ToServe
Active Member
So Paul and James were wrong in your view to be zealous for the Law after the cross?
They lived, learned and adjusted their mission statement throughout their fact finding commission. All truth was being revealed as a work in progress.
The Apostles realised that their attachment to the Law was a passing fad and it was through their fact finding commission that they realised that there must be two willing parties to a contractual agreement. After the sign of Jonah was given the Jewish nation, their time was up and they really needed to come to the Lord by being subjects of the Cross and to say "Blessed is he who came in the name of the Lord".
A 40 year probationary period before 70AD final judgment was given to the desolate house, desolate priesthood, desolate temple, in order for them to come to the Cross.
The God party had parted ways from them at the Cross and there was really no access to God through an authorised Old Covenant Holy Temple for there to be a continued agreement (covenant) in the first place. The sign of Jonah was therefore the annulment of the Old Covenant agreement.
The entire book of Hebrews tries to appeal to the Judaizers in a way so that it would not detract them from what the Apostles were trying to inform them and that was that the Law was done away with at the Cross and since there was a change in priesthood (Melchizedek = Grace & Truth) then there necessitated the Old being immediately replaced with the New.
Read Hebrews and with reference to all my posts and you will not find any inconsistencies in what I have been trying to communicate to you and other Preterists in that the Old Covenant ended at the Cross.
Acts 7:51 is alerting the establishment that their hearts and ears are still not circumcised which alludes to the efforts of Peter to inform them that the Law was done away with and could not give them the circumcision required for them to be saved and in relationship with God. This means that there can't be an Old Covenant agreement if Peter is explicitly saying there is no relationship between them and God as they are accused of resisting the Holy Spirit.
Galatians 4
Paul makes a comparison between Hagar and Sarah and asks the question "Tell me, you Judaizers who want to be under the Law, are you not aware of what the law says? He makes a contrasting point between Hagar's son and Sarah's son in an effort to highlight to them that God never had an agreement with Hagar in the first place and when Sarah's son of promise came along he had to send away Hagar's son because there is only one agreement and it is with Christ's Grace and Truth and not the Law.
God wasn't holding for 40 years in one hand a contractual agreement for Hagar's son which is the Law of bondage and in the other a contractual agreement for Sarah's son which is the Grace and Truth of the Freedom in Christ Jesus.
When has God ever held two diametrically opposite agreements in his hands at the same time?
The 70AD Preterist covenantal narrative has to be rejected and to clearly point to the many unresolvable contradictions and explicit teachings of Hebrews that debunk this narrative as ill conceived at best.
Hebrews 4-10 chapters explicitly inform the Judaizers that since the priesthood changed at Christ's ascension, then the contractual convenantal agreement needed to change also in order to be in harmony with the Kingly High Priest Melchizedek.
Old Testament prophecy even explicitly states that the transition between the Old and the New happens when the Old priesthood is sacked and replaced by a new priest who has the keys of David and can open doors that no man can shut and shut doors that no man can open. Eliakim a symbol of Christ means "God will raise up" (sign of Jonah). Hilkiah a symbol of God the Father means my portion of Yahweh. So this Father and Son relationship of the Trinity is plainly revealed in the name meanings.
Read Isaiah 22:19-25 and discern that this played out and was fully ratified at Christ's ascension.
Unfaithful servants BOUND by the curse of the Covenant.
If as you say the covenant was no longer extant, then those unfaithful servants were not bound to it's curses.
They were the only party in that agreement left who testified to their own destruction and so they ultimately cursed themselves for 40 years just as their forefathers cursed themselves in the desert.
Surely, when Jesus said it is finished then he who is the Messiah whom the Old Testament prophets said would come and be as the firgure of Moses called The Servant in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 ended the OC agreement right there and then.
What was that agreement? "Do X or else..."
If they did not do X, then the OR else still applies... you would have it that the "or else" no longer applied.
Once the Most High was anointed (Crowned Monarch) then their refusal meant that they were no longer in agreement and God treated them as Gentiles who trampled his Church. That is right, once they were members of the commonwealth, then they lost their citizenship and were exiled from any benefits of the one Kingdom of God established according to Daniel 2:44.
absolutely. He continued with the "or else" clause of the agreement.
The Old Covenant contractual agreement had a clause to say you must kiss the Son, the Seed of Promise when he comes. Jesus said no other sign will be given the Old Covenant generation except the sign of Jonah. This is God's exit clause for those who did not abide by it and so the or else continuing in an agreement would not be an option in the first place as this would be an insult to Christ and the Spririt of Grace. God the Father would immediately sever his other party from continuing in agreement with him because they failed to comply with the original agreement in the first place and they became cast out as Gentiles.
We seem to agree.
On spiritual matters yes, but on covenantal contractual matters no.
You have moved your goalposts from Extinguished at the cross to "will eventually dissipate after the cross".
You will find that when I stated God is no longer a party to any contractual agreement with them then we see them being slowly as a cause extinguished into the Gentile crowd and then dispersed into their nations as outcasts. They could have come to God through the Son as Gentiles, but what they could not do is to come to God as those still in an annulled agreement.
we are making progress!
Sure, but do you see why 70AD is not as important as Christ's ascension and him being the Kingly High Priest covenantal cutoff marker?
Once the Most High is anointed there is only one covenant and if you read Hebrews 4-10 you will get a clear picture.
Again, you seem to agree here that the 70Ad judgment was a judgment determined and poured out per the OC contract. again we agree.
Not on the OC contract, but on those who once had an OC contract before the Sign of Jonah, but now were no more or less than other Gentiles who had the same opportunity to come to God through the Son's blood contractual agreement.
Last edited:
Upvote
0