and that was the covenant/marriage that was Broken.

In the days of the first Advent many customs (which fell short of the Law which were nevertheless equated to, and) were also treated as Law, sadly the same holds true to this day, and Christianity is no different.

Twice, Yeshuah used the word Torah in a context that pertains to the entire body of received texts, not just the writings of Moshé, in such cases where only the writings of Moshé are being referenced, it reads the Torah/Law of Moshé, his contextual usage of the word Torah was never challenged, wherefore I suspect this perspective of the word Torah was fairly common knowledge back then.

Subsequently every place where the NT reads ….Prophets AND the Torah..,, it should (according to Yeshuah) read ….Prophets OF the Torah…., just as it is conveyed in the OT.

2 Kings 17:13

Yet Yahuah testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn you from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the Law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets.

This Torah Law includes all of the Prophets, which mind you constitute the Foundation of the Torah.

 

[Studyman]

The Covenant that was Broken is not the Covenant of the Torah, but the Covenant which pertains to the Keeping of the Torah, I.e., the Priestly Covenant.

What does the scriptures say concerning the reason why Yahuah raptured the children of Ishrael unto his heavenly abode? Was it not to make them a special cadre, a nation of priests? And if a nation of priests, then was it not for the intent to mediate the reconciliation of the World unto Yahuah? (nothing new here), but what happened?

They were supposed to go up and enter the mountain (as per Song of Merriam) when the trumpet sounded long, but their fear caused them to disobey the instructions of Yahuah, and they made a plea to not Hear the Voice of Yahuah, but instead let him speak through a Mediator, which was what they were called to be, aughhhhh.

This gave rise to the Levitical priesthood, who were taken as a ransom instead of all the firstborn of Ishrael [whom Yahuah declared (to Pharaoh) was his firstborn], yet the Aaroni priesthood presided above them, because Aaron was an actual firstborn, and Levi was not.

So here we are with a slight change of plans, the goal of the Levitical priesthood was to prepare the children of Ishrael to take hold of the Covenant which Yahuah had intended for them to take hold of, this is also why Levi had no inheritance amongst the children of Ishrael, because they were not apart of the original plan, thus the Levitical priesthood was a contingency plan of action to bring the children of Ishrael up to snuff.

They (as a nation) fell short of taking hold of the intended Covenant, and mind you, one can not Divorce someone whom they are not married to, and this is the case with the intended Covenant, yet it was their Agreement to heed the Contingent priesthood that they Did Take Hold of and that was the covenant/marriage that was Broken.

In the days of the first Advent many customs (which fell short of the Law which were nevertheless equated to, and) were also treated as Law, sadly the same holds true to this day, and Christianity is no different.

Twice, Yeshuah used the word Torah in a context that pertains to the entire body of received texts, not just the writings of Moshé, in such cases where only the writings of Moshé are being referenced, it reads the Torah/Law of Moshé, his contextual usage of the word Torah was never challenged, wherefore I suspect this perspective of the word Torah was fairly common knowledge back then.

Subsequently every place where the NT reads ….Prophets AND the Torah..,, it should (according to Yeshuah) read ….Prophets OF the Torah…., just as it is conveyed in the OT.

2 Kings 17:13

Yet Yahuah testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn you from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the Law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets.

This Torah Law includes all of the Prophets, which mind you constitute the Foundation of the Torah.

Thank you for this wonderful study. Paul is also said to believe "ALL" that is written in the Torah and the Prophets "of the Torah" (I love this)

Therefore His Teaching:

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Have a wonderful day